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.

In the 80s, there was a controversial case in Australia where a mother (Lindy Chamberlain) claimed a dingo snatched and ran off with her baby. The baby's body and jacket weren't found. The public were divided between those who believed her story and those who found it far fetched. Her reactions were interpreted by many as 'not in keeping' with those of a bereft mother, whatever that means and generally odd. Many years later, the baby's jacket was found close to a dingo den. Her conviction was over turned. It turned out she had been innocent all along.

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20231019-the-mother-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-who-always-insisted-a-dingo-killed-her-baby

They do if babies are being murdered

You admit you did not follow the nine month long trial.

You did however watch a 90 minute documentary filled with selective content.

Based on the pre recorded, selective content of 90 minutes, you are now convinced that the nine month long trial, full of expert witnesses, colleagues, victims, families, judges, jury of peers etc etc is wrong?

But the pre recorded, 90 minute documentary full of selective, unopposed content, is factually true?

Wow.

All they had to do was read it, it’s easily available.

I didn't follow the case closely at the time but kept seeing people suggest it was an unsafe conviction. I read up, expecting to shut down frivolous concerns, but was surprised to come to the view that it did seem like the case against her was dubious. Following with interest...

The part about the doctor who used the neopuff in the wrong situation was particularly scathing. Presumably that was something any neonatal doctor should have known.

Today was a press conference, not a documentary. With some of world's leading neonatologists.

No it wasn't and what sort of context would ever excuse writing that?

quite simply it doesn't matter one iota if LL broke rules on social media, is a total weirdo, has a strange obsession with X Y or Z - or anything else that gets thrown at her.

If the deaths were from natural causes or medical negligence by the doctors then she is not guilty of murder. It all hinges on that.

I think this is an extension of the multiple maternity scandals we have had in recent years. Healthy babies dying over and over again due to poor care in NHs services cut to the bone since 2010. If you read the reports of some of those scandals: Shrewsbury etc it is easy to see how the theory of a murderer at work might arise.
In this NNU the care has been going downhill for a while, experienced staff left and not replaced and during the time was down-banding itself as not safe to take v premature babies. I think the defence struggled with witnesses as no one would touch it with a barge pole - evidence way too complex for a single person to work on - it’s taken an international panel to challenge it.
it is unbelievable how poor care is in the NHS now and I work there - perhaps a retrial and a reexamination of how poor the care was might prompt some honest conversations about how bad it all is
I think this is miss carriage of justice.look at
poor Sally Clarke convicted for murders of her babies on dodgy medical evidence and statistics

Well they obviously didn't, I don't even believe Dewi Evans himself probably read it in it's entirety

No in a banking setting, it doesn't just refer to financial records.

If I got the name of a bank customer and I added them as a friend on Facebook, I would get in trouble for that from the bank.

I only know the person's name because they are a bank customer, so I would be incorrectly using their private information.

They do if babies are being murdered

It's like banging one's head against a wall. Some of us just aren't so binary.

I followed the trial just as closely as you and have read every piece of available evidence. It’s astounding you think she’s guilty but thanks for pulling out the white card in the first post. Utter bullshit

No, the evidence photos of the many post it notes and diaries show it.

Lucia De Berk ‘Holland’s worst serial killer in history’ was freed after 6.5 years. She was also a nurse.

Miscarriages of justice happen, I really do believe LL will follow n LDB’s footsteps.

So how does that mean it’s out of context? What is the context?

Actually Myers did show he had understood it. He asked to have the case thrown out on the basis of insufficient research and knowledge on the conditions and causes Evans cited. He pointed out to Kinsey that she was talking about the wrong form of air embolism. Perhaps he overestimated the jury or underestimated Evans's effectiveness.

I think she's innocent. Fourteen world class experts, with no prior experience of the case, found no evidence that any of the babies were murdered.

I believe she’s guilty. How else am I going to describe negligence?

The panel of experts are working with LL's defence team (as reported by the BBC). It is not an independent research exercise. I'm sure the prosecution can find 13 leading professionals to say the opposite. That's how medical evidence in litigation works.

I didn't follow the trial closely, I only kept up with what I saw in the press. I was surprised at the time that a conviction was secured via circumstantial evidence. A jury of our peers found the evidence convincing. Conflicting medical evidence doesn't change anything for me.

I believe Dr Shoo Lee 🤷‍♀️

no prior experience of the case

Exactly. This is not a good thing that they don’t have the information needed

Yes but I have also previously stated that categorically you are not allowed to google/look up SM profiles of your patients. It’s a sackable offence.

We had a prisoner in and it was pointed out that it’s in the policy we couldn’t google them while they were in our care.

We had a crime committed at the trust and we were not allowed to post about it on social media/ were told to avoid the media reports until there was a conviction/verdict.

We had a patient in our care over the course of 18 months and we were devastated when they died. We were only allowed to speak to the family afterwards (as in informally) if they contacted us. As far as I know none of us did, although that patient did have a tree planted in the grounds in their honour, and had a memorial book.

I could give you a hundred examples and in none of those would it be professional or excusable for me to look the patients or their families up on the internet, especially if they died.

I believe she’s guilty.

I'm glad you clarified that as I wasn't sure what your viewpoint was 😆