To think the Lucy Letby case needs a judicial review?

[Edenspirits73]

2 more detailed articles in main stream papers today questioning the Lucy Letby verdict - mirroring the well known New York Times article that wasn’t allowed here during her trial- surely with this much questioning, there should at least be a judicial review?

aibu?

If she is guilty after review then fair enough, but yet again convictions are being viewed as unsafe.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-letby-serial-killer-or-miscarriage-justice-victim/

There is a huge spectrum between not guilty of anything and guilty of murder. Manslaughter, incompetence, even bad hygiene practices. The ward appears to have been full of poor practice which was evidenced at the trial.

It is interesting that the unexpected deaths on the neonatal ward have been investigated but not the unexpected deaths on the maternity ward happening at the same time. LL didn't have access to the maternity ward. So are we expected to belive there was another serial killer there too that no-one cares about? As far as I know the consultants who blamed LL are the only people who were going regularly between the two wards? A table including all staff on both wards for all incidents would be the only statistically valid option. Have deaths at the maternity ward also fallen since it was downgraded?

Are you asking because of that Guardian article? Nah the authors had their thumb on the scales. The so called expert they quoted isn't expert at all in the area of neonates.

Ben Myers is a brilliant barrister, he pulled every trick in the arsenal, she's been found guilty and she is guilty.

In a nutshell. Spot on.

The Guardian article is a shoddy piece of journalism for a number of reasons:

1. I am uncomfortable with the way it begins by trying to create the impression of a consensus of experts agreeing that the conviction is unsafe without substantiating their so called expertise as they are anonymous and their credentials unverified
2. The impression given to the lay reader that CoCH was direly understaffed when the RCPCH report made no such conclusion
3. The prosecution made little of Letby's so called confession notes only mentioning them briefly in cross, they did not form a major part of the prosecution's case, the evidence did
4. The article misrepresents Prof Hindmarsh's evidence
5. Re Children C, I, O and P - the unnamed critics never saw the x-rays. Evans' theory on the air embolism was in fact deemed to be well founded by the radiologist and pathologist as was brought forward at trial.
6. Myers founded the first appeal on a strategy change re the skin discoloration which the CoA ruled could have been brought forward at trial - if it was so compelling then why didn't he?

Letby was found guilty and she is guilty.

People say it's circumstantial evidence like there's something wrong with circumstantial evidence - there isn't. Most evidence brought forward at trail is circumstantial unless you have an eyewitness to a murder, it's circumstantial. DNA is circumstantial. I don't know why lay people get to hung about about circumstantial evidence. It's evidence. There was a lot of it in this case.

Absolutely people are only cheerleading for Letby because of her youth and her looks.

Her convictions have never sat right with me. I'm not saying she didn't do it, but I've always felt uneasy about the lack of evidence and, to me, contradictory messages throughout the trial. I listened to the podcasts and honestly just wondered when all the evidence was going to start. It never really did in my opinion.

I then thought a mass of damning character traits and past experiences were going to come out after the trial, again, they didn't.

I'm dubious about the convictions too and, unless there's a lot more to it than were allowed to be aware of, i wouldn't be surprised if it's challenged and overturned in the future.

It also makes me worried for democracy, how you can be locked away for your whole life on such limited evidence.

My twins were in NICU for a month and I regularly saw nurses standing letting heartrates and oxygen figures self-correct. I was told that they want to intervene as little as possible. A lot of the prosecutions case seemed to be around her lack of action but I was under the impression this was considered best practice in some situations.

You must be completely off your face.

According to the Oxford dictionary ‘several’ is more than 2! As there are approx 34,500 qualified children’s nurses in the UK unless they release the actual ‘numbers’ of people interviewed their fundamental arguments can be seen as flawed.

I would rather hear from the court experts, and have a full summary of the hours/ days of evidence provided rather than some cherry picked facts. If there is enough evidence to make this an unsafe conviction then that needs to be dealt with through the courts - but her appeals have so far been rejected!

I have real concerns.

People talking about alarms going off in a neonatal unit and her doing nothing. Alarms go off ALL of the time. Neonates forget to breathe quite frequently, wriggle and displace tubes, moisture gets into tubes or it kinks. You have to have a look at what is happening before you start hitting the emergency buzzer.

