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.

You're missing a key piece of information-she hadn't been exonerated at all. And no I don't think most people would be in a hurry to go back to a unit where so many babies were dying around them and people were calling them nurse death. Despite all this she loved her job!

Read the daily newspaper live feeds of the trial. Also followed threads here on the trial.

Felt a sense of increasing incredulity that she could be convicted on the basis of 'evidence' presented, which seemed to be something akin to a dress held together with safety pins.

It was always a scientifically weak case once you could get past the technical jargon and smoke. I had a feeling quite a few journalists who sat in the trial knew it too, but the readership wanted to run with spurious, easy to grasp stuff like the post it note (a method of confronting tormenting anxious thoughts that I have done in CBT myself) and I suspect that most newspapers, even the broadsheets, have cut scientific journalism, so unlike the past, the technical stuff didn't get enough evaluation at a level the public could understand. So to the public they saw things like shift rotations and learned of seemingly quirky behaviour and thought that was the main part of it all and as we know, newspapers are struggling to survive and didn't give it or the CoCH the scrutiny either deserved at the time. To their credit, some have realised this and done better diligence since.

It was a case which ought to have been ably pulled apart by her defence team. But they appeared bamboozled. Didn't call anyone except a plumber, what is the jury supposed to conclude with such an imbalance of expert witnesses? Also her own nursing body did not question the evidence against her at all. That says something about power structures within the NHS and how they are balanced particularly with regards to nursing (often perceived as less expert to doctors and consults) if attitudes like that are still deeply entrenched within the NHS then inefficiencies in care may result, particularly if there are other problems.

I hope this mess is sorted out and our expert witness system is updated as well as jury trials. You need more than lay people to sit in a trial of such technicality, possibly it would be an idea to have a jury mostly from medical or associated backgrounds in such trials in the future.

I personally hope I'm wrong and she's guilty, as the thought of the NHS being willing to scapegoat someone to this extreme degree (I mean the girl is all but dead as far as ever having a normal life) in order to cover failings would be truly terrible.

I agree. The last trial was a complete shambles. The statistics which put her away have been widely accepted as false. She may have some personality faults but that doesn’t make her a mass murder. To put someone away for that you need evidence of something…. They have evidence of nothing. People need to remember evidence is fact. Not opinion. FACT which is completely missing from her conviction.

Same.

Ask yourselves why there was a press conference about this. They could have quietly submitted this "evidence" to the CCRC. Instead they have taken the opportunity to whip up a load of public speculation to undermine LL's conviction and put pressure on a decision.

I have no problem with LL being re-tried if it is found that there is genuinely new evidence, or that previous evidence which was relied upon was flawed.

I am extremely sceptical of relying on "evidence" which has not been properly scrutinised (I.e the research has not been looked at by opposing medical experts, and they have not been subjected to cross examination).

Anyone who has sat through the 10 month trial and truly seen how the evidence was presented and analysed knows that she's guilty, and going to die in jail as she deserves. No point in paying this silly circus any heed. It's all just babblings from people who are excited by half-truths and smoke and mirrors presented by people who want to whip up either clicks or a bit of support for the multiple baby murderer Letby. I'm 100% confident in her guilt and 100% confident she is - and will remain - exactly where she belongs.

You could argue about whether she'd been exonerated. She had never officially been accused of anything then.

But the review the consultants asked for came back with list of problems in the unit, none related to Letby. Two reviews of babies case notes found natural causes of death and many failings in care - none connected to Letby.

But it doesn't matter. The point is that she was told she was exonerated and therefore believed she would be allowed back on the unit.

She had reasons to hope the bullying, calling her nurse death, would stop. And why wouldn't she go back to work on the unit? All the other nurses and doctors contained there.

You are doing it again, making out that normal behaviour is sinister because of what you think you know about her.

Who's leading this, oh David Davis that Mensa candidate who championed Brexit.

I have wondered about that - seems very unusual. And why is Davis involved?

I listened to every episode and genuinely wondered if I had missed some as I couldn’t see how they determined she was guilty from such a lack of evidence.

I always thought it was very shaky ground to give her whole life sentences with what seems like very circumstantial evidence. If they didn’t present the chart of who was on shift, she’d be found not guilty, even though that in itself was flawed.

Its sad that it took so long for people to listen.

No they dont
And the panel of top neonatal clinicians made it clear that these babies were far from healthy and were receiving far from adequate treatment prior to their collapse.
Are you suggesting that your "intelligence" and knowledge of neonatal medicine is greater than the panel?

To put pressure on the CCRC. And why not? Look at Andrew Malkinson's case if you want to see what happens when you just follow the processes. Why should she rot patiently in jail?

https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/jul/18/how-did-the-ccrc-handle-andrew-malkinson-three-appeal-applications

A chance to have their reports scrutinized and to be cross examined on them is exactly what the experts are requesting.

