Cheshire Police are an incompetent bunch of useless bastards

Avoiding contempt of court charges by not speaking out during the trial?

What is your source for the defence barrister thinking Lucy Letby was guilty, please?

Where were all these “highly skilled” experts during her extremely expensive KC led defence, if they have so much to say that throws doubt on the crown case?

How on earth do you know this to be true?

honestly I find the amount of people so quick to jump to her defence weird.

drop the obsession. It’s strange behaviour.

At least one of the babies was about to go home. Hardly would have been the case had her death been “expected”.

How wonderful for you to know more than the jury and the judge.

Are you her mum?

I won't ask if you were her defending barrister, as even he didn't think she was innocent as he tried to do his miserable and difficult duty.

What a wonderful age we live in when every half wit can creep out of the woodwork, excited by their own nonsensical beliefs and declare that two judges, two juries and an appeal panel of judges have got it wrong.

I guess you're also writing to inmates on Death Row, telling them that you believe they're innocent, that the system "done them down." It was ever thus-idiot women wrote to the Yorkshire Ripper telling him they loved him and believed in his innocence-and always will be while the gullible walk amongst us. Plus ca change!

Armchair detectives that weren't even in court and had no access to the thousands of court documents-just a big mouth and a small excitable brain-don't be one of them.

Lucy Letby had two long trials and was found guilty at each because guilty is what she is. Found guilty not once, twice. Have some wit,

Not this again

Defending a baby murderer isn’t a good look

If the evidence was so flimsy then why could the defence team not find any expert witnesses to challenge it? I haven't followed the case in any detail but I understood that the only defence witness was a maintenance man.

If so many experts are now saying the conviction is unsafe how come there were none available to challenge the evidence during the trial?

this is why i dont think the public are the best ones in cases as complex with the lucy one, as then its who can give the most convincing performance etc

This to me is the core issue. There doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence that any of the babies were murdered. The pathologists at the time didn't raise any concerns. Without that, all the "odd" behaviour in the world means nowt. See Amanda Knox who was hung, drawn and quartered by the Press despite there being no forensic evidence or motive for her to have committed the crime. She just acted "funny".

Yes, and the jury for the second trial was advised that they could take the fact that Letby had been found guilty of seven murders at the first trial into account as relevant information.

It was just an extension of the first trial, unfortunately.

The jury weren't even told the correct info iirc. She wasn't present for at least one of the deaths that appeared on one of the 'charts' they were shown. I think we will look back on this whole case and just think 'wtf'.

This is such a tired argument.

Regardless of the sex, creed, colour or religion of the defendant in this case, the evidence is weak at best and fabricated in some areas at worst.

Many reputable experts in the relevant fields have sounded the alarm at the implausibility of some of the proposed mechanisms of death. There is no precedent for death by NG tube nor research supporting it. Any cursory Google would show you how implausible it would be. The dimensions of the tube would make such an act a long drawn out affair and the idea that it could be accomplished surreptitiously on a busy NICU is very questionable.

The liver injury - done with the force of a car crash yet only detected on post mortem with no other signs? Initially regarded as due to CPR because of where the liver sits anatomically. A neonates liver is between 5 and 7cm. The expert who talked about deserts and things falling from the sky could not describe a coherent mechanism for that injury and actively dodged the question.

Forensically the evidence is abysmal and far more couched in terms of the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

Of course professionals are raising the alarm post trial - it brings the expert witness community into severe disrepute yet again. It makes a mockery of the justice system, and effectively paves the way for people to be prosecuted due to precedent and circumstantial evidence in complex medical cases.

The strong echoes of the junk science used in shaken baby cases, metaphyseal fractures cases and statistical misunderstanding that lessons were supposed to be learned about in the last few decades must be sending shudders down the spines of those in both the medical and legal fields.

This case needs urgent review from the ground up, especially as Dewi Evans has actually flip flopped on at least one cause of death post trial. How on earth anyone who looks beyond the hoopla at the evidence can think this was a safe conviction baffles me.

The more I read the more I'm amazed this case even got to trial. From what I've read and listened too they based it all on false stats to start with and then found some experts to invent wild theories as to how the babies died which no other medical professionals seem to back, quite the opposite. It's completely bizarre. All because of the 'feelz' of some hospital staff, who would have a strong interest in blaming an individual for an unacceptable number of deaths of babies in their care, rather than the fact that the unit was completely unfit for purpose.

The trials were for different convictions - they weren't re-hearing the same cases. The same evidence base was used for both.

If the evidence is not solid then it should absolutely be tested and held up to scrutiny. If you think miscarriages of justice don't happen then look at the Andrew Malkinson case.

@Oftenaddled She's had TWO trials and been found guilty each time. How is that incompetence?!

Accusing people of incompetence isn't a conspiracy theory.

Of course it is possible for a white softly spoken woman to commit murder. I hope I would be equally concerned regardless of Letby's colour. Of course I can't prove that, and you are free to accuse people of showing racial bias whatever we say.

But it is not good for people of any colour if we shrug our shoulders at poor practice and flimsy evidence in our justice system. That has repercussions for everyone, and they will fall particularly hard on non-white defendants, if the past is our guide.

I’m not as interested as you in the colour of Lucy Letby’s skin. I’m interested in the quality of the evidence, which is extraordinarily poor, as pointed out by a great many experts in the relevant fields who know more than you, me or Dewi Evans.

I think it is extremely probable that a black nurse in a similar position to Lucy Letby would have an even harder time convincing people of her innocence, and if you know of such cases in the UK please do link to information and I promise to go and read up on them.

MD in Private Eye has covered this quite extensively, including the concerns of other professionals - himself included - about the quality of evidence used to secure Letby's convictions.

These conspiracy theories need to stop. You need to accept that yes, it is possible for a white, softly spoken woman of previous good character, could murder multiple babies!

You absolutely wouldn't be peddling this nonsense if she was a black woman that's for damn sure

One was excessive, given that there is no solid evidence any crimes were committed.

3 trials would be excessive