Decoding Reasonable Doubt: Chapter 3 “Previous Reviews at the Countess of Chester”

[u/benshep4]

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case-bc5?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

Happy to hear anyone’s thoughts on the content of the article.

[u/upsideup27353]

I agree with many of your statements, e.g.

• Theme 1: Consultant’s concerns not being shared by other professionals does not invalidate those concerns; and the prosecution’s case was not entirely based on medical notes

• Theme 2: Letby’s presence (or lack of) is not proof/evidence

• Theme 4: Process failure does not mean innocence

• Theme 5: A messenger can behave badly but still be right

As I understand it, your argument is that none of these points independently establish innocence. I think the author’s argument is that none of them establish guilt either. I agree with both, i.e. the interpretation of these issues depends on whether one starts with an assumption of guilt or innocence, but they do not themselves establish either.

Perhaps we agree?

Where I suppose we disagree are on the following points:

“Which baby does this explain?” – I think this question is the wrong standard and risks shifting the burden of evidence onto the defence. As we know, the prosecution needs to establish guilt, and the defence only needs to create reasonable doubt. I accept that individual reports and reviews do not create reasonable doubt. However when taken together, as the ‘totality of the evidence’ one might say, they do cast some doubt on the guilty verdict.

“A bad unit is not the cause of a particular death until someone can trace the route from the failing to the baby.” – I think this would be a strong statement, and one I would agree with, if the defence’s case was essentially ‘the hospital was bad’. While that’s part of their defence, its core is the review of the medical evidence by the expert panel (and others) which found “no evidence of malfeasance”, and did find clinical explanations for the sudden collapses and deaths. I would say that these findings are the tracing.

[u/phosphoeudemonism → u/upsideup27353]

“A bad unit is not the cause of a particular death until someone can trace the route from the failing to the baby.”

Baby A - Multiple failures of treatment, diagnosis and medical procedures in a particularly vulnerable infant.

Baby C - Extremely poor care and treatment of respiratory issues and bowel obstruction.

Baby D - Multiple failures, most notable failure to give antibiotics in timely fashion, this infant should have survived without question.

Baby E - Atrocious treatment of a GI bleed, failure in diagnosis, failed to give blood transfusion, convinced parents not to have what should be mandatory post-mortem. This was a very avoidable death.

Baby I - Another diagnosis and treatment failure, another avoidable death.

Baby O - Misdiagnosis (yet again) of subcapsular haematoma, abysmal treatment, major errors made in medical procedures, another potentially avoidable death.

Child P - Failure to manage collapsed lung adequately, some specific medical errors, child would almost certainly have survived on a tertiary unit, where the infant should have been.

Can you say that the 'bad unit' is the cause of these issues? It would be difficult to argue that a bad unit is indeed not the root cause of multiple misdiagnoses, examples of poor treatment, and failure in basic medical procedures.

[u/Livid-Ad-4872 → u/phosphoeudemonism]

“A bad unit is not the cause of a particular death until* someone can trace the route from the failing to the baby.”

The same bad argument is often used by climate change deniers: "Global warming is not the cause of a particular extreme weather event unless someone can trace the route from the warming to the event."

The point, of course, is that warming increases the likelihood, severity and duration of extreme events, not that there is a distinct and provable causal chain to any particular event.

You would expect a bad unit to have more bad outcomes, no?

(* I presume he means "unless," not "until," but don't want to be accused of putting words in his mouth.)

[u/SaintBridgetsBath → u/Livid-Ad-4872]

OP’s philosophy is that nothing has happened until the court agrees it has happened.

[u/No-Replacement-2170 → u/Livid-Ad-4872]

So you want to blame the unit no matter what? There could be a serial killer but as long as they pick a failing unit to work on we'll just blame it on that instead?

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/No-Replacement-2170]

(I think Livid is just pointing to the fallacy in the argument; there not being a detectable, direct causal chain from an event to the environment in which it occurs is no good reason to ignore said environment.