Meanwhile, it's very useful that they've explained the issues publicly - may save other Letbys from being locked up, and prevents the prosecution's wild theories from influencing other cases or - God forbid - medical care.

If this also adds to the momentum toward reform of the expert witness system, that's good for us and our justice system. Lots of good reason to go public.

The evidence has already been looked at by opposing experts - these were the prosecution 'experts' I use the term loosely. There is no therefore no need for more opposing expertise (not that it would be easy to find because of the weakness of the prosecution evidence. In one case they incorrectly describe air embolism and how it could happen!)

There is a huge problem with the evidence not being looked at sufficiently by other opposing experts at the time of the trial and one expert not being called to give opposing evidence.

These current experts are among the best in the world, in some cases the actual world authority on certain aspects of the evidence.

You make a very valid point about the press conference thing though. I'm totally with you on that.

Did you ask why?

Yes, and in some photos, she does look very attractive. Agree that people can't get their heads round this slim, pretty, white blonde doing such awful things. (I think she's guilty as hell; the trial was FULL of the medical evidence.)

I find it incredible that people watch a 2 hour press statement arranged by LL defense team that features ‘independent’ experts who were part of her previous appeal process, listen to them say that all babies died of natural causes and under-par care, and then think - yup she’s innocent!! If that’s how quickly and easily you’d make your decision on something as complex as this case, let’s hope you’re never asked to be on a jury!

The LL trial lasted for 10 months. The medical detail and evidence that was covered in the trial was so complex and detailed that hardly any of it reached the general public through the press. The verdict alone spanned a 55 page document.

LL team at the time of trial (who were absolutely not legal aid) did not call expert witnesses. In fact of the only expert witness who was prepped to be called, was pulled last minute by LL herself.

For anyone thinking that LL was a scapegoat, listen to the Thirwell enquiry podcast - which is excellent - and you’ll understand just how far hospital management went to protect her - which is why it took so long for her to be arrested and for babies to stop dying.

I'm in the camp that she’s guilty. I think this because I followed the trial closely and researched the case - however I am by no means an expert, and if a retrial did happen and she was found innocent then I would accept that because that verdict would have been reached through the proper channels and processes, rather than a 2-hour media show that insults people’s intelligence.

How come when she overdosed a baby on morphine years before (conveniently forgotten about on here) the other colleague involved "was said to be so distraught about the incident that she almost resigned"? What was Lucy's response? To be unhappy that she could no longer administer controlled drugs! So there we have two completely different responses to the same traumatic incident, and only one of those people went on to be accused of multiple murders. If it kept happening over and over wouldn't most innocent people think "maybe this isn't the right job for me" and leave?

@Oftenaddled the defence team are using people like us, bickering about it on public forums, as pawns in their defence strategy. It's fine if you actively and knowingly partake in that, but there are many people who just believe this was done in good faith.

People are viewing this press conference as an extension of evidence presented at the trial and it isn't. It hasn't undergone the same levels of scrutiny. It isn't to be accepted as fact.

@GreenApplesRedApplesYellowApples either there is new evidence in which case it does need to be scrutinised by other medical experts with the opportunity to refute, or there is no new evidence in which case there is no need for a re-trial. Both cannot be true.

@TabbyMcTatty Completely agree. Of course a press conference run by her defence team are going to make it sound this way. Her trial was 10 months long and her case could not have been any more thorough. She had top brains working on her side, and all they had to do was introduce reasonable doubt, not prove that she did it. And with the evidence, her defence couldn't even do that. There were air embolisms, overfeeding, overdoses of synthetic insulin, and signs of physical attack, one of which she was caught red-handed carrying out. Then there are the babies who died or were injured in her previous role at Liverpool Women's. She's guilty as sin.

People at the highest levels of the justice system know this, and there will not be a retrial.

They weren't given the right medicines. There was actually mistake after mistake in treatment in virtually every case.

I didn’t watch the trial. I have just watched the 2 hour press release.

Im not a doctor.

But apparently these are the best neonatal specialists in the world and they say they can’t see any evidence of murder! That it’s pure malpractice.

It’s a complete nightmare.

I'm fine with the defence team doing that. Putting information in the public sphere is not wrong. We've heard plenty from the consultants, the expert witnesses etc.

I respect the accomplishments of this new panel of experts and the seriousness with which they've approached this task. I don't think it benefits the UKs health or justice systems to suppress news of this significant critique of both.

Again, you're assuming there's only one way for innocent people to behave. It is very obvious in day to day life that that is not the case.

@Dramatic I listened to Hannah Fry talk about random events on BBC Radio 6. She said something that is probably not obvious to the general public, but it's very relevant to the Lucy Letby case:

"Randomness is very clumpy."