Jump to content

Lucy Letby: Appeal Bid To Be Heard By Judges In April

Recommended Posts

Lucy Letby's bid to appeal against all of her convictions for murdering and attempting to murder babies will be heard in court in April.

 

The nurse's case will be considered by a panel of judges at a public hearing.

 

Letby was convicted of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of another six at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.

She lodged her appeal application shortly after her trial ended.

 

The 34-year-old, originally from Hereford, was turned down at the first stage, when a single judge reviewed her case papers.

Letby is now entitled to a full court hearing, set for 25 April, before three judges, at which her barrister will argue for the right to an appeal.

If she is granted permission, an appeal hearing will be set by the court for a separate date.

If she loses, it will be the end of the appeal process for her.

 

 

.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-68378750.amp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to get involved in arguments on this, but how in hells name can she appeal, given the mountains of evidence at her original trial? Something is wrong here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Not going to get involved in arguments on this, but how in hells name can she appeal, given the mountains of evidence at her original trial? Something is wrong here.

ALL prisoners are entitled to appeals, it's called being civilised, you can't pick and choose who has one. It doesn't mean anything will change though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, melthebell said:

ALL prisoners are entitled to appeals, it's called being civilised, you can't pick and choose who has one. It doesn't mean anything will change though.

IMO - and just mine, no doubt, of those who reply on here - there is nothing to appeal in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, melthebell said:

ALL prisoners are entitled to appeals, it's called being civilised, you can't pick and choose who has one. It doesn't mean anything will change though.

And to be fair this is only an appeal to be allowed to appeal, as far as I am aware you can only appeal if you believe an error was made in the process or calculation of the sentence, and you cant do it just because you dont like the verdict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RollingJ said:

Not going to get involved in arguments on this, but how in hells name can she appeal, given the mountains of evidence at her original trial? Something is wrong here.

Sorry, but there wasn't a mounttain of evidence against her, most of it was circumstantial. 

Her'confession' was made while her mind was disturbed, and could be interpreted in a number of ways. I'm not saying she's innocent but there was enough doubt to merit it being looked at again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Sorry, but there wasn't a mounttain of evidence against her, most of it was circumstantial. 

Her'confession' was made while her mind was disturbed, and could be interpreted in a number of ways. I'm not saying she's innocent but there was enough doubt to merit it being looked at again. 

Although I didn't follow the case closely, I saw enough in the reports to reach my conclusion that she made calculated and conscious decisions to cause harm .

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Careful, the forum's own Thomas Mair like figure (Wallace) will be along to issue death wishes to anyone with a level-headed take on the matter. He want's to hammer nails into her of course, jeez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Palomar said:

Careful, the forum's own Thomas Mair like figure (Wallace) will be along to issue death wishes to anyone with a level-headed take on the matter. He want's to hammer nails into her of course, jeez.

Dunno if that is supposed to be directed at me, or not, but your 'laughing' emoji confuses me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm laughing at your 'Although I didn't follow the case closely...' nonsense.

 

But my post was to remind Wallace that it's never a good look to wish death on other forum users, or indeed to want to hammer nails into women, eeergh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't there two baby deaths when she wasn' there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Palomar said:

I'm laughing at your 'Although I didn't follow the case closely...' nonsense.

 

But my post was to remind Wallace that it's never a good look to wish death on other forum users, or indeed to want to hammer nails into women, eeergh.

I didn't follow it closely - I tend not to get exited about things which don't impact on me, and reading some of the comments on this forum in the original trial topic rather put me off the topic. However, I did see and read some of the more level-headed reports, and Anna's 'circumstantial evidence' comment seems a little wide of the mark.

 

If it was to remind 'Wallace' - why not direct your comment to him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.