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.

It's actually got very little to do with what Letby wants. It's because evidence is surfacing from experts that she hasn't received a fair trial. I thought Letby was guilty. I wanted her to rot in jail. I trusted the justice system. There is now evidence that makes many people doubt that she has received a fair trial.

The evidence is a crock of shit.

Sorry, but that's the fact of the matter. She is insisting on these trials to get sick joy from putting herself back in the public domain.

Nothing

They have looked at the cases for FREE because Dr Lee was so concerned about the misuse of the paper he wrote that he asked for their help.

I'm beginning to think this account is just AI ragebait 😅

You're just being argumentative, she's not insisting on a trial. The panel have concluded there was no foul play therefore it's an unsafe conviction, the truth will come out eventually but at the moment there is no evidence she deliberately garm3d any baby.

It really does show that in cases like this a specialist medical panel with relevant experience in certain areas is far superior to a jury who can be misled and manipulated with skewed data and evidence.

I'm not AI.

I'm a mother, whose baby has been in NICU and SCBU since she was born just under two weeks ago. You can go look at my other threads if you want.

I'm fucking disgusted by the people who are constantly trying to shift the blame for what this woman did. She killed babies. She is now, for the umpteenth time, putting these families through hell again.

I’m very sorry you are going through this.

I do think your own experience is likely blinding your ability to be objective.

You don't have the right to speak for the families.

Yes instead of defence and prosecution calling adversarial experts, the court should commission independent experts.

I just can’t believe the people on the panel who are giving their time, energy and resources (including money) would do so to exonerate a baby killer. There’s absolutely nothing in it for them.

I'm sorry for what you are dealing with and hope that your baby is home safely soon.

I don't think you're being rational and I don't think you've done any substantial reading into this case with an open mind, so we're having a pretty pointless discssion here. If you've digested the 'baby killer' narrative of the red tops and little else, it's no surprise you feel so sure. It's a really clear example for me of why juries of our 'peers' are so laden with risk.

Well, I can understand Dr Soo as it was his research.

The others I don't know but it will at least get their names in the public arena.

For me the medical evidence is key and the other issues are merely circumstantial. The press conference has certainly placed some doubt in my mind, but I'm still uncertain as there were other babies. So I personally think it warrants further investigation/another trail.

It wasn't. The expert opinion now is that no crime was committed. Natural causes and sub optimal care, not by Letby by the unit. The best outcome for everyone involved including the parents and future NHS care is to find the truth.

Frustratingly I can't seem to post a screenshot, but this quote is from Shoo Lee's interview with the Sunday Times - the panel of experts are really not coming at this from a position of scrupulous impartiality..:

“What they said to me was that you have literally got to find a different person or thing that caused the death” said Lee. “And I asked ‘So what’s the chances?’ They said ‘none’, because it’s going to be very hard to prove anything now. “We’ve had our chance, and unless you can come up with something that is totally different, she’ll be in jail for the rest of her life’. And I said ‘Well, this is not fair, because the evidence that was used to convict her, in my opinion, wasn’t quite right.”

Source - <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/2025.02.01-182623/www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-evidence-conviction-0mqwglpbq" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.ph/2025.02.01-182623/www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-evidence-conviction-0mqwglpbq

So if you've had a baby born that has to have NICU care that gives you special powers to form an opinion not based on fact?

@DerekFaker their names are out there now yes as the top experts in their field. I really don't see why they would risk their professional reputations if they weren't 100 percent sure of the findings. Not to mention for absolutely no pay or benefit to them selves.

Yes the media dont like being in the wrong either. That was evident with the way Paul Brand from ITV News was asking questions at the conference

Some people really need to expand their reading beyond Closer Magazine and The Sun

Yes. I’ve been saving this for years. And this is where the lack of medical knowledge from her defence team shines through

Important to also note that it's not just Dr Lee bringing this viewpoint. There is a team of highly prominent neonatal specialists from across the globe who worked as a team to review the LL evidence and wrote the report as a panel. It's not just 'some bloke from America'. The panel includes (all of whom have not been paid for this):

Dr Shoo Lee A professor emeritus at the University of Toronto and president of the Canadian Neonatal Foundation, whose 1989 paper on air embolism featured in the prosecution’s original case against Letby.
Professor Eric Eichenwald A former faculty member at Harvard Medical School (where he studied), Eichenwald is head of the neonatology division at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He is a member of the Society for Paediatric Research.
Professor Helmut Hummler The senior medical director of the European Foundation for the Care of Newborn Infants (EFCNI).
Dr Tetsuya Isayama The head of the neonatology division at Tokyo’s National Center for Child Health and Development (NCCHD).
Dr Joanne Langley A professor of paediatrics and community health and epidemiology at Dalhousie University in Canada and an expert vaccine researcher.
Professor Neena Modi A professor of neonatal medicine at Imperial College London and a vice-dean of its faculty of medicine. A former president of the British Medical Association and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
Professor Mikael Norman A professor at Karolinska Institute in Sweden and the director of the Swedish Neonatal Quality Register.
Professor Bruno Piedboeuf A former chair of the paediatric department at Université Laval in Quebec and a senior figure at the Canadian Neonatal Network.
Professor Prakeshkumar Shah The paediatrician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto and a professor at the University of Toronto.
Emeritus professor Nalini Singhal A former chair of the Canadian Neonatal Resuscitation Program committee and World Health Organisation volunteer.
Professor Erik Skarsgard The surgeon-in-chief at BC Children’s Hospital, a professor of surgery at the University of British Columbia in Canada and a former president of the Canadian Association of Paediatric Surgeons.
Professor Ann Stark A former head of neonatology at Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine and professor in residence in paediatrics at Harvard Medical School.
Professor Geoff Chase A distinguished professor at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand.
One panel member wishes to remain anonymous.

(snippet on names above taken from article in the Times).

I do not wish the families of those poor poor babies any further harm at all. I doubt anyone does. But it's incredibly important to be sure that a conviction is safe in this instance, not only for justice for those families but also for the public's trust in our healthcare service (as many suggestions as to poor care) and trust that cover ups will not happen.

I followed the trial loosely so am definitely not an expert. I’m a bit confused as to why this panel of experts are releasing extremely pertinent information now. Was all of this not available to the defence team at the time of the trial? A lot of what they’re saying appears to be coming from the babies medical records, timings of treatment etc. Surely this was disclosed to the defence at the time.

It seems that her defence may have cocked up. She didn't even have her own expert witness. Nobody seems to know exactly why they made this decision.

When thinking about the impact on the parents of babies it's important to remember that it's not just the ones that were part of the trial involved. Parents of babies who died but were excluded, parents of babies who unexpectedly died on the maternity ward during the same period, parents of babies at the other hospital being considered. All deserve the truth. Not to mention considering if there is culpability from other staff or hospital management.

There doesn't necessarily need to be one single cause. But people tend to prefer this. Also you can make mistakes under pressure without being negligent or a murdered.

That doesn't show Lee wasn't impartial. It shows that he was concerned (because he knew the scientific evidence was misrepresented)

You haven't copied the whole conversation. Lee continued to say he asked to be allowed to assemble experts to write reports, and that he had one condition. They must be allowed to publish their findings whether or not they found evidence of that Letby was a murderer.