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.

Those triplets should not have been in the unit in the first place, they should have been in a Level 3. Multiple births carry increased risk and one was smaller than the other two.

The mother was assured by staff that they would provide one to one care, whereas in fact LL was given care of 2 triplets and a third unrelated baby.

If you read the medical data, LL has nothing to do with the baby’s deaths - the care was quite poor enough to kill them. And no-one actually saw LL do anything to the babies. It’s all wild speculation as to what she might have done.

@Mirabai an eight month criminal trial does not equal wild speculation!

And can I ask, have you seen all the medical 'data' examined at trial and what are your credentials to analyse and draw insight from this?

Because they could be blamed. One consultant explicitly stated in an email: “until this is resolved we are all under suspicion”.

There had already been 2 proven cases of suboptimal care/negligence on the unit, one resulting in a payout of 8.5 million.

By 2017 the parents were circling with clinical negligence lawyers. That’s the point that the consultants went the police.

On a programme I was watching a senior policeman said all the little bits on their own mean nothing but when put together they form a picture. This was unrelated to Lucy Letby. But this is what happened with Lucy Letby. I think she is 100% guilty. But if they decide to have an enquiry then fine.

The media transcripts made of the live trial are available online.

An 8 month trial full of wild speculation, medically implausible theories, and no hard evidence at all.

They aren’t statisticians either. One of them did point out it might not be to do with the law of small numbers but I don’t think the others really believed or understood. it was their job to be concerned about any or all deaths on the unit. A cluster may have a common cause so they weren’t wrong to look for one but it wasn’t reasonable to think something as likely as a cluster could only be explained by something as unlikely as a serial killer.
They didn’t in practical term actually show much concern until the two triplets died.
The, in my view justified, suspicion of management was that the consultants’ delusions about LL were because they didn’t want to blame themselves for the suboptimal care that patients were receiving on the unit.

Except that if there is no forensic evidence that a baby was murdered and strong evidence of natural causes, then all the other bits mean nothing either on their own or together.

Natural causes or suboptimal care I should say @Viviennemary.
I’m glad you’re still here. I know you are coming round. It was painful for me too to realise she’s innocent.

Well exactly. I am still waiting to see any compelling evidence that a single murder occurred. And I would be open to it. I have no particular attachment to LL.

The media transcripts made of the live trial are available online.

This obviously doesn't include all the medical evidence, just the examination of it at the trial.

So back to my original question @Mirabai have you actually seen all the medical data which you are so confident proves LL had nothing to do with any of the babies' deaths or collapses? And if so, what are your credentials to have drawn this level of insight from it?

I agree with this.

That doesn’t answer my question but thanks anyway.

Which convinced a jury in all but one of the cases. Why do you think the jury didn’t just go for a clean sweep if they were all so ignorant/brainwashed by the wild speculation and implausible theories you claim made up the evidence?

How can you know with certainty that she is innocent? What evidence absolutely exculpates her?

It doesn’t include all the clinical data but quite sufficient to see: a. The poor level od care and b. The complete lack of evidence and implausibility of the so-called murder methods. Further evidence detailed at the Thirlwall merely confirms this.

We also now have the bizarre circ that Evans has now admitted that he has changed his mind about the death of one of the babies.

The jury were only presented with expert evidence on one side. The outcome may have been very different if it were not for that. And anyway it’s ridiculous to ask lay people to evaluate complex medical data and decide whether murder has been committed, in the long term the whole system of trying these cases will have to be changed.

I’m afraid that doesn’t make sense. On the one hand you’re saying re the deaths: nothing to see here, nothing unusual and on the other hand you’re saying the situation was so bad the unit faced the threat of legal action and in order to deflect the blame from themselves collectively they decided to make it all about a serial killer in their midst as if somehow that would be less likely to result in legal action?!

RTFT.

Please!

but you’re a layperson aren’t you? And once again you avoided my question but thanks again for the reply.

I have, thanks and nothing I have read on it proves without doubt that she is innocent. A short bullet point list of the evidence that proves innocence is surely not too much to ask?

"The jury were only presented with expert evidence on one side. The outcome may have been very different if it were not for that. And anyway it’s ridiculous to ask lay people to evaluate complex medical data and decide. whether murder has been committed, in the long term the whole system of trying these cases will have to be changed."

What do you propose? A jury comprised of only medical experts? The same experts that everyone claimis were biased?

The Crown’s expert witness has backtracked on his own evidence since the trial.

Phil Hammond of Private Eye has put out an appeal for qualified experts who do agree with the medical evidence. None have come forward.

Absolute proof of innocence may not be possible on all counts but the fact that the evidence that baby C was murdered came from the day before LL met him is pretty compelling evidence that the trial was not fair.

The jury were only presented with expert evidence on one side. The outcome may have been very different if it were not for that.

But let's just imagine for a second that LL is guilty (heretical on these threads I know!), why on earth would she want to present expert evidence that would undermine her defence of 'I didn't do it' on cross-examination because....she actually did it...?

That’s the wrong question. The question is what convincing evidence is there of her guilt.