Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind?

[Kittybythelighthouse]

I’ve been sensing a shift in opinions on the Lucy Letby case and I’m interested in hearing from people who have changed their mind either way.

Did you used to think she was guilty and now you don’t, or you aren’t sure? What changed your mind?

Also vice versa: did you used to think she was not guilty but then changed your mind to guilty? What convinced you?

The reason I’m using the term ‘not guilty’ rather than ‘innocent’ is because courts don’t prove innocence. Not guilty is a legal conclusion about whether or not the state met its burden of proof.

I wasn't sure if she was guilty or not but i didnt believe there was enough evidence to convict her. Now I believe she was innocent and I have done since they lied in court

It’s a figure of speech. Within a couple of episodes of the trial podcast I was doubting her guilt. By the end of it I was certain she was innocent.
I am amazed the jury found her guilty on the evidence provided.

I think the evidence is still relatively strong. Someone poisoned those babies with insulin, that doesn’t just happen by chance and she was always present. Also, what about the bizarre Facebook searching of the victim’s parents and the sinister notebook where she literally wrote, among other things, “I am evil, I did this.”

I don't know for sure she's not guilty, but there's a lot about the trial that gives me pause, and the number of experts speaking up is worrying.

Part of me is concerned that Letby is being set up as the fall guy for an NHS service that was failing and dangerous, and admitting her lack of guilt would mean having to face the real issues. Even if she is guilty of some of the murders, which is awful, it's already been shown there were deaths when she wasn't there. I think a lot more went wrong at Countess of Chester than just Lucy Letby.

What bearing does that have on what I've posted and you've quoted?

I was about 60-40 in believing that she did it.

Then I saw a whole series of medical staff lie on oath and spout utter made up nonsense in the Sandie Peggie case. Now I know medics will lie when it suits them, I am swinging further towards Letby's conviction being unsafe.

Let me use the opportunity to remind you about the judge in the appalling case against the men who raped Jill Saward. Because she held it together and bravely gave evidence in court and "didn't seem too badly affected" her rapists received lighter sentences than if she'd been a sobbing basket case.

What you are saying is not compelling evidence in any way. LL had had counselling, had been suspended for over a year, and quite possibly thought her defence was useless and she was powerless to do anything. She may have been medicated, or just dealing with things by zoning out. If you thought you were being conspired against, but couldn't find a way to fight you may very well come across the same way.

Good point

This doesn’t make sense given it was the ex bosses who were adamant LL was innocent.

So on that basis you're saying everyone found not guilty might have actually committed the crime.

Agreed. She had a fair trial, and the best that money can buy defence barrister. Yet the only witness she brought out was a plumber.

Exactly. She was protected for too long father than have murders pinned against her.

I’d counter that by saying listen to the Unravelled podcast about “experts” in the USA. You think that “expert” took part in that documentary out of the goodness of their heart?

Or do you think the documentary team tracked down and paid an expert who would say something like this to give the documentary an angle?

Do you know the bar for becoming an “expert” witness in the US justice system is “has more knowledge than the average person”. That’s it. That’s literally it. You don’t need to have worked in the field. You don’t need to have X,Y or Z qualification.

Just caught up and I see this all the ‘she’s guilty’ people haven’t mentioned a single piece of compelling evidence that proves her guilt. That’s because there isn’t any.

If it were your baby, wouod you care whether the alleged murders was actually guilty? Or would ig just be a case of so long as someone was blamed and rotting in prison for yhd rest of their lives that wouod be all that mattered? Just so long as someone was being blamed

These handover notes moved home with her when she moved, rather than be chucked.

The handover notes is the least of the evidence against her though.

I'd still care if they were guilty or not, I'd want to know if the death was deliberate or an accident.