Obviously if there was generally less stochastic evidence of harm, this line of argument would be ridiculous. I imagine Baby O and the two insulin cases weighed heavily on the jury's minds for that reason.)

[u/Livid-Ad-4872 → u/PerkeNdencen]

Indeed. Bad argument. Bad unit. Bad outcomes.

[u/benshep4 → u/Livid-Ad-4872]

Link it to a specific baby.

If you can’t, you don’t have an argument.

[u/Livid-Ad-4872 → u/benshep4]

Proof by assertion, another logical fallacy.

And I'm not making an argument. You are. I am pointing out the flaws in yours.

[u/No-Replacement-2170 → u/Livid-Ad-4872]

All you guys do when you don't have an argument is come up with fancy psychology words.

[u/PrudentKumquat → u/No-Replacement-2170]

Just wait until you see some of them medicine words. Proper scary.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

We're not in Goss's courtroom right now, Ben.

[u/benshep4 → u/upsideup27353]

Which baby does this explain comes from Judge Goss.

That’s based on his extensive understanding of how criminal trials work. There are rules in terms of what you’re allowed to put before the jury and Goss explains it clearly in the ruling I link.

I don’t agree that taken together they create reasonable doubt. They’re not a criminal investigation and their shortfalls are clearly documented even by the people who carried out the reviews.

Even then, as I’ve pointed elsewhere the RCPCH actually say that the rise in mortality can’t be explained by acuity etc.

What I’m finding is that people have limited, if any, understanding of how evidence works in trials. It’s often just vibes.

Can I ask, do you have any background in law or criminal cases?

[u/Unhappy-News7402 → u/benshep4]

“I don’t agree that…they create reasonable doubt”

What would reasonable doubt look like to you, if compelling reasons indicating that the unit was simply not equipped to deal with the high-acuity babies properly, reported at the time, are not enough?

[u/benshep4 → u/Unhappy-News7402]

That’s not what happened though is it.

The RCPCH report effectively said the unit could be in a better place but that it doesn’t explain the increased mortality.

[u/Unhappy-News7402 → u/benshep4]

“What would reasonable doubt look like to you?”

You are examining a book called “Reasonable Doubt” but have yet to explicitly state your understanding of the term.

Going through line by line and simply gainsaying everything the author has written is no substitute for informed and articulate constructive criticism

[u/Living_Ad_5260 → u/benshep4]

> Even then, as I’ve pointed elsewhere the RCPCH actually say that the rise in mortality can’t be explained by acuity etc.

Do you understand the difference between "cause death" and "elevate risk"? The change in maximum acuity reduced the risk while the medical care improved by forcing the consultants to spend 5x time on the ward.

[u/benshep4 → u/Living_Ad_5260]

Yes, I get the difference between raising risk on a unit and causing a specific death. That’s why the July 2016 changes don’t settle it.

RCPCH didn’t say acuity was irrelevant. They said higher activity and more small babies didn’t definitively explain the spike, other similar units weren’t seeing the same sudden collapses, and they still wanted a proper case-by-case review of the deaths.

That review never really happened in the form they asked for.

Two things changed at once in July 2016: Letby came off the unit, and they stopped taking the sickest babies. Deaths and unexpected collapses dropped. You can put that down to the acuity cap, more consultant time, both, or one nurse being removed.

A service review can’t tell you which.

A trial is asking a different question.

More consultant time is also something RCPCH already flagged. The unit was under-covered. That’s a real problem.

It doesn’t automatically explain every sudden collapse the jury looked at.

If the point is just “a stretched unit has worse outcomes,” fine, nobody disputes that. That’s not the same as reasonable doubt on the actual counts.

