Lucy Letby - Specifically those who think she is guilty…

@TonyDancer it really doesn’t matter because it isn’t indicative of her guilt or otherwise. This case is unique as the only question is whether a crime was committed or not. If it indisputably was, Letby is guilty, and I think that’s why some can’t move away from this stance because in their eyes, murder did happen and if we were all to agree on this point it would be hard to argue against Letby being responsible.

But if there were no murders at all, then Letby could have the strangest mother ever, terrible twee taste in house decor, hundreds of cats, a penchant for married men. It still doesn’t make someone a murderer if no murders happened.

She knew what her daughter was being arrested for. The police inquiry opened a year before any arrests, and this wasn't even the first arrest.

If Netflix had shown the first arrest first, it would have been Lucy Letby breaking down and crying.

Neither silly nor even a unique case, just look at the wrongful conviction and later acquittal of a Dutch nurse for a very similarly constructed "series" of infant deaths:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk_case

I’ve always found that response from her mother deeply odd. Did what? How did she know her daughter had done anything? Did she assume her daughter was guilty?

People really think it’s been made up that multiple babies were murdered, and attempted to be murdered, and this woman was framed? I think that’s silly.

I think people struggle to comprehend that this pretty white woman in a nice job in a position of trust could do something so horrific, and so they turn to conspiracy instead. She’s been found guilty for a reason.

Well it does because wouldn’t your first reaction be to ask the police why they were there, not scream “take me”???

I’m not sure there is a manual on the correct response upon hearing that your only child has been sentenced to die in prison.

It is the endless comments like this I think I find so bizarre in themselves. Her mother said this; she had a shredder, she wanted to say goodbye to her cat, there was a poster with sparkles on her wall, her diary had a cartoon on it.

It. Doesn’t. Matter!

It doesn’t matter.

She hadn’t even been tried when the mother said that let alone sentenced!

I’m not sure there is a manual on the correct response upon hearing that your only child has been sentenced to die in prison.

It is the endless comments like this I think I find so bizarre in themselves. Her mother said this; she had a shredder, she wanted to say goodbye to her cat, there was a poster with sparkles on her wall, her diary had a cartoon on it.

It. Doesn’t. Matter!

I’m not sure there is a manual on the correct response upon hearing that your only child has been sentenced to die in prison.

It is the endless comments like this I think I find so bizarre in themselves. Her mother said this; she had a shredder, she wanted to say goodbye to her cat, there was a poster with sparkles on her wall, her diary had a cartoon on it.

It. Doesn’t. Matter!

She wasn’t that young, she was a 34 year old woman when convicted the same as I am now, she just came across as mummy and daddy’s little girl.
A mummy who was prepared to take the blame for her when she said “I did it, take me instead”

The use of experts in trails has been heavily reformed since Sallys conviction; I used to work in criminal regulatory law where expert evidence was usual, very complex and technical, and assessing differing viewpoints difficult, but essential. Even for judges.

After Reefer and Wilkins cases (I think! It’s been a while) Gvt guidance was published Part 19 of the Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR) which essentially says that experts on the opposite sides need to duke it out beforehand as much as possible. Experts’ duty is not to their appointing side either, it is to the court, to help the court decide on the matters of fact. Experts are I think meant to submit a joint paper to the court where they outline the key facts, those they both agree on and importantly those where they don’t.

I can only surmise that the defence tried and struggled to find experts able to defend the defendants position, and /or rebut the prosecution position well enough that they would agree to do so. Other experts may and have come forward outside of the court procedure of course, the court of public opinion is easier one to hold forth in, without pesky professional duty and standards applying!

I do wonder if a further inquisitorial rather than an adversarial approach would assist courts better on technical matters in cases.

You've lost me.

I haven't "linked the whole transcript as evidence of some "facts" someone made up about Lucy Letby sneaking around the wards illicitly at night" 🤔

I have simply linked to the transcripts because someone asked for that. Everything that was said in court is in the transcripts. The transcripts are the transcripts, read as much or as little as you want, find a word or phrase or whatever you are checking.

As I've said I've found it very useful to read what was actually said rather than others summaries. Slow going though, regardless of sides it is always in one's mind that you are reading about the deaths of babies, I can only read so much each time before I need a break.

Sure. That's why linking the whole transcript as evidence of some "facts" someone made up about Lucy Letby sneaking around the wards illicitly at night doesn't help anyone.

I don't think people are saying that. They are saying that she has been found guilty more than once by a court of law and two different juries. They had information others don't. If there is genuinely new evidence that wasn't considered previously then her lawyers can apply to appeal if the evidence is conclusive she will be allowed to appeal.

Exeter uni research say it takes an average of around 10 years from date of wrongful conviction to successful appeal and many take longer Andrew Malkinson spent 17 years in prison and fought for 20 years to clear his name.

Despite knowing about a 2007 breakthrough involving an unknown male's DNA in Malkinson case the* *CCRC twice rejected his case (in 2012 and 2020), refusing to order further modern DNA testing or request the police files. This institutional failure forced Malkinson to spend an extra decade in prison.

In several prominate cases these wrongful convitions have involved expert witnesses - like Sally Clark - giving evidence outside their experience or dubious disputed evidence at the time to courts.

We've has spate of miscarraige of justice in past decades that have hit headlines - post office scandle alone had 900 indiduals prosecuted - 236 sub-postmasters were sent to prison , 3500 branch owner-operators were falsely accused or faced demands to cover shortfalls caused by system bugs. I was reading computer weekly in early 2000s and read about it then - took a public outcry and till 2024 and an act of parliment to overturn those convictions.

Yes she can and likely is appealing but this case and frankly I've no idea if she is guilty or not but this case is raising wider concerns about expert witness in trials and how NHS handles situations like these and how good our current court system is.

Yes me too, and it is so important to see and read for oneself what was actually said rather than hear others interpretations.

She had 91 handover sheets in her possession at the time of her arrest. One of the sheets was notes written by another nurse about medication/obs etc. on one of the babies which Letby agreed would have been put in the bin once the other nurse had finished writing up her notes from it. Counsel asked her "when she had fished it out of the bin" Letby replied that she had "never fished anything out of a bin" Asked then how she came to have the paper in question she replied "I cannot recall".

I've read all the prosecution in examination and cross examination, opening and closing. Yet to finish reading everything - the outstanding transcripts were only uploaded yesterday. But based on full reading of the prosecution case, I can say that some of the claims made here - not by you I know - are either misunderstandings or pure misrepresentations.

I've certainly found the transcripts very helpful in forming and testing my understanding of the case

https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/transcripts.html

The trial transcripts.

Please cite the direct source for that to establish whether that was prosecution hypothesis / speculation or proven fact. As Google with those terms brings up nothing even when including trial transcripts in the search terms.