Lucy Letby - Specifically those who think she is guilty…

Perhaps no one has replied because it’s obvious.

I would guess there's an overlap between people who've paid enough attention to understand the obvious weaknesses in the convictions (which doesn't mean believing she's innocent either...) and people who've paid enough attention to notice how shit the CCRC have been in recent years. If there has been an MOJ, there's no reason to think it's going to be quickly dealt with.

Agree there's no guarantee a retrial would even happen either.

I think this is a really difficult question to answer.

To me the forensic evidence looks to be in an increasingly tenuous state.

Does that mean that if this case was considered again it would even meet the threshold for prosecution ? Or would public interest outrank that ? I don't know the criteria.

Moving on from that, I think if the case goes to retrial, it could be difficult to get expertise in to back the forensic evidence for the prosecution. So would a retrial even be possible ?

OTOH there is clearly a large group of people out there who believe she is guilty and are unlikely to have their minds changed if this thread is any indication. So the convictions being quashed is obviously not going to sit well with them.

So a difficult situation to resolve.

I think most people who are questioning the conviction aren't saying "she's definitely 100% innocent" though. Most people are worried that the evidence presented/reported was misleading, rather than deliberately scapegoating.

For example, you mention that the death spike stopped when she stopped working there. Well, they also downgraded the unit from level 2 to level 1 at the same time. Since that time the unit (old and cramped) has been completely rebuilt, which they were fundraising for at the time LL worked there.

To actually determine whether you have a spike in deaths/collapses you can't just look at the raw figures, you need to analyse the data to see if there are additional factors causing it (e.g., greater acuity, more babies, other units closing, increase in problems on the maternity side, staffing problems) and whether you have a genuine outlier. A statistician was originally employed by the police but dropped after the CPS told the police not to pursue it. That was never reported in court.

To even start accusing someone of murder you have to determine whether a murder has been committed. This is the basis of the doubt that a lot of people have. There were other deaths and collapses on the unit during the period. The babies were in NICU/special care for a reason - they were either premature or sick. Saying that they were "perfectly healthy" or that they weren't expected to die when the consultants were only doing ward rounds 2 or 3 times a week instead of the expected 2 times a day means that the signs they were deteriorating could well have been missed.

You would hope that there were clear lines between something that was deliberate harm and something that was down to natural causes or poor care in an overworked, understaffed, underskilled department but I'm not sure this is the case. There were initially at least 28 "suspicious" events identified by Dr Evans. Some of these were later dropped when it was found that LL wasn't on shift so were they suspicious or not? Some of the cases were not thought suspicious at the time but were identified after a trawl through the notes. The defence were not allowed to mention any babies who were not on the indictment list.

The jury were told that the only way the insulin readings for babies F and L were possible was if someone had deliberately given them insulin that they didn't need. The prosecution came up with a theory that insulin had been added to their TPN bags. This was because in one case, although LL was there when the first bag was hung, she was off duty when it was replaced and the dubious readings continued. She would also have had to add insulin to that second bag somehow. The first bag was a prescription one where the pharmacy remove the original seal, add to the bag through a port and replace the cap with a different type of cap which could in theory be removed and replaced by someone with ill intent.

However, the bag wasn't due to be replaced and she would have no way of knowing that it was or which new bag would be used. Also the second bag was a "stock" bag which would still have been in its cellophane wrapper with the original tamper proof seal. Additionally, insulin isn't normally added to TPN bags because it "sticks" to the plastic so you can't be sure what dose you're giving. To be clear, no TPN bags were kept (this did sometimes happen) so there's no evidence that they ever contained insulin and the insulin on the ward wasn't tracked so there's no evidence that there was any missing. There's, I think, 2 other babies who also had anomalous readings from these tests which wasn't considered suspicious.

The "new" evidence from Chase and Shannon relates to whether the readings were actually suspicious in the first place. They concluded that they're not. As I understand it, their withdrawal from the defence team relates to the other possible theories - that the tests themselves were faulty - were very unlikely.

The questioning has originated from highly regarded professionals, not armchair sleuths.

They picked only deaths when she was on duty (and also not on duty for some) and Dewi made up methods of death to fit - and then changed his mind.

I've said it before, but the language of the people that are shouting guilty, is so far removed the people questioning the evidence. Why is that?

Could you tell us how you think the not English, not blonde Dr Shoo Lee would've reacted when he learned that his research had been misinterpreted in a murder trial if Letby were, say, ginger? I've asked this several times now on the thread of people who've made comments about factors pertaining to Letby's appearance and personal characteristics, but none of them have replied. Hopefully you'll be the first!

I’m still not sure about it but what I do think is that her conviction may be found to be unsafe. Just a feeling I have.

Armchair sleuths are highly problematic and ghoulish in questioning those who have convicted this person.

Remember the Moors Murders. Anyone contesting their guilt would have been regarded as almost as evil as the monsters they were protecting.