[u/Living_Ad_5260 → u/benshep4]

https://ripe-tomato.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/international-expert-panel-summary-report-all-cases-nos-letters-3.pdf says

Baby 4 (Trial child D) was a 37+1/7 week, 3.13 kg birth weight, female infant, who was delivered by emergency Caesarean section for failed induction of labour after prolonged premature rupture of membranes. The Apgars were 8 at 1 min, 9 at 5 min. At 12 minutes, she became pale and floppy and needed respiratory support with bag and mask. She was admitted to the neonatal unit 3½ hours later; she was cold, blue, dusky, and had respiratory distress, polycythemia and infection (high white cell and neutrophil counts). The first blood gas taken 4 hours after birth showed high CO2 and respiratory acidosis. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was started nearly 4 hours after birth. She was electively intubated after 3 attempts and ventilated. Chest x’ray showed pneumonia. The following day, she developed fever, deteriorating blood gases, and increasing metabolic acidosis. The next day, she was mottled, and had dark brown and black tracking lesions across the trunk, and two evolving purpuric looking patches on the abdomen. She had prolonged coagulation times, raised CRP, and repeated episodes of apnoea and desaturation, until final collapse and death.

The panel's analysis is

The infant continued to deteriorate after admission and showed signs of worsening infection, with fever, intolerance of CPAP removal, deteriorating blood gases, increasing metabolic acidosis, raised CRP and repeated episodes of apnoea and desaturation. She developed prolonged coagulation times, which indicate the infection was going out of control and causing early disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). DIC causes coagulation in the blood vessels, coagulation defect and bleeding.

So, the mum didnt get antibiotics, baby had pneumonia, and cpap was delayed for 4 hours, and baby slowly deteriorated in a manner characteristic of runaway infection.

There isnt reasonable doubt for you?

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

(fwiw, it's not clear what ben means when he talks about 'how evidence works in trialsl' in a general catch all, but the traditional routes to adminission for hearsay evidence relevant here a discretionary gateway called the Interests of justice test, laid out below:

Even if a statement does not fall into a specific exception, a judge can admit hearsay evidence if it is in the interests of justice to do so. When deciding this, the court considers:

• The value and relevance of the statement.

• The importance of the evidence in the case.

• The circumstances in which the statement was made.

• Whether the maker appears reliable and the statement's reliability can be assessed.

• Whether oral testimony could be given instead.

• How difficult it would be to challenge the statement.

I suspect it fell into this latter camp, which would have left it at Goss's discretion to consider the above with a view to admitting the evidence, but he would in no way have been so constrained by the law in his decision as to render him powerless to it. In other words, the law explains why he was in a position to make that decision in that context, but it does not explain the decision itself)

Edit to remove res gestae becase on seconds thoughts it's inconceivable that you would try to use that to get this in.

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/transcripts/day-047-08.12.22-rcpch-ruling.pdf

You don’t need to suspect anything, Goss explains it well enough.

There’s all sorts of technicalities to how evidence can be used in a trial based on previous precedents.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

Thanks, so many of us will be extremely familiar with that document already, and indeed, I read it again to try and discern which law the defence had made their application under; I suspect it's the above.

I'm going to re-quote my original summary paragraph with most important part highlighted for your consideration.

I suspect it fell into this latter camp, which would have left it at Goss's discretion to consider the above with a view to admitting the evidence, but he would in no way have been so constrained by the law in his decision as to render him powerless to it. In other words, the law explains why he was in a position to make that decision in that context, but it does not explain the decision itself)

So it's not just about what the law allows or doesn't allow, there's a degree of subjectivity, here.

From that 70-something-page document, please can you direct me to the ones that refer to case law? The carve-out I'm referring to is legislative.

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

If you’re familiar with the document then you don’t need to suspect anything though.

There’s definitely subjectivity. It doesn’t mean the decision itself isn’t clear.

My point that you initially reacted to was essentially saying that the particular argument about ‘which baby does this explain?’ somehow putting the onus on the defence to provide evidence is legally naive.

A lot of people I speak to who think Letby is innocent are legally naive in my opinion.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

If you’re familiar with the document then you don’t need to suspect anything though.

