Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Lucy Letby (2)

644 replies

Oftenaddled · 30/07/2026 10:01

Not only the second thread of course, but maybe with them filling so fast it is time to start numbering them?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
isthisaplum · 10/08/2026 21:06

It is interesting to think what the timeframe is likely to be - does anybody have any guesses?

kkloo · 10/08/2026 21:05

Firefly1987 · 10/08/2026 20:35

The law doesn't care what uninformed people on social media think thankfully or we'd all be in trouble.

The actual serious people in this case know she's guilty and not getting out. It's only the losers screaming from the rooftops.

Show quote history

Trump is back.

Sorry I can remember which poster originally spotted this to credit you but it's so accurate 😂

isthisaplum · 10/08/2026 21:04

I can’t think of one, for sure. There has been outrage once the MoJ has been exposed but not during, not like this.

Original poster
Oftenaddled · 10/08/2026 21:02

Has there ever been a case with this level of expert support arguing for a miscarriage of justice, in the UK criminal system?

Has there ever been a case with half this amount of support that hasn't turned out to be a miscarriage of justice, in the UK? (Genuine question. I have vague memories of reading about one or two cases where campaigners got things wrong, but I can't remember details or any comparable furore around them).

OP posts:
Iamateadrinker · 10/08/2026 20:55

I don't consider myself a " loser"
Just someone with a different opinion to you @Firefly1987

isthisaplum · 10/08/2026 20:50

The actual serious people in this case know she’s guilty

@Firefly1987 if i play devils advocate for a moment and accept that the original verdict was most probably correct and that she is guilty and rightly is in prison for this - if I put my personal view totally to one side and go along with this, I still couldn’t agree with the above statement.

There have been numerous ‘serious people’ transcending political viewpoints, race, religion, age, levels of education and gender. It is unusual, shall we say, for the telegraph and the sun, or even the telegraph and the guardian, to agree. We’ve had the panel, we’ve had Jeremy hunt, we’ve had a number of MPs, we’ve had NHS staff (including her own colleagues) and the House of Lords - even parents of children she treated. It really isn’t a few isolated bonkers people. And I’d have to concede that even if my personal view was that she is guilty.

FrippEnos · 10/08/2026 20:48

Firefly1987

Slipping back to name calling again.
I had hoped that you had got past that.

Firefly1987 · 10/08/2026 20:35

ByAzureMentor · 10/08/2026 19:25

They can longer ignore it the support she has is incredible and every day more and more of the truth about the case or the hosptials is coming out.

I do think they will find a way to quickly move on governments are good at that but she has to get out the only person left saying guilty seems to be you.

Even Moritz and Hull seem to have bolted.

Show quote history

The law doesn't care what uninformed people on social media think thankfully or we'd all be in trouble.

The actual serious people in this case know she's guilty and not getting out. It's only the losers screaming from the rooftops.

Original poster
Oftenaddled · 10/08/2026 19:46

fosterma · 10/08/2026 19:38

Dr A has passed away - sounds like he was still fairly young

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/married-doctor-described-lucy-letbys-boyfriend-dies-5Hjdfpx_2/

That's very sad, so young.

He is somebody who probably seems important to the story of what happened if you believe Lucy Letby was guilty. The prosecution threw out the accusation she was attacking babies to get his attention. That never made much sense, because he only started in Chester in late 2015, after five babies I think, maybe four, had already died.

If she wasn't guilty, he was very much a junior player on the ward, with little or nothing to do with most of the events. He passed on confidential information, but nothing that could have made a difference to her alleged crimes.

I hope his family won't be bothered too much by the press.
.

OP posts:
ByAzureMentor · 10/08/2026 19:25

Firefly1987 · 10/08/2026 19:15

@ByAzureMentor If that's genuinely what you believe I think you'll be in for a shock one day. She is never getting out.

They can longer ignore it the support she has is incredible and every day more and more of the truth about the case or the hosptials is coming out.

I do think they will find a way to quickly move on governments are good at that but she has to get out the only person left saying guilty seems to be you.

Even Moritz and Hull seem to have bolted.

FrippEnos · 10/08/2026 19:24

Viviennemary · 10/08/2026 16:29

Highly unlikely.

Show quote history

But that doesn't answer the question.

