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.

Because barristers obviously know more about neonatal medicine than world renowned neonatologists, or they are just sitting back & taking the money..

She wasn't on duty for all of the deaths for a start, so that blows that theory out of the water. Secondly, these babies did not die from air embolism or overfeeding.. It's absolute nonsense and has now has been proven by the worlds leading neonatal experts.

I very much doubt Letby has the resources to assemble a team of the world's leading experts during the trial, who could have covered off every postulated cause of death.

As you would know, if you read the reports, Dr Shoo Lee became involved after learning one of his papers was relied on during the conviction, and that the prosecution had misinterpreted his findings and, consequently, misadvised the court.

His specific expertise was with regards to air embolisms in infants and, after realizing that the prosecution's case (to the extent it was based on his research) was not only incorrect but medically impossible, he has seemingly assembled a team with wide-ranging medical expertise to review all of the medical evidence and they, together, have come to the conclusion that there is no medical evidence, whatsoever, that any of the babies were murdered.

I find it highly unlikely that so many leading, impartial experts have got it completely wrong but the far less qualified and seemingly partisan* medical expert (who relied on, but failed to properly understand, research from the leading experts) got it right.

• I say "seemingly partisan" because an experts' duty is supposed to be to the court but there were concerns in the Letby case that he failed to meet that duty and, in a separate (concurrent) case, he was eviscerated by a judge for his abysmal medical evidence and for acting in a highly partisan manner and failing to adhere to his duty to the court.

Honestly, I really did think that the "Free Lucy" stuff was nonsense but I'm now very inclined to think this a horrific miscarriage of justice.

I just don't know what to think. It's horrific either way. Would be good to see her police interview.

I agree that, if you cast your net wide enough, you can find a medical expert who will give you the evidence you want if you pay for their report.

But Dr Lee isn't some obscure random expert, the prosecution relied heavily on what appears to be a misunderstanding of his research.

And we're talking about 14 experts, here, each HIGHLY qualified, who have nothing to gain and are willing to put their reputations on the line.

Finally, for what it's worth, they are not all "foreigners".

So the media didn’t call her a baby killer before she was found guilty?

She was; the BBC ran a graph from Cheshire Police of her shifts against the deaths and collapses that couldn't be explained. It's in this link.

www.reddit.com/r/dataisugly/comments/1d0mbf4/lucy_letby_was_on_duty_every_time_she_was_on_duty/

Exactly. A barrister, and a judge for that matter, makes their judgment based on the evidence presented to them - which often includes expert evidence.

If the underlying evidence is false, then the judgment of the barrister or judge cannot have been soundly made.

To be honest, I hope that she is guilty (you never want to see an innocent person imprisoned), but it's rare to see medical evidence be so thoroughly eviscerated as it has been here.

so many posters are claiming her guilt as a fact and don’t even know the basic details of the case. The unit was downgraded after Lucy was removed from the ward. Because they were failing.

David Davies MP has said just how many professionals have contacted him, and who have also complained to relevant bodies as they are all concerned about this case. The statistics experts are alarmed that the stats have been manipulated. The famous line ‘there are lies, damned lies and statistics’ tells you how easy it is to manipulate people with stats.

The medical experts are also up in arms about how medical info was used at trial. Those convinced of her guilt, are you not uneasy that the medical expert who wrote the paper on air embolisms has confirmed the info given to the jury by the so called medical expert was wrong.

Whether Lucy is guilty or innocent, justice must be fair and I don’t understand how anyone can say ‘but the jury convicted her twice’ when the whole issue being raised is that the jury were misled with medical evidence, and misled with stats. That is surely not in doubt is it? Dr Lee wrote that paper that the medical expert relied upon and he is saying that the info given to the jury is incorrect. Therefore this conviction is unsafe. You can’t just keep saying a jury has found her guilty and ignore all the experts shouting and giving their name to this campaign that the conviction is unsafe. It is unsafe, and needs urgent review.

But he's leading the charge, isn't he? And don't forget, many people around the world don't like Britain because of its colonial past and just love to make us look bad. I have experienced some shocking xenophobia while travelling.

While it's probably not that, actually, you do always have to ask, What motivation could there be for these experts to offer their opinions for free? In the case of the Italian Charlie Gard expert, I reckon it was to raise his profile. And remember the expert who confidently declared that Nicola Bulley was nowhere in that river, and she was there all along? The police's theory that she was in the river was proved right. That expert was working for free, too. People do love to boost their profiles, and I've long suspected that that was the true motivation of some journalists who started writing about a Letby miscarriage of justice, too, and whipped all this up.

Where the experts are concerned, like the Italian one and the diving one, beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

I bet there'll be a massive climb-down from these experts at some point. And it's not as if the experts in the trial weren't highly qualified, too.

That's not true. The graph did not show all deaths or unexplained collapses. The graph omitted any deaths or collapses that occurred when Letby was not on shift, giving the false impression that these deaths/collapses only occurred when Letby was on shift.

