Lucy Letby - Specifically those who think she is guilty…

Or could it just be that a regular person like you and I don’t know enough to decide if she is guilty and maybe, just maybe, we should apply a little critical thinking considering the flip flopping of the professionals and all acknowledge that miscarriage of justices can happen. This isn’t an open and shut case. The state of the department that LL worked in and the professionals who appeared at her trial who have spoken publicly since have made the waters so murky that nobody can now definitively say whether she is guilty or not. And what does that say about our NHS?

With that in mind, do you think Shoo Lee would've just not been arsed about Dewi Evans misinterpreting his research if Letby were an Asian man like him?

Oh that's rich given your failure to engage with the medical evidence, which currently points ridiculously strongly to no murders being committed, and thus renders the weak circumstantial evidence worthless.

Tell me again how the hell the "liver injury" was accomplished? Or how air down an NG tube could be administered in such volume to cause splinting of the diaphragm? Or why no evidence of air embolism was found at post mortem?

Actual evidence indeed. It's all theory, hypothesis and conjecture, plus a hefty dose of character assassination. And that is not how our justice system is supposed to work.

@Firefly1987
I don't know the ages/ sexes/ ethnicities of the Post Office workers that were wrongly accused and jailed.
However I was extremely pleased that their convictions were overturned when it became obvious there was an enormous miscarriage of justice.
I'd lay money down that they weren't all " young, blonde and female" though.
People on the whole do think far more carefully and critically than you appear to be giving them credit for.

These threads on Lucy Letby always end with Firefly writing masses of rubbish about why Lucy is guilty and by this point I decide I'm out!

Oh. This is the first LL thread I have posted on.

I don't think these cases had anything as ridiculous as the murder by air in the NG tube; venous air embolism proved via uncommon symptom of pulmonary arterial embolism; claims that it's impossible for babies to dislodge their own ETT. There are reasons people were so alarmed by the Letby case

With a name like that the documentary sounds already like its one sided.

Well you know, OP did ask specifically for the guilty side's opinions, likewise the same old people always chime in on why she's most definitely innocent 🙄

That's because they've been proven not-guilty and it was very obviously down to a computer error. Letby hasn't, she's not even close to it.

🙋🏻‍♀️ some of us have joined this thread for the first time acknowledging that have no idea if she is guilty or not but just wanting to have a conversation with people about the conviction considering everything that has come out from experts.

She is nowhere near being released. How come if she's innocent then her appeals keep being thrown out. Because she's guilty.

Yes of course. It wasn't aimed at you!

The experts-well two of them just dropped out and this is what they had to say about the remaining panels theories on the insulin poisoning-certain legal and medical arguments being advanced had "unresolvable problems" and were "inconsistent with the available evidence, science and established physiology".

Doesn't sound too hopeful? Without being able to debunk the insulin results there's no way she'll ever get out, and if she did the insulin poisoning it's obvious she did the rest too.

@Firefly1987
But you and to be fair other posters keep saying that she's only being considered to be innocent because of how she looks.
I'm disputing that and am saying that people are carefully considering the information out there that suggests that she didn't get a fair trial.
Multiple experts from different disciplines who dispute the verdict.
Witnesses who have changed their opinion or been proved to have been dishonest under oath.
No proof of actual murders.
Methods of murder which are impossible
I could go on but it's been explained many many times.

Sally Clark had 2 appeals
Birmingham 6 had 3 appeals

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

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.