I think she is guilty because she has repeatedly been found guilty. The obsession with questioning this must be horrific for the bereaved parents and families. This would in no way happen were she not English and blonde with a sing song name. Not only that a respected person I know has links to someone on the jury whom has absolute conviction there is no way she is innocent. I find the whole debacle of contesting it rather sick.

Yes that annoys me too, the "she's definitely 100% innocent!" ... you literally can't know that on the evidence that has been presented.
Is there a reasonable doubt though, that is a valid question of course. The jury though not.
Sometimes they do get it wrong of course. So far I haven't seen anything that has convinced me that they've got it wrong and that there's reasonable doubt...but i could be wrong on that too.

Yes that is very interesting, I hadn’t heard about that case before.
And as someone else posted, it all boils down to whether there were murders at all.

When I say that I think she's more likely guilty in what I've seen so far.... it's that I mostly lean to that from the evidence I've heard or read but I haven't been through every bit of it, and even though the unusual spike of deaths ended when she stopped working with the babies, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that there's been a miscarriage of justice.

Also miscarriages of justice happen e.g. the Guildford Four, but in those cases you had malicious presenting of false evidence by police and I don't believe there has been any malicious intent to frame or scapegoat Letby. I'm not in the 'it's a fit-up" camp but at the same time I don't know for certain that crimes were definitely committed. This boils down to the medical evidence doesn't it? I have heard a doctor saying there's a chance she is innocent and the newspapers leaped all over that headline, but when you looked at what he actually said, he believed on the evidence that she's guilty and he was actually saying there was a tiny chance (in his opinion) that she was innocent.

If she really is innocent I do hope it's overturned of course.

The things thst make me think she's guilty, so far (i haven't reviewed every single court transcript,but some of them).
The timeline of what happened. E.g. , spike of suspicion deaths (way higher than ths usual even for high rosk babies). That the spike of deaths stopped after she got taken off. The instance where they finally acted was when she came back from a holiday and 3 perfectly healthy triplets all collapsed after she was with them, 2 died.
With 2 different babies when they 'took ill' she ssid 'that baby's not leaving here alive , is it" or words to that effect
The morbid levrel of interest and excitement she had about the babies collapsimg. "You'll never guess what happened!" .
The obsession smd emotional manipulation of the froend who she was in love with, the sympathy and attention she was getting from him through this. All seemed very munchausen-by-proxy.
The fact that her initial statements and then her defense differed from what she originally said quite significantly in parts andcthe judge said the jury were allowed to look at this and judhe whether it meanr dhe was lying.
The "I am evil, I did this". Yes of course that could have had another explanation re therapy and so on but definitely added to the picture
Her only sad emotion in court of actual tears was related to the guy she koved giving evidence against her.
The fact that the jury sat through all the evidence and when they weighed it all up in each case convicted her multiple times. I know jury syarems aren't fool proof.
The hospital bosses reluctantly (years after the deaths) had to get the police in. They didn't need a scapegoat , it was going to open a whole can of worms ,but they couldn't deny anymore when they had medically reviewed what had happened that they nesded to involve the police.

Is there reasonable dount re her conviction?.i don't know. But even if they review it and think there's a smidgen of doubt , we'll let her out, i still very much believe from the evidence i-ve seen so far that the biggest probability is that she did it. If they overturned her conviction tomorrow, the biggest issue wohld be to make sure that she was never in a trusted position with vulnerable babies again (which she onviously never would be) .

Do you remember the woman who was wrongly convicted of killing her own babies ?(3 of them died by cot death and an expert csme up with a probability that she did it) . I believed right from the very start that THAT was an unsafe conviction. I said, but surely there is reasonable doubt.... she has no motive, her husband believes she is innocent, it's just 1 expert saying nah it's too big of a coincisence that they all died... i could see at the time that that was deeply flawed and chances were she hadn't done it. This is very different when u listen or read the testimonies of what hapoebed each babt and the medical evidence.

The policeman who led the Beverley Allit investigation has said pretty much the same thing as you and I imagine he knows a thing or two about medical serial killers.

I’m surprised you think ‘lying’ in interviews is hard to explain away. Is not the simplest explanation that when someone is interviewed repeatedly by police, for many hours, over and over again about the same things, many of which would be things most people would be unlikely to remember like what happened at a certain time on a certain date, they are frightened and exhausted, not sleeping due to anxiety…and they make mistakes? They get muddled up? I know I would.
Add to that the fact that when Lucy’s and another witness’s accounts conflict, the prosecution will go all in on declaring Lucy is lying, and add that to the picture they are painting of her as thoroughly dishonest, even though sometimes she’s actually not wrong. Look what they did with the ambiguity over pyjamas/tracksuit. She’s going to be on the back foot because accusing either a senior doctor or a bereaved parent of being wrong won’t look good for her - she’s arrogant if she contradicts a doctor and just plain evil if she contradicts a parent.

