Lucy Letby is a neonatal nurse who was convicted of murder based on a cluster of deaths at the neonatal ward of Countess of Chester Hospital. Some sources have recently argued that the science and statistics used to support that conviction may have been shoddy:
https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/
https://gill1109.com/2023/05/24/the-lucy-letby-case/
Will Lucy Letby be exonerated by a court? This question resolved YES if she is released from prison either because a court of jurisdiction has determined her innocent (under any legal standard), or because a court has determined that she can't be held due to flaws in her trial or the evidence presented at her trial, and no new trial is expected to take place.
This question resolves NO if that has not occurred by Jan 1, 2027. (If significant legal proceedings are in progress on that date, this will be extended until they are concluded).
(For purposes of this question, if a court determines that she is not guilty of intentional murder, but substitutes a lesser charge involving negligence, manslaughter, or medical practice, this does count as exoneration.)
1,000People are also trading
BBC: Private notes and emails reveal inside story of hospital struggle to stop Lucy Letby
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-30341313-26f6-448a-ba92-b397a802fbb9
Letby did not murder babies, medical experts claim
I've created a new market which should both resolve before this one and has (I think) clearer but different resolution criteria.
BBC News - Letby changes legal team and plans new appeal - lawyer
The confession starts to fall apart...
.
@TallUntidyGothGF @JamesBabcock same question, although from looking at other cases the more likely situation is that we are either waiting for the CCRC to look at the case or for the Appeal court to if she is successful with the CCRC - would either of these cause the market to be extended?
.
@TallUntidyGothGF as added context for the mods the waiting times can be quite long: Colin Norris (who will almost certainly be exonerated due to a change in the scientific consensus) had his case referred to the Court of Appeal by the CCRC over 3 years ago and they still haven't publicly announced a hearing date.
My understanding of the current situation is that a second trial has taken place and not produced an exoneration, but there are still legal avenues being pursued, and the current market odds (69%) imply that people think exoneration is still probable.
The resolution criteria say: "If significant legal proceedings are in progress on that date [Jan 1, 2027], this will be extended until they are concluded." This leaves some ambiguity as to what constitutes a "significant legal proceeding". For purposes of keeping the market open, a legal proceeding only counts if it was opened before the deadline date, actions before different courts do not count as the same legal proceeding, and a referral to a different court is not an exoneration unless it is accompanied by an order to release Letby from prison. The intended spirit is to balance making the ultimate resolution of the market match the ultimate resolution of the courts, with keeping the market from staying open indefinitely in the face of repeated appeals.
Applying this to the case of Colin Norris: If, as of the deadline date, the CCRC was considering Norris' case but had not yet ruled, the market would stay open until the CCRC made its ruling, and then resolve No (referral to another court is not an exoneration). If, as of the deadline date, the CCRC had made its ruling and the Court of Appeals had not yet ruled, it would stay open until the Court of Appeals made its ruling, then resolve Yes if that ruling was an exoneration, No if that ruling was for a new trial before a different court.
In case of further ambiguity, I am more likely to consider a legal proceeding significant, for purposes of deadline extension, if it has a scheduled date, or if there is a separate prediction market indicating it is likely to succeed.
@JamesBabcock Wait, so to be clear if either of these happen then the market will be resolved no?
1) CCRC decides original conviction was unsafe, refers to court of appeal
2) Court of Appeal agrees, schedules a retrial
3) Market hits deadline
And
1) CCRC decides original conviction was unsafe, refers to court of appeal
2) Court of Appeal agrees, schedules a retrial
3) Retrial begins in lower court
4) Market hits deadline
I'd have understood the original criteria to have delayed in both those cases. (I'd also sort of hoped that if the CCRC still had the case in their backlog then it would be delayed too but am more understanding in that case).
Take the Colin Norris case - his case has been referred to the Court of Appeal by the CCRC, and is waiting for them to arrange a hearing (and has been for 3.5 years...). Right now according to the above the market for him would have the deadline extended. However if that hearing went well for him and the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, with him being detained pending that retrial, the market would instead resolve No!
@space_goats In both of the examples you gave, as of the deadline, there is a trial outstanding, so the deadline would be extended until the conclusion of that trial (but no further).
@JamesBabcock OK thanks, I was confused by "No if that ruling was for a new trial before a different court."
New revelations by the Telegraph:
Two new articles published today in British newspapers, questioning the verdict:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-letby-serial-killer-or-miscarriage-justice-victim/
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question
I think this could gain some momentum.
.