That's why, long before the medical evidence seemingly unraveled, statisticians wrote to the government to advise that statistics were misused at the trial and that the graph you've posted, in particular, was hugely misleading.

www.nytimes.com/2024/10/24/world/europe/lucy-letby-uk-trial-questions.html#:~:text=She%20and%20other%20statistical%20experts,Letby's%20presence%20on%20every%20shift.

Are you saying she wasn't on duty for every single death that occurred in the unit during her tenure there? Because that would make sense.

Or are you saying that there were other deaths for which no cause could be found, that are a mystery, and that she was not on duty for those? i.e. that there are more mystery deaths?

Edi: I did read an article at some point about misleading statistics, and that that was the reason a Dutch baby nurse who was similarly accused went free. But I don't think the Letby trial was based on stats. It was medical evidence and the fact that she was on duty for it all, apparently.

As pp said, many of these experts are serious people, not mouthpieces.

One of them has come forward because he saw that one of the babies was his case and he found that the medical information put forward about them in the trial was not correct or did not correspond with his own notes and conclusions.

No medical staff gave substandard care nurse reports them they have to apologise to her, so then they go to police & accuse her of murder & the police join in as does the CPS & the whole judicial system. Ask the Birmingham 6 Cardiff 4, lady with cot deaths, Dutch neonatal nurse found guilty on similar evidence after 7 years miscarriage of justice.

Well, why on earth did he not come forward during the trial, then?

And the Italian doctor was also a serious person, a neurologist.

After such an amazingly thorough trial, I would be stunned if the verdict is overturned, but all things are possible, I guess.

He's led the charge on air embolyms precisely because he's one of the world's leading evidence and the prosecution misrepresented his research.

The Charlie Gard expert - he and the NHS initially agreed it was in Charlie's interests to try and experimental therapy. After Charlie deteriorated, the NHS changed their view. The expert was invited to re-examine Charlie - he did so and agreed with the NHS that it was now too late to start treatment. He is not deserving of criticism.

The Nicola Bulley one was not a medical expert and didn't render an expert's report (as there was no trial) so its apples and oranges.

About your last paragraph - yes, exactly. Very rare. That's why it will be very interesting to see what happens next.

It's possible that the trial could have got it all wrong, in the sense that anything is possible. But in my opinion, it's more likely that the panel haven't read all the evidence and that they will do a climb-down at some point, as happened with the Italian expert in the Charlie Gard case. I'm not even sure that this panel will have had access to all the relevant information. Isn't the most sensitive information only available to officers appointed by the court - i.e. the lawyers working on a case and the experts called by them?

That's not the way I remember the Italian expert's contribution being reported at all.

And yes, I know the diver wasn't a medical expert; my point is that he was another expert in the relevant field of an investigation (in this case, water search and rescue) who rocks up and says they have the answer and then has a humiliating climb-down.

Because he did not learn that his research had been relied upon until after the trial.

And, again, he's one of 14 experts who have eviscerated Dr Evan's evidence, today, and Dr Evans has been separately eviscerated in another recent trial for his evidence being so poor the judge determined it entirely worthless.

I've already address the Italian doctor in the Gard case (we crossed posts).

I would be surprised if this conviction is not ultimately overturned.

@OneLemonDog From a GOSH statement reported in the Guardian: “On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts, all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the judge’s decision made on 11 April,” the statement said.

He hadn't even looked at Charlie's brain imaging! He didn't care about Charlie; he just wanted to get his name in the papers by linking it to a high-profile case. 😡

Yes, the turn of events is very interesting. I wonder what will happen next. I will be very interested to see if the panel continue to stick with their conclusions if there's an appeal. Because surely they will have to be involved to some extent, having made this dramatic declaration.

Edit: When you wrote that "one of the babies was his case" and that the court conclusions didn't concur with his notes, I thought you must have been talking about one of the doctors at the hospital.

Dr Lee said he was self funding, I presume because he feels his research has been used to convict someone he & now others feel is innocent. He feels he must try to right a wrong.

What the barrister said rings true, in that anyone who has looked at this case in all its true detail, for months on end, is convinced of her guilt. That's why she was denied an appeal.

Unless.....the new panel is correct that all the medical evidence was incorrect. I find it very unlikely, but I suppose stranger things have happened.

But that doesn't prove anything even if she was. In a very busy and understaffed neonatal unit it isn't really a big deal. We have to look at the real evidence here and why she should be convicted/not convicted.

She was convicted because of the faulty and unreliable medical evidence. That has now been completely blown out of the water by the top, world renowned leading experts, who not only say it is wrong, but provide in depth analysis to the causes and reasons behind each death. All compeltely plasuible and medically sound. When you listen to the panel today, you truly understand what has happened here and the true depths of incompetency by doctors to provide care and the right treatment to those babies and in some case their mothers.

Perhaps he does deserve criticism, I'd have to read back in (it's been a while) but the NHS did (pre-deteriation) agree that his treatment was worth trying and, following the above statement (at the request of the judge), he visited Charlie and advised the court that it was too late for his treatment to be of possible benefit.