The leading expert, Dr Evans, is not convincing. It is also odd that there is absolutely no motive, and that none of her friends appear to believe that she would do such a thing.

However, the diary entries (even if she were advised to "get her feelings out" that way, they are troubling), taking sensitive documents home and lying to police about small things in interviews are hard to explain away.

This is what I find so infuriating about this innocence conspiracy-if people were looking at this objectively they'd be asking why a baby is crashing the minute LL is near. Instead it's all deflection and ooh is there anything we can debunk-oh yes the doctor didn't write a perfect email so she must be innocent!

Ironically, not an objective description of the situation.

It is clear what event Dr Jayaram was talking about, because he gave the time of the associated deterioration in his email.

At the same time, they stuck with their own findings and their report is with the CCRC. Scientists disagreeing on the chances of a specific error and effects on hyperinsulinism on the insulin tests is the kind of tension we see when people are going at the scientific problems in good faith and under pressure. It's not clear how relevant their objections are to the case the defence has actually made

I can’t decide if I think LL is guilty or not, but here’s what I don’t get.

I read, watch, and listen to a lot of true crime stuff, and have for about twenty years. Serial killers always have backgrounds where, once their crimes are discovered, you can “see the signs.” They displayed symptoms of a personality disorder as a child, or they came from an abusive family, or they suffered from severe mental health issues, or they had a long history of less violent crime. What signs are there in Letby’s background that would hint that she might end up murdering multiple infants? Or even hint that she might end up being any type of criminal at all?

Her background is almost boringly normal. (Even her cats’ names are pretty bland and predictable.) She was maybe a little emotionally over-dependent on her parents, but that’s not terribly uncommon among young adult only children. (I’m an only child.) During her training, she was evaluated as being “not warm” and lacking in interpersonal skills, but that’s not pathological so much as it suggests that being a children’s nurse was probably not a natural fit for her. She was able to maintain friendships and social ties. As far as I know, she wasn’t a compulsive liar or a kleptomaniac or anything else that suggests she thought she could get away with whatever she wanted.

Where’s the weirdness? People this “beige” don’t just wake up one morning and escalate from a law-abiding, normal life to murdering several babies.

The trouble with all these documentaries is that they select the evidence they want to create the picture they want the viewer to take. And there's no counter.

At the trial you had the prosecution selecting the evidence they thought painted a picture of guilt (with a public duty to reveal evidence that didn't fit that picture but might be relevant) and the defence painting the picture that she wasn't guilty. The deck is already stacked for the accused in court and the jury still found the prosecution more compelling. That's inherently more trustworthy than a one sided documentary.

There are sometimes miscarriages of justice; it's possible the defence did a spectacularly poor job. But there are decent processes for that and they haven't convinced judges that things need looking at again yet either. So a documentary on TV that wants to paint a picture of innocence is not going to convince me.

For me the issue is not so much that he caught her "not doing anything " (though I do absolutely believe him 100%) it's the fact Lucy was only left a few mins to watch this baby whilst the designated nurse went elsewhere (to chat to the parents I think) so why was the tube out in the first place? This is what I find so infuriating about this innocence conspiracy-if people were looking at this objectively they'd be asking why a baby is crashing the minute LL is near. Instead it's all deflection and ooh is there anything we can debunk-oh yes the doctor didn't write a perfect email so she must be innocent!

In fact the baby crashed another two times with Letby there and the tube had moved again (been pushed further in this time I think) so it's not even clear which occasion Dr Jayaram is talking about.

Lucy Letby was accused of tampering with Baby K’s breathing tube on three separate occasions during the same night shift

Yes maybe she did call him the other two times. He's not going to make-up the whole scenario is he? Why would he?

Why would she do that if she was killing it?

Well this serial killer nurse did-

Genene Jones (United States)
Working as a licensed vocational nurse in Texas during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Genene Jones was convicted of murdering infants by injecting them with lethal doses of medications, including heparin and succinylcholine, to induce medical crises. She reportedly did this to simulate emergencies so she could "save" them and receive praise. While she was officially convicted in connection to two infants, investigators suspect she may have been responsible for the deaths of up to 60 children. 1]

I for one can’t answer because I have no idea if she is guilty or not. That doesn’t mean I think her trial was fair, nor her department was functioning as it should and there weren’t other issues there and also that the professionals called to her trial were all reliable. Frankly i think it is a fucking shit show and if she is guilty then the incompetence of her seniors and the department she worked in has made it all very murky and if she is innocent then they have ruined her life and fucked over the families who lost their babies ☹️ No winners either way

So folk who think she's innocent. What do you think is next. Doesn't matter how many folk think she's innocent and no muders were committed. She's in prison. Who's going to release her.

Seriously, watch The Jury on Ch4 - especially the latest series. See who sits on our juries, see how they manipulate each other, see how they don’t understand what is being asked of them and have made their minds up within the first minute or 2, see how they think and speak of other people - it is disturbing. I don’t know what the alternative is to jury’s but I know I trust them less now