Lucy Letby thread

No one knows why Myers didn't call his experts; he has never told us, but I very much doubt it was a matter of Letby's credibility. The only point she accepted was that exogenous insulin must have been administered if that is what the tests said.

Hindmarsh, the consultants, and Hall were all unaware of the reasons behind neonates having high I/C ratios, but Letby, a nurse, should have known and argued the point in court? We are crossing back into the territory of overwritten fiction again here.

That’s interesting, thank you.
I appreciate your linking information that doesn’t necessarily support the guilter side.

Lucy Letby had arguably accepted that the insulin bags were poisoned during her police interrogation, yes. She also assumed that the consultants were telling the truth, so she was willing to accept that she must have stood by baby K checking her as her saturations dropped, and to explain why she would have done so. At the beginning of the whole affair, she obviously trusted that she was being treated fairly. But her defence would have been able to handle that easily enough - Myers tackled it for the insulin cases in his closing speech. So I doubt that is the reason.

Hall attended the trial and has stated publicly and emphatically that he wishes he had been allowed to tackle the prosecution's inaccuracies. He doesn't think her conviction is safe.

Exactly, and if the medical evidence does not prove murder and there are alternative explanations for the deaths the circumstantial evidence would need to be extremely strong.

If you ignore all the experts saying it was murder. The circumstantial evidence IS extremely strong. She was seen by others doing nothing to help babies (E and K) who were collapsing. Baby C collapsed 6 mins after she was texting how she should be allowed in room 1 and having a meltdown because she didn't get the baby she wanted. Then she's found in there of course despite no reason to be. THEN she harasses the parents to the point her supervisor has to ask her to leave! It's incredible you just can't see it.

She made facebook searches for the families, 31 searches for the babies families out of 2318 searches, so what is this proof of? Certainly not proof of murder, it's proof she was extremely nosy and searched for many, many, people.

Using the handover sheets to do it. Searching parents who have just lost their baby. When she was directly involved in their deaths. That's not "just being nosy". I think if that was me I'd be so guilt-ridden and upset I couldn't save their baby the last thing I'd think would be "I know, I'll have a nosy to see how they're doing on facebook" and upset myself some more.

She took home handover sheets, that's proof she was unprofessional when it came to that matter, that is not proof of murder.

A total breach of rules so if she'd do that what else would she do not caring about the consequences? 250 meticulously stored, she had them for a reason come on. She didn't just take a few home by accident and forget about them.

She wrote notes where she wrote highly conflicting statements, what's that proof of? They prove she was stressed and distressed? Is that proof of murder? No, how could it be proof of murder, when if she didn't murder anyone then what she was going through was something that was extremely stressful and distressing anyway, and it could easily be due to that.

Because she literally wrote that she did it. And even why. Innocent people don't usually tend to admit to themselves they've done something horrific on purpose when they haven't.

None of those things and even when they're added together get anywhere close to proving she murdered or harmed anyone. A perfectly innocent person could do and say all of those things. They're not particularly odd or unusual in any way. Sure some of it was unprofessional but many people are unprofessional, that doesn't prove murder.

Unprofessional with all of her patients and their families is the distinction, which adds a lot of weight to her guilt. Something Dewi Evans couldn't possibly have known about. What a stroke of luck for him!

Yes, we may never know why the defence took the approach that they took, She waived privilege to the CCRC so if they had questions re the defence strategy or expert witnesses then they may well have asked for that privileged information. That may never be made public.

The handover notes were not meticulously stored, IDK where that idea has come from. They were stashed in carrier bags under her bed and in the garage.

Wrt the diaries, she also literally wrote "I am innocent," so, by your logic, she must be innocent, or else why write it?

@Firefly1987
The circumstantial evidence is not extremely strong, it doesn't point anywhere close to murder.

It came from one of the documentaries, the netflix one I think?

They showed a box in her wardrobe or somewhere which had keep on the front of it and then they said it contained handover sheets and then they said something about her having 250 of them and they were in chronological order so it was very misleading.

But there was only 5 handover sheets in that box and they weren't related to indictment babies.

