Lucy Letby (2)

The main arguments that her supporters seem to put forward revolve around her being under stress and acting oddly because of that. For me, the one thing that seems genuinely suspicious above everything else is the notes. I am not convinced that you would take loads of notes home by accident in your pocket, then stash them under your bed and dont ever get rid of them.... even though you've got a shredder. It just doesnt make sense. Also there was the fact of her having that doctor ' boyfriend' . Didnt she get attention from him whenever there was drama. That would be a motive.

She was seen doing something twice, something, what could that be maybe her job.....

Are you the only person left that trusts anything Ravi says ?

I think when people are in such a difficult or upsetting situation they might say someone seemed strange this is just more garbage.

I think it is interesting you steer clear of facts or evidence and just focus on whatever they just told you on government telly. Well lady T says.

Seems that quite a few of the guilty group have forgotten that this is a discussion forum.

Gibbs interviewed here, says he still believes she's guilty, but that he does also accept that some of the concerns about a possible miscarriage of justice raised by expert neonatologists, statisticians, scientists with an interest in insulin do need to be looked at very carefully.

How could there possibly be 250 witnesses? One minute it's busy the next they didn't have enough staff and the consultants were never there 🙄

She was seen doing something twice-by baby E's mum and Dr Ravi Jayaram. Plus the nurse who testified you couldn't see anything wrong with a baby from the doorway because it wasn't light enough yet LL apparently knew the baby was at deaths door with her psychic powers.

There was also a non-indictment baby where the mum saw her acting suspiciously. But none of that matters because you don't need to have seen a serial killer in action for circumstantial evidence to prove they're guilty.

A court comprising judges and jury with no requirement for any scientific knowledge or qualification is not competent to examine and judge complex medical and scientific evidence.

When I said that I was replying to Dolphin.

When I was responding to you I spoke about the tension between scientific opinion and how the law works in an adversarial system. The scientists have a different world view, which explains their stance. It doesn’t necessarily mean they are morally correct in the ordinary sense.

To be clear, I think they may have done more harm than good, at least temporarily, but the explanation they have (reportedly) given is far from word salad, as a pp said.

the pair stated they could not "with integrity, support arguments which are inconsistent with the available evidence, science and established physiology". They warned that other parts of the defense's appeal strategy contained "demonstrably inaccurate" claims with "fundamental unresolvable problems"

They also wrote

"Our recently published research in Diabetes Science and Technology and Frontiers in Pediatrics (Neonatology) has important implications for the insulin evidence relied on at trial. They support a scientific challenge to the prosecution interpretation of the trial evidence, and its claims insulin assay values had no possible non-malicious cause. Our scientific conclusions remain unchanged."

So they withdraw their submission (which they still say is correct) because the lawyer won't withdraw another submission (which they think is wrong). They say that to do otherwise is to "support" a submission they disagree with.

For comparison, by that logic, every expert who testified for the prosecution thereby "supported" every claim Dewi Evans made, including things he himself has since disavowed. I think many of them would be surprised to find that out.

Loads of people in the UK defend her ask anywhere you like and plenty will say she is completely innocent.

I understand it is upsetting and people get emotional about the subject it is not my aim to annoy or wind anyone up.

You say edgy i just call it being fair i do not blame her for NHS issues or the dishonesty involved in this case over a very long period of time. I feel deeply sorry for her and find it incredible she is still being punished.

It is true though and you defended her. You picked your side and decided to go with that of a baby killer. Potentially just to seem edgy. Good lord I’m glad I never did that.

If she harmed anyone i would totally agree but i do not believe any of it is true.

And there is a hell of a lot of people in the UK that totally agree with me.

Not everyone will be fooled by Lady T and government tv/news.

Some hyperbolic posts aside this came up when looking up the current process

Why the Experts Withdrew
On 14 September 2026, chemical engineering expert Helen Shannon and bioengineering professor Geoff Chase withdrew from Letby's defense team. Their decision came down to two major issues: 1]

• Inaccurate & Inconsistent Arguments: In a letter sent directly to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the pair stated they could not "with integrity, support arguments which are inconsistent with the available evidence, science and established physiology". They warned that other parts of the defense's appeal strategy contained "demonstrably inaccurate" claims with "fundamental unresolvable problems".1, 2]
• Professional and Ethical Risks: Both experts expressed that continuing to be associated with unscientific legal claims posed a severe ethical issue under professional engineering codes in the UK and New Zealand, leaving them exposed to professional sanctions. They explicitly warned that the current legal strategy was "placing the long-term interests of Ms Letby at serious, unnecessary and unacceptable risk".

You. Are. Defending. A. Baby-killer.

You would have to ask him about what happened but he prefers not to speak about it and i doubt he is a leading KC.

Every single one of you is terrified of another trial.

Give us some evidence someone is guilty it should be easy. 20m quid spent countless hours going over and over everything and the best anyone can come up with is that she spends a lot of time on facebook and goes to work.

How did she do it ? why did she do it ? why does she have no previous ? why does she not just admit it ? why do so many risk their reputation to help her ?

And yeah you’re defending a baby-murderer. Someone who killed the most vulnerable poor little defenceless humans you could imagine. For kicks. Took pleasure in their suffering and ended their little lives. They’d done nothing to her and they couldn’t defend themselves at all. You’re standing up for someone who did that, wanting her to be released into society. Absolute shame on you.

There’s no point debating with people like you because you have zero awareness of the legal process or the nature of evidence but thankfully there’s no chance of her a) getting a retrial b) being released. there really isn’t and if you think the CCRC will refer the case back to court you’re sadly mistaken.

The conspiracy tin foil madness is that she actually done it,

There is not, was not, and probably never will be any evidence.

As soon as we see some evidence we will be silent, what was it 250 witnesses and no one seen anything on a busy ward. It is actually absurd it even made it to court but i suppose we have all now seen operation hummingbird and know why and where it went so wrong for Lucy.

Do you genuinely think that a leading KC was so incompetent that he forgot to call expert witnesses? Why do you gloss over the fact that she DID have experts lined up but did not call them? Why might that be do you think? Do you genuinely think that someone who has 25 years experience running complex murder trials just thinks oh fuck it let’s not call the expert, too much hassle, let’s just call the plumber?

Im not scared of a retrial. She’s had one already and was found guilty. However there is no reason to give her one. There were no deficiencies in her defence in the first trial at all. Quite the opposite. If you look at the questions her barrister put to the experts you will see that he tried his very best to cast doubt on the prosecution evidence. The court of appeal have also said there are no grounds for appeal.

So why are people that say she is guilty terrified of a re-trial where she does have a defence that is not just a plumber ?

The trial was shambolic it was absolutely outrageous the garbage they talked it lasted ages so the jury got fed up and just went along with the judge and evans.

Had she been guilty there would be a/ evidence b/ no need for it to last so long.

Equally I find these posts odd, but I guess the threads have been running for a while and people get more hyperbolic.

Yeah it’s so so baffling but there are some really strange people out there who will believe anything conspiracy theorists tell them. Still odd that on a parenting site, the majority seem to side with a child murderer but hey 🤷‍♀️