Cheshire Police are an incompetent bunch of useless bastards

@Firefly1987 the prosecution used an X-ray of baby C - taken at 48hrs old - to prove that Letby had inserted air into them through their NG tube. The baby died at 4 days old. Only Letby wasn't on shift between the baby's birth and the day before they died. 24hrs after the x ray was taken. The 'expert' witness who to that point had been adamant the case of death was air inserted via NG tube suddenly changed his view to she must have injected air via IV.

Which baby hadn't she met?

You can't expect members of a public jury to have the knowledge to critically evaluate complex medical information. Information that was presented to them as fact - and not challenged in court. Much of that evidence has proven at best to be misleading at worst downright false!

The CPS didn't even get the door logs correct! They were the wrong way round. If they can't even get the basics right how the hell can you trust the more complex evidence?

@BlushingBrightly have you read the link attached in the OP?
The prosecution have used primarily one expert witness who has changed his mind numerous times on the cause of death of some of the babies. Much of his evidence has been discredited.
Some of the methods she is convicted of using haven't even been proven that they would be fatal.
Letby has been massively let down by her own legal team too. I don't understand why they did not being in their own expert witnesses.

I didn't follow the trial at all. I did listen to some of the interviews with the doctors afterwards, they had no doubt on their mind about her guilt.

They painted her as the 'scarlet woman', killing babies to get attention from a male senior colleague. They were also very upset they had to apologise to her following a grievance. But, they were totally convinced about this, and in turn convincing. On there testimony, I thought she was guilty.

There is the concept of group think, where a group of people reach a decision without critical evaluation. Just because a group of doctors came to a conclusion, which they passionately believed, it doesn't mean that the conclusion is right.

And 'expert witnesses' have caused miscarriages of justice before.

reporting restrictions prevented all the issues coming to light before now

And yet the jury, a jury of her peers as the system requires, heard all the evidence, issues included, and convicted her. They did not convict on every count, which says to me that they thought carefully about which cases were convincing and which weren't.

Hasn't she been denied leave to appeal? Isn't that the proper process? Are we saying that unlimited appeals should be allowed?

He didn't have a strong counter-narrative.

Isn't this tantamount to saying there wasn't much of a case for the defence? Why couldn't Evans's changes of mind / narrative be pointed out in the trial?

@ThatsNotMyTeen it's not nonsense! If the convictions are so safe then why are so many medics, neonatologists, statisticians and other professionals who have examined the evidence with proper scrutiny raised so many concerns about the safety of the verdicts?
These people have absolutely nothing to gain personally by sticking their hands up and raising serious concerns. In fact they have a heck of a lot to lose!
Both trials used the same evidence and reporting restrictions prevented all the issues coming to light before now. The trials are separate cases she has not had two trials for the same cases.
To be clear I am absolutely not saying I'm convinced she is innocent! But the convictions as they stand do not seem safe or beyond reasonable doubt. And it is a slippery slope if we start letting people be convicted of really serious crimes without safe convictions.

Appeals are a normal and necessary part of the justice system. If you want them banned that's a campaign that will go well beyond Lucy Letby.

His technique seems to have been to attempt to get the prosecution's case from Evans thrown out rather than to dispute it.

Evans changed his arguments on agreed points mid trial and proposed methods of murder that have never been seen. He also stated that he could identify means of murder / cause of death with certainty without forensic evidence.

Myers's choices were to attempt to dispute this case by case with a defence witness who would not be able to state cause of death with equal certainty, because that's not how medicine works; or to allow the prosecution case to stand or fall on the impression Evans made on judge and jury. He didn't have a strong counter-narrative. It is difficult to prove absence of undetectable murder.

It's certainly possible he'd still have been better off calling the defence witness (and others), but that's an explanation I've come across.

Why did Ben Myers, Letby's original barrister, who I have read multiple times is extremely well thought of as a defence lawyer, not deal with any of the alleged weaknesses of the prosecution case in her first trial? Can anyone believing in Letby's innocence explain this?

How many trials does one need?

Absolute nonsense

She’s had her trial, it’s not like a best of 3 or something to see if a rerun or 2 produces the same result.

She’s had a lengthy trial after years of investigation and a high quality defence.

She referred to being accused of harming a child, very clearly. Obviously that's a parallel with Letby's case without making the two identical. Why are you inventing complications here?

If you're so convinced of her guilt then you would welcome a retrial with rigorous scrutiny of all the evidence by competent expert witnesses as it would then prove conclusively her guilt.

Or more likely I suspect you're not convinced that she would remain behind bars if a thorough review took place and don't want to deal with that. Because in many ways it's better to believe that someone is responsible for these deaths than the shitty reality that some babies cannot be saved. That sometimes they deteriorate and nothing can be done.

Your willful ignorance is laughable, embarrassing and downright dangerous. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Really-you were on put on public trial and found guilty of killing seven babies and attempting to murder six others!

How awful for you.

Or are you attempting to say that Social Services investigating an allegation is the same as being found guilty of mass murder of the innocents.

Anyway, I really will leave all you excitable frustrated barristers to hash up your rather silly theories amongst yourselves. It is demeaning to argue with people who are becoming swivel eyed

Thankfully, their views matter not a jot when those who count have locked up Lucy Letby for the rest of her miserable life and will take no more notice of Lucy Letby Fans than those who supported Peter Sutcliffe in much the same way.

The monster has already received almost as many marriage proposals as he did. Appalling.

I hope to God you never find yourself on the end of a false allegation of harming a child due to dubious medical evidence and / or dogma. I have. It's a horrific, Kafaesque experience that leaves you scarred for life. Of course, if you believe that anyone accused must be guilty because "that can't possibly happen", then keep those naive blinkers on and continue hurling insults when you have no idea about how the system can fail.

Oh dear.

If only you had been her defence lawyer-how very different the verdict would have been.

Tonight, Lucy lLetby-serial killer found guilty at two trials-is safely under lock and key with nothing to look forward to but the demented ramblings of her supporters. I'm sure she will have lots of lovely Christmas cards from them and much good may it do her.

Turn off the True Crime channels and read a book-better for your thinking process.

I shall leave you to stew in your own juice=much the same way as she is doing!

This is the thing.
Some of the things you have to believe to think Lucy Letby is guilty are such a stretch. The second insulin bag thing, where she would have had to know which bag another nurse would pick when she wasn’t there, so she knew in advance which one to spike. Huh?

Yes, some did this and got threatened with arrest for contempt of court. I don't think there were any practicing medical professionals among them yet - they seem to have been more cautious.

None of the babies who died were about to go home at all. It is interesting how this myth gets repeated.

Letby was accused of attempted murder of one child who was preparing to go home and had a seizure. The prosecution agreed that they could not rule out infection as a cause.

Letby was not convicted on this charge.

Quite. They came forward as soon as the reporting restrictions were lifted.
For the concerns about the evidence to have crystallised and attracted the attention of serious academics, scientists and medics so quickly is highly unusual and reflects how egregiously bad the evidence was.

I'm sorry how is this the fault of the police?