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.

It probably was but so what? What does it prove that she went looking for those families?

I don't understand this, why would a therapist advise her to write down that she'd killed the babies she was being accused of killing? How would this help her if she's innocent?

I'm a nurse and have worked briefly in NICU and adult ICU and have worked with lots of nurses and members of staff that want to look after and be involved with the very sickest patients ........ it's more common than you think

Oh please stop with this pathetic, racist crap. Moors Murderer Myra Hindley was a white, slim, attractive(ish) woman and there were no 'miscarriage of justice' calls for her, quite the opposite: people were calling for the reintroduction of hanging. When she eventually died in prison, the Home Office had difficulty finding a firm of undertakers willing to conduct her funeral as so many refused to have anything to do with her. When the funeral did take place, it was held late at night and with a police presence and this was decades after those poor kids were murdered.

Oh god, you sound so ignorant. People react to these situations differently- it’s the freeze, flight or fight response. LL obviously froze and maybe thought that since she is innocent, she’d never be convicted.

Bit like the rape victim that freezes isn’t it? She never says no, never screams, never fights back. Just lies there and “lets” it happen.

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.

They were wrong. She was not present at all the deaths and the diaries held no confession.

And yet they aren’t considered expert enough to be expert witnesses or have anyone other than Letby’s defence team give them a platform.

Let’s be clear - this is not an inquiry or select committee. These are self appointed people supported by very rich lawyers with a vested interested in remaining high profile.

I’m 100% sure she didn’t. NJ performed all kinds of tricks to trip her up though.

Thank you @Ihopeithinkiknow 💐

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!

The same sleuths who were desperate to prove that Nicola Bully was murdered.

But would you be angry if you were told you had to work with the healthier ones now and again?

Have you watched the press conference? Please watch it if you haven’t. It’s not just her lawyers - it’s medical professionals working for free; Medical professionals whose papers were used to convict her who are saying their research has been mis-interpreted and mis-used. That the “evidence” used was factually and medically incorrect.

But sure five consultant paediatricians at her hospital believed that she DID commit the murders.

So clinical experts have said that she did kill the babies.

And now clinical experts have said that she didn't kill the babies.

I agree- I followed the case at the time and it seemed entirely circumstantial. It was a major issue for me that most of the deaths had initially been catagorised as natural causes too and changed retrospectively. If there was enough evidence for that initial conclusion clearly there is doubt

There were MANY, many more handwritten notes that the press decided not to publish.

You are very wrong actually about Hindley. At the time she had lots of support and people blamed her BIL even though he was a child himself and actually stopped the murders continuing.

Hindley initially lots of support and the BIL’s life was ruined. She maintained her innocence for decades

She definitely did not have support.

Ok, your bank’s policy prohibited you from looking up customers on social media, but that’s not a law or a universal policy.

Private financial information within a bank account is covered by laws.

She did. HTH

Actually it does

NHS professionals are not supposed to look up patients on social media either.

lol at the idea they were not expert enough to be expert witnesses!
Shoo Lee kicked this off because he wasn’t happy that his own research was misrepresented in the trial. He then went and found the most senior people he could so that nobody could say they didn’t know what they were talking about. They had no involvement in the case up to then, they weren’t rejected by the original defence team ffs.

The only reason these clinical experts got involved is that THEIR papers were used to convict Letby, but used INCORRECTLY. I.e. the prosecution used their research to convict her but misinterpreted the research.

So really what they are doing is clearing their complicity in a potential miscarriage of justice. They are saying, no you can't use our papers in this way, which is absolutely their right to do.

If there's other evidence that convicts her, so be it.

And I think the reason she had no experts on her side is that her lawyers were really rubbish and incompetent.

This can’t be serious. Expert witnesses in this country are retired medics who fancy a bit of extra money and challenge in retirement. The board of international experts Shoo Lee gathered far outrank them all in experience and medical hierarchy.

Why lol? That’s a fact. Why weren’t any called to give evidence then?

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?

Uhuh. But let's say that day there was a ton of minutiae about the mechanics of giving babies insulin, and also the bit about the "confession" notes. What do you think will make the headline? That isn't misrepresentation, it isn't sensationalism, it is cherry picking what is reported. That isn't contempt. Naive to think reports aren't in any way spun to sell their story.