Page 18 | Lucy Letby.....she might actually be innocent?!

Dramatic · 2025-02-04T21:06:51+00:00

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.

DressOrSkirt · 04/02/2025 23:13

AlisonWhatIsTheMatter · 04/02/2025 23:10

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

Show quote history

Ok but I still don't understand how this handwritten note was supposed to help her?

Mountainfrog · 04/02/2025 23:13

If this new evidence suggests babies weren’t murdered but died through substandard medical care, then she can’t be tried for murder if no murder took place.

AestheticallyChallenged · 04/02/2025 23:13

AlisonWhatIsTheMatter · 04/02/2025 23:06

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!

They don't think there were any murders for Letby to be guilty or innocent of. The pathologists who did the post mortems, shortly after the babies died, raised no concerns of foul play either.

JandamiHash · 04/02/2025 23:13

Mirabai · 04/02/2025 23:12

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.

Show quote history

Actually that’s not true. You don’t have to be retired to be an expert witness

AlisonWhatIsTheMatter · 04/02/2025 23:14

Ginnyweasleyswand · 04/02/2025 23:12

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.

And possibly the fact that ANY experts on LL side might have faced repercussions………

user243245346 · 04/02/2025 23:15

"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."

@JandamiHash - the experts at the press conference are global experts on neonatal deaths who are working for free because they think there has been a miscarriage of justice.

One of them wrote the research paper used by the trial expert to say some of the babies were killed by air embolism. The author of the paper states the interpretation of his paper is wrong.

Original poster

Dramatic · 04/02/2025 23:15

Imbusytodaysorry · 04/02/2025 22:51

No but you think she is innocent because some of her behaviours are similar to stuff you have done.

Medical negligence… yes and a little help to finish them off . All From the same one nurse always around .
That's no coincidence.

Show quote history

No, I am thinking there's a good chance she's innocent because all of the medical "evidence" that was presented at trial has been systematically demolished.

OP posts:

Mirabai · 04/02/2025 23:15

JandamiHash · 04/02/2025 23:13

Actually that’s not true. You don’t have to be retired to be an expert witness

Show quote history

Eh? Didn’t say you did. It’s just that a lot of them are because practising medics don’t have time for long trials.

JandamiHash · 04/02/2025 23:15

AlisonWhatIsTheMatter · 04/02/2025 23:14

And possibly the fact that ANY experts on LL side might have faced repercussions………

Show quote history

Expert witnesses support defence teams all the time. Including for rape and murder

Perhaps her team couldn’t find any because actually what she did was indefensible

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 04/02/2025 23:17

JandamiHash · 04/02/2025 23:13

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

Show quote history

No it’s not a fact. Along with all the other neonatologists in the entire world they weren’t called to give evidence by the defence team. You just made up the idea that the reason for that is their insufficient expertise.

wythamwoods · 04/02/2025 23:17

Genevieva · 04/02/2025 23:04

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.

Show quote history

This.

Ghosttofu99 · 04/02/2025 23:17

samarrange · 04/02/2025 23:01

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.

Show quote history

Trigger warning:

And what about the testimonies of the families and what they witnessed? The mother who went to visit her twin to find it bleeding and Letby showed no interest and said not to worry, then made incorrect notes about what happened. Most descriptions from parents make her sound cold and lacking in ability to give emotionally appropriate responses to serious situations like being so happy trying to get that mum to wash her dead baby.

Not sure why so many people are bending over backwards to defend her when at best she is guilty of medical negligence. If it was pure coincidence that she was on shift for so made sick babies collapsing due to substandard care they she would have know what signs to look out for and could have given better care or whistle blown but it came out that she was mainly concerned with being on shift with that doctor she had a crush on.

Wannabeamummybad · 04/02/2025 23:17

Whether someone did something is different to whether it has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that they did it. Even if someone did something, the onus is on the prosecution prove it. What's being presented is that there was reasonable doubt based on the 'evidence' and therefore her conviction may not have been sound. So whether she did it or not is not actually what's in question. What's in question is whether it has been proven to the legal and criminal standard. It appears what's coming out is demonstrating there is reasonable doubt.

I do however concur with some commenters above that being a white blonde woman may influence people to look at her 'more favourably'. But even if that is the case, there is a reason we have due process. It applies to her irrespective of potential privilege. I hope one day it can apply, and be perceived to apply equally to everyone.