Saying the same thing repeatedly doesn’t make it true. Even if you use capital letters. There is no circumstantial evidence, it’s a narrative which when you look at it objectively doesn’t point to anything at all. Stories which don’t support murder don’t become more compelling when you add them together. 0+0+0=0

I was discussing this case with friends today
After all the debate and opinions it comes down to this.
Is there any chance at all that the babies died from something other than murder?
Such as sub optimal care/ "natural causes" because they were so very poorly.
If there is any chance at all then there is reasonable doubt
I think that the medical evidence that has come to light since the trial is enough to indicate that there were no murders.
Therefore no murderer.
Consider all of the reports re poor care in other maternity units, the most recently Nottingham.
Nobody is looking for a rogue doctor or nurse there.

@Iamateadrinker no there is no chance at all. They were mostly stable up to the point one nurse got near them. There are plenty of times non-indictment babies went downhill whenever she looked after them.

This mum saw her hovering over her babies cot and she then just took off and didn't come back, minutes later the alarms went off-
That's the closest anyone got to catching her in the act.

They were mostly stable up to the point one nurse got near them

Except they weren't mostly stable. They were all seriously ill neonates with various infections and complications.

Banging on about Shoo Lee and statistics doesn't mean anything either. What is strong circumstantial evidence to you? She'd have to confess to multiple witnesses? And on camera just to be sure? And demonstrate how she did it?

So the experts on the multi national panel are mistaken then?
This is from The Guardian
“There was no medical evidence to support malfeasance causing death or injury in any of the 17 cases in the trial,” the report concludes. “Death or injury of affected infants were due to natural causes or errors in medical care.”

No murders=No murderer
Circumstantial evidence is then not needed

Strong circumstantial evidence in this case would actually have to be evidence OF MURDER. Not just evidence of being a bit strange.

If a body is found buried in a suspect’s garden - that is circumstantial evidence. It’s very strong circumstantial evidence because it leaves you in no doubt that a) a murder has occurred and b) there is a clear connection between the suspect and the murder.

Someone doing loads of facebook searches isn’t actually evidence of murder. It isn’t evidence of anything except that she likes facebook.

Internet searches could be strong circumstantial evidence in this case if they connected to the alleged means of murder, for example. But that’s not what the evidence is.

Firefly has said on a previous letby thread that nothing could make her change her mind now. She also said something about people paying too much attention to the science…

So bottom line then-medical murders should be exempt from prosecution because the experts can't agree and we're going to ignore circumstantial evidence completely our logic being "if there are no murders none of that matters". Even when multiple experts are saying it was murder. Shoo Lee trumps them all apparently. Why not get rid of the court system completely, we'll just have random Canadian doctors deciding for us. That's not at all ridiculous.

If a body is found buried in a suspect’s garden - that is circumstantial evidence. It’s very strong circumstantial evidence because it leaves you in no doubt that a) a murder has occurred and b) there is a clear connection between the suspect and the murder.

That rules out all medical murders then. I'm asking about the case in question not examples of other completely different types of crime.

Someone doing loads of facebook searches isn’t actually evidence of murder. It isn’t evidence of anything except that she likes facebook.

She was tied to multiple murders and collapses before they found out any of that. It's just more red flags around her. No one said it proved murder. I can only talk about one thing at a time. There's about 20 examples that added up together do point towards her guilt. I'm not even counting that as circumstantial evidence. What I mean by circumstantial evidence is a stable baby is left in her care, other staff or parents have just left, no concerns. Then minutes later baby is suddenly dying out of NOWHERE and one nurse is there-over and over again. Not to mention her falsifying of records to distance herself from collapses.

They were not expected to die. Sudden collapse of babies in her care alerted doctors that foul play was at work. They were ignored and even threatened. They knew something was wrong.

Well no, that would be a confession with physical evidence to back it up.

Banging on about Shoo Lee and statistics doesn't mean anything either

Honestly if this is representative of your cognitive ability it feels wrong to engage with you. Go well.

@Firefly1987 Yes, let's just ignore all the forensic evidence against Shipman and Allit and let them go, since those are the only options. We either lock all medical suspects up or none; the evidence is irrelevant unless all professionals agree.

The scientists can't actually agree and they can't both be right!

Very few scientists/medics still stand by the prosecution's case. The overwhelming majority have concerns about the safety of the conviction, but you already know this; you choose to ignore it because it threatens your beliefs.

So still not going to answer what circumstantial evidence would satisfy you, thought so.

Honestly if this is representative of your cognitive ability it feels wrong to engage with you. Go well.

I'm not the one that thinks someone whose good at maths can tell whether a murder occurred or not.

So the only thing possible is to believe Shoo Lee? There is no other right answer? You're not doing much to dispel the idea that the Letby innocence bandwagon is a cult.