Lucy letby

[Nettleteaser101]

How much longer are the poor parents of those babys going to be put through hell over and over again.
Wasnt she found guilty twice?.
I really feel for the familys.
They have had to put up with the hospitals cover ups and now new evidence and the Expert isnt sure now.
Why wasnt this all sorted before now.
Whos paying for the experts and solicitors on Lucy Letbys side.
If she didnt murder those babys who or what did?

Agree. He had no 'new' evidence whatsoever. The new free barrister is seeking publicity, nothing more.
She will die in prison.

She will die in prison.

Save the melodrama.

There's lots of new evidence, not that you'd expect to hear it all at a press conference.

Part of the problem was her lacklustre defence during the trial, no medical experts were brought forward to counter any of the prosecution's analysis. You can understand why the jury decided the way they did if there are no real alternatives being offered.

The ultimate choice not to call a medical expert was Lucy's, not a 'lacklustre defence'.

One expert was surprised afterwards not to be called but it appeared that on some issues he agreed with the prosecution which would have been a gift to the prosecution.

It's true her defence was pretty much non existent. The defence did have a medical expert but didn't call him - perhaps they thought their cross examinations had been enough. But the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defence does not have to give an alternative explanation (although I disagree that there were no alternatives - one alternative explanation is that the babies weren't murdered or deliberately harmed and that the deaths and collapses were due to natural causes. This is what everyone believed at the time). A jury should not convict due to lack of alternative explanations. They should convict only if the charges are proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I listened to the podcast and so much of what the prosecution said did not make sense to me. Obviously the podcast didn't cover everything, but based on what I heard, I had many doubts and questions. I do not believe they proved anything beyond reasonable doubt.

The retrial was even worse. The only evidence was from Dr Jayaram who walked in and saw Lucy doing nothing next to a desaturating baby. From this he concluded that she had harmed that baby (although he failed to mentioned anything about the incident to anyone at the time). That's it. There was another nurse whose testimony contradicted his but the jury clearly believed him over her. As a nurse, it was terrifying to me. That someone could be convicted of murder just because a doctor says they think they did it. Remember, he didn't actually see her harming the baby (no one ever saw her harming any of the babies). I always thought that previous convictions could not be used as evidence. I understand this case had so much publicity it would be impossible to find jury members who didn't know who she was, but the prosecution referred to her as "convicted child killer" multiple times throughout which must have hugely influenced the jury.

I don't know whether she's guilty or not. But the whole thing made me very uncomfortable right from the start, even before all the questions started appearing in the media. It's a scary time to be a nurse and many of us now feel extremely vulnerable.

I guess when you're in the same field you can see it differently.

Neonatal medicine/practice is so very different from any other. I'm unsure why they only had paediatric medical expert witnesses rather than neonatal consultants for a start.

As a neonatal nurse myself. Some of the things she did. Would cause harm to babies and is not normal practice. So I can see why she was found guilty, I can see the disparity when discussing this case with my other nurse friends who aren't in the neonatal field of practice. It is a very different speciality, and I've been a neonatal nurse a lot longer than she was but I still wouldn't be calling myself over qualified or an expert.

The poor parents just need to be left to grieve.

@Oftenaddled
'There's lots of new evidence, not that you'd expect to hear it all at a press conference'

How can there be 'new evidence'?These fools haven't even read the medical files of the babies involved and have simply misinterpreted what limited information they do have access to 🙄🙄
It was embarrassing to watch that pathetic excuse for a 'press conference'
It was nothing but grandstanding.

It's easy to misunderstand that if you don't watch the full press conference, sure

The report presented at the press conference was written for the defence by two expert neonatologists, Neil Aiton and Svilena Dimitrova, working free of charge because of their concerns about the case.

They reviewed all the medical notes, images, reports etc.

The doctor who spoke at the conference didn't write the report and was speaking from their report, not from the notes.

For me the timing of the deaths or attacks means she's guilty. More than one of the babies were attacked or killed on significant dates such as their original due date or when they were 100 days old.

That’s about the dumbest reason I’ve ever heard for thinking LL is guilty.

He sounds highly unreliable. I felt uneasy about his opinions presented as fact anyway but this statement / denial behaviour is erratic . In my opinion he just seemed overly keen to place blame firmly at the feet of a woman rather than a male led failing nicu unit.

It’s flawed data. There were other unexpected deaths on the unit that apparently weren’t even looked into as LL couldn’t have been responsible. The whole investigation was it seems based around what LL could have been responsible for rather than looking at every single case objectively

Any individual, no matter how abhorrent you find them or their crimes, should always be entitled to the same legal processes as anyone else. If significant new evidence comes to light a person is entitled to an appeal and so should Lucy Letby.

Are you saying her legal rights should be removed? Because that is a slippery slope.

Yes - he's accused the people involved in Letby's defence of being middle aged men wanting to rescue a damsel in distress, and explained that doctors often have problems with pretty nurses. Definite undercurrent of sexism.

I don't think medical negligence or the state of the building would account for a baby being injected with insulin when they are not prescribed insulin and the injector would have had to steal it.

Medical negligence absolutely could account for the wrong medication being administered. Even LL admitted that insulin must have been given she just said it wasn’t by her.

I think there was also new doubt about whether or not the babies had actually had been poisoned with insulin as the post mortems showed no clear evidence of this

The babies with strange results for insulin recovered, and they never showed signs of insulin overdose. The results were only picked up from their records years later.

Letby wasn't on duty some of the relevant time so the prosecution had to argue that she had poisoned IVF bags in advance, and the poisoned bags had only been attached to babies already with high insulin levels while she was on shift, even though she couldn't control or predict that

It's been suggested that tests weren't accurate and may have been contaminated. Certainly the hospital chose not to follow up or investigate them at all at the time.

Evans, from an interview with Raj Persaud

I think there was an infatuation with one of the medical staff. But hey, that’s not that unusual, that’s something we doctors have to put up with — nurses quite taking, appeal — medicine appears to be a profession that is very appealing to the ladies.

And from the trial:

Q: There's not actually any diagnostic feature where [Baby B] is concerned that can show this is an air embolism, is there?

A: She collapsed unexpectedly Resuscitation took far more effort than you would expect. She had these astonishing skin descriptions. As we heard from Dr. Lambie yesterday, that adds to the clinical diagnosis that she has an air embolus.

I'm more than happy to hear anyone who says differently from a medical perspective. No disrespect to Mr. Myers—you know, he's defending a lady—but if anybody wants to present an alternative diagnosis, that's fine. That is my opinion, and I'm comfortable with it.

All a bit nauseating.

Except there is no evidence that any baby was ever injected with insulin.

The tests being inaccurate has already been addressed and dismissed in appeal.

There wouldn't be evidence of insulin at post mortem and it has been raised at Thirlwall that a coroner's post mortem is much less detailed than a forensic post mortem.

She was cornered into accepting the assertion with a leading question. She does not have the training/expertise to gainsay the prosecution’s claim - which was never a matter of fact, but of opinion.

She couldn’t win - if she had denied it she would be portrayed as arrogant and ignorant for disagreeing with a doctor; if she accepts it she is portrayed as

“admitting” insulin was used.

As a matter of record, barristers do not call experts they have instructed because they torpedo the defence more than the prosecution expert. This is very common in criminal law. I say that as a barrister

There were no postmortems on these babies - they survived and the hospital only reacted to the insulin tests years later

The insulin tests being inaccurate wasn't raised in the request to appeal. (Letby hasn't had an appeal. She's had permission to appeal denied).