Why? She had one of the best lawyers around representing her. She’d instructed several experts that she chose not to call because presumably it was felt that it wouldn’t help her case to call them (suggesting that they didn’t necessarily disagree with everything the prosecution experts said). She then applied twice for permission to appeal and more evidence was heard and rejected. The media hadn’t done a load of hit pieces on her in advance that meant the jury already thought she was evil.
How did she not get a fair trial?

250 times? Sure

She always seemed so flat....blank. Even when being arrested etc. Surely someone innocent would be crying and screaming in despair trying to protest that

You really cannot judge on the basis of how you think someone "ought" to have reacted!

I am old enough to remember the Lindy Chamberlain case in the 1980s, the Australian woman whose baby was taken by a dingo whilst on a camping trip. She was condemned in the court of public opinion because she didn't behave as people thought she should. She was found guilty of murder and spent several years in prison before being exonerated when her baby's clothes were found, torn and covered in dingo saliva.

And remember how Christopher Jeffries was hounded and vilified by the press, until the real killer of Joanna Yates was identified?

I sure as hell know that two wrongs don't make a right. I would want to know the same thing wouldn't happen to other families. Locking up the wrong person helps no one. I'm open minded enough to think there may not have been criminal acts committed by an individual, but rather there may have been a systemic failure in the institution which made the deaths of very poorly babies who were already very fragile much more likely. So not intent to harm, but issues which meant more babies didn't survive than could have done.

That's true. I was on a jury for a case where the defendant undoubtedly did cause some harm, it was there in front of us in black and white. But because the evidence did not show the level of harm necessary for them to be charged under the chosen offence, beyond reasonable doubt anyway, they were found not guilty. Literally no-one in that court room believed that the accused was entirely innocent of wrongdoing, not even their own barrister.

I don't know if she's guilty but I do think the conviction is unsafe. I have always been unsure of her guilt or innocence. People in this country do get wrongly convicted and I do think if there is any doubt that should be acted on as soon as possible.

On the balance of evidence, I would not convict Lucy Letby.
I think there have been shocking failings in process and care, but she is not directly responsible for those.

During the trial there was a lot about the pattern of collapses and deaths - they were mainly nights - specificity LLs nightshifts. She was moved to days and babies started collapsing and dying on her day shifts. She was off or on AL and everything was fine - she came back to work and the incidents started again. There was that famous chart - LL always there and the next most common presence was there for about 4 incidents. Much has been made of the stats of this and the “fact” that any babies dying when she wasn’t there were deliberately excluded but I’m not convinced that that is true. Who are these other dead babies? There has been nothing about them - no “4 babies died when LL was on annual leave”. Or “rate of collapse not higher on LL shifts”The death rate in the unit was huge. And didn’t someone independent go through every incident and pick out the suspicious ones without knowing anything about staffing? What was happening? Many (not all) the babies in the trial were well and expected to thrive. Then there was the info from the enquiry that on her shifts at Liverpool Women’s the rate of dislodged breathing tubes went up hugely. Why is that?

I was never convinced by the RJ “I saw her standing over a desaturating baby “doing nothing” - evidence and it turns out that RJ lied about that according to his contemporaneous email/notes. - that looks bad for the prosecution.

But she offered no defence - a plumber saying the sinks backed up but no claim that any babies were affected. She also lied on the stand pointlessly - saying she didn’t know what “go commando” meant and all the nonsense about the “boyfriend”. Who lies about shit like that in a trial for murder? I’ve also heard people say it’s actually really hard to push air down a NG tube but why didn’t the defence demonstrate this in court? Nothing could have been simpler but it was ignored. My only conclusion is it’s actually pretty easy to do. I don’t believe there were lots of suspicious incidents when she wasn’t there - her defence would have used it. I don’t believe all those babies died of neglect (I do believe at least 2 had very little chance). do believe she is weird and possibly sociopathic. I don’t believe the evidence from people remembering incidents 4 years down the line is without flaw. On balance I think she did it but I’m still uncomfortable with it. I guess I’m not convinced beyond reasonable doubt.