Lucy Letby in the news

[Viviennemary]

I've just been watching the BBC news and apparently some experts have been questioning the validity of Lucy Letbys conviction. I must say when I read the details of the trial she did sound 100% guilty. But it would be a tragedy if she is innocent Personally I don't think she is but who knows. Somebody on the news said the only person who knows is Lucy Letby.

Exactly. And this is the point that Private Eye are focussing on. They have pointed out that two of the "expert" prosecution doctors havent in fact worked in clinical practice for over 15 years. Well before LL was even training, much less in practice, and that knowledge, rules and protocols have changed massively in that time.

They point out that getting practicing experts is near impossible simply because those practioners, be they doctors, nurses, midwives, ODPs etc, cant afford to take time off to give evidence over what could be several days with the risk of being called back.

I wouldnt like to say if she did it or not, but I do strongly believe that, guilty or innocent, her current conviction is unsafe.

LL had one of the most experienced defence barristers. He called precisely one witness for the defence - a plumber. Not one of the many medical and other so called experts who are now apparently falling over themselves to rubbish the prosecution case. To me, the volumes this speaks is that her defence lawyer felt that putting such witnesses on the stand would not be helpful and would in fact be detrimental to her case. Perhaps you would like to offer a plausible alternative explanation why LL only had a plumber speaking up for her in court.

No it isnt.

Your assertion that the fact that it wasnt challenged in court (she did apply to appeal) suggests that she is guilty, means that everyone who was convicted, committed suicide or was ostracised by their families and friends in the PO scandal, should never have had their convictions quashed and their innocence asserted.

Or that the Hillsborough victims and their families shouldnt have had a full investigation and compensation because when the original inquest verdicts were given, it wasnt allowed to be properly challenged in court. Incidentally, it was The Scum that pushed the narrative of it being fans own fault, and no one questioned that at the time either.

Which is clearly wrong. And dont say "But thats different" because it aint. Justice should be seen to be done, and be done right.

Why do you think LL’s colleagues were already seriously worried about the possibility that someone in their midst was responsible for these unexpected deaths, quite early on in the sequence of events, as revealed at the Thirwell inquiry today?

My point was about the fact that medical evidence of her guilt was presented in court and not once challenged by any of these medical experts who are sounding off now. Where were they when they were needed? I am well aware that miscarriages of justice take place but I am also aware that there is an entire Innocence Activists industry based on trying to get convictions overturned for a number of high profile criminals who are undoubtedly guilty. The LL case is just another one of those imo.

The File on 4 program does discuss around why no expert witnesses were called for the defence but ultimately no one knows why not.

They ARE trying to challenge it now. None of them were given the opportunity to challenge it during the trial, and frankly standing up in court and speaking in her defence would be a career killer, these people need their jobs. My daughter is in medicine and she said that her colleagues and her all agree that while she might be guilty, the evidence presented is not beyond reasonable doubt. They also all agree that they wouldnt want to risk their livelihoods by standing up in court and saying that. It would make them unemployable. We all know that recruiters Google candidates now and "Expert defence witness for LL" could cost someone everything, would you take that risk? I dont think I would.

Same as in the PO scandal. People who knew something wasnt right were either silenced or ignored or were too scared of jeopardising their careers to put their heads on the line.

ETA what makes you say that she is "Undoubtedly guilty" when so many medical and legal experts are casting doubt on her conviction?

"They point out that getting practicing experts is near impossible simply because those practitioners, be they doctors, nurses, midwives, ODPs etc, cant afford to take time off to give evidence over what could be several days with the risk of being called back."

A lot also don't want to be negatively associated with the case (you can see real time opinions on here about those offering alternative explanations) One expert was a practicing pathologist and she didn't want her opinions to effect how she dealt with bereaved families (more about how they would view her)

I absolutely agree, I mentioned it being a career killer above.

My point was about the fact that medical evidence of her guilt was presented in court and not once challenged by any of these medical experts who are sounding off now. Where were they when they were needed

I don’t understand this. They weren’t at the trial. They weren’t called as witnesses, for reasons we do not yet know. Should they just have stormed into court and shouted their opinions at the jury?

Where were they you ask - likely attending to their own lives, rather than poring over the details of a case they probably trusted was being sensibly conducted.

Surely it’s obvious that most of the experts now questioning the evidence will only have started looking into it properly after the trial ended. That’s when reporting restrictions were lifted and the full extent of the evidence (or lack of it) became clear.

Would that be Private Eye, the magazine which had a major win on the Post Office scandal but were less on the button when it came to another science and medical based controversy….?

