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.

The conviction was extremely unsafe and entirely circumstantial - based on faulty evidence, cherry-picked data and hearsay. The expert whose paper the prosecution misunderstood came out to defend her with multiple fellow neonatal medical experts.

Nothing was ever proven in the first place, which made me very uncomfortable, as well as the illogical argument of 'you can't question the unsafe conviction because the charges are so serious' - surely, the more serious the charges, the more important it is that the conviction is safe.

I don’t think that’s a fair representation of the expert panel convened by Dr Shoo Lee. Dr Lee literally authored the research the prosecution based its air embolism case on. It’s no good pretending he’s a nobody now because he told them they misused his research.

That panel cannot be easily dismissed. It includes internationally recognised neonatologists, epidemiologists, and senior paediatric specialists from world-leading institutions like the Karolinska Institute - the home of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (last time I looked Sweden had plenty of blondes who aren’t serving life sentences for murder) - as well as top-tier teaching hospitals in Canada, the UK, and beyond. These are people who write the guidelines others follow, run major medical centres, and have decades of peer-reviewed research behind them. Whatever conclusions they reach, you can’t dismiss them as anything other than the highest calibre of medical expertise. They aren’t throwing themselves into this from halfway across the world, jettisoning their reputations and extremely lucrative careers to flirt from a distance with an ordinary British nurse.

There were straight women in the panel too btw. Are they also in love with her? Is she Helen of Troy? Maybe she’s literally a witch?! I don’t think that position holds any water. There’s no point engaging unless you are engaging with the facts.

Appeals to authority are pretty pointless given that there appears to be disagreement amongst experts. In fact, one could argue that the most relevantly qualified experts tend to be on the side of the conviction being unsafe.

The Facebook groups are also irrelevant, given that no one is citing them as evidence that the verdict was wrong.

Appeals to authority are pretty pointless given that there appears to be disagreement amongst experts. In fact, one could argue that the most relevantly qualified experts tend to be on the side of the conviction being unsafe.

The Facebook groups are also irrelevant, given that no one is citing them as evidence that the verdict was wrong.

The ITV documentary was excellent

It's available on YouTube now

I understand your point, my logic is that your position (which I think is a common one and in line with my own) would come under ‘not guilty’ because it means you do not think the burden of proof was reached and that there is reasonable doubt. That’s why I chose the term ‘not guilty’ as opposed to ‘innocent’. Does that make sense?

I haven’t seen the new doc but I think she’s guilty. I don’t think she has a hope in hell of having a truly fair re-trial even if she was granted one. The public have been exposed to too much information and misinformation.

It struck me as odd that her defence team didn’t call any witnesses during her trial despite submitting witness evidence (except for a plumber). I can only assume that they didn’t call them because they would have hindered her case under cross examination more than they would help.

Honestly have no idea because I’ve seen and read so many conflicting things!
The fact discussion (including this thread) seems to be very 50/50 with both sides seeming so passionately certain just makes me more confused.

”I can only assume that they didn’t call them because they would have hindered her case under cross examination more than they would help”

We don’t know why they weren’t called, there are a myriad of potential legal reasons why, but we do know for certain it’s not because the prosecution evidence was too good to argue against. Far from it.

As a former NNU nurse I have seen nurses blamed repeatedly for doctors mistakes and doctors closing rank. I don't know if she is guilty but really not sure she had a fair trial.
NHS worker covers a vast range of skills . Clinical workers will always know how much this happens

No I haven't changed my mind, and having read the articles by MD in Private Eye it has confirmed my view that this is one in a long line of miscarriages of justice.

I didn’t say anything about letting her out tomorrow. The discussion is about whether or not the convictions are safe or need to be reviewed. That would be a careful and measured process. I’m not trying to organise a mumsnet rush on Bronzefield women’s prison tonight!

I can’t imagine that she would want to return to nursing if she is exonerated anyway.

I believe she was a scapegoat for a failing system.

A proper trial with proper evidence needs to be done.

The new documentary was excellent. I would say the conviction is unsafe.

They began from a premise that might well be incorrect:
"Who killed these babies? Lucy Letby did."

It now seems medical negligence/incompetence is more likely

Some of them are actually women, straight women. Nobody ever mentions that.

I have absolutely no idea whether Letby is guilty or not.

The relevant question surely is ‘how safe is her conviction’? If significant new evidence has emerged which, had it been presented to the jury at her trial, may have caused them to return a different verdict her conviction should be considered unsafe and should be quashed on appeal. That’s how the legal system should work.

I followed her trial and as a nurse myself thought some of the cases were very dubious, others less so. However I think what really convicted her was her awful defence. Essentially she had none which is odd. My qustion now is why her defence did not have any of these professionals casting doubt over the prosecution’s arguements. The lack of that made it very likely that she would be convicted. Now hearing all of this, these people should not have been hard to uncover for her trial.

Do you seriously think she would want to return to nursing?

”a fit and proper justice system is essential”

I think this is a totally fair position to take. That’s something that should matter to all of us.

I can.

I thought she was guilty.

Now I think there has likely been a miscarriages of justice. The only witness her barrister presented was a plumber. No expert witnesses were called.

World renowned experts now contradict the expert witnesses.

”people who are saying this needs looking again at, aren't saying that she is definitely innocent”

Just to clarify: that’s why I chose the wording ‘not guilty’ - because in a legal context this doesn’t mean innocent. It means the burden of proof was not reached and there is reasonable doubt. Courts don’t declare innocence. I get that it’s a little confusing though.

This is the best explanation I've seen of what happened with Letby's defence experts:

https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby:_the_missing_defence_evidence

Anybody who hadn't already been instructed by her defence couldn't speak out in public during the trial because they'd have been in contempt of court. But some of the experts like Neena Modi, who speaks on the ITV documentary, started writing to Letby's lawyers or to journalists then.

Well you weren't given all what will have been said in the trial and if you want a copy of the court transcripts that will set you back £100,000.