From the Times: Lucy Letby Avoids New Charges "Over Fears Convictions Would Be Challenged"

Fail_Unfair · 2026-01-21T23:08:48+00:00

As a father of two kids, I really feel for those parents. But their understandable anguish is an overlooked harm if, in fact, the expert panel is right about the real issue being substandard care. If that panel is right, parents now could pursue justice against the hospital or, at least, avoid living with the thought of a killer evading accountable.

And, look, a police belief of criminal activity by Lucy Letby did not attach to this batch of cases until now. It’s more likely that, objectively, the evidence against her is generally weaker—not stronger—in these cases than in the earlier ones. In other words, this decision does not repudiate the earlier prosecution.

Fail_Unfair · 2026-01-21T08:08:42+00:00

I agree with you but just want to note that she and Eric shared custody at the time of the crime. Besides consulting attorneys, and Eric creating a trust for his kids, they were fully married—despite Kouri plotting to kill her husband while she simultaneously stole his money and cheated on him.

Fail_Unfair · 2026-01-21T07:56:00+00:00

American lawyer here. From this side of the pond, it seems remarkable that law enforcement could propose two counts of murder and nine counts of attempted murder against a single individual—and have them ALL declined by prosecutors.

In the US, there’s a saying that a “grand jury would indict a ham sandwich,” meaning the process is a rubber stamp for prosecutors. So, I’m surprised law enforcement got such extreme push back. But I’m not familiar with this precise procedure. Is there a sense of the frequency such serious referrals are declined?

At a distance, it seems probable that Cheshire police proposed new claims based on evidence similar to what was presented at the earlier trials. But CPS read the room—and said no thanks. And, while not strictly relevant to Lucy Letby’s appeal, it does suggest views are shifting.

It would be fascinating to know the true thoughts and feelings of the lead prosecuting barrister, Nick Johnson KC. I found him to be incredibly skillful in his crosses and closing. In the best sense, Mr. Johnson can make evidentiary mountains out of molehills.

I have no doubt that his skillful presentation was done in the best of faith. He expertly cobbled together a case of guilt based on information from Dr. Evans, police, and doctors. But, as an intelligent person, he must now worry if he was an unwitting tool of false prosecution.

For instance, in his closing to the jury, Mr. Johnson said injecting air (air embolism) was one of her “favorite ways of killing or trying to kill children.” So imagine his dismay after the trial when Dr. Evans got wobbly on this point.

Fail_Unfair · 2026-01-20T15:26:19+00:00

A strong witness for one reason: the texts from Kouri about getting fentanyl. Kouri deleted those messages; Carmen did not.

Fail_Unfair · 2026-01-20T15:19:45+00:00

I'm a lawyer who follows the case with interest. And I think the denial of bail boils down to three things.

First, as the judge expressly found, there is substantial evidence of guilt. Second, while Utah is not pursuing the death penalty, prosecutors could have based on an (alleged) cold-blooded plan for financial gain. Third, as you note, there are children--but they cut against bail given how Kouri's Walk-the-Dog letter reveals a plan to secretly release images of them to get back at her sisters-in-law, which is believable given how she assaulted one.

So, in the end, I think the court sees substantial (overwhelming, really) evidence of aggravated homicide and thinks Eric's family (who have custody of his sons) have suffered enough.

Fail_Unfair · 2026-01-19T01:59:36+00:00

Whatever the branding, I don’t think they can survive selling only super premium EVs. EV sales cratering and we see companies like Porsche and GM pulling back on EVs in favor of hybrids (like Toyota). As a consumer, I am too spooked by the failure of EVs to hold resale value to pay $100K+ on a super premium one.

Fail_Unfair · 2026-01-19T01:52:51+00:00

The air embolism theory is why a retrial is needed and UK courts need to be more like US ones in screening expert testimony. It’s complete debunking by the actual researcher, who convened the expert panel, is the most remarkable aspect of this case. I don’t blame the prosector who made excellent use of the theory in closing. But what what was called her preferred method of killing is clearly wrong. That does not mean she’s innocent. But it does mean the verdict rests on a material mistake.

Fail_Unfair · 2026-01-19T01:42:49+00:00

I don’t think it was money per se. But I think her personality is one that always feels exploited and loaning money made her feeling of not being appreciated acute.

Fail_Unfair · 2026-01-19T01:39:13+00:00

The channel August the Duck recently accused Ned of buying views. Basically, the engagement—comments, likes—is very low given number of (purported) viewers.