During the early 2000s Private Eye published many stories on the MMR vaccine controversy, supporting the interpretation by Andrew Wakefield of published research in The Lancet by the Royal Free Hospital's Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group, which described an apparent link between the vaccine and autismand bowel problems. Many of these stories accused medical researchers who supported the vaccine's safety of having conflicts of interest because of funding from the pharmaceutical industry.
Initially dismissive of Wakefield, the magazine rapidly moved to support him, in 2002 publishing a 32-page MMR Special Report that supported Wakefield's assertion that MMR vaccines "should be given individually at not less than one-year intervals." The British Medical Journal issued a contemporary press release[53] that concluded: "The Eye report is dangerous in that it is likely to be read by people who are concerned about the safety of the vaccine. A doubting parent who reads this might be convinced there is a genuine problem, and the absence of any proper references will prevent them from checking the many misleading statements."
In a review article published in 2010, after Wakefield was disciplined by the General Medical Council, regular columnist Phil Hammond, who contributes to the "Medicine Balls" column under the pseudonym "MD", stated that: "Private Eye got it wrong in its coverage of MMR" in maintaining its support for Wakefield's position long after shortcomings in his work had emerged.

She was found guilty in a court if law, so she is undeniably legally guilty, it’s my opinion also that she is factually guilty.

I think the rationale used that medical experts were too afraid or too busy to put up a defence for her is just lame excuses imo. Does this mean if LL gets her day in court again all these widely quoted medical experts speaking up for her now will slink black into the shadows again because they’re too afraid or too busy to defend her in court at a retrial?

You’ve missed the point. It was LL’s defence team’s responsibility to muster a decent defence and to call up medical expert witnesses to speak up for her in court (not months after she was found guilty). They did not. Most odd.

There could be so many reasons this happened. Apart from anything else, her defence team are not infallible, however experienced they are. Like all of us they will sometimes make mistakes in their work. Sometimes those will be very serious mistakes. The explanation could be as simple as the defence seriously misjudging the best strategy. Or it could be something else. We just don’t know.

Why are we speculating about the trial, when experts NOW are speaking out? It’s not their fault they weren’t called. Why should we dismiss their expertise, which is no less valid now than it would have been at the trial?

Does this mean if LL gets her day in court again all these widely quoted medical experts speaking up for her now will slink black into the shadows again because they’re too afraid or too busy to defend her in court at a retrial

I suppose the only way to find out is to have a retrial.

Its funny that you mentioned the Fail because you seem to have fallen right into their trap.

Dead Babies + Young Nurse = BURN THE WITCH! So many references to Beverly Allit have been made in the media, suggesting that if one did it then the next accused must also have done it. Then she is found guilty so confirmation bias is right there.

No one on here is saying that she didnt do it, merely that on the evidence presented (or not) her conviction is not safe.

That you naively assume the law to not be an ass at times, does not alter the facts that no experts rebuttals were offered by her defence team. That is a disservice to her and doesnt allow for the prosections "expert" evidence to be questioned (I use "" because they do not appear to be experts in the care and protocols used by the NHS at the time of these babies deaths). And there was no suggestion that the failing trust she was working for at the time that had a very high mortality rate, that could not be factually or circumstancially attributed to her, may have had any part to play in the deaths. As I say, I dont know if she did it or not, only one person knows that. But she was not defended adequately, the experts on the prosecutions team were not cross examined by anyone with medical knowledge or information, and so in my opinion her conviction should not stand and there should be a retrial.

If the prosecution are so sure of their case, then surely they will be confident of a safe "guilty" conviction.

I suspect that they will stand up.

I keep bringing this up but again I mention the PO scandal. All of the people saying "This isnt right" and for one reason or another, not putting their heads on the block, suddenly found out that they werent the only ones thinking that. Once it became clear that many many experts were questioning what was being pedalled as official "fact" more and more voices started to be heard. I believe that this will be the case with LL if there is a retrial because they will know that they are not a lone voice.

Experienced KC, but local solicitor.

Yes and started happening on day shifts when she was moved from nights to days....

Experienced local solicitor working with experienced KC and junior.

And stopped when she was away on holiday ...

But she was not defended adequately, the experts on the prosecutions team were not cross examined by anyone with medical knowledge or information,

She was defended by one of the best in the business who would have ensured he had the requisite medical knowledge to deal with the witnesses.

If the prosecution are so sure of their case, then surely they will be confident of a safe "guilty" conviction.

I'm sure they are, after two trials and a failed appeal.

What about the other months when she was working and no babies died?

I’m not speculating about anything. LL was tried in a court of law and found guilty. Others are speculating that she didn’t receive a fair trial or that her barrister failed her in some way of that these new supportive experts are better placed to know what’s what than the prosecution experts at her trial.

So if the case is re-tried (at vast expense to the tax payer and at great distress to the victims’ families) but with all the assembled throng of new expert witnesses brought in for the defence and the outcome is still guilty you will be satisfied that despite all your concerns that she is in fact guilty? Or will you complain that the jury just didn’t understand the evidence and will you push for another trial and another trial until you get the verdict you believe in?