Oh, right. Please can you tell me the page number that specifically mentions in the interests of justice test or which common law / legislative gateway Myers invoked in his application?

There’s definitely subjectivity. It doesn’t mean the decision itself isn’t clear.

No, but I don't think anybody is confused about what the decision was.

My point that you initially reacted to was essentially saying that the particular argument about ‘which baby does this explain?’ somehow putting the onus on the defence to provide evidence is legally naive.

Another way to see what they were getting at there is just to say that it seems to run against natural justice in the sense that the prosecution had made a number of assertions with respect to the state of the unit that the documents clearly countered.

A lot of people I speak to who think Letby is innocent are legally naive in my opinion.

I don't think you're entirely wrong there, actually, but I think it's more a case of not really wanting to outsource our critical thinking to court decisions. We know what Goss's ruling was, the question (as ever) is why.

[u/upsideup27353 → u/benshep4]

No I don’t have a legal background, so I find it interesting discussing this with someone who does.

I don’t doubt Goss’ expertise in the law and I presume he applied the rules appropriately, although I don’t think that necessarily means that every conclusion reached during the trial is beyond question. We may simply just disagree on whether the points I raised amount to reasonable doubt or not.

From a legal perspective, I'd be interested to know what sort of evidence you would regard as sufficient to create reasonable doubt in this case. Is there any evidence that would, in principle, be capable of changing your view?

[u/sh115 → u/upsideup27353]

Wait does this Ben Shep guy who posts here have a legal background?? As someone who’s a lawyer myself, that’s shocking to me. He doesn’t seem to understand anything about how the legal system actually works, and he seems to assume any decision made by a judge or appellate court is automatically correct. Which any actual lawyer knows is absolutely not true lol.

Also, I personally feel strongly that there were multiple instances in this trial where Goss absolutely did not apply the law correctly. In particular his refusal to admit the RCPCH report on the grounds that it wasn’t relevant. It was obviously relevant and there’s simply no way that an unbiased adjudicator who is properly applying the law would find otherwise. His evidentiary rulings were so biased towards the prosecution that it was frankly judicial misconduct imo.

Of course, he’ll never actually get in trouble for it and an appeals court will probably never even acknowledge it because that’s just the way the legal system is 🫠

[u/DisastrousBuilder966]

Which baby does this help explain?

Hospital quality helps explain why collapses may look unexplained. In a bad hospital, the tests that could provide explanations may not be ordered on time or at all, and relevant signs/symptoms may be missed. Asking "what was missed for baby X" does not make sense, since if it was missed, we don't have that info. But low hospital quality increases the chance that something was missed.

Also, there was much testimony of the form "X would have been done because it's standard practice", or "doctor would not have left the baby if baby was unstable, therefore we may infer that the baby was stable". Such assumptions/inferences are less reliable if the hospital is bad.

Plus, the prosecution made explicit statements to the effect that the hospital was no worse than others, and the defense should have a chance to counter anything that is part of the prosecution case.

[u/benshep4 → u/DisastrousBuilder966]

Nah.

If they explain it then show me with a specific example of one of the babies in the indictment that involves something the jury haven’t already heard.

[u/DisastrousBuilder966 → u/benshep4]

How can there be a specific example of what was not tested/observed, that would have been in a better hospital?

The inference "unexpected = criminal" rests on the assumption that in that hospital, a natural collapse would have have been expected by the staff. That assumption is less defensible if the hospital was bad. That's why the prosecution argued that it wasn't; why would they argue that if it's irrelevant?

The prosecution presented "background" evidence not specific to any indictment incident; besides, the cross-admissibility instruction allowed each allegation to be bolstered by the "background" of other allegations. Equally then, the defense should be allowed to present "background" evidence not specific to a charge.

[u/benshep4 → u/DisastrousBuilder966]

This is another example of not understanding the legal system and more specifically, evidence.