Firefly1987 · 10/08/2026 19:15

@ByAzureMentor If that's genuinely what you believe I think you'll be in for a shock one day. She is never getting out.

ByAzureMentor · 10/08/2026 18:02

Viviennemary · 10/08/2026 16:29

Highly unlikely.

Show quote history

It is absolutely certain LL will be released there is no doubt about it.

How can they keep someone in jail when the whole country knows she is completely innocent ?

I just wonder what happens next will she live here or go abroad ?
Does Evans have to pay back every penny ?
Who knew she was innocent but played along for the £££

Viviennemary · 10/08/2026 16:29

FrippEnos · 30/07/2026 22:59

What will your response be if it is found that its a miscarriage of justice?

Show quote history

Highly unlikely.

Original poster
Oftenaddled · 07/08/2026 21:23

Firefly1987 · 07/08/2026 18:50

Expert Testimony Details

  • Case Review: Professor Kinsey was asked to analyze the medical and blood records for specific infants, including Child A, Child B, and Child E. 1, 2]
  • Findings on Child E: She testified that a catastrophic bleed suffered by Child E before death was "not spontaneous" and was unassociated with any pre-existing natural condition or clotting disorder. 1]
  • Blood Counts and Conditions: She informed the court that underlying maternal conditions or blood disorders did not affect the twins (Child A and Child B), and their blood counts remained normal during their time on the unit. 1]
  • Skin Discoloration: Professor Kinsey noted that unusual descriptions of skin patterns—such as irregular pink areas over a blue-grey background observed during Child A's collapse—supported concerns of unnatural clinical events like air embolism
Show quote history

When you read the sources your summary has linked there, you see that these headlines are misleading.

For the first two (citation 1)

'Ben Myers KC, defending, said her comments on Child E established only that the bleed was not a result of "a blood abnormality" and did not rule out the possibility that he could have had a gastro-intestinal haemorrhage. He added her observations did "not assist with what the cause of death actually was".
The professor agreed that all three suggestions were correct".

She was confirming that there was no spontaneous rupture of the blood vessels (as with nosebleeds) not that the bleeding couldn't have a natural cause like a gastro-intestinal haemorrhage.

Her testimony also confirmed that neither child had an abnormal blood count. Several of the minor experts cleared up points like this - details that it made sense to check and that nobody has disputed.

As I've posted above, Professor McKinsey told the court that she was not an expert on APS. She also explained that she was relying on the literature for her information on what Lee's sign looked like. She was struck by how well Dr Jayaram's descriptions of baby A's rash fitted descriptions in that literature. She admitted to Ben Myers that she had not realised this description was not in the clinical notes but only in Dr Jayaram's much later police interview. (This of course came long after he had discovered the same literature himself).

OP posts:
Firefly1987 · 07/08/2026 18:50

EyeLevelStick · 07/08/2026 06:09

You have dodged Frequency’s question.

Who in that courtroom was competent to “test” and/or dismiss the idea that a mother with antiphospholipid syndrome might pass antibodies to her unborn child? We know the child didn’t have the disease, but we don’t know whether or not antibodies were passed on.

And don’t come back with anything about plumbers. The lack of defence experts is part of the problem here, likely caused by the structuring of the trial.

Show quote history

Expert Testimony Details

  • Case Review: Professor Kinsey was asked to analyze the medical and blood records for specific infants, including Child A, Child B, and Child E. 1, 2]
  • Findings on Child E: She testified that a catastrophic bleed suffered by Child E before death was "not spontaneous" and was unassociated with any pre-existing natural condition or clotting disorder. 1]
  • Blood Counts and Conditions: She informed the court that underlying maternal conditions or blood disorders did not affect the twins (Child A and Child B), and their blood counts remained normal during their time on the unit. 1]
  • Skin Discoloration: Professor Kinsey noted that unusual descriptions of skin patterns—such as irregular pink areas over a blue-grey background observed during Child A's collapse—supported concerns of unnatural clinical events like air embolism
Lucy Letby

Lucy Letby: Baby's catastrophic bleed not spontaneous, trial told

A blood expert tells nurse Lucy Letby's murder trial a baby's internal bleed was "not spontaneous".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63798909

Firefly1987 · 07/08/2026 18:46

Dolphin37 · 07/08/2026 17:17

they know about serial killers and female killers. They have no trouble believing she did it

I don't think anyone doesn't "know about serial killers and female killers" (that they exist), but we also know how rare they are (on the order of 1 in a million nurses), relative to alternate explanations (misdiagnoses and medical errors). So I need correspondingly strong proof that it's indeed the rare thing. If a kid tell me he saw a tiger on the street, I'll be very skeptical -- not because I don't know about tigers, but because fabulist kids / actors in costume / AI videos are so much more common than roaming tigers. And that's when the cost of error is just getting fooled by a kid, rather than a wrongful life sentence + letting health system errors go unfixed + wasting millions on useless inquiry + worsening the nursing shortage by scaring people from nursing.