FiveBarGate · 04/02/2025 23:18

My personal belief (although I appreciate this counts for nothing!) is that she is a bit of a difficult character. That she perhaps doesn't take orders well (or was prepared to stand up to doctors) and probably had a degree of saviour syndrome.

That being with the sickest babies and having that role with parents meant something to her (in a way that probably crossed professional boundaries).

That she is a bit of a cold fish who doesn't express emotions in a way that people think she (as a woman) should.

But I always had reservations this was beyond reasonable doubt. She may have behaved inappropriately, may have provided substandard care deliberately or otherwise, but that to say she certainly murdered them is a stretch of the evidence available.

I don't think she is necessarily innocent but I do think a retrial is what will have to happen as there are too many grey areas for anyone to be certain either way.

Ilovetowander · 04/02/2025 23:18

I don't know either way. If she is innocent then I feel so sorry for her having her life picked over.

I find the comments about her race being a factor in the questions over the safety of the conviction in poor taste . miscarriages of justice are a tragedy for all.

user243245346 · 04/02/2025 23:19

BoredZelda · 04/02/2025 23:13

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.

Generally everything said at a trial can be openly reported unless the judge says otherwise (which is very unusual). It's not the case that evidence about insulin was not reported

AlisonWhatIsTheMatter · 04/02/2025 23:19

JandamiHash · 04/02/2025 23:15

Expert witnesses support defence teams all the time. Including for rape and murder

Perhaps her team couldn’t find any because actually what she did was indefensible

Show quote history

Expert witnesses have faced repercussions when supporting defence teams during trials similar to the LL trial…

BoredZelda · 04/02/2025 23:19

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

Parents of NNICU babies aren't patients.

JandamiHash · 04/02/2025 23:20

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 04/02/2025 23:17

No it’s not a fact. Along with all the other neonatologists in the entire world they weren’t called to give evidence by the defence team. You just made up the idea that the reason for that is their insufficient expertise.

Show quote history

Well it is a fact because none of them were called as expert witnesses. Why do you think that is?

Original poster

Dramatic · 04/02/2025 23:20

Briannaco · 04/02/2025 22:55

It's not the Same. She was working as a nurse. Nurses are not meant to look up patients on facebook.

Digital protection and data breaches would have been in her contract.

She would have been warned in her contract that she could not use patient information for any personal use.

I worked as a youth worker, and in our contract we were told that we could not speak to any of the young people on social media.

In a completely different job I worked as customer service for a bank once.

We were specifically told that we could not look up any of our friends /families bank accounts to have a nose. That would have resulted in us being fired. If I had looked up any of the bank customers on Facebook and I was caught doing it I also would have been fired.

Police officers are only allowed to access "need to know " information. If they were found to be looking up anyone on Facebook I'm sure they would be given a warning/maybe fired

Edited

Show quote history

But people do this stuff all the time, I can think of several people who have told me things they shouldn't about people. You can bet tons of nurses have searched patients on FB

OP posts:

JandamiHash · 04/02/2025 23:21

AlisonWhatIsTheMatter · 04/02/2025 23:19

Expert witnesses have faced repercussions when supporting defence teams during trials similar to the LL trial…

Show quote history

Unless loads were approached who refused to do the trial (there’s no reason to believe this, wether it puts them off or it expert witnesses are in abundance) if inclined to believe there just weren’t any to refute the prosecution

Briannaco · 04/02/2025 23:22

BoredZelda · 04/02/2025 23:19

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

Parents of NNICU babies aren't patients.

Yes I meant patients or patient's families.

It's the same

SpiritAdder · 04/02/2025 23:22

Avocando · 04/02/2025 23:12

Actually it does

Show quote history

No privacy law protects information you put out on FB as open to the public. HTH.

ZenNudist · 04/02/2025 23:23

The looking up the families of dead babies at anniversaries and Christmas was suspicious. She did lots of suspicious things and I didn't even follow it that closely. Plus she wrote I did this I am an awful person or something like that.

wipeywipe · 04/02/2025 23:23

And I 100% stick by my belief that this wouldn’t happen if Letby was black. People can kid themselves they don’t see race all they want, but I’m right

So if that is true should people care less about a potential miscarriage of justice?