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.

What a bizarre thing to write! Almost as bizarre as looking up the parents of dead children that had once been in your care. Is this usual behaviour amongst nurses on neonatal wards?

This was my first “stupid” question that you avoided answering:

“So it’s untrue that two of the 3 triplets in this case were thought to be doing so well that they were considering letting them go home the same day they mysteriously fell ill and died?”

Now tell me why it is a stupid question, tia.

If you can’t work out why I might have said that to someone who thinks Facebook searching parents is evidence of murder, I can see it might seem bizarre.

@SweetcornFritter
If your daughter, sister, niece or anyone you love were banged up for life on the same evidence as Lucy Letby, what would you do?

Probably be in a state of complete denial and desperate to grasp at any available straws to help fuel my denialism.

It’s evidence of strange behaviour which, when taken with all the other weird LL stuff she got up to paints a picture of a disturbed young woman. Not proof of murder per se, but evidence of an unusual and unhealthy ongoing interest in dead babies and their families, long after she’d been professionally involved in their lives.

Ok you won that one.
The point is the fact that if it can happen to Lucy Letby it could happen to any innocent person.

Why is it necessary for LL supporters to talk down to those of us who accept the guilty verdict as if we’re a bit thick?

I keep answering your questions but you don’t engage with the answers.
Why does the fact that the evidence that Baby C was murdered the day before Lucy Letby met him not change your view of the circumstantial evidence used to convict on other counts? Why does it not in itself disturb you?
She searched for his mother on Facebook. It was how she responded to the death of a baby. It’s just not evidence of anything, is it?

That's often how criminals get caught. Ian Huntley took a great interest in the case and drew attention to himself and aroused suspicion. I really think she is guilty. Quite a few doctors suspected something was going on. I reckon she got away withit for so long because the unit was understaffed.

How, in any way is that similar?

You haven’t responded on the Baby C evidence either. The only evidence for murder came from the day before LL came on shift.

Why does it not bother you that she is clearly innocent on even one count?

What does that say about British justice and the risks we all face of being wrongly convicted?

Has it come out as part if the inquiry that the X-ray for baby C was taken before LL was on shift? Sorry, I’ve missed how it has been discovered.

Does this mean that no one during the trial, not the prosecution expert witness, the defence, Judge, Jury or anyone reporting notice that they were convicting her based on the X-ray evidence from before she had even met the baby? That is very worrying.

No-one knows for a fact either way - those who believe her guilty don’t know.

In a trial the starting point is innocence and the question is whether there is evidence to indicate guilt. In this case there is none whatsoever. And there is strong evidence that the babies died of natural causes. That is why I don’t think she’s likely to be guilty.

No, there was certainly no plan for babies O and P to go home.

They were born prematurely by five weeks, and they were 2 and 3 days old when they died.

It's come out through an analysis of trial transcripts

I answered that question - they should have been in a Level 3 unit. If the medics thought they were ok but they died they weren’t ok were they? If they’d been in a true ICU their issues would have been much more likely to be identified and treated.

The sequence of events is here. This person dug it out. It was also on File on Four.
https://medium.com/@triedbystats/lucy-letby-was-convicted-of-murdering-baby-c-based-on-evidence-from-a-day-when-she-wasnt-on-shift-8fb2bb93e0ef

I also posted this link up the thread:

https://jameswphillips.substack.com/p/letby-trials-2-new-strong-evidence?utm_source=post-banner&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true

You think she murdered a baby she hadn't met?

Dewi Evans was clear during the trial that there was a differential diagnosis for baby C, and this was taken into consideration by the jury and also in the Court of Appeal decision (which upheld the trial judge's instruction that the jury need not be certain of the exact method of harm, just that they must be sure that LL had done something to harm the baby)..

And he has admitted since the trial that he was talking out of his arse.

The point is the appeal court judgement lists the method for baby C as air via the nasogastric tube. The only evidence that the baby was murdered at all was from an x-ray from the day before LL came on shift.
The pathologist’s evidence rested on this.

@Mirabai how so? This is what was said during the trial:

Mr Myers asks Dr Evans what evidence there is to support that air had been injected into the stomach on June 13.

Dr Evans: "The baby collapsed and died."

Asked to explain further, Dr Evans says it was part of a differential diagnosis. He said there were three clinical scenarios - injecting air into the stomach that interfered with his breathing, or that air was injected intraveneously, or from a combination of the two, which Dr Evans says "sounds
awful".

Dr Evans says, from his perspective, from an academic point of view, he would not be able to rule out any one of those three scenarios. Dr Evans says none of the normal processes described
why a baby collapsed.

He adds, for further medical information, he would prefer to defer the matter to the radiologist and pathologist.

Medicine isn't an exact science. I think there is enough evidence that Lucy Letby harmed babies in her care which led to their deaths. Jury and judge thought the same.

Mr Myers asks Dr Evans what evidence there is to support that air had been injected into the stomach on June 13. Dr Evans: "The baby collapsed and died."

Which is already non sequitur of the year, but he’s changed his mind since the trial:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/01/lucy-letby-witness-changed-mind/

Yes. He deferred to the pathologist who based his answers on an x-ray from the day before LL came on duty.