So the baseline picture leads to the need for rock-solid proof, and instead we get things like "when you know, you know" or "baby collapsed, died" from the main medical expert. Or diagnosis by exclusion, when we know that doctors missing some pathology is quite common: e.g. one mother in the case was not given antibiotics for hours, presumably because doctors "excluded" infection. It's the big mismatch between the level of proof needed, and the type of proof offered, that's the core problem with this case.

Show quote history

What sort of stats did you come up with for Erin Patterson? After all no one actually saw her do anything wrong, the test results might not have been accurate and all her guests could've just got sick by coincidence. I mean that's much more likely than a mass killer poisoning her dinner guests right? It's practically unheard of.

PinkTonic · 07/08/2026 18:09

I was reading on X earlier the transcript of when Ben Myers was asking about how the Lucy did it chart was compiled. Jeez, why on earth do they persist in talking utter bollocks using such flowery language, when it even causes them to confuse and misinterpret each other! It could have taken half the time if they asked direct questions and got direct answers.

And that comment from the judge. Why not tell the idiot to answer the question if you know he’s going round in circles. I know BM did sometimes, but Evans was allowed to answer back.

Original poster
Oftenaddled · 07/08/2026 17:44

Dolphin37 · 07/08/2026 17:17

they know about serial killers and female killers. They have no trouble believing she did it

I don't think anyone doesn't "know about serial killers and female killers" (that they exist), but we also know how rare they are (on the order of 1 in a million nurses), relative to alternate explanations (misdiagnoses and medical errors). So I need correspondingly strong proof that it's indeed the rare thing. If a kid tell me he saw a tiger on the street, I'll be very skeptical -- not because I don't know about tigers, but because fabulist kids / actors in costume / AI videos are so much more common than roaming tigers. And that's when the cost of error is just getting fooled by a kid, rather than a wrongful life sentence + letting health system errors go unfixed + wasting millions on useless inquiry + worsening the nursing shortage by scaring people from nursing.

So the baseline picture leads to the need for rock-solid proof, and instead we get things like "when you know, you know" or "baby collapsed, died" from the main medical expert. Or diagnosis by exclusion, when we know that doctors missing some pathology is quite common: e.g. one mother in the case was not given antibiotics for hours, presumably because doctors "excluded" infection. It's the big mismatch between the level of proof needed, and the type of proof offered, that's the core problem with this case.

Show quote history

Yes. Even the judge seems to have been unimpressed by the main medical medical expert. The transcript for the application to exclude Dr Evans's evidence is now online at https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/transcripts/day_052_09-01-2023.pdf

Someone on twitter excerpted some actual words of wisdom from Judge Goss

Lucy Letby (2)
OP posts:
Dolphin37 · 07/08/2026 17:17

Firefly1987 · 06/08/2026 23:48

Nope UK born and bred. Why did you think I wasn't? Sometimes I'm on here late.

I find the Americans are much more open to her guilt-going by reddit (which I assume has attracted a lot of Americans to the case via netflix) they know about serial killers and female killers. They have no trouble believing she did it.

Show quote history

they know about serial killers and female killers. They have no trouble believing she did it

I don't think anyone doesn't "know about serial killers and female killers" (that they exist), but we also know how rare they are (on the order of 1 in a million nurses), relative to alternate explanations (misdiagnoses and medical errors). So I need correspondingly strong proof that it's indeed the rare thing. If a kid tell me he saw a tiger on the street, I'll be very skeptical -- not because I don't know about tigers, but because fabulist kids / actors in costume / AI videos are so much more common than roaming tigers. And that's when the cost of error is just getting fooled by a kid, rather than a wrongful life sentence + letting health system errors go unfixed + wasting millions on useless inquiry + worsening the nursing shortage by scaring people from nursing.

