Lucy Letby (2)

You mean like the two trials spent many many months doing?

I’m baffled as to why people try to defend a baby killer ?

You would think at some point with the amount of money, 20m time 10 years and energy being spent on this someone might show us the evidence, or even a tiny bit would be most welcome..... that this woman actually done something wrong other than going to work and trying to deal with a shambolic hospital/situation.

Still there’s a process happening atm, all that can happen is to wait for that to finish.

Medics who have offered their opinions from their armchairs and have not had their evidence robustly challenged in court. A lot of the things that other medics have raised were considered and discounted at trial, eg that one of the babies died of infection due to mum not being given antibiotics.

I don’t think so, there’s doubts that have been raised by medics too. Let’s see what is decided re next steps.

Yes and she had a leading KC representing her who actually did a pretty good job at challenging all the prosecution medical witnesses. He actually put a lot of the stuff that Mark McDonald’s panel have come up with as alternative theories to the experts at the trial and it was discounted. The thing is he’s not able to work total miracles and she was a truly awful witness and going in the witness box just cemented how guilty she was. Also she did have at least one medical expert instructed who was ready to give evidence but she chose not to call him.

She had every chance to defend herself, she had two trials and she had a permission hearing for appeal where the court considered her arguments and even heard video link evidence from Dr Shoo. Sadly for the people on this thread, LL is guilty. And she will be let out when she’s in a coffin like Myra Hindley, Rose West and others of a similar moral character.

I followed the trial closely at the time. There are lots of things pointing to her guilt which, taken together, are overwhelming and two juries agreed. These are just some of the factors that convinced me:

• the deliberate doctoring of notes to distance herself from events, eg changing the time on the notes of when one of the mums walked in on her with one of the babies
• shockingly self serving evidence both in police interviews and on the stand where she can remember precise details when it helps her but has forgotten quite major things like a baby collapsing and dying on her shift when she was in the room
• calling no expert witnesses but having instructed some (and the only reason for that is that it didn’t help her to call them)
• hoarding of handover notes - NOT normal
• repeated searches of family members of the victims
• repeated odd behaviour that was reported by colleagues including behaving inappropriately around family members, seeming to take delight in the drama, needing to be asked to return to her own designated baby on several occasions
• text messages suggesting a pathological need to be at the centre of the drama and reacting very differently to her colleagues to the numerous deaths
• there were multiple experts, not just Dewi Evans, and they presented evidence that was not refuted by the defence (despite having an expert) that the babies were deliberately harmed

The defence team now and the expert panel are honestly jokers. Mark McDonald is not respected in the legal profession whatsoever and I cannot stress that enough. I have many thoughts about Dr Shoo Lee, none of them positive. A lot of her supporters also seem to overlap with right wing Covid-deniers and anti vax conspiracy theorists.

A plumber ?

The most significant thing is that she was found guilty after a rigorous trial. And called no experts for her defence except a plumber.

Expert professionals, agencies and authorities have investigated Lucy Letby at length, tried her in court, where very detailed evidence was produced, none of it in her favour, and found her guilty. They have continued to investigate the woeful management at CoCH who failed to stop Letby, being too concerned with their own useless reputations. Justice continues to take its course.

Have people learned nothing from the social media 'true crime' hysterias we've seen? Grown adults getting under the police's feet trying to 'investigate' crimes, and incidents that aren't actually crimes, 'taking sides' in court cases, inventing batshit theories, cheerleading outside courtrooms, intimidating witnesses, lawyers and jurors.

'Supporters' of Lucy Letby are part of the same deluded gang, they've actually been giving aid and comfort to a calculating, psychopathic female who murdered newborn babies, around whom they have woven a ridiculous fantasy, and in doing that they have added to the torment of those babies' parents.

What in your opinion are the most significant things that point to her being a murderer. And what are your main reasons. It's a genuine question. I keep moving between guilty and not guilty . Most ppl on these threads think she is innocent. I'd like to hear convincing reasons for her beong guilty because I've not read much from that perspective.

Ah well, with that utter clown leading her defence team, as well as the crack team of experts who are dropping like flies and Dr Shoo "we found no murders" Lee, at least that baby-murdering piece of scum will remain safely locked up until the end of time. Where she absolutely 100% deserves to be.

the court did find her guilty of causing harm and murder to 5 other babies

The other convictions very likely depended on insulin convictions, which were returned first. Jurors were under instruction that if they find harm in one case they could use it to help infer harm in others. So if the insulin convictions are unsafe then all others are too.

Yes, my thought that it could be read as referring to all the cases, but I appreciate you're referring to the insulin cases.

Plus the court did find her guilty of causing harm and murder to 5 other babies, so it did meet their threshold for evidence (notwithstanding any CCRC leave to appeal).

It would show who was where when, which would be more reliable than inferring from retrospective recollections colored by the accusations, or from incomplete/flawed swipe data.

But how much would it cost to install this systemwide and store the feeds securely for years, all to prevent a handful of deaths from killer nurses (even if you include the Letby charges)? Wouldn't money be better spent on fixing leaking sewage or staff shortages that cause way more deaths overall?

This goes even more strongly for recommendations to suspend staff and call police on the slightest suspicion. How many nurses will this scare away from the profession, or from taking on riskiest shifts (especially once they've been on shift for a death)? How many extra deaths/injuries will the resulting nurse shortage cause, and how does that compare to the handful of killer-nurse-caused deaths this might conceivably prevent?

Does anyone know if any nurses notoced anything odd about LL before any of this came to light ? Is there anything about colleagues ( not doctors or managers but actual nurses) ever saying anything before any of thja happened.

They don’t believe the babies were poisoned; she was accused (and convicted) of poisoning them so I think it is fair to say they do not believe she committed the crimes she was convicted of.

I'm saying that saying the experts believe she is innocent is misleading and not what they said. The experts are there to get justice for all, including the parents of the babies, who they have mentioned in their statement, so I think language matters.

They are saying they don’t believe the babies were poisoned @nomas , so what, are they saying they think she murdered then by another method? I’m not being facetious; I genuinely don’t understand what you’re trying to drive at, sorry,

That's not saying they believe she is innocent. Even a court of law doesn't find people 'innocent'.

Maybe. I listened to someone who has doubts over the conviction who put that forward. He made some good points. I hope her case is looked at still. Ik there’s something still going.

No (and yes.) The problem is that in some cases CCTV would in all likelihood show a nurse standing over a baby or administering something which would be well within their remit, so I’m not convinced it would show deliberate harm.