Lucy Letby (2)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

But you responded to me and I don't think either a) or b)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mixed feelings about Thirlwall. Glad to see the recommendation on multidisciplinary panels. Why do they include four managers?! I go back and forth on CCTV or cotcams. Will they really capture everything? I wonder what nurses think of them.

Thirlwall conclusions are pretty much what you would conclude if you thought Lucy Letby was guilty: doctors were right, nurses and managers were wrong, people should have responded urgently after seven deaths in four months. Unit dysfunctional, management failings, communications awful. Doesn't touch on new expert evidence, as you'd expect. Lots of details is contest. Nothing new if you have been following the Inquiry. Certainly no new proofs or indicators of guilt.

The best perspective I've seen on it has been from the Guardian:

>So during two years and £18m spent on so much legal inquiry, the question has not been answered, nor was it allowed to be asked: how and why did Cheshire constabulary and the Crown Prosecution Service, and the doctors they recruited as expert witnesses, come to so wholly different a conclusion about the causes of death, from all the experts that had looked at the same medical evidence before?

If the inquiry can't answer that question, how is it expecting future experts to spot future Letbys? A failure of conviction that it never asked this question at all.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/sep/15/thirlwall-inquiry-left-biggest-questions-lucy-letby-case-unanswered

Supporters seems odd as a way to view this. If two of the defence team have acted as they have it’s because they are concerned about the safeness of the conviction.

They haven’t become LL ‘supporters’. It’s a legal issue that is being looked at rn.

Well, by saying ' supporters' I was actually using the exact word they used on the BBC six o'clock news.