The Guardian today on the safety of the Lucy Letby convictions

[Kittybythelighthouse]

This article was apparently months in the making but it was delayed by the reporting restrictions https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question

“A Guardian investigation has interviewed dozens of these experts and seen further evidence from emails and documents. Those raising concerns include several leading consultant neonatologists, some with current or recent leadership roles, and several senior neonatal nurses. Others are public health professionals, GPs, biochemists, a leading government microbiologist, and lawyers. Several of those still working in the NHS have asked to remain anonymous, fearing the impact if they are named.

These experts said they were acutely aware of the suffering of the families involved and did not want to reopen their trauma, but were so troubled they felt compelled to become involved”

People who are genuinely interested should listen to the trial podcasts, or read the transcripts. This should be used to make a decision rather than relying on so-called journalists with their own agendas.

There was a year long police investigation, and before that the hospital did everything they could to protect her. After the arrest, it took another 2 years before it even went to trial.
To pretend that this was a hatchet job, or some conspiracy, or that there "isn't enough evidence" is insulting to the families of those poor babies.

The halo effect works both ways, conventionally attractive women have been found to get longer sentences for crimes where they benefit from their looks. It seems like a lot of the motive was put down to her being obsessed with a married doctor which plays into a lot of troupes in western society surrounding ‘bunny boilers’.
Im in no way saying she’s definitely innocent but I don’t think her appearance would elect sympathy from a jury if it was suggested that she was doing this to gain attention from a male doctor.

I thought he did go to the police in the end? Obviously it’s not an easy thing to do straightaway & he might’ve felt it a bit too hasty without all the facts.
I read he tried to follow protocol & go through the correct channels initially, but in the end, I thought he did go to the police & I think that is what started the criminal investigation?

The jurors were told that they should take into account her previous convictions and reminded that she is a “serial baby murderer” ten times a day. Dr Jarayam’s story about the event with Baby K changed three times across the course of the investigation/trials. Nurse Williams disagrees with his version of events. I personally do not find him credible.

Weren't her diary entries that she killed them because she wasn't good enough? It could be interpreted as she wasn't a good enough nurse to keep the alive. I'm not sure how strong the diaries alone were considering the time frame being after accusations.

I think looking at everything there is enough evidence though, my opinion is she did sabotage the babies but potentially for the "thrill" of treating them/calling everyone in than intending them to die each time. The air injected and insulin just aren't possible otherwise so unless there were multiple other people framing her whilst harming the babies (possible but extremely unlikely) it seems the only option.

That investigation has likely already been carried out - I’m sure it would’ve occurred to them to first look at natural or negligent causes before coming to the conclusion of deliberate sabotage/murder. This case took years to come to court, what did you think was being done all that time?

Doctors have a legal responsibility under GMC rules, as well as the same moral one we all share, to go immediately to the police if harm to any child is suspected. The police came into it a year and a half later after Jarayam and Brearey lost the grievance dispute against Letby. It is not “protocol” in any hospital to treat an active serial killer as a HR matter, indeed it would be illegal if it were protocol.

In the recent retrial a guilty verdict, as directed by the judge, hinged on Jarayam’s testimony that he “caught her red handed” and had his “suspicions confirmed” that she was a serial killer. This means his testimony was either untrue or an admission of medical malpractice, that led to the death of other infants, as he should have immediately went to the police. What he actually did was allow her to finish that shift unhindered and not say a word about it to anyone. The police came into it over a year later. This is indefensible in my opinion. One of the parents actually called this out too in the Daily Mail last week.

I find it strange that people are so certain she isn’t guilty and that the evidence was flawed and yet have not seen the evidence. People wave aside the feelings of the family and the entire
police investigation based on ‘gut feelings’.

What is the point of having a justice system if the newspapers are just going to go for trial by the court of public opinion?

Absolutely she should be able to have her conviction reviewed by a judge. But remember that there are also very famous cases where the media applied pressure for retrials and overturned convictions for people who were very clearly guilty because the public had persuaded itself that there was no way the person could be guilty.

Actually in some parts the public have seen more complete evidence than the jury did - on the shift rota the experts have flagged up what is in the full data set, whilst the jury was shown a cherry picked subset designed to make it appear in a specific way to the jury.

@lawnseed Have you read any of the details about how the investigation was run? Each death was investigated separately to prevent cross contamination of evidence. Only once each detective team was ready to present did they have the case conference to discuss the outcomes. That was when they discovered that Lucy was the common factor in all the cases. The hospital investigation had no relevance on the police case.

