Lucy Letby - Specifically those who think she is guilty…

"those who still think she is guilty" 🙄

The docus all have the lean towards " is she innocent" because that's what will pull in views - I think people want her to be innocent.

A one hour or even two or three or four docu, and there have been a few, "she's innocent!" against the information gone through at the trial. Which found her guilty.

The trial lasted over 10 months.

9 months of that was evidence giving - witnesses, experts, Letby herself.

Unsurprisingly after that amount of information the jury took 22 days to reach it's verdict. 22 days of going over everything they'd heard and been shown.

Not an hour. 10 months in total. And for all those who will say "oh but the experts have changed their minds now!" 9 months of evidence was a lot more than a handful of experts and their opinions, it was day to day, hour by hour examination of those poor babies short lives and where Letby was, minute by minute sometimes. It was background info, Letby shouted at her supervisor because she'd been put in Nursery 3 after two baby deaths and she wanted, demanded, to be back Nursery 1 "I've told them how I feel and I think that should be respected" - etc.etc.etc. So much more than just a few heads on a one docu.

I doubt she would want to or be in any fit state to. She wouldn't go back on the register automatically anyway. But we couldn't keep her in jail just because people would be uncomfortable with the prospect.

Didn’t an international panel of expert neonatologists conclude that the babies had not been murdered but died because of medical incompetence by doctors? Lucy Letby is a scapegoat.

Have you looked at the panel of expert doctors who have questioned the safety of her conviction? It's not a group of white women. But most people in this country are white, and it is mostly white people one sees in the media doubting the safety of her conviction, and defending it.

I don't think it's sensible to try to turn this into a dispute about race.

Expert panel findings are at : https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/#shoolee

Neonatal care isn’t my specialty but I do work in a related area. I’m trying to think of a good way to say this, but I’m struggling a bit. Think of neonatal medicine as pushing a rock uphill. It’s not an impossibly heavy rock, so it’s doable, but it’s a question of steady progress, and occasionally you might hit a divot so need to push harder, or change your grip on the rock, or you might hit an unexpectedly smooth hit and have some easy steps. Neonatal medicine is largely about keeping going forward, and making small adjustments overall to keep the baby stable - tackling infections, working on feeding etc - so that their own bodies have the time to play catch up. Babies can take a sudden turn for the worse, of course, but on the whole, babies who have shown a long pattern of improvement and are almost ready for discharge don’t just suddenly die.

Neonatal unit care offers a tiered system - usually you’ll have a NICU, where very sick babies who need a lot of support go, and then you’ll have a SCBU, where babies who are unwell but not critical or who have improved enough to step down off NICU go, and then you’ll have a neonatal nursery, or transitional care, or bedding in unit where babies are essentially well but who need a bit of extra support - maybe ongoing medications or tube feeds - and there might be cares that the parents are being taught prior to discharge. A number of the babies that Letby was charged in the deaths of fell very much into this category, and babies like that don’t just die on their own out of the blue.

There were also a number of multiples who died - whilst multiples can and do die, the most common is that the baby who is in the poorest condition at birth usually dies at or fairly soon after birth, whilst the other/others go on to have a longer NICU journey, and again - sometimes babies who have got almost well do die, however the odds of this happening to both/all 3 of a set are extremely tiny.

Furthermore, it is very odd how much she tried to insert herself into the families’ grief and the way she responded to the deaths from an emotional perspective- this simply isn’t the norm, and there were some absolutely huge behavioural red flags.

Almost every neonatologist and neonatal nurse I know, and that’s quite a lot, are convinced of her guilt on the balance of the evidence, and that’s just the publicly available evidence - more would have been available to the jury.

The unit itself sounds very poorly run, but again in the cases of a failing unit, deaths tend to come in clusters with a specific reason, ie you might see a spike in deaths close together from a particular type of infection, or from a lack of timely intervention, or from a specific type of drug error due to poor education practices. The diffuse pattern of the deaths is also in itself a red flag.

Both can be true though. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. The hospital was in a poor state, and Lucy Letby was guilty.

Absolutely. Imo the jury system is no longer fit for purpose wherever technical/complex evidence needs to be considered.

ETA I meant to quote @ThisDandyWriter re accountancy fraud

If her conviction is overturned she would be allowed to go back to a nursing role.

I wonder how many of those campaigning would be comfortable with her taking care of their loved ones. I know I wouldn’t.

That.

Exactly.

Would another jury at a retrial be 'so certain that they are sure' of her guilt?

I think her defence team need looked at very closely. the mounted virtually no defence, they called no witnessess.
There were plenty of statisticians, medics and scientists who would have testified that the claims made by the prosecution were not supported by the science. The were never called. Why?
The lack of a defence alone is grounds for a mistrial) be that through malpractice or incompetence .

Also said she did nothing wrong.

So if we’re convicting her on the basis of her own words, she needs immediate release.

But that would be silly, wouldn’t it?

