Lucy Letby press conference

[Viviennemary]

There is a press conference going on now trying to get Lucy Letby's conviction overturned. From what I read the guilty verdict was sound. All those ill babies dying when she was alone with them. Just a coincidence? Already been refused an appeal.

So Lucy Letby had 12 poor jurors. OK then.

Being a white woman didn’t protect her from a trial or imprisonment though?

no. They had very poor evidence presented to them with a certainty that was not warranted.

Absolutely this.
I know two people who know Jefferies and they said at the time “ It won’t be Chris”

And it wasn’t.

People believe she's guilty because the prosecution presented extensive evidence against her.

This group of experts are saying there’s no evidence of the insulin and the air injections…

I thought she was guilty at the time. Her legal team didn’t call any medical expert witnesses to counter the prosecution’s, I thought that was based on the fact that there weren’t any, but this suggests otherwise.

Same reason Amanda Knox found herself serving 4yrs for a crime she did not commit.

And this mirrors what the hospital management, the Royal College of Paediatric and Children's Health reviewers, and the external reviewer Jane Hawdon were stating in 2017.

The consultants rejected their explanations and insisted on reporting Letby to the police (and not on requesting a general investigation.) Their argument was, she was there

Reasonable doubt.

A woman, in other words.

Same reason Amanda Knox found herself serving 4yrs for a crime she did not commit.

It was a while ago but iirc Lindy Chamberlain suffered from similar accusations on emotional reaction or lack of

And Lindy Chamberlain

No, it was a very poor trial, hence the calls for a review.

The prosecution presented weak evidence that was full of unwarranted assertions, bad science and confirmation bias.
Extensive in the sense it was long, well there were 14 babies involved. A large amount of weak evidence doesn’t add up to an adequate amount of strong evidence but unfortunately many people get overwhelmed by the sheer volume and stop thinking critically about the individual bits.

I worked in ITU for a long time and I’ve never been convinced by it.

This is nonsense. The Malcolm Gladwell book Talking to Strangers deals with this and how humans think they can read people much better than we actually can which then leads to terrible consequences. For example Amanda Knox doing cartwheels and buying fancy knickers meant she was guilty of murdering her friend. Joanne Lees wore a pink Hello Kitty t-shirt when interviewed and smiled so she was lying about what happened to her. Not everyone reacts how we think they should for any number of reasons. She could be guilty but how she looked when she was arrested is not how we determine that.

Just happened to see this and thought it was pertinent to this thread...

Reese Witherspoon recently shared her experience serving on a jury, where fellow jurors insisted that she be the foreperson, believing she was a lawyer due to her role in Legally Blonde. Despite clarifying she had no legal training, they remained convinced she had attended law school.

Reese’s takeaway from the experience was that “people don’t know much about the law” and that “some bad stuff goes on in [the jury deliberation room].” She recalled one juror saying about one of the parties in the case, “I think she’s guilty because I don’t like the way she looked.”

As a trial lawyer, one of the biggest uncertainties you face is a jury trial.

Sheer volume of anomalies during her shifts, combined with other factors, created an overwhelming case for her guilt.

Have they mentioned anything about why she was found by colleagues, standing over babies in distress and not acting? Or the blood from their mouths when being tended to by her?

Can we stop with the "she was still convicted" replies to people mentioning the racism present in the justice system? Racism against minorities in the UK may not be directly relevant to Letby's case but it is true that racial prejudice prevents timely justice.

Whether she’s guilty or not, she was convicted by the court of public opinion long before the trial took place, and during it.

To the people who are so confident about the criminal justice process, do you think that there are no unsafe convictions? I am genuinely interested.

For those that are interested you can obtain a copy of Dr Shoo Lee’s Summary Report:- INTERNATIONAL EXPERT PANEL. Lucy Letby Case. February 3 2025

I don’t think a lot of of us are denying that, but why is it taking over this thread though? Should we discuss Israel and Palestine too?

Where has it been reported?

This situation is a really bad outcome for everyone really due to the uncertainty now. There is now the chance that LL has had an unsafe conviction and has been through hell. This will be awful for the families who have been through hell and back and it throws big questions about the safety of NHS care and potential cover-ups.

I also find the concept of trial by jury to be a bit terrifying. Literacy and numeracy levels are really very low in this country. Many people don’t understand basic statistics or percentages let alone have the ability to critically appraise scientific or medical evidence presented by an expert. It’s the job of the defence to analyse the evidence but if the case hangs on the balance of probability of complex scientific evidence, you really have to wonder if a jury is always the right way to make a decision.