Cheshire Police are an incompetent bunch of useless bastards

It's not armchair judicial experts though is it?

It's a large group of highly skilled and experienced Drs world-wide including neonatologists, perinatal pathologists, statisticians and scientists who aren't saying 'she's innocent, let her out' but are saying the evidence that helped to convict her is potentially inaccurate and unsafe and have publicly expressed their concerns in the media and with sending their concerns to the public enquiry.

What's more bizarre to me is that there are members of the public who assume all of these highly skilled and experienced experts are talking out of their arse because they can't accept her guilt because she's a white woman or some other shit they've projected onto this case.

I think you will find that many convicted criminal feels their conviction is unsafe.
"it's not me guv" is a cry often heard in gaols-to the extent that it can sometimes feel as if the whole prison estate contains more innocent people than a nunnery!

I think we have to accept that two juries found Letby guilty and, not only that, a panel of judges decided that she had no grounds for appeal.

She has has a a pretty big bite of the judicial cherry. She is guilty but, in just the same way, that every death row inmate in America has a merry band of people yelling that they are innocent, so too has this convicted serial baby murderer gathered her own gang of misguided groupies.

She has been through the legal system-twice- she has been refused leave to appeal and yet that is still not good enough for a bunch of armchair judicial experts.

She will rot in jail and despite a minority of very loud voices, that is exactly what should happen.

In a year or two, the circus will have moved on. It is distasteful and the sooner they do, the better.

If the second trial involves the jury being encouraged to take the verdict of the previous trial into account, as it was in this case, it is in no way an independent opportunity for justice.

She has had two separate trial and was found guilty by two separate juries in both.
Shall we just keep going until a jury returns an innocent verdict?

Should all convicted murderers especially those who- unlike Letby-have had only one trial be offered the same chance?

Should we make it best of five?

People need to realise that memory isn't a recording, it's a reconstruction and can change over time without anyone lying.

I was involved in an NHS investigation a few years ago that resulted in a medic going to prison and being struck off (no suggestion that he wasn't guilty, he was). At the time, I and numerous other colleagues were interviewed by the trust with a stenographer present and then sent our transcripts a few months after interview.

I came across mine a few weeks ago and there was SO much that i'd forgotten and a lot that I remembered differently now. Trauma does that. If i'd been interviewed now, a few years after the event, my interview would have been different but with no lying on my part, just the passing of time.

It's one reason why the ideal is for cases to come to trial promptly, because memories fade and can change.

As a nurse I have seen many investigations that have concluded whilst, completing getting the outcome wrong and ignoring what actually happened. Whatever anyone says hospitals like to have one person to blame. I know someone who lost their job based only on circumstantial evidence as, he was on duty at the time, no one witnessed him doing what he was accused of, the police were not involved and sadly he didn't have union membership.

I don't know what I think about LL It does seem like an unsafe verdict, and, I have seen similar things happen.
It doesn't matter what you say or how much you try to whistle blow no one wants to know.

He also participated in a BBC radio 4 programme called Lucy Letby: The Killer Questions. I could hardly believe that babies born under 30 weeks were only being seen by a Consultant twice a week.

The neonatologist from Addenbrooks is also convinced that one of the babies who was allegedly murdered by air being injected into feeding tube actually died from bowel obstruction. The X ray showing air in the stomach was taken the day before the baby collapsed. Lucy Letby had been off duty since the baby's admission and but was back on duty the day the baby collapsed and a day AFTER the X ray showing air in the stomach was taken.

I don't know if she played a part in the deaths of any babies but the evidence which convicted her was weak and there was lots of evidence which might have helped her case which was never heard in court. I hope there will be a retrial or she wins the right to appeal.

Of course she could! She didn't say that in court though did she?

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the Countess of Chester have thrown Letby well and truly under the bus to cover up their own negligence. A retrial is almost certainly in the public interest. I'm sorry for all the parents, truly I am but the fact remains that everybody in the UK must have a fair trial. We cannot let emotions get in the way.

She was definitely wearing a tracksuit (there is video of it online) at her arrest. Maybe she got changed out of her nightie but her testimony didn't make it sound like that.

Why can’t she have put on the tracksuit top over her nightie?

Have any other hospitals ever had such rises?

Yes, it’s fairly normal. This hospital wasn’t even the biggest rise that year.

And of course the Countess of Chester had a similar rise on the maternity ward at exactly the same time as neonatal.

This case unsettles me a lot. I feel like we're missing so much information (or maybe I am!) about any other possible explanations for such a rise in deaths. Have any other hospitals ever had such rises? Is such a rise completely unheard of? I've so many questions. It seems it's all been really poorly handled. Heartbreaking for all of the families involved, I can't imagine how horrific it must be to have all this dragged out after already experiencing such an awful loss

How could she spot the warning signs in a dark room?

I never said Letby watched baby E bleed to death. I said Letby lied about the time baby E's mother came to visit baby E.

I have no idea about the bung at the Thirlwall Inquiry and Google wasn't very helpful.

What you've said about the datix about baby O doesn't contradict what I've said.

She was definitely wearing a tracksuit (there is video of it online) at her arrest. Maybe she got changed out of her nightie but her testimony didn't make it sound like that.

For someone who is apparently innocent she did a lot of lying!

Lied about being able to see that child I was pale in a dark room.

Lied about baby Es mum finding her with baby E when baby E was bleeding. E's mum had evidence of a phone call to prove the time it happened.

Filed a made up datix report about a bung being missing as it could be a cause of air embolism, so would draw suspicion away from her.

Lied on another datix saying they had lost IV access to a child (O I think) to make the hospital look incompetent. The doctor that was there at the time said it wasn't the case!

Lied about being arrested and dragged out of the house in her pyjamas (or nightie) when there was video footage of her wearing a tracksuit!

I agree LL did not get a fair defence, this is probably why she has changed legal teams.

listening to the trial about the managers handling and management of the hospital it is very worrying.

because of other reasons I still feel LL is guilty, the hospital can still be managed inadequately and LL be guilty.

Did you see the Addenbrokes neonatologist on the recent Channel 5 documentary saying he was shocked that babies this vulnerable were only getting twice weekly ward rounds, he thought it should be 3 times a day?
I don’t know what ‘unexpected’ would even mean in a situation where babies are being so under monitored. The possibility of something important being missed would seem very, very high.

The coroner is only informed if the Dr cannot give a reason or dralth. At the time they could.