It’s not unexplained at all.
The deaths coincided with a period when staffing was cut to the bone, Letby was one of the most experienced nurses at times despite being in her 20s because the nurses with decades of experience had been let go to save money.
Consultants were doing 2 ward rounds a week instead of the more usual 2 or 3 A DAY. The doctors were paediatricians rather than neonatologists leading to several instances of poor medical care which the jury wasn’t told about. The hospital was in such a bad state there was sewage backing up through the taps and dripping through the ceiling. Despite all this the hospital was taking babies of a higher level of acuity than they should have been.
An international panel of world leading neonatologists and other relevant experts has explained in detail what they think happened to each baby and their conclusion is there were no murders at all, but a hospital that should have been closed down.
I won’t say we’re a laughing stock because I don’t think anyone is laughing but being so deeply in denial about the effects of inadequate hospital care that we have to come up with the idea of a serial killer and fit up the nurse who was unlucky enough to be present for the most deaths is pretty embarrassing.

Her own writing confirming she was guilty. "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough," "I don't deserve to live," "I am a horrible evil person," and in capital letters, "I AM EVIL I DID THIS".

Should we have left Sally Clarke in jail, then?

The only important thing is ‘did they do it’s (and in this case that means ‘were crimes committed’.

The endless fixation on her sex and appearance is tedious beyond belief, it really is. I have no idea why some think it’s OK for a black or Asian person to serve time in prison for a crime they didn’t commit. I don’t think that; if you do, we won’t agree.

I haven't seen a new documentary but I did watch the one released a few months back and I actually went from being fairly convinced she was wrongly convicted to being more open to the idea she did do it.

First of all, (based only from this doc, there could be explanations out there I haven't see) there was no answer as to how the babies ended up being given too much insulin. And then there's the fact she barely gave any defence of herself.
I know it's easy to say you'd act a certain way, or say certain things in her shoes but from the interview footage I saw, she didn't seem to be defending herself at all. Of course, there could be many reasons for that and they have only selected partial clips to air, so there'll be hours and hours of footage we've never seen, which is why I'm on the fence. I also would not take a lot of consideration of what people on Facebook have to say.

Nothing of what I've seen so far can convince me either way. But my opinion doesn't matter. Only those with all of the facts and evidence are in a position to make that decision, which they did.

It is an oddity of the judicial system that you can be tried for multiple separate murders at once, where the jury's consideration of the others is likely to influence their decision in any particular case - whereas prior convictions are usually excluded from evidence on the grounds that juries should consider each case in isolation.

The main question I would raise is relation to all the evidence supposedly getting her off is why wasn't this evidence given at trial or accepted on appeal?

The other explanation is what you see in Sussex, Oxford, Nottingham etc - a hospital not coping with complex cases but carrying on until the evidence that something is wrong is overwhelming.

In this case, Chester started taking on higher numbers of vulnerable babies from April 2015, and had a spike in deaths from June 2015 to July 2016, when it stopped taking such children.

Unfortunately we see spikes in deaths like this without murder at hospitals around the UK. The consultants on the unit, each of whom was there one week in seven + on call at home at night, weren't specialists in care of newborns. They only hired a neonatologist after July 2016.

I think it was a particularly harrowing cases so the pressure to convict was a lot greater than say, case where. had two adults being involv in a knife fight.

Look how long the mum on trial has got int America for killing her children, Lucy’s case seemed more rushed.

She was convicted with unanimous verdicts on some charges and Majority 10-1 on others and found guilty. Those conviction stand,her court of appeal bid was rejected,a major public enquiry confirmed her guilt. V new arguments and expert assessments have been complied by LL supporters and legal team to challenge her convictions which are being reviewed by CCRC.
So,for me she remains guilty ,if the CCRC evaluate the new arguments.evidence is sufficient grounds her case will go back to the court of appeal.
Personally ,i will reserve judgement until due process has happened.
Deciding LL isnt guilty from medis reports,speculation or a tv documentary seems unwise.

I’m generally someone who enjoys going down the conspiracy rabbit holes and also questioning the narrative we sometimes get fed to us. However, on this occasion I’ve never wavered in thinking she was guilty. I genuinely just think we struggle to believe that a young, white, blonde woman could commit such horrific crimes like this. I also think it looks much worse for the hospital to have a neonatal serial killer than it does to have management and staff failings so there’s little incentive for them to make this up to cover their own arses. It’s an incredibly sad case, but I do think she’s guilty.

Well an international panel of experts think that nobody murdered them.

Except arguably the manager running a dangerously disfunctional unit or the undertrained doctors undertaking procedures they ahouldnt have been doing?

This.

This doctor only started working at the hospital after five of the seven babies had died. Only two of the fifteen cases she has been convicted for took place while he was on duty, if we look at testimony from the trial

A prosecution barrister flung in the accusation about her wanting his attention at cross-examination. You can make this sort of flimsy accusation in cross examination to try to draw out a response - it's not the same as building a case, which would have been pretty difficult based on the facts

This.