So the baseline picture leads to the need for rock-solid proof, and instead we get things like "when you know, you know" or "baby collapsed, died" from the main medical expert. Or diagnosis by exclusion, when we know that doctors missing some pathology is quite common: e.g. one mother in the case was not given antibiotics for hours, presumably because doctors "excluded" infection. It's the big mismatch between the level of proof needed, and the type of proof offered, that's the core problem with this case.

Original poster
Oftenaddled · 07/08/2026 11:39

Firefly1987 · 06/08/2026 23:53

Because it has to apply to the actual case-if he brings up something like APS antibodies and it's already been tested in court and dismissed as not relevant then it's no good. He needs to be cross-examined on it to see if it any of it applies to her case. We're talking about potentially letting a multiple baby murderer out on his evidence.

Show quote history

Not exactly, no. The CCRC and Court of Appeal can certainly consider findings contrary to what was presented by the prosecution at the original trial. Otherwise you'd rarely be able to overturn anything.

The question is how you get to these findings. There, you're looking for some combination of new evidence, new legal argument, or a rationale for re-examining evidence available to the original defence in the interest of justice.

OP posts:
Original poster
Oftenaddled · 07/08/2026 11:35

EyeLevelStick · 07/08/2026 06:09

You have dodged Frequency’s question.

Who in that courtroom was competent to “test” and/or dismiss the idea that a mother with antiphospholipid syndrome might pass antibodies to her unborn child? We know the child didn’t have the disease, but we don’t know whether or not antibodies were passed on.

And don’t come back with anything about plumbers. The lack of defence experts is part of the problem here, likely caused by the structuring of the trial.

Show quote history

It's enlightening to read excerpts from the transcript of Kinsey's examination here, particularly the parts I've bolded:

Q. Is antiphospholipid syndrome hereditary?

A. Not that I'm aware of, but I'm not an expert in antiphospholipid syndrome itself.

Q. Did the antiphospholipid syndrome pass to either [Baby A] or to [Baby B]?

A. No, that is not the case. I can explain that in a little bit more detail because if one looked at the blood results, it would show that there were antiphospholipid antibodies in the circulation of the babies and this is because there are two types of antibody: IgM, immunoglobulin M, and IgA, immunoglobulin A -- sorry, IgG and IgM, sorry.

MR JUSTICE GOSS: I was going to say, I don't think we really need --

A. Okay.

MR JUSTICE GOSS: Obviously it's very helpful of you to offer to do it, but the important thing is that neither [Baby A] or [Baby B] had this condition.

From a brief discussion at:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1k7def3/comment/mq23p50/

Presumably, evidence from an expert in APS, or from an obstetrician having viewed the mother's file and considered the impact of APS, would be of interest to the Court of Appeal given that the jury never heard from anyone expert in this condition

OP posts:
Original poster
Oftenaddled · 07/08/2026 11:23

FrippEnos · 07/08/2026 10:31

You also asked why I had little faith (my wording) in the whole trial that is my answer

You missed explaining how Dewi changed his theories mid trial?

but

The the defence wasn't allowed to refute the expert witness testimony as it was put forward on each count
More preferential treatment people want for her. That's not how trials work that's why. Prosecution presents their case, defence presents their case. Why is she different? Why does an innocent person need the rules bending?

Its not prefencial treatment. it has happened in other cases and would allow for greater understanding of what went on.

That various consultants were proved to have lied.
Letby was also proved to have lied multiple times. But she's allowed to for some reason. There is controversy over Dr Jayaram's testimony but I don't believe he lied. Not sure which others you're referring to.

Yes there is Jayaram and I would include DE changing his views during the trial, includuing the "well something bad musty have happened" when he was backed in to a corner and the other married Dr that claimed that she was chasing after him for which we have nothing but his word, Yet he cared enough to warn her that she was going to have a grievence put in against her.

The state of the ward
That's what the defence focused on, I believe this whole "sewage dripping from ceilings" has been wildly exaggerated. And staffing levels weren't that bad compared to other units.