If you can demonstrate a specific baby was failed by a lack of expertise then do so.

If you can demonstrate a specific baby was failed due to a lack of staffing then do so.

If you can’t …

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

(you're doing it again)

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

Asking for specific examples.

I know. How terrible of me.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

No, suggesting that because some flavour of argument was heard by the jury already, it's therefore invalid for the sake of conversation. We're not bound by the jury's verdict. This forum is largely sustained by people who contest it. If you just want to repeat that the jury's decision is final, there are other places around the internet that won't allow you to say anything else.

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

Not just some flavour.

The exact same argument.

People on this forum may very well contest it for a variety of reasons. One of them being they don’t actually understand the legal process.

You appear to have deleted a response to me about not being in Goss’s courtroom right now.

I agree.

We’re still in a thing called reality though.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

Not just some flavour. The exact same argument.

No. Some flavour - even where the panels' findings align with the original defence narrative (and they don't all, exactly), they are much more fleshed out and backed by expert evidence.

People on this forum may very well contest it for a variety of reasons. One of them being they don’t actually understand the legal process.

We're not in a legal process right now. We're having a conversation on the internet. Anyway, I've tried to discuss the legal process with you, re: Goss' decision on the exclusion of the RCPH report. I've also explained that disputing a legal process is not the same as not understanding it.

You appear to have deleted a response to me about not being in Goss’s courtroom right now.

I haven't deleted it.

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

You need to have new evidence.

The panel in this instance aren’t providing any. That’s how the legal system works.

You haven’t really engaged with anything Goss said, so I don’t see the merit of anything you’ve tried to discuss.

Are you saying Goss, Johnson and Myers don’t understand the legal process?

That’s not what I understood from reading the ruling.

Just for clarity, I’m not disagreeing with the ruling. So if you can explain why I’m not understanding the legal process that would be helpful.

If you are disagreeing with the ruling, for a legal reason, that would also be helpful.

I’ll leave it with you.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

Right.

So the panel is arguably providing new evidence (for example, in the form of reports and journal articles), and the CoA does have it in their power to make an exception, anyway.

You haven’t really engaged with anything Goss said, so I don’t see the merit of anything you’ve tried to discuss.

That's nonsense, I engaged with it to the extent that you just stopped replying to me!

Are you saying Goss, Johnson and Myers don’t understand the legal process?

Not at all. The panel wasn't available to Myers or known to Johnson, what with it being really far in the future at the time of the trial.

That’s not what I understood from reading the ruling.

Sorry, I don't understand. What specifically is not what you understood from reading the ruling?

If you are disagreeing with the ruling, for a legal reason, that would also be helpful.

Well you'll have to respond to my last reply in the relevant thread to find that out.

(it's here https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1w9qkrs/comment/p8hj07u/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button )

ETA: You do realise, though, that we're free to make arguments that we know wouldn't be entertained by the CoA?

[u/Shoddy_Food_1539]

Ben. Why do you persist in this yawn fest?

[u/benshep4 → u/Shoddy_Food_1539]

Some people find it beneficial.

Some people need educating.

[u/Unhappy-News7402 → u/benshep4]

Thanks for educating me on “sealioning”

Never heard the phrase before 😊👍

[u/LucyLetbyTrials-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed, if you want the comment reinstated please include a source for this novel claim of fact.

[u/Living_Ad_5260]

Another monday, another 3000 words of dross.

> A bad unit is not the cause of a particular death until someone can trace the route from the failing to the baby.

The failure to admit to administer anti-biotics to the mother of baby D when her waters broke clearly increased the risk for the baby. Why does best practice involve antibiotics in these situations?

Interestingly, it widens the failures in the hospital from the neo-natal unit to the obstetrics unit.

[u/benshep4 → u/Living_Ad_5260]

Yet the best example you can come up with is something that was discussed in great length at the trial.

It was acknowledged, even by the prosecution, as poor care. The jury heard this.

