Cheshire Police are an incompetent bunch of useless bastards

[GossIsAGit]

After Sally Clark

They should have remembered that If a doctor of medicine tells you that a coincidence is so unlikely it must mean a woman has been killing babies then maybe you should consult a statistician and actually listen.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/10/lucy-letby-police-cps-handling-case-raises-new-concerns-about-convictions?CMP=ShareiOSAppOther

The jury weren't even told the correct info iirc. She wasn't present for at least one of the deaths that appeared on one of the 'charts' they were shown. I think we will look back on this whole case and just think 'wtf'.

Yes, and the jury for the second trial was advised that they could take the fact that Letby had been found guilty of seven murders at the first trial into account as relevant information.

It was just an extension of the first trial, unfortunately.

This to me is the core issue. There doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence that any of the babies were murdered. The pathologists at the time didn't raise any concerns. Without that, all the "odd" behaviour in the world means nowt. See Amanda Knox who was hung, drawn and quartered by the Press despite there being no forensic evidence or motive for her to have committed the crime. She just acted "funny".

this is why i dont think the public are the best ones in cases as complex with the lucy one, as then its who can give the most convincing performance etc

If the evidence was so flimsy then why could the defence team not find any expert witnesses to challenge it? I haven't followed the case in any detail but I understood that the only defence witness was a maintenance man.

If so many experts are now saying the conviction is unsafe how come there were none available to challenge the evidence during the trial?

Not this again

Defending a baby murderer isn’t a good look

How wonderful for you to know more than the jury and the judge.

Are you her mum?

I won't ask if you were her defending barrister, as even he didn't think she was innocent as he tried to do his miserable and difficult duty.

What a wonderful age we live in when every half wit can creep out of the woodwork, excited by their own nonsensical beliefs and declare that two judges, two juries and an appeal panel of judges have got it wrong.

I guess you're also writing to inmates on Death Row, telling them that you believe they're innocent, that the system "done them down." It was ever thus-idiot women wrote to the Yorkshire Ripper telling him they loved him and believed in his innocence-and always will be while the gullible walk amongst us. Plus ca change!

Armchair detectives that weren't even in court and had no access to the thousands of court documents-just a big mouth and a small excitable brain-don't be one of them.

Lucy Letby had two long trials and was found guilty at each because guilty is what she is. Found guilty not once, twice. Have some wit,

At least one of the babies was about to go home. Hardly would have been the case had her death been “expected”.

How on earth do you know this to be true?

honestly I find the amount of people so quick to jump to her defence weird.

drop the obsession. It’s strange behaviour.

Where were all these “highly skilled” experts during her extremely expensive KC led defence, if they have so much to say that throws doubt on the crown case?

What is your source for the defence barrister thinking Lucy Letby was guilty, please?

Avoiding contempt of court charges by not speaking out during the trial?

Desperately trying to alert the defence, or even trying to stop the trial.

I'm sorry how is this the fault of the police?

Quite. They came forward as soon as the reporting restrictions were lifted.
For the concerns about the evidence to have crystallised and attracted the attention of serious academics, scientists and medics so quickly is highly unusual and reflects how egregiously bad the evidence was.

None of the babies who died were about to go home at all. It is interesting how this myth gets repeated.

Letby was accused of attempted murder of one child who was preparing to go home and had a seizure. The prosecution agreed that they could not rule out infection as a cause.

Letby was not convicted on this charge.

Yes, some did this and got threatened with arrest for contempt of court. I don't think there were any practicing medical professionals among them yet - they seem to have been more cautious.

Gullible! Ha! I’m not the one who believes Lucy Letby can kill a baby she hasn’t even met. I’m not the one who believes in death by air down the nasogastric tube when the chief prosecution witness doesn’t even believe it any more.

This is the thing.
Some of the things you have to believe to think Lucy Letby is guilty are such a stretch. The second insulin bag thing, where she would have had to know which bag another nurse would pick when she wasn’t there, so she knew in advance which one to spike. Huh?

Oh dear.

If only you had been her defence lawyer-how very different the verdict would have been.

Tonight, Lucy lLetby-serial killer found guilty at two trials-is safely under lock and key with nothing to look forward to but the demented ramblings of her supporters. I'm sure she will have lots of lovely Christmas cards from them and much good may it do her.

Turn off the True Crime channels and read a book-better for your thinking process.

I shall leave you to stew in your own juice=much the same way as she is doing!

I hope to God you never find yourself on the end of a false allegation of harming a child due to dubious medical evidence and / or dogma. I have. It's a horrific, Kafaesque experience that leaves you scarred for life. Of course, if you believe that anyone accused must be guilty because "that can't possibly happen", then keep those naive blinkers on and continue hurling insults when you have no idea about how the system can fail.

Really-you were on put on public trial and found guilty of killing seven babies and attempting to murder six others!

How awful for you.

Or are you attempting to say that Social Services investigating an allegation is the same as being found guilty of mass murder of the innocents.

Anyway, I really will leave all you excitable frustrated barristers to hash up your rather silly theories amongst yourselves. It is demeaning to argue with people who are becoming swivel eyed

Thankfully, their views matter not a jot when those who count have locked up Lucy Letby for the rest of her miserable life and will take no more notice of Lucy Letby Fans than those who supported Peter Sutcliffe in much the same way.

The monster has already received almost as many marriage proposals as he did. Appalling.

Your willful ignorance is laughable, embarrassing and downright dangerous. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

If you're so convinced of her guilt then you would welcome a retrial with rigorous scrutiny of all the evidence by competent expert witnesses as it would then prove conclusively her guilt.

Or more likely I suspect you're not convinced that she would remain behind bars if a thorough review took place and don't want to deal with that. Because in many ways it's better to believe that someone is responsible for these deaths than the shitty reality that some babies cannot be saved. That sometimes they deteriorate and nothing can be done.

She referred to being accused of harming a child, very clearly. Obviously that's a parallel with Letby's case without making the two identical. Why are you inventing complications here?