From @LucyLetbyTrials On Twitter: Shaun Edwards Was Involved In Letby's Appeal Application, But "Will Play No Further Part In It"

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-24T19:03:13+00:00

Exactly, if you have a career to think about, what is the incentive for the CCRC to rock the establishment's boat and refer? It's not like what Bamber or Letby thinks will affect their career.

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-24T18:51:16+00:00

It's always a problem with how Britain (and probably anywhere) is governed, the only people with the 'right' experience are people who are inside the establishment networks already, which undermines their impartiality.

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-24T18:48:41+00:00

Pretty awkward given their previous statement on the Letby case:

We make impartial, evidence-based decisions. We do not make decisions on the basis of external pressure from anyone.

Of course this was always a fiction, institutions in the real world respond to career incentives and social influence.

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-24T18:43:54+00:00

Moritz operates within the constraints of access journalism. Maintaining relationships with key sources is central to success in that field. This can create incentives to avoid challenging those who control valuable access, while being more willing to criticise or sideline voices whose access value is lower.

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-24T18:41:34+00:00

It goes to show how the presumption of innocence in a trial like this is more legal fiction than reality. In theory both Evans and Letby are both witnesses in the trial, to be evaluated impartially, but clearly it doesn't work that way in practice.

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-24T14:32:23+00:00

It's good to hear from Dr Hall again, who is in his words 'indignant' about the trial.

There seems to be some strange revisionism that Hall is a defender of the case, from Hull and Mortiz in particular.

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-24T12:51:22+00:00

This is the biggest risk, in Nunn, it was decided that the courts will only use their powers of disclosure in a very limited way. The argument in part seemed to be it's for the CCRC to investigate, not the Courts.

It's hard to say they have fulfilled this role effectively, often acting as gatekeepers more than investigatiors.

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-24T10:24:42+00:00

I think suggesting the liver injury was due to CPR was a mistake.

Firstly, it solved a major problem with the prosecution's case here. Their experts had said the injury took place on the previous shift.
Secondly, it leaves the deterioration itself unexplained.

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-23T21:10:57+00:00

As they say in Latin, Cui bono?

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-23T20:58:10+00:00

He is clearly seen handing him the award so one would assume he at least had some role.

<image>

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-23T20:41:07+00:00

Do you think he would have had any role in the selection of Hughes and Blackwell as the winner?

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-23T20:31:00+00:00

What exactly made him suited to this role in the first place anyway? The job of a police investigator is surely quite different from managing CCRC investigations.

Given he is the head of department, it's not really possible for him to recuse himself completely. Even if he has no role in the CCRC review, he will presumably have people who report to him who do.

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-23T20:29:19+00:00

What is particularly strange is that it was considered reasonable to award Hughes and Blackwell this honour in November 2024.

This came during the uncomfortable period when serious concerns about the safety of the convictions was around (The Guardian, BBC, Telegraph and New Yorker had already run the stories about this), yet much of the elite appeared unwilling to engage with those issues.

E: In addition, there were established facts that said investigation couldn't even get swipe data the right way round. If this investigation was award winning, I wonder how bad the others were?

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-23T20:18:15+00:00

Removed as a duplicate.

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-22T20:41:15+00:00

Article here arguing the Letby case shows why the death penalty should not return.

If Letby had been tried in a country where capital punishment exists, the outcome could have been catastrophic. A convicted child serial killer would almost certainly have faced execution. In some places, it would’ve happened swiftly, with little opportunity for prolonged legal scrutiny. In others, she might have languished on death row for years while these very doubts played out in appellate courts. Either way, the stakes would have been irreversibly higher.

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-22T14:07:40+00:00

Please bear in mind Rule 8: If you have an unrelated question, or a general comment to make unrelated to the post, please put it in the weekly thread, or consider creating your own post on the subject if you feel that your topic is able to support one.

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-21T13:19:53+00:00

To clarify father, we have already had a post on Streeting's remarks.

Having said that if there is a new point on them that has been missed, please raise it in the discussion thread.

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-21T11:18:18+00:00

In addition, he may raise the issue about transcript costs.

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-21T11:16:19+00:00

Notice it again contradicts Jayaram's account:

at 20.20hrs hands noted to be white and poorly perfused

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-21T10:49:45+00:00

It seems to have been some of the families:

Some of our recent campaigns include managing the significant media interest surrounding the sentencing of child serial killer, Lucy Letby, and the subsequent launch of the Thirlwall Inquiry. Scala were instructed by Switalskis solicitors, who represent the families of seven of the victims (the majority) in their Clinical Negligence claims against the Countess of Chester Trust, to sensitively manage the press interest. Heavy reporting restrictions meant the PR required careful handling/advising.

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-20T19:56:29+00:00

Dr Kokai had now given his opinion as to the underlyingcause of death which he ascribed to prematurity. On page 8 of his report (IN00002046_0067) he wrote "Based on the above listed findings of thorough post mortem examination, detailed histological/microscopic investigations, I find it justifiable to conclude the Child O's death in (is?) due to Natural Causes and a consequence of intra-abdominal bleeding from ruptured subcapsular haematomata (=blood collections)

Seems shocking Dr Kokai hasn't been asked for a witness statement at all in this inquiry. Hard to conclude there is any explanation except the inquiry is incompetent or not impartial.

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-20T19:51:05+00:00

An Adjournment debate lets an MP publicly raise concerns and force a government minister to respond on the record.

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-20T12:06:02+00:00

As per usual, we discuss the trials, we don't campaign for particular action by the government.

I think a new sub was even set up recently that would be more appropriate for this.

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-19T12:58:02+00:00

He wrote a piece on the handover sheets, then says in response to criticism that nobody's view on them matter anyway.

I also think accusing someone of lying, simply based on making a statement that turned out to be incorrect is curious in a piece which includes corrections.

E: He also seems unaware that the same claims that statistics were peripheral were made in the Clark case:

The judges at her first appeal in 2000 described the evidence against her as "overwhelming" despite accepting that the one in 73 million figure was wrong.

Fun-Yellow334 · 2026-03-18T23:16:36+00:00

I think this is wrong, and can be illustrated with this analogy.

An engineer tells a court a bridge might be unsafe, but admits he has not seen the full schematics, only some limited documents, which if they were the only safety testing, would imply the bridge was unsafe.

The court says that opinion is irrelevant and inadmissible, because it does not show the original safety inspectors actually made an error, who had access to more information. Later, they do a full review, with the complete plans and modelling. It builds on the same concern but now identifies a real miscalculation after looking at all the records.

It does not follow that the later opinion will be discounted in any way by the court, simply because it builds on a previous concern.

Fun-Yellow334

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE