Page 8 | Lucy Letby press conference

Viviennemary · 2025-02-04T10:27:10+00:00

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.

Sunshineandrainbow · 04/02/2025 14:17

Frangela · 04/02/2025 14:11

It’s deeply concerning that you’re even asking this question!

Show quote history

Thankyou, I have since apologised for my badly worded post.

cadburyegg · 04/02/2025 14:17

I have followed her case and doubted the safety of her conviction for quite some time now.

If it turns out she is innocent the whole judicial system needs reviewing. Jurors - who have no medical knowledge - cannot be given the power to put innocent people in jail.

My mum - who worked in the NHS for a long time in a very senior position - said the reason she left was because cover-ups were rife, and so she is of the same opinion as me.

It sounds like her original barrister wasn't great and it's odd that she didn't bring many witnesses to her defence. That being said, apparently most of her colleagues were told not to testify. It's an unbelievably sad case but I strongly believe that if she is innocent she needs to be released, not left to rot in jail because a few people made a mistake and her defence wasn't very good.

LoremIpsumCici · 04/02/2025 14:18

ThisFluentBiscuit · 04/02/2025 13:35

I don't understand how there was no medical evidence that the babies had been harmed. There was tons of it! Huge doses of insulin, overfeeding, air introduced, physical attacks.

There wasn’t any forensic or other concrete evidence of any of that, these were theories constructed by the prosecution to explain deaths.

GreenCrocodile · 04/02/2025 14:19

IMO people write all sorts of nonsense in diaries
dread to think what some people have written in diaries and journals that could be held against then

LoremIpsumCici · 04/02/2025 14:19

CorduroySituation · 04/02/2025 13:43

But they weren't all "very very poorly". This is just false.

Several were quoted as thriving, being well on the way to being released from the unit, doing well, when they had "sudden unexpected collapses".

Show quote history

All babies in any NICU are very poorly. If they weren’t, they would not be in a neonatal intensive care unit on what is essentially life support.

3678194b · 04/02/2025 14:20

DJrocks · 04/02/2025 13:21

Christ, if she’s not guilty how on earth will she be able to build a life out of prison. This must be utterly gut wrenching for the babies parents.

She won't. And yes they could have done this quietly without having a 'Press Conference' the second one in a couple of months, and spared families the public pai.

MissMoneyFairy · 04/02/2025 14:21

EvangelicalAboutButteredToast · 04/02/2025 14:07

Regardless of guilt i think most of us would not like to risk her treating an impaired relative so i hope to god she loses her license to nurse if she’s freed.

I doubt she'd even want to be a nurse again if she's found not guilty, I know I wouldn't

EmmaMaria · 04/02/2025 14:22

SpringBunnyHopHop · 04/02/2025 13:27

Are these poor babies never going to be allowed peace to rest? Their families are getting no chance to grieve.

Emotive claptrap like this is one of the disturbing factors of the case - people are "empathising" a judgement without regard for reason. I am deeply sorry that those babies died - but they aren't "resting in peace" or "angel wings" or whatever other candy-cane terms people come up with. They are dead. Just like anybody else is dead when they die. Everyone deserves the right answer to why they died; and there is too much dispute about the level of confidence that can be placed on the evidence. And that is not surprising. Just one piece of it - that because a baby died when she wasn't in the hospital, so the allegation, without any evidence, is that she must have snuck in. Perhaps she killed some but not all of them. Perhaps she killed all of them. Perhaps she killed none of them. The problem is that it appears that she may have been convicted because "somebody had to be". When something awful happens, people want someone to blame. They want a "black hat". It isn't acceptable that sometimes bad stuff just happens.

I would like it if she had been convicted on firm evidential grounds. But I do not have confidence that she was. And so it is right and proper that these debates take place in the light of day so that we can all have confidence, not just in the verdict that was reached, but in the justice system itself. I am sorry that this may upset the families, but they also presumably want confidence that the right conclusion was come to. Better to do this now than in 10 years or 20 years - because if this is a miscarriage of justice, nobody should be locked up for that length of time for a crime they did not commit.

MotionIntheOcean · 04/02/2025 14:22

MissMoneyFairy · 04/02/2025 14:21

I doubt she'd even want to be a nurse again if she's found not guilty, I know I wouldn't

Show quote history

I don't think even our strapped NHS would realistically employ her anyway, not in a public facing role. She'd be a target. Wouldn't be safe for her or anyone around her.

