Lucy Letby - Specifically those who think she is guilty…

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.

I think high profile cases like this are obviously going to be of interest to the general public and covered in the media.

However the angle is important. There is a difference between media coverage which is basically laying out the facts of the case, the trial and the events that led to the conviction, and media coverage that continually questions the safety of the conviction and the evidence. One is more historical reporting, the other investigative journalism.

If serious questions around the safety of the conviction and the evidence didn't exist, then the main media coverage would be focused on the historical aspect, not questioning the evidence that was used for the conviction.

To me it's fairly clear to see where the main media focus currently is, and the reason it is focused on this particular aspect is because they believe there are questions here that need to be answered. If these questions did not exist, then neither would this type of media coverage.

I think the media does have an important part to play in exposing miscarriages of justice. This has happened in many cases historically.

I wouldn't expect the success of review/appeal of any case to be based solely on media coverage, but I would expect that any body judging whether or not an appeal should be heard or deciding on for example whether a retrial should go ahead would examine media findings and take them into account in their decisions, or at least investigate the media findings and decide whether the questions they ask are of merit or have some contribution to make to their decision.

...a major public enquiry confirmed her guilt...

No it didn't.

Regardless of the merits of the case or the verdict, the public enquiry operated on the basis that the babies had been murdered, not neglected or otherwise failed, and that they had been murdered by a nurse not a doctor or manager etc. It never considered whether LL had or had not done this.

It was necessity to be able to run the enquiry and why all its recommendations basically require monitoring (cctv, or dual attendance) of nurses and similar activities.

Both can.

But the poster she was replying to was saying there was no other explanation than murder other than a massive coincidence.

@OftenaddledIt’s not nonsense, it’s in the bloody court transcripts. And the sewerage matter was also raised in court. But like you said foolish people believe what they want to believe.

I must have missed that. Most of the discussion here seems to be about the evidence, or lack of it, depending on your viewpoint. About failures in procedures. About who did or didn’t do what. Not so much about motivation/character etc.

The court transcripts are online @Lina012 . Go and quote them. Or quote someone quoting them as a start. I don't want to be rude to you because you may just be trusting someone else.

But again, those claims you have made are absolute nonsense. Completely false. Inaccurate, untrue, fabricated, made up.

(Yes I think it's well known that the claims about sewage were made in court too).

Yeah I think you have. In this thread alone there've been several such posts.

• Text messages and social media lookups matching the timing of clinical crises (described by prosecutors as overlapping with or "live-blogging" events).
• Falsified or altered medical documentation, including changed timings on notes and logs recording care or observations.
• Handwritten Notes: Post-it notes and diary entries featuring phrases expressing anguish or self-blame ("I am evil I did this," "I killed them on purpose").
• Witness Testimony / Conduct: Accounts from colleagues regarding specific incidents, observations of unexpected rapid recoveries when interventions occurred, and behavior or statements during testimony that the jury rejected as dishonest.

Bring present at every death. Shifts etc.

Fucking selfish sicko. Bloody sick way to go around getting a doctor's attention. Wonder how she'd like it done to a baby of hers. 🤢

Then please link or copy and paste the relevant sections as the transcripts are now freely available.

There were no social media searches overlapping events. There were text messages before and after events, and on nights when there were no events. Maybe best not to trust AI on this one.

The doctor in question only started on the unit after the first five deaths and was present for only two of the fifteen attacks she was convicted of. (On one of those two days, he offered to bring her lunch. She said no thanks. He offered to lend her his car. She said no thanks).

It's not a very convincing pattern. The poor man is dead now. I think that if people want to throw him into their fantasies around this case they should try to look at all the facts and not jump at the most sensational possibilities.

Also handwritten notes (on the same bit of paper) saying “I haven’t done anything wrong” and similar phrases. 🤷‍♀️

she was told by her occupation health counsellor to write all her thoughts up and that by vomiting everything in her head onto paper it would help her process it. A very well known forensic psychologist in the most recent documentary said it’s perfectly normal for an innocent person accused of such a crime to have fleeting thoughts of , did I do it, I’m a bad person, I’m evil, maybe I did this. He was quite clear it’s not an admission of guilt.

You can know everything that was said in court. You can read the transcripts.

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

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 think people seriously underesrimate the psychological effects of being told by authority figures over a prolonged period of time that you did something when you know you didn't. It is akin to institutional gaslighting.

Most people bumble along through their lives without experiencing a false accusation, and while they may have some doubts about authority institutions, it's hard to accept that systems and the people working in them could fuck up to such a degree as it appears to have happened in this case.

Even if you do, Heaven forbid, end up in such a situation, you start by thinking it's just a mistake, and if you tell the truth all will be well. After all, what possible reason could there be for you to be apparently victimised by these people. You may be told it's not personal, even when official reports are dependent on dissecting everything about you, your family, your circumstances etc on an extremely personal level, all interpreted through the lens of experts or officials, a number of whom you've never even met.

If you have been brought up to accept personal respinsibility, and to defer to authority figures after a while the relentless pressure can make self doubt a default setting. Even if the situation does resolve "favourably", because if the length of time it takes for legal / official proceedings to process, the mere fact if the accusation, and the knowledge that some people still believe you're guilty / have gotten away with something, can lead to CPTSD. And often there is little in the way of support - you are just supposed to accept you're "unlucky", pull yourself together and get on with it, often with dozens of unaddressed issues floating around in your head while you "act normal", because your trust in authority / institutions / systems has been completely eradicated.

Also, if such a situation goes on for long enough, false confessions are a huge risk. A person may truly start to believe the official narrative, or just want something to change, because that might bring relief. And at that point, what price truth or justice ?

https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/transcripts.html

The trial transcripts.

No, I want the relevant section please, not the whole transcript.

I dont think she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I think a shit load of understaffing, under training and arse covering went on.
As an aside - has anyone watched The Jury on ch4? It’s quite worrying how people like these can decide ones fate.
Rightly or wrongly I always come back to:
Sally Clark
Angela Cannings
Trupti Patel
Donna Anthony
All found guilty of killing their babies. None of them were.

We should never believe juries are infallible. We should always keep an open mind.

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

An awful lot of paper that would normally end up in the bin doesn't go in bin - left on the side and she grabbed it to make a note on is by far the most likely explanation. Hardly something she would remember nearly a decade on.

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.

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.