Lucy Letby.....she might actually be innocent?!

[Dramatic]

I have just watched the full press conference and I'm blown away. There seems to be no actual evidence AT ALL that she killed or injured those babies. This could be one of the biggest miscarriages of justice there has ever been in this country.

The insulin case was covered today. I won't try to repeat what was said, but that conviction is clinically unsound.

No the press have VERY strict laws around reporting only what was said at the trial that day. To do otherwise is contempt of court - a very serious criminal offence - and journalists will (and have) feel the full force of the law if they sensationalise or misrepresent an ongoing trial. Why do you think MN doesn’t allow these about active trials?

These are research / academic roles which are very different to clinical / pt facing roles and thus are more theoretical. I have seen the panel members try and dispute facts listed by the pathologist. Their clinical knowledge is not robust although they may be very good at research and studies it’s completely different.

So if she was black then Innocent Fan Club would have read all the evidence, is what you’re saying?

That doesn’t apply to publicly available information on the World Wide Web.
Besides, Lucy looked up most of the families and babies, not just the ones that tragically died.

Also some of those colleagues could have been concerned their livelihoods and potential promotions could have been on the line if they’d gone on record in defence of Letby.

If she is innocent where was the absolute devastation at being arrested, falling to pieces in an emotional heap wailing that she didn't do it, expressing her horror and upset about the deaths of the babies....even accusing someone else of it! There's been none of that has there?!

She comes across cold, callous, blank.
I thought they said she was the only person present at all the deaths, and then there's the diaries she wrote...surely that's both huge pieces of evidence.

People just can't fathom that such a seemingly 'normal' person can be so messed up IMO.But some innocent looking people have dark secrets and hide them well.

Perhaps she felt really sad when a baby died and sharing in the parents' grief, maybe with a "care" emoji, helped?

If she hadn't looked at them, it would probably have been wheeled out by the prosecution as evidence of how callous/heartless/brutal she was.

The media (or maybe the prosecution as well, I forget) tried to use the fact that the babies who died were among the sickest on the ward as evidence that she "deliberately targeted the most vulnerable, to be sure of causing death", when of course the sickest babies were also the most likely to die in the first place if nobody have been murdering them.

So none of this proves anything, either way.

The problem is that normally the issue is "Someone murdered this person, we think it was X". But in this case, the question is whether anyone was murdered at all, and the courts are really not set up to determine that - it should be a matter for forensics and the coroner, and there is hardly any evidence for most of the babies because none of the doctors thought any of the deaths were suspicious until the whispers got going about Letby (as a PP mentioned, it really is like an episode of The Traitors). If the babies were murdered then LL is very like the only possible suspect. But if LL didn't kill them, then it was a combination of bad hygiene, other medical errors (read about Dr Brearey and Baby O - your hair may stand on end), and them being very sick to start with. It's not at all clear to many people that the evidence for this reaches the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level.

Don’t be silly, how could they get her a lesser sentence? It doesn’t work like that.

It's hard to know. I'm on the fence.

I remember I did think when one of the documentaries came out that one of the doctors seemed to be really gunning for lucy.

He said that senior staff said that she was fine and it was just coincidence lucy was on many shifts were babies died/collapsed

But he kept pointing the finger at lucy over and over.

I did think it was a little odd that he did that , and didn't look at any other possible causes

That's a bit rich coming from a country whose supreme court refused to let every vote be counted in Bush v Gore and who overturned Roe v Wade when it was settled law. Particularly as Kavanagh said he wouldn't overturn it during his hearings.

Our supreme court found against the Prime Minister when he illegally dissolved parliament. Our judiciary may get things wrong, but they are not corrupt.

Most of them are in these roles AFTER doing a full career in clinical practice.

I think it means we’ve all got bigger problems than how we choose to spell one word.

I worked in child protection and we were only allowed to look up parents on social media if for example there were concerns that they were breaking agreements to not see their pedophile ex. And lo and behold they’d be at Alton Towers all together as a family. But this was very much in essential circumstances only and no way was it acceptable to idly look up families otherwise in our spare time.

Exactly.

If the evidence of her innocence was so clear they would have used it as her defence at the previous trials.

They wouldn’t have even entertained the idea of for kind a fan club. They’d accept the verdict told to them.

But I do wish the fan club now would read the evidence.so few people know the facts of this case

Yes I've seen the responses, absolute madness. I think they hate that there's not a man to blame in this case although they've tried their best to besmirch the reputation of the male doctors involved.

Yes it does apply to public information.

When I worked in a bank we were not allowed to look up any bank customers on social media.

We were not allowed to use bank customers information for "any other use".

Something similiar would have been said to her

Or from a council estate

They are not merely research roles. The best consultant doctors publish and carry out research while also having full-time jobs as clinicians. It is almost mandatory to have done some clinical research in order to become a consultant. These are world leading experts, each with decades of clinical experience under their belts.

Absolutely agree. Perhaps where there is a lot of technical evidence it would be preferable to have cases decided by a judge with dual training (legal and medical in this case).

Having worked with academics I find so many conveniently report that their research has concluded something that aligns with their personal belief. I know lefty academics whose research miraculously claims all the country’s problems will be solved if we get the Tories out or of poverty is no more

They do in hospitals full of malpractice and poor medical care

Yes if she was Waynetta HardScally from Roughtown, wore Kappa and had a Croydon face lift then no one would care

The fact that FOURTEEN clinical experts believe that LL did not commit the murders, rather than MN armchair sleuths, surely means that there absolutely should be a retrial!