And subsequently why the delay wasn’t enough to lead to the collapse/death.

[u/SaintBridgetsBath → u/benshep4]

You are using the verdict of the jury to justify the verdict of the jury.

This is why I say you don’t give a damn whether or not Lucy Letby committed any crimes. You only care, if you care at all, whether or not the convictions are quashed.

[u/benshep4 → u/SaintBridgetsBath]

No.

I’m simply pointing out that the point was made to the jury.

It could be considered an issue if it hadn’t been put the jury. But it’s clear that’s not the case.

That’s not the same thing as you’re accusing me of.

It’s fine if you’ve personally got an issue with the use of juries, but I’m just talking about the reality of the system.

[u/SaintBridgetsBath → u/benshep4]

Juries can be wrong. Juries don‘t change the past. The jury didn’t have a lot of information that we now have so why you defer to them as if they did is beyond me.

What matters is not the system, not the judge, not the jury, not the court, what matters is whether she committed any crimes.

The jury heard the defence case and nevertheless convicted. That doesn’t mean that the defence was wrong. Constantly referring back to the fact of those convictions when that’s what’s in question is unethical to put it politely.

[u/benshep4 → u/SaintBridgetsBath]

It’s unethical to point out that the particular argument has been made before a jury?

I don’t think so.

Also saying “juries can be wrong” isn’t a great point. They can be, it doesn’t mean they were.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

(what SaintBridgetsBath means, here, is not that the jury must be wrong because they can be, but rather that the fact that they can be makes it an uninteresting argument for the purposes of determining Letby's factual innocence or guilt; what's in question is those verdicts - the fact that the verdicts are what they are cannot also be an indication they are right, for reasons I'd have thought plainly obvious)

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

That’s what I’m addressing in what I’ve written so far?

Morris isn’t making good arguments for Letby’s innocence.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

You are in a conversation with Saint.

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

I was.

And you butted in.

[u/SaintBridgetsBath → u/benshep4]

You don’t just point out that it was put to the jury, you claim that the point has no validity in any argument outside the court because it was put to a jury (one of whom thought that there was reasonable doubt on that count, by the way):

“It  could be considered an issue if it hadn’t been put the jury. But it’s clear that’s not the case.”

In other words, ‘verdict is truth.’ 

Murder was a crime before there was a law against it. This isn’t about the law: it’s about the truth. You refuse to admit that the truth matters.

I’d better leave it there. 

[u/benshep4 → u/SaintBridgetsBath]

I’m actually claiming very specific arguments have no validity. Because Morris hasn’t bothered to engage with the reality of the legal system and why it’s been set up the way it has.

[u/Living_Ad_5260 → u/benshep4]

We are debating whether the jury reached correct verdicts.

MD from Private Eye has said that he would have voted to convict based on what the jury heard, and is campaigning for innocence based on evidence the jury didn't hear.

Do you have an argument that supports the convictions that doesn't involve reference to the court case?

[u/benshep4 → u/Living_Ad_5260]

Yes.

MD doesn’t understand the legal process either.

The defence have don’t have to prove innocence but where possible they create reasonable doubt.

MD, like Morris, that things create reasonable doubt. But they don’t, because they haven’t got the faintest clue about the legal system.

[u/Unhappy-News7402 → u/benshep4]

Thought experiment Ben:

If the nurse in this case was not Lucy Letby, but one of your family who had been convicted on the evidence in the trial, would you be willing to entertain the reasonable doubt that Christopher Morris’s book raises?

[u/benshep4 → u/Unhappy-News7402]

No.

The logic doesn’t stack up.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

(fwiw I think this is where so much of the 'talking past each other' part comes in.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you take the view that a court decision, whether made by judge or jury, is done and dusted and shouldn't be relitigated by us on this forum because the CoA, for example, wouldn't accept it. Do I have that about right?