You don't know if it was exaggerated, but any sewage issue should be sorted oout ASAP, and equally if there were sewage issues in a hospital I would expect it to be either sorted or the areas closed down.

and that Letby had won a grievance against the consultants
Weren't we all aware of this when the trial was ongoing? I thought we were but could be wrong. Why does this mean anything? Oh the useless managers were manipulated by her (like everyone on here) so she won a grievance, it means nothing-they were wrong. They're now potentially going to have to pay for being wrong and not listening to the consultants. I wonder if they're partly behind all this good PR for her...

It goes towards the consultants not be an unbiased source of information and possibly carrying a grudge towards Letby.

But this is all from the first trial. doesn't inclyde some of the stuyff that went on in the second. or any of the information that has subsequently come out.

Show quote history

Yes. Incidentally, the first trial was told that Lucy Letby was removed from the ward, raised a grievance, and was not allowed to return to the ward.

What the jury wasn't told, of course, was that she won the grievance, against the two named consultants who led accusations against her. This meant that Johnson was able to present her as a fantasist for suggesting doctors were ganging up against her, when in fact the findings of the investigation gave some support for this.

OP posts:
FrippEnos · 07/08/2026 10:31

Firefly1987 · 06/08/2026 22:03

None of that invalidates all the evidence against her though. She was placed cot side for every collapse. They know she was there. Her own notes prove it most of the time. Yes it's very unfortunate they got the door swipe data wrong but what do you want them to do-find her not guilty for that reason? It was testimony from herself and her colleagues that got her found guilty not door swipe data.

The the defence wasn't allowed to refute the expert witness testimony as it was put forward on each count

More preferential treatment people want for her. That's not how trials work that's why. Prosecution presents their case, defence presents their case. Why is she different? Why does an innocent person need the rules bending?

That various consultants were proved to have lied.

Letby was also proved to have lied multiple times. But she's allowed to for some reason. There is controversy over Dr Jayaram's testimony but I don't believe he lied. Not sure which others you're referring to.

The state of the ward

That's what the defence focused on, I believe this whole "sewage dripping from ceilings" has been wildly exaggerated. And staffing levels weren't that bad compared to other units.

and that Letby had won a grievance against the consultants

Weren't we all aware of this when the trial was ongoing? I thought we were but could be wrong. Why does this mean anything? Oh the useless managers were manipulated by her (like everyone on here) so she won a grievance, it means nothing-they were wrong. They're now potentially going to have to pay for being wrong and not listening to the consultants. I wonder if they're partly behind all this good PR for her...

I can't see anything in these points that would make the slightest bit of difference to her being found guilty.

Show quote history

You also asked why I had little faith (my wording) in the whole trial that is my answer

You missed explaining how Dewi changed his theories mid trial?

but

The the defence wasn't allowed to refute the expert witness testimony as it was put forward on each count
More preferential treatment people want for her. That's not how trials work that's why. Prosecution presents their case, defence presents their case. Why is she different? Why does an innocent person need the rules bending?

Its not prefencial treatment. it has happened in other cases and would allow for greater understanding of what went on.

That various consultants were proved to have lied.
Letby was also proved to have lied multiple times. But she's allowed to for some reason. There is controversy over Dr Jayaram's testimony but I don't believe he lied. Not sure which others you're referring to.

Yes there is Jayaram and I would include DE changing his views during the trial, includuing the "well something bad musty have happened" when he was backed in to a corner and the other married Dr that claimed that she was chasing after him for which we have nothing but his word, Yet he cared enough to warn her that she was going to have a grievence put in against her.

The state of the ward
That's what the defence focused on, I believe this whole "sewage dripping from ceilings" has been wildly exaggerated. And staffing levels weren't that bad compared to other units.

You don't know if it was exaggerated, but any sewage issue should be sorted oout ASAP, and equally if there were sewage issues in a hospital I would expect it to be either sorted or the areas closed down.

and that Letby had won a grievance against the consultants
Weren't we all aware of this when the trial was ongoing? I thought we were but could be wrong. Why does this mean anything? Oh the useless managers were manipulated by her (like everyone on here) so she won a grievance, it means nothing-they were wrong. They're now potentially going to have to pay for being wrong and not listening to the consultants. I wonder if they're partly behind all this good PR for her...

It goes towards the consultants not be an unbiased source of information and possibly carrying a grudge towards Letby.

But this is all from the first trial. doesn't inclyde some of the stuyff that went on in the second. or any of the information that has subsequently come out.