To wonder what would happen if LL were ever released?

I realise you’re playing devil’s advocate with the Shipman evidence, but if you can’t see that the evidence in his trial was full of smoking guns, whereas in Letby’s case it’s full of holes, then there’s not much I can do about that.

@MyrtleLion of course Shipman is guilty, and of course Letby is too. Why do you think it's ok to defend LL? Your reaction to me playing devil's advocate about Shipman is exactly the same as how I and others feel when you defend a multiple baby murderer. I'd say the evidence is on par, she's not sitting there with multiple WLO's for no reason. Why are YOU daring to dismiss the other experts, doctors who did all they could to try and save those babies and experts that testified she harmed them?

Edit-obviously you have no response to the morphine evidence...

I find it disgusting that you are claiming Shipman might not have been a murderer when the cases are completely different. It undermines your position that Letby is a killer if you cast doubt on his convictions.

Babies in the NICU and SCBU are not healthy. Some of the babies were only 25 weeks gestation when born. This is at the margins of survivability.

The experts that you dismiss are the very men and women whose work over the last 35 years had allowed such premature babies to survive. Don't you dare dismiss their expertise as if it is nothing.

You're not going to have your mind changed about Letby, that's obvious but stop making claims that you can't substantiatree.

@MyrtleLion most of the babies in the LL case were healthy, they certainly weren't expected to suddenly collapse. I'm sure some expert could come out and say the evidence was wrong in the Shipman case as well. What about the baby she overdosed with 10x the amount of morphine at another hospital? Can't blame it on a poor unit or doctors out to get her that time. That would've probably been her first victim if colleagues hadn't spotted the "error" in time.

Local GPs and the coroner were already concerned by the high rate of deaths under his care. A lot of his victims were very healthy. It is absolutely the case that he was a prolific murderer and in this case the statistics prove it. Bodies were exhumed and tested positive for the presence of the drug he used. Overwhelming direct evidence was found.

There is so much reasonable doubt in Letby"s car and now two reports from medical experts have been published saying there was no murder. A second report had confirmed that the alleged insulin poisonings didn't happen.

And this is the answer to why she’d need a new identity.

The police claimed that LL murdered a baby because a record showed that she was on duty, so 'she must have done it.' Then they realised that the record was wrong by an hour and LL wasn't there. So did they look for someone else who must have murdered this baby? No, they just took the baby off the list. What does that say about the lack of evidence of babies being murdered?

@SnakesAndArrows that's not proof of murder though just proof he forged a will. LL also falsified records to make her look like she was elsewhere when a baby collapsed. Come to think of it plenty of people at the time came out to support Shipman and couldn't believe he killed anyone. I expect we'll all come to view LL the same way as Shipman in the fullness of time.

Shipman forged a will and falsified records to attempt to cover up an overdose of diamorphine. The evidence against him was incredibly strong.

Wonder why no one ever thought Harold Shipman was a miscarriage of justice, after all no one saw him do anything?

Being pension age, I have seen so many of these cases and juries definitely can get in wrong and they do. As well as Birmingham six, Guildford 4, there have been many individuals. Sally Clarke, Stefan Kriskow and many others. The guy in prison in the ‘Bambi case’ seems to be moving towards having his convictions overturned yet it takes years for the state to act.
Many people seem unable to accept that a jury and the state can be wrong.LL May be an odd character, making it easier to pick on he.I think she was very ill served by her defence team. Only she really knows the truth, but the case against her stinks.
my heart goes out to the families who may also have been badly let down.

I think it’s the length of time she lied for. At any point she could have said oh I’m popping to the shop and spoken to a police man who would have protected her. But she didn’t she stayed in the house and gave interviews on tv and cleaned and washed and polished away all while knowing she wasn’t there that night and he could have done it. Although I do believe he told her some story about how it happened and how it wasn’t his fault.

I think she'd be incredibly mentally Ill and traumatised if shes innocent. Not something that your average oerson could just snap back from. So if she were to be released I'm not sure she'd be capable of independent living. Probably not going to be leading any charities or support organisations for wrongly convicted people. I don't think she'd have the capacity or strength.

I never understood the hatred and vitriol for Maxine Carr, yes she shouldn't have given him an alibi but she wasn't there when he did it, he was a controlling and abusive man and she was probably terrified of him. There are plenty of evil and disgusting people out there that have done things a million times worse than Carr yet don't get anywhere near the amount of hate.

It stopped doing that 18 months ago.

I think she could become a champion for people who have been wrongly convicted as Paddy Hill of the Birmingham Six was. She would be entitled to compensation but the Home Office actually deducts the cost of board and lodging in prison from any compensation!

Pleased to hear that the charges for board and lodging have been dropped

Always seemed so unjust and ;spiteful'

She wouldn't be charged for board and lodging - that stopped about 18 months ago -, but the bar for getting compensation is too high in my view. Compensation is only paid if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that she is innocent.

And yes, there are people who will never accept that she is not guilty even if it is proven beyond any possible doubt that she is innocent.

And she would be handed a bill for her 'board and lodging'.

There are still people who believe the Birmingham 6 are guilty.

The statistical 'evidence' which says that LL was there for every murder has been totally discredited. One barrister said it's like spraying a wall with bullets and then drawing a circle around most of the holes and declaring that that's the bull's eye.

As you will know there was NO forensic evidence, nobody saw her doing anything, either stealing insulin or administering it, or air. it was all circumstancial evidence. It's quite concerning listening to Dr Ravi Jayaram referring to 'healthy babies' when they were actually tiny pre term babies being kept on the neonatal unit.

Lucy Letby

Thank you for that - I had read some of the criticisms that statisticians had with the data used - but this is a very thorough take down.

TLDR precis

The consultants initially identified 61 "suspicious incidents" including one where a baby was "suffocated". They narrowed it down to the 25 on the famous chart based SOLELY on whether or not LL was there. So the "suffocated baby" was reclassified as not suspicious because LL had not been on duty. Confirmation bias.

If you apply strict and rigorous statistical analysis to the probability of LL being on duty during one of the "suspicious incidents" then you have to take into account not only the number of nurses but also the number of shifts. LL did a lot more shifts than some of the others so of course was present for more of the "incidents". Other nurses who did the same number of shifts as LL were equally likely to be there for a larger number of "incidents". They could have made similar charts for every one of those other nurses, picking out just the "suspicious incidents" that they were present for. The more time spent on the ward = the more likely to be there when a baby crashed or died.

This might help to view a different approach to evidence.

If the babies were not murdered then she is not a murderer.

Nothing obtuse about that.

The cause of death is foundational to the case. If the cause of death is natural causes or poor care then none of them were murdered and her conviction must be overturned. It's really not complicated.