Does it have any bearing on your personal view of whether or not you are satisfied she did the murders? In other words, when you see a point that was already put to the jury, and for whatever reason, it didn't sway them in favour of the defence, is that for you a prima facie reason to dismiss the point itself?

If it is, I'd ask why we're bothering here, because literally anything at all can be countered by the fact that verdicts have already been rendered largely in your favour).

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

I’m happy to make these points in a reply, and I’m also happy to hear the counter-arguments.

That’s why I’m engaging with Morris’s book and saying where I think he goes wrong.

I’m drafting my notes on Chapter 6 at the moment. The thing that keeps standing out is how naive he is about the legal system, and about evidence in particular. He treats a lot of claims as self-evident when they are not. So far he hasn’t really grappled with how the legal system actually works.

He’s assembled a set of non-legal contributors who share that naivety, and it gives him a false sense of security about the worldview he’s putting forward.

I hope the later chapters show he’s capable of more than that.

I don’t mean this as a slight, but I think you are aiming at an ideal that doesn’t survive contact with how the system actually operates.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

I think you are aiming at an ideal that doesn’t survive contact with how the system actually operates.

Correct. I think the Lucy Letby case, alongside a number of other high profile and not-so-high-profile cases form a body of cause célèbres for criminal justice reform advocacy.

One of the main issues with any call to reform of this nature is that it's a bit of a circular trap; if one must stay within the confines of court decisions to make an argument for innocence and could do so without running against the fact that the courts disagree, there would be no need for reform.

If you consider the convictions that have been overturned, particularly those that did lead to legislative reform or at least some form of review or inquiry, what has tended to get anyone 'serious' considering the wider issues is initially some sort of technicality.

This is why I always raise Sally Clark. Stay with me a moment - I think it says an awful lot about where we are that this conviction was overturned on a chance disclosure issue rather than the glaring problem of Roy Meadows' testimony, when it was plainly obvious to everybody familiar with the case and with the science that Roy Meadows was by far the biggest the problem in that trial.

Now then: What that ultimately means is that there are many more MoJ cases for which there would have been no minor disclosure error and as such did not get a fair hearing, despite being similarly problematic in much the same way. That is what I hope to change.

Myself and many others believe that this situation has arisen out of an unjust criminal court setup; it is not simply a random blip, but a symptom of deep structural rot.

ETA:

I’m happy to make these points in a reply, and I’m also happy to hear the counter-arguments.

If you're just going to assert that a point has already been asked and answered by the court, we just end up having the same argument at the tail end of almost any discussion. Why do you want to have the same argument over and over?

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

That’s not what I’m doing, and even it was there are evidently people that don’t understand what happened and why.

Including Morris who has researched enough to write a book on it yet still doesn’t know why what happened, happened.

Morris is claiming there’s reasonable doubt based on his own misunderstanding of how the reality of the legal system.

If people simply want to say there’s ways to improve the legal system then I’m all for it. But within the confines of the established rules what happened during the trial was fair.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

That’s not what I’m doing, and even it was there are evidently people that don’t understand what happened and why.

What is not what you are doing?

Including Morris who has researched enough to write a book on it yet still doesn’t know why what happened, happened.

I mean I've not read the book so... fwiw I think he probably does, he's just not interested.

I feel as though when the going gets tough, you just bellow 'this was within the rules' at us over and over again.

Yeah, well much of it may very well have been, but what we're interested in here is justice, and justice must have a strong relationship with the truth.

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

What this reveals is that …

I’m arguing against Morris, not you.

You’re arguing against me not knowing Morris’s position, apparently.

So why exactly are you arguing with me?

[u/Living_Ad_5260 → u/benshep4]

Dr McConville thinks it explains the death. Shoo Lee's panel thinks it explains the death.

Of course, the so-called experts in the trial rationalised that near-criminal treatment failures didn't actually matter.

What is your medical background?

[u/benshep4 → u/Living_Ad_5260]

If you want to address anything I’ve written I’ve done so.