Imin · 04/02/2025 14:23

She will be cleared eventually, but there is a lot of vested interest in keeping her in prison and hoping people get bored of her or she kills herself. Lets hope it doesn't take as long as for that poor sod Andrew Malkinson who STILL hasn't been compensated. The judiciary and other powers hate to admit an error.

LillyPJ · 04/02/2025 14:23

Whatever we think, we have far less information than the people involved in appealing or judging. Speculation based on what we've heard, seen or read about is barely relevant.

Hoppinggreen · 04/02/2025 14:23

Usually with these things I take the attitude that the people who had far more information than me (the Jury) convicted her so she is most likely to be guilty.
However, I have heard and read quite a few things since the trial that make me wonder
I do also think that dead babies are understandably a very emotive thing and I am not sure she whether The jury would have been starting from a place of neutrality at the beginning of the trial

3678194b · 04/02/2025 14:23

Dmsandfloatydress · 04/02/2025 13:34

Because if she was a working class, black woman or worse, black man its likely that any miscarriage of justice would be completely ignored. Its called unconscious bias. People identify with lucy because she is an everywoman. Young, reasonably attractive, white and blonde.

But she's not blonde, in later years she went back to her un-highlighted brown hair. She's also not middle class, the first of the family go to University.

Funnywonder · 04/02/2025 14:24

Sunshineandrainbow · 04/02/2025 13:35

Sorry this was badly written by me.

I was meaning surely they have a good case to show that she could be innocent as they have nothing to gain. Apart from yes helping someone whom could actually be innocent

Show quote history

Sorry, I didn't notice this when I posted my reply earlier. I get what you mean.

Sockmate123 · 04/02/2025 14:25

I think a conviction of this nature should only be done if absolute certainty. Beyond all reasonable doubt. This case seems full of doubt. I have no idea if she is guilty or not but there is too much doubt around it for a proper conviction as far as I can tell....imagine if she is innocent... absolutely horrific ordeal. Those poor babies and their families 💔

Topseyt123 · 04/02/2025 14:25

The more I hear and read about this the less convinced I am that we can actually even prove beyond reasonable doubt that a crime actually took place, never mind convict someone of multiple murders.

3678194b · 04/02/2025 14:25

ThisFluentBiscuit · 04/02/2025 13:35

I don't understand how there was no medical evidence that the babies had been harmed. There was tons of it! Huge doses of insulin, overfeeding, air introduced, physical attacks.

Totally.

Likewhatever · 04/02/2025 14:26

GloriousBlue · 04/02/2025 14:14

With a medical background, I'm all too aware of the failings in the system, the use of scapegoats, the potential for accidental deaths to happen, the under staffing...

From day one I've said I do not believe she's guilty and I continue to believe this, having seen the weak evidence presented.

I see this as a huge miscarriage of justice, and have nothing but sympathy for all involved (except perhaps the doctors and consultants who threw her under the bus).

I do think she'll be released, but the damage has been done to LL and her family.

I appreciate lots don't agree with me, I'm not here for an argument, I'm stating my opinion.

And I agree with you.

Frangela · 04/02/2025 14:26

TooOldForThisShit1 · 04/02/2025 14:05

People thought the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 were guilty as sin as well

Show quote history

Yes, and anyone who thinks miscarriages of justice don’t happen in the UK should really read up on both these cases.

HollyBerryz · 04/02/2025 14:27

I would not be remotely surprised if she's been scapegoated for failures further up the system rather than the trust having to admit they're giving appalling care to NICU babies.

OnlyThickBeans · 04/02/2025 14:27

3678194b · 04/02/2025 14:25

Totally.

Show quote history

If the evidence is so clear and unequivocal why are other experts falling over themselves to dispute it?

