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.

Did you actually listen to the experts?
The insulin categorically does not have her banged to rights.
They didn't even use the correct assay.

Why do you think the fact that management wanted to protect her shows she was guilty?

Thirlwall shows that they commissioned external reports which told them the units had problems and the deaths were natural. They would naturally want to ensure she wasn't made a scapegoat.

Haven't listened to the podcasts. Reporting on Thirlwall has been a mixed bag. If you go direct to the documents, today's announcement might seem less of a surprise.

This trial has been so complicated because a) there is no smoking gun and b) much of the behaviour displayed by LL is within the realms of normal for clinical hospital staff. What screamed out at me was the tension and miscommunications between the nursing staff and neo-natal doctors.

Having worked on many different wards with different ward managers there was nothing really out of the ordinary about the way she was acting. I have met many nurses that do feel a sense of power and authority when managing very very vulnerable people but do not harm them.

The only person who acted with suspect is the original doctor who accused her. Not for trying to work out why this babies were dying, but by speaking so openly in the press about it making himself out to be a hero. Any medical person will know of all the mistakes and behaviours that can be pulled up about you, which is why alot of them stay out of it.

If people at the highest levels of the justice system believe they are better qualified than today's panel to judge whether the children show signs of air embolisms, overfeeding, overdoses of synthetic insulin, and signs of physical attack, they are deluded.

Nobody caught Letby red-handed at anything

Well they clubbed together to "dredge up" the world top neonatal medics who worked pro nono.
But hey ho.........

@Ger1atricMillennial I have met many nurses that do feel a sense of power and authority when managing very very vulnerable people but do not harm them.

That's concerning. My hope when I am unwell is to be treated by clinicians who aren't fixated on the concept of "power," which appears to be the internet's obsession these days.

Why would a barrister know this? They are only experts in the law, not the behaviour of the nurses on a neo-natal ward.

It is but they take it out on the other hospital staff not the patients. If you are someone who has control of everything a person does, it does attract a certain type of person. These people are usually so dilligent in making sure their patient gets better they can't see how difficult they are to work with.

I think its is called "echoism" where your sense of importance and entitlement comes from another person.

They worked for nothing.
A panel of top neonatal physicians from top medical instititutions.
Collectively they have written 1000s of peer reviewed publications in the field. The Paid for prosecution "expert" has precisely zero publications. NONE.

Yes, the prosecution found one with zero expertise and zero publications in the field.

This panel are the world's top experts, with many thousands of publications. Working free.

Hmmmm, who to believe..........

For all those of the view that LL went through a fair trial process and was found guilty by a jury that had heard all the evidence, can I point out the case of Auriol Grey who was found gulity of manslaughter and jailed after allegedly pushing an elderly woman off her bike - which she had been riding on the pavement - into the path of oncoming traffic.

After her first trial the jury couldn't reach a verdict and at her re-trial she was found guilty and jailed for three years.

As I recall the defendant was autistic, a bit odd and basically estranged from her family. When her family discovered what had happened to her, they engaged two KCs to look at the case, which they took on pro bono, and they appealed to the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt a necessary and critical element of the crime charged, and so Ms Grey's conviction was overturned. In fact the Court of Appeal said that the prosecution case had been such that: "In our judgment, the prosecution case was insufficient even to be left to the jury".

What is concerning about this case is that it was tried twice and that on both occasions the prosecution and defence teams (and the judge) all apparently missed the fact that there was no evidence proving a critical element of the charged crime, without which there could be no conviction. The prosecution didn't prove that critical element of the crime, the defence didn't spot there was a hole in the prosecution case, and the judge failed to point out to the jury that legally there was insufficient evidence to convict Ms Grey.

Miscarriages of justice happen all the time. Lawyers get it wrong and juries get it wrong. But when juries get it wrong it's often because the lawyers haven't explained the law properly.

Auriol Grey: Woman who caused cyclist to fall into path of car has manslaughter conviction overturned | UK News | Sky News

Grey, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 487 (08 May 2024)

It absolutely is a medical question when world experts say that there were no murders. The babies died.

All that other "evidence" is completely irrelevant because there were no murders.

They don't have to be patient facing.
They had to analyse the treatments and the Data, which they are uniquely qualified to do.

Of course they won't whip out a catheter as quickly as an ITU nurse. But the ITU nurse won't be able to analyse complex data in multiple specialities.

It’s interesting to see how aggressive the attacks on @JandamiHash have been in this thread.

I think a lot of the ‘Free Lucy’ brigade self identify with Lucy. I don’t think they would be so vocal if it had been her colleague, the male Indian consultant convicted on the same evidence.

A jury heard all the evidence, not just a conference on the BBC, and convicted her.

I feel incredibly sorry the victims families are being subjected to this circus.

Are you part of the ‘Free Lucy’ online social media team? You seem very keen to repeatedly push the ‘experts worked for free!’ line on here.

But crucially one of the experts literally wrote the book on the prosecutions claims and is saying that they misapplied it so it is not just experts with competing views it blows up the entire evidence of the trial upon which the jury made their verdict

Obviously the judges and lawyers involved don't make decisions about the medical issues themselves; obviously they review all the evidence and listen to multiple medical experts.

And Letby was caught red-handed by one of the mothers. The baby lost a quarter of their blood, which doesn't happen just by dislodging a nasal tube.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/11/lucy-letby-mother-walked-in-nurse-trying-kill-baby-court-told

Panel have said no murders occurred

Well, they did. No fees, no benefits in kind, and Lee flew over at his own expense.

That's relevant because we have people talking about them being in it for gain, or publicity, or because Letby is a young blonde woman. These world leading experts are taking the case extremely seriously.

I don't understand how this evidence that it wasn't murder escaped being brought forth at a TEN MONTH trial?

See, this was my mindset at the start (including after the conviction). I thought she was being seen as sympathetic due to her sex, age and race and trusted that the conviction was a sound one.

I only read further into the topic to try and shut down the arguments of the "Free Lucy Brigade" and because I often find some of the "legal analysis" on Mumsnet to be deeply flawed.

I was surprised, then, when I developed my own doubts, based on what appeared to be dubious medical evidence and a questionable expert.

With today's evidence, those doubts have further crystallized.

Did she do it? I don't know. Do I think that the evidence supports the conviction beyond all reasonable doubt? I'm very inclined to think "no".

She has been presumed guilty..

The mother says child had a goatee like bloodstain around their mouth and that Letby said she was calling the registrar and it was caused by the tube rubbing.

The child hadn't lost 25% of their blood then. That was hours later following an upper gastric haemorrhage.

The mother did not see Letby do anything to the child at all.

Letby was the child's designated one to one nurse. If the child had any sort of incident, she was going to be there. Just as thousands of nurses up and down the country are present when people with one to one care suffer medical incidents.

That doesn't mean they cause the incidents.

Some of the studies it's based on have been completed since the trial - like Sally Clarke's case.

Also, don't forget, there may have been seven murders but there were around three and a half times that attacks. Around 28-31 attacks in total, a good chunk of them on twins or triplets. Letby was on duty for every single one of those attacks.

Someone was harming those babies on purpose, and it was Lucy Letby.