Lucy Letby - programme on ITV now

[Viviennemary]

I think this must be a new programme and not a repeat. Experts are being wheeled out to try and say Letby is innocent. I'm not convinced at all. None of them were even at the trial or worked with Letby. It's all theories and opinions..

Why the hell did Benjamin Myers KC not present any expert witnesses at the original trial? In my book, he did not do his job as KC ... definitely wouldn't want him advocating for me!

Every adult should watch this. Our justice system isn't doing what it says on the tin. Her original defence KC was as useless as a chocolate tea pot!

I agree, this is horrendous for the parents. You should watch it ... the only witness in her defence was a plumber, her KC was useless and that is not a reason to spend a life in prison.

The chart only chose deaths when Lucy Letby was on shift, other deaths were left out. Watch the programme, and eminent statistician explains why the "sheet" is unsound data.

’I think for an average jury that amount of detailed medical info is a lot and perhaps they needed more neutral advice or education on the basics?’

Yes, this is an important point.
Part of the problem with this trial was that the expert witnesses are supposed to be neutral but Dewi Evans very much wasn’t, right from when he contacted the police touting for work and boasted about how he has hardly ever lost a case.
Another judge wrote to Judge Goss to warn him that Evans was not a reliable witness and had a tendency to exceed the bounds of his expertise, but Goss chose to ignore the warning, which I think is going to be shown up to be a bad error of judgement.

I too think she is guilty. But if further investigation is needed then fair enough. Maybe investigations into baby deaths at other hospitals might throw more light on it.

I think this will come to light as the biggest miscarriage of justice in British history. I think she was scapegoated and it will all come out in years to come. It wasn’t a safe conviction and there was no evidence pointing her towards, it was only encase she was on shit for some of them but no all.

Something so emotive is horrific for the poor parents to have to endure and have it dragged on and on, but if she is innocent, how tragic would that be.

None of it makes sense. She had it all so there wasn’t a motive. I believe there was failings on mamy levels across the board and she was blamed

I think this will come to light as the biggest miscarriage of justice in British history.

Sadly there have been so many I don't think it will.

Off top of my head birmingham 6, guildford 4 - Timothy Evans hanged one of my kids had that on the GCSE history curriculum - post office scandal over 900 criminal convictions of sub-postmasters and postmistresses - Andrew Malkinson were many chances to free him were missed.

It's why I don't get all the posters saying well she convicted she must be guilty - it's an imperfect system it's why there are mechanisms to look at convictions where concerns are raised.

Yes maybe investigation into maternity thr report that's happening will also be useful in general for better practices for maternity. I just wouldn't want there to be a precedent for when someone may be innocent (and there are a few signs of doubt) that it should be further investigated just because I believe in the rule of law and making sure all the T's are crossed and I's dotted. Though I don't think it will change anything, we should have further investigation it out of principle. It may also reveal people who were negligent even if they didn't have intent.

Well I don't think that should necessarily be changed, in trials the prosecution and defence always both have their experts and they are testifying for one party. Medical experts normally have to believe what they're saying but can testify against the defence or prosecution if they feel their opiniom is right.

However, for an average jury who won't even gone to medical school let alone specialised in pediatric and neonatology it's too much. They need to understand 1. How she killed them e.g how the subtances actually led to the death 2. The illnesses these babies already had (that's very complex and how much can we expect of an average jury to learn basics from medical school and then specialised knowledge). Some doctors won't know it all, especially if they have a very different speciality but will at least understand the basics from medical school. But for an average jury where do they start with that - do they need time being taught the basics of neonatology and the illnesses before being explained to how the medication was dangerous because of the speicifcs of each baby's illness? That would take time and be very confusing but maybe is a better approach?

I don't like the idea of a bunch of specialised neonatologists (who would have to not know each other or any of the doctors in the case) being the jury because then it's not her peers but is it the best of two evils over a jury of normal people out of their depth.

Sadly, in my experience, NHS have always liked a scapegoat!! Nice and easy for them and protects all the Consultants and management egos!! The NHS is full of egos, especially at the top. Lucy Letby was dispensable as junior etc… I’m very cynical I know but I’ve seen it happen - young doctor getting blamed for a drug error etc… consultants and senior nurses - zero consequences when we all know it was an error caused by many. Not least the atrocity of handwritten medical notes and drug charts in the old days! But still… Senior NHS close ranks very quickly so I’m not surprised about this

Actually yes I agree that there’s every chance it won’t come to light given the examples you quite rightly point out.

Have you watched the video, OP? Does any of it give you any concerns about the safety of the conviction?

You would think so, wouldn’t you.

Dewi Evans identifed several other babies who he thought had been deliberately harmed, but these did not end up on the spreadsheet because Letby couldn’t be linked to them.

Just watched this new documentary and I am convinced that this is a massive miscarriage of justice.
Lucy Letby is innocent and the babies families have been misled about what happened to their poor children.

And a few more ...

Sally Clarke
Sam Hallam
Victor Nealon

Feel free to add to this endless list...

Sally Clarke expert witness statistics

if this is the case, and she’s freed, she’ll be hounded forever.

Sorry, I was supposed to be googling

I believe there is another documentary on in a few days which I expect to be much more balanced. She's 100% guilty. You do realise there are far more cases of harm currently being investigated? That go back to her previous hospital? How do those convinced of her innocence explain that?

Could you please link to the other doc and to the info about her previous hospital?

Since the police force involved is unlikely to have changed significantly since the deaths at the CoC were ‘investigated’ I am expecting the new accusations to be as flimsy, trumped up and unscientifically handled as the previous ones.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002h3lx

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yl273mlryo

The Liverpool Women's Hospital allegations are hard to take seriously.

Lucy Letby trained there twice. Once she was so junior that the possibility of her being alone with a child was virtually nil, as Liverpool staff have attested. The second time was just for a few weeks, and the hospital admitted at the Thirlwall Inquiry that they no longer have a record of her shifts for that period. All concerned have confirmed, again at Thirlwall, that there were no noticeable problems with her at the time.

Unfortunately, the police entrusted much of the investigation at Liverpool to a friend and collaborator of Dr Brearey, Letby's chief accuser at Chester. Before the police had ever arrested Letby, never mind charged her, Brearey had shared details of his suspicions with this consultant.

If the CPS support charges for Liverpool, they can only be of the nature: something unexpected happened 10-13 years ago, and despite nobody witnessing anything and no contemporary suspicions, we've decided to blame Lucy Letby.

It's hard not to hope they press ahead, in some ways, since I suspect that will expose the case still further as a tragic farce.

Judith Moritz, unfortunately, has already shown herself incapable of writing sensibly and objectively about this case. I'll watch Panorama with interest to see if she has learned anything, but I won't hold my breath.