PiggyPigalle · 04/02/2025 14:27

chouxchoux · 04/02/2025 13:40

For those questioning the "slam dunk" insulin evidence, this is snipped from Private Eye, link is here: www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby-4.pdf

THE first and unanimous jury findings against Letby were guilty verdicts on two counts of attempted murder by insulin poisoning. Dr Anna Milan, a biochemist at the Royal Liverpool Hospital, testifed that tests carried out at her hospital showed insulin had been given to two babies rather than being produced by the pancreas, and as they were not prescribed insulin it was either an error or deliberate harm. Her reasoning was that the tests showed the two babies had very high levels of insulin in their blood but very low levels of C-peptide. The accuracy of these tests was corroborated by Dr Gwen Wark, director of the RSCH Peptide Hormone Laboratory in Guildford, a specialist centre for insulin testing. The results were interpreted in court by Prof Peter Hindmarsh, a paediatric endocrinologist employed by the prosecution but acting for the court. He explained that C-peptide is produced with insulin in the body; it therefore follows that if there is very little C-peptide present, the insulin must have been introduced from outside. Letby and her defence even accepted that there had been a poisoner at work on the ward, but that it wasn’t her. That single exchange might well have sunk her. Neither knew about defnitive insulin tests, and they weren’t alone. As Dr Evans told MD: “I didn’t even know that there was more than one way of measuring insulin until I read the comments from Wayne Jones [see below].”

WHAT THE JURY SHOULD ALSO HAVE HEARD: Alan Wayne Jones, a professor of toxicology, is adamant that the immunoassay method used to measure insulin is insuffcient to accurately determine the level in a criminal trial, because of the risk of false results. Other experts have explained how false results using this test are even more common in neonates. Instructions posted on the Liverpool laboratory website where the samples were analysed clearly states that if “factitious administration of insulin” is suspected, the samples should be sent to a specialist laboratory for proper forensic analysis. This was never done, and the jury was never told of this failing. Far from being two barn-door cases of insulin poisoning, the blood results were not noted as suspicious by doctors at the time and were only picked up months later in a notes trawl, when it was too late to do defnitive testing. Another insulin expert confrmed to MD: “The results are, in my view, conclusive: there is no evidence of insulin poisoning.”

I posted the New Yorker article that was banned in the UK upthread, debunking Dewi Evans over the air being injected. I hope at least that the next time he solicits for work uninvited, he's refused.
A British Nurse Was Found Guilty of Killing Seven Babies. Did She Do It? | The New Yorker
The banned in UK article.

OnlyThickBeans · 04/02/2025 14:28

@GloriousBlue absolutely, if she is innocent (and not just guilty with an absent of evidence) her life is over whether or not she remains incarcerated.

Zita60 · 04/02/2025 14:28

EmmaMaria · 04/02/2025 14:22

Emotive claptrap like this is one of the disturbing factors of the case - people are "empathising" a judgement without regard for reason. I am deeply sorry that those babies died - but they aren't "resting in peace" or "angel wings" or whatever other candy-cane terms people come up with. They are dead. Just like anybody else is dead when they die. Everyone deserves the right answer to why they died; and there is too much dispute about the level of confidence that can be placed on the evidence. And that is not surprising. Just one piece of it - that because a baby died when she wasn't in the hospital, so the allegation, without any evidence, is that she must have snuck in. Perhaps she killed some but not all of them. Perhaps she killed all of them. Perhaps she killed none of them. The problem is that it appears that she may have been convicted because "somebody had to be". When something awful happens, people want someone to blame. They want a "black hat". It isn't acceptable that sometimes bad stuff just happens.

I would like it if she had been convicted on firm evidential grounds. But I do not have confidence that she was. And so it is right and proper that these debates take place in the light of day so that we can all have confidence, not just in the verdict that was reached, but in the justice system itself. I am sorry that this may upset the families, but they also presumably want confidence that the right conclusion was come to. Better to do this now than in 10 years or 20 years - because if this is a miscarriage of justice, nobody should be locked up for that length of time for a crime they did not commit.

Show quote history

I agree.

How would the families feel if, many years in the future, they found out that she really didn't kill their babies, but had spent decades in jail? Wouldn't they want to know the truth about how their children died?

It doesn't do tham any good to pretend that there is absolutely, definitely, certainly no miscarriage of justice here, because they do happen. At the very least, the new evidence that's coming to light needs to be looked at.

Hwi · 04/02/2025 14:28

Could she have been scape-goated? To save some paediatric doctors? How they cover up their negligence (the doctors I mean). My dm had sepsis, came to A&E with me and told the doctors she had sepsis. I was with her. They sent her home, told her she could not have had it, sent her home, we took her back the following day to the same hospital where she died of sepsis.
Complaints to the Trust and Ombudsman resulted in an investigation, which concluded 'she received the appropriate care'. I don't trust doctors.