@EssexMan55 How do you know this?

“The air injected and insulin just aren't possible otherwise so unless there were multiple other people framing her whilst harming the babies (possible but extremely unlikely) it seems the only option.”

There are serious doubts by many experts over the air injection and insulin evidence. It’s quite possible that didn’t happen at all and very good reasons to doubt it. It therefore doesn’t require someone else doing it and framing her. The article does address that. It’s actually the major point of the article.

The searching for parent on Facebook seems misconstrued. She had made thousands of Facebook searches overall, there was a couple of a few of the parents, alongside no searches at all for other parents.
It doesn't make it any better, but it speaks again to the motive being more cold seeking of attention than interest in the specific babies.

Doubting the safety of the convictions isn’t the same thing as being “so certain she isn’t guilty”.

A slew of experts in relevant fields having concerns based on fact and reason isn’t “gut feelings”

Nobody is asking for a “trial in the court of public opinion”. A sober and rational review of the evidence is needed. That’s all that’s being asked for.

Didn't she find an unattended baby, the doctors had left without telling the nurses, they had turned the monitor off and she called for help and raised the emergency alarm. What happened to those doctors and an investigation.

I am completely astonished at how many people still think she's innocent. If it was five or six cases then maybe there could have been a mistake, but the sheer numbers of babies involved makes this impossible

Those babies were murdered, someone did things to them to make them die. Either it was one person, clearly with a serious mental condition (possibly psychopathic personality, I'm not an expert) or else held the staff in material and neonatal units routinely go around killing their little charges.

Im afraid I agree with the PO who says that this hinges around her being an attractive young blonde, which is why every story about her has the photo of her holding up the little baby suit, smiling and looking lovely. Bias and prejudice works both ways, and is probably the cause of the death of several babies at her hands which could have been prevented. If you think attractive young blonde women cannot be capable of unbelievable evil just read the a counts of Nazi concentration camp survivors.

Oh fgs, of course she did it. Maybe they should re look at Harold Shipman as well?!

My concern is about the scrutiny of the evidence. Complex medical evidence is open to expert interpretation and two highly qualified experts can have two different opinions based on many factors- their own experience, research, access to different specialusms etc.

If medical evidence cannot provide a definitive explanation of an event then it makes a conviction based on opinion, not fact, unsafe.

Only Lucy Letby knows whether she is guilty or innocent, but if she is guilty then maintaining innocence at this point does her no favours in the prison system. It will impact how her lifetime in prison goes.

I was also concerned at some of the Judges directions to the jury regarding belief in one method of injury in one case being a good basis to apply it to others (or words to that effect). That strikes me as unsound.

I states this in the guardian article and also other articles by experts on statistics.

What a stupid comment.

Despite their claims that they fully investigated other possibilities, the Police released a ‘documentary’ they made about their investigation which makes it clear that they uncritically took what Brearey and Jarayam came to them with (I.e Lucy Letby suspicions) and ran with it. They even got the consultants, who should have been suspects along with everyone else, to gather evidence for them. They openly admit to this themselves. They were far too dazzled by what they call “the clever doctors” and so the snow ball rolled. They did an atrocious job in this investigation.

The triplets were what convinced me and child G. It is clear they were deliberately attacked by someone.

If you want to refresh your memory then here are the family statements from after the conviction.

news.sky.com/story/the-victims-of-lucy-letby-and-full-statements-from-their-parents-12944426

I am totally prepared to believe she did do it - after all Shipman was a much-loved and otherwise diligent doctor and he absolutely was a serial killer.

However I have, from the start, been underwhelmed by the evidence presented. A lot, if not most, of it is circumstantial with the rather damning diary entries and post its dating from after her arrest. I think most of us would be in turmoil if accused of murdering babies.

Clearly, the neonatal department at the Countess of Chester was being extremely poorly run at the time these babies died and it was an unsafe environment for those babies.

That poor management could be why Letby got away with things for so long... But it could also be the reason why those babies died in the first place.

Whether she did it or didn't do it, I do question the safety of the conviction and whether Letby has been made a scapegoat for the shockingly poor care and management at the hospital.

This is giving me sandy hook conspiracy vibes

@Kittybythelighthouse The police were clear that they assigned separate detective teams to each case to stop officers jumping to conclusions. You seem to be implying that dozens of detectives unquestioningly believed the doctors over the evidence they collected themselves. Do you really think that is true?