So it's quite feasible that she was looking at the monitor saying the child was desaturating and trying to figure out why - seeing if the baby in front of her or the tubes had a visible problem.

And nurses/parents/doctors silence alarms on a constant basis. When they do so, they do it because you should be looking at the child as well as the monitor.

Totally agree with this. It’s normal to switch the alarm off when you respond to it and spend a short amount of time assessing if the baby is about to take a breath and sort itself out. If someone walked in at the wrong split second it could look like you’re doing nothing.

Pretty sure a doctor is aware of that.
It clearly looked dodgy to him.

For all of those trying to defend the evil murderer, are you friends/family of this cruel excuse for a human being?

Or even worse, doesn't Letby have access to the Internet, emails her deluded parents, etc? It wouldn't be a surprise if she was on here herself!

There is so much evidence (circumstantial or not) that she has done this. I highly doubt that if you were a parent of one of these murdered babies under her care, you would be saying these things! One of the babies had horrendous injuries FFS that would make be physically throw up to mention.

Open your eyes!!

Explain that one away!! SHUT THIS THREAD DOWN MN!! IT IS DISRESPECTFUL TO EVERY VICTIM'S PARENT

They’re all clearly ignoring the actual evidence 🤮

We're forgetting that many of these deaths were deaths that the team hadn't been expecting. Some babies were meant to be returning home as they were fit and welll. There were many deaths that the drs reported weren't responding in a normal manor to treatment, these are experienced and would know when something was amiss. Some of the deaths the doctors couldn't understand why they had happened. And all these occasions it was ll that was there. There was evidence of her trying to change the area of ward she was assigned to to get to certain babies, asking to switch the area she was in and then a death would then occur again in that new area. I agree the evidence can be picked apart like her notes etc but there's too much that does suggest she was involved either on purpose or just though not meeting the needs of the babies. There's more evidence than just the notes ans the shift pattern.

I am on the fence with this case. If she is guilty, so be it. If she is innocent, such a terrible situation for her to be in. This needs to be looked at again. I think the writing in her diary was her critiquing herself after she knew she was being blamed I write things like that about myself eg I am horrible, this is all my fault, I am such a terrible person, everyone hates me, my husband doesn't deserve me, I am not good enough. I just don't know about this case a full retrial is needed. If she is innocent I will feel sorry for her for the rest of my life. If she did it I would love to know why. I feel so sad for all the babies, their families and also Lucy's poor mother and father. It just does not add up. Could it be a case of wrong place wrong time? I know this sounds just horrendously unlikely - 'wrong-place wrong-time' with so many cases involved. I just cannot settle myself that she is guilty.

I don’t think anyone on this thread is trying to defend anything.

Its a discussion based on some fairly significant pieces of investigative journalism that’s in the media at the moment.

It is full of conspiracy, and disrespectful. Reported this.

Of course she won’t have internet access, don’t be silly.

It’s actually been an interesting discussion based on the articles in the main stream media and respectful to the parents.

It is ok to discuss these things.

Woman murders multiple babies- lots of article clicks.
Woman in court for murdering babies- lots of article clicks.
Woman convicted of murdering babies- lots of article clicks.
Woman in prison twiddling thumbs- no article clicks
Woman may be wrongfully convicted- lots of article clicks

Trying to question evidence in a case , where the person has been found guilty is disrespectful. We can believe everything in tbe main stream media can't we?

How would you explain the huge rise in unexpected deaths on the maternity ward happening at the same time that LL had no involvement with?

There have been 3 major pieces of investigative journalism on this case in mainstream papers raising huge questions about the safety of her conviction. This is a discussion forum and it’s a major case.

Historically it’s often investigative journalists that have a big impact.

And everyone on here has done so mindful that everyone wants justice for the parents.

Exactly. There were other deaths but LL was not charged over them.
Lots of explanations for a rise in deaths. The unit was under severe pressure due to being short staffed for some time. That's one explanation. Another that was raised in the article is that the number of deaths came within the statistically expected number.

So who murdered the babies than? This is in bad taste, I will report it until it is shut down.