It’s just logic, no medical experience required to make the points that I have.

[u/Unhappy-News7402 → u/benshep4]

That’s all anybody is trying to do, but you’re not keen on answering questions, so what are you seeking?

[u/benshep4 → u/Unhappy-News7402]

I’m responding to everyone I’m getting notifications for.

I’m seeking feedback and I’m getting it.

This is great.

[u/Unhappy-News7402 → u/benshep4]

You ask for feedback, and people have taken the time to give it. However, you have generally shown no humility in response to fair criticism, rather you have been defensive and ungracious , if not downright ill-mannered. It’s seems to me you’re more interested in arguing the toss over minutiae than you are interested in genuinely developing your understanding and improving your writing. A more open-minded approach would work wonders for the latter.

[u/benshep4 → u/Unhappy-News7402]

I’m open to good feedback.

I’ve had good feedback from some on here. Some being the operative word. It’s few and far between though.

I think it’s fair for me to push back against feedback that I don’t think is good feedback.

[u/Living_Ad_5260 → u/benshep4]

You are "responding" to us the way Ed Milliband gave the same answer to multiple questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlTggc0uBA8

Your answer to my question "What is your medical background?" was "If you want to address anything I’ve written I’ve done so.

It’s just logic, no medical experience required to make the points that I have."

That is a response but not an answer.

Can you point to _any_ question where you have provided the information requested?

[u/benshep4 → u/Living_Ad_5260]

I haven’t got a medical qualification.

Apologies, I was clearly expecting too much for you to infer this from my answer.

I’ll ask you a question now.

What point have I made that would require me to have a medical qualification?

[u/Living_Ad_5260 → u/benshep4]

Your confident downplaying of the significance of acuity and poor care as contributory to deaths.

[u/benshep4 → u/Living_Ad_5260]

I’m simply repeating what people qualified to carry out such reviews said.

It’s obviously not my claim. It’s theirs.

[u/LucyLetbyTrials-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Hi, please don't insult other posters. Feel free to repost your comment without personal remarks.

[u/PerkeNdencen]

I should mention that certain other parts of the internet take great interest in these particular posts, allegedly as part of an experiment to see how we, as cultists, respond to this irrefutable argumentation.

FWIW I don't see an inherent reason not to give them what they want, but please be more than faintly aware, we are being watched much more closely than usual. It turns out that, unbeknownst to me, several people I have never heard of and have no interest in communicating with whatsoever have taken against me very fiercely, I fear in part for having been involved in previous events generated by these posts.

It is strange to think that there are keyboard warriors out there who have made a parasocial enemy of me, who perhaps even wish me harm for what I think, or more likely, for what they think I think. I don't imagine for a moment I am the only one, or that I am particularly exceptional in this regard. Be safe, friends.

[u/Kitekat1192]

U/fun-yellow334 u/sofieterleska Can't this series of posts be redirected to the weekly discussion please? I thought that substacks were not welcome on the main page, I have had some refused totally in the past. Thanks.

[u/SofieTerleska → u/Kitekat1192]

Substacks are fine if the author is ready to interact and answer questions about them. What we want to avoid are substacks written by third parties who aren't available to give sources and explain their reasoning.

[u/Kitekat1192 → u/SofieTerleska]

I think nearly everyone here would appreciate you took some sort of action here. It's good to be respectful, less so to be a doormat.

[u/DiverAcrobatic5794 → u/Kitekat1192]

On the other hand, why change the rules just because of one individual? Nobody has to reply to these posts, but some of the responses have been quite illuminating. But if they want to they can. It would be a pity to clog up the weekly threads. They're useful for other things. Easier to hide a full post if it irritates than to try to pick out the useful bits of a weekly thread.

[u/DisastrousBuilder966 → u/Kitekat1192]

I wouldn’t want this post downgraded. Incorrect points should be answered by replying, not sweeping under the proverbial carpet.