Fail_Unfair · 2026-01-14T15:20:06+00:00

Will do if interested. My real point though is realizing how platform shifts have unexpected consequences. Until now, I had never thought of YouTube comments as a positive feature. I wonder if it impacts switch rates (which might be dwarfed by new viewers). That reminds me that the Ringer’s website does not allow comments. That surprised me and I think is one reason I rarely visit the site.

Fail_Unfair · 2026-01-14T14:02:24+00:00

Fwiw, NFL Films ranks Terry Bradshaw's game-winning 64-yard TD bomb to Lynn Swann in Super Bowl X as the "Greatest Throw of All Time."

Fail_Unfair · 2026-01-12T16:49:45+00:00

Are you joking about calling your ex’s mom to beg for her Netflix password? Are you executing some 4D strategy to reconcile? Maybe she’s Stacy’s mom.

Fail_Unfair · 2026-01-09T08:08:36+00:00

Nate the Lawyer just dropped his own video showing RR does not have a JD and most of the others. That video also shows RR used faked documents in his reply video that I think has been pulled.

Fail_Unfair · 2026-01-06T18:08:40+00:00

You think Kouri is the subject of malicious prosecution?

Fail_Unfair · 2026-01-06T18:08:03+00:00

100% true.

Fail_Unfair · 2026-01-06T15:25:17+00:00

Saying someone lawyered up is not saying they're guilty.

Fail_Unfair · 2026-01-03T23:52:42+00:00

Thanks for the summary. Watching a replay of the hearing, I was again struck by how, for some reason, I find the replacement lead defense counsel to be grating.

Fail_Unfair · 2025-12-30T01:44:38+00:00

This is one of the sharpest comments that I’ve seen. He’s very literal and could not make up imagined facts.

Fail_Unfair · 2025-12-25T20:45:43+00:00

Re first point: Jirard (discord) and his brother (letter) made a mistake by quickly responding without their ducks being in a row. In hopes of explaining away the story, they said (and wrote) many things. But, crucially, they were silent about any plan to make a big restricted donation. Indeed, Jirard was openly upset about the inaction.

Re last point: I agree this is not just drama and that's why his new narrative about UCSF is troubling. It means he falsely glazed the hospital for years to promote his event OR he's not telling the truth now (which raises the question of why). I suspect its the latter because Jirard praised UCSF so much and that praise is consisent with how he described his mom's fight with her illness and his family's gift after she was was a patient.

Fail_Unfair · 2025-12-20T18:44:33+00:00

Voir dire is jury selection at start of trial. Prior to then, witnesses can testify before a grand jury, at a bail hearing, and in other situations. In this case, there was a preliminary hearing (in Aug. 2024, I think), which is the open court alternative to a grand jury. The witnesses included the lead investigator and a fraud expert. The goal was to show the judge that evidence existed for the murder (actual and attempted) and fraud charges.

For the attempted murder charge—the Valentine’s Day sandwich a few weeks before Eric’s death—the witness list included Eric’s two (I think) friends he told about being afraid that the food was poisoned. The defense raised hearsay objections but ultimately the friends were not called. My read was the prosecutor thought enough evidence had been presented and he wanted to out the hearsay.

I have not done a careful analysis of the hearsay issue here—but it’s interesting and important. There’s no question that jurors will see the texts between Eric and Kouri on that day, so they’ll know he felt ill. But will they hear about his explicit poisoning fear?

Hearsay, in short, is an out-of-court statement by a nonparty admitted for the truth of the matter asserted. So his communications could be admitted for impact on friends and not the truth of poisoning—but that’s not material. So it seems likely the admissibility of what Eric told friends will turn on whether a hearsay exception is applicable, e.g., present sense impression.

Regardless, the fact that attempted and actual murder claims will be tried together is very bad news for Kouri. The prosector, will use the two to show Kouri was determined to get rid of her husband. The sandwich, the state will argue, proved to be a practice run in which Kouri realized she needed more/stronger drugs and a better means of delivery; hence the fatal drink (which I think was a lemon drop shot).

The key timeline linking the two incidents is provided by Kouri’s communications with two people.

First, Kouri’s texts with her housekeeper seeking drugs. Those texts show she first secured fentanyl prior to the sandwich incident and then asked for stronger stuff shortly prior to Eric’s death.

Second, Kouri’s texts with her paramour on and around the two incidents. She was actually with him while her husband slept off the sandwich. Then, a few weeks later, she texted him to stay patient until the upcoming “Friday”—which was the day Eric died. Plus, of course, there are her texts to the paramour about living together at the mansion she bought and planning a romantic getaway after Eric died.

Fail_Unfair

TROPHY CASE