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.

There are 14 medical experts suggesting after looking at this case they don’t believe the circumstantial evidence is sound

Not necessarily a confession note. It was treated as a confession. People self blame when something happens. Writing is a way of dealing with emotions. If she self blamed and was writing this down as a way of dealing with emotions then no it isn't a confession. If she was writing it down because she did do it then yes it is.

Nurses and other professionals suffer trauma often in their line of work. They should have supervision by routine. Supervision may suggest writing feelings down etc if they have feelings of self blame etc.

Do we know the reason she wrote it or was it presented as a confession with no alternative explanation?

Re. Dr Evans, I think this is very much worth a read:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/20/my-kind-of-case-intense-focus-falls-on-lucy-letby-trial-expert-witness

All in all, it looks like the medical evidence was complete nonsense and the statistical evidence dubious (especially that chart, up-page). The circumstantial evidence is far more compelling but (1) would not be sufficient on it's own, and (2) is irrelevant if none of the babies were murdered and, if 14 of the leading experts say that there is zero evidence of malfeasance contributing to ANY of the deaths.

I'd be delighted to be wrong but my goodness does this look like a disaster of a trial.

MR isn't stunning either tbh. That's an aside though.

Despite my strong view that she's guilty, I have just remembered a case where a jury got it spectacularly wrong in the face of evidence that was contrary to their decision: OJ Simpson. They even discounted a trail of blood evidence from the scene of the murder to the suspect's car. So juries can get things very wrong, and that would apply whether acquitting (OJ) or convicting (Letby).

They told her insulin was administered, how could she say it wasn’t, she was only a nurse she agreed with them but said she didn’t give it.

Juries get things wrong all the time. Look at how many rapists walk free without a conviction.

So WTF was her defence doing the first time around then - what happened with their "expert witnesses" that time?

I honestly don't know.

I do think there is more to be investigated. Eg the prosecution had another baby identified as murdered, but then they realised LL wasn't on duty that day.

So that death was removed. But if it was a suspicious death / murder then surely you look for who did harm the baby.

Deciding it wasn't murder because LL wasn't on duty is just plain stupid.

The Jury did not see evidence of this child.

There is the evidence( that’s what this press conference is about) they just don’t want to admit they have perpetrated a miscarriage of justice, so many will end up with egg on their face.

In the photo of her holding up a babygrow, she embodies Missing White Woman syndrome. While she wasn't missing, we're discussing the same halo effect. In some of her other photos of her old life, too, she looks very attractive, like the one in a bar where she's holding a glass of champagne. You don't have to be Miss World for it to apply. The same thing was said about Joanna Yeates, who was murdered by Vincent Tabak, and she was a slim pretty blonde too, albeit not Miss World either.

Well said @Zanatdy. What people don’t realise is that by turning a blind eye to unfair trials and miscarriages of justice is that it sets a precedent. It could then happen to any one of us. And whether you believe that Lucy is guilty or innocent she deserves a fair trial just as we all do.

& none of them have to be registered with the UK GMC so they cannot get struck off, which has happened before to a doctor who stood for the defence. This is why you cannot get a uk doctor to speak on the defence side.

Rape is sometimes uniquely difficult to prosecute, because usually there are no witnesses and often no injuries, if the woman froze. At that point, it's really difficult to prove, and the defence doesn't have to prove it, they just have to introduce reasonable doubt. Doesn't make it right, but our law errs on the side of the accused. I can see the mechanisms behind why rapists go free, although I wish it wasn't so. I think juries are generally less likely to get it wrong in a case like Letby's - although it could happen.

I also don't think David Davis would be going to bat for Letby, as a sitting MP, if he was not extremely comfortable that this has all the appearances of a huge miscarriage of justice.

It's not often MPs, particularly a senior and level-headed one like Sir Davis, go to bat for convincted serial killers (let alone of babies).

What an appalling shitshow.

So there was another apparently-murdered baby, but no one has looked for its murderer?

So you’re a neonatal nurse? Not sure like you sound like one ‘mountains out molehills’ there are clinical explanations given to the deaths by a panel of leading neonatologists but obviously you are in the profession so we should listen to you.

Most people are convicted on circumstantial evidence; it is not a synonym for shaky or weak evidence. Let's not start spreading misinformation.

There is almost always a witness and there is usually strong evidence if it gets to court. There is a quota on rape cases. They actively ignore most cases to ensure only a few get taken to court to raise their conviction rates. It has been admitted by the CPS they do this to raise the conviction rate. Take 10 men to court and convict 1 = 10% conviction rate. Take 1 man to court and convict him = 100% conviction rate. Same amount convicted but a rise in rates.

Those going to court for rape have significant evidence. They have confessions, film footage etc. My rapist confessed and it wasn't enough to get to court. My friend's rapist confessed and when it went to court the judge said there is no point trying him for rape as she was now dead (murdered by him). So nope those in court for rape are there with a huge amount of evidence against them and still walk free.

I don't think you properly digested that chart you posted on the last page, or the criticisms of it.

There were a lot of sudden and unexplained deaths of infants at that hospital, ones where Letby was present and ones where she was not present.

Noting that there was a high number of deaths, malfeasance came to be suspected. While Letby was not present for all of them, she was present for enough of them to draw suspicion. They then ignored the deaths/collapses that occurred when Letby was not on shift.

Dr Evans (seemingly, a dubious "expert" who thought his job was to secure convictions) then came up with explanations (which may now have been thoroughly debunked) to explain how these deaths were, in fact, murders.

He mistakenly put together one such explanation of a murder only for it to be pointed out that Letby was not present, so that death was disregarded as not-a-murder. The jury was not informed of this error.

I don't think it was the jury's fault because they could only be presented with the medical evidence at the time, whic was used to convict her (a BS misinterpretation of a piece of research by the man himself, Dr Shoo Lee). Lee himself should have been there as it was his piece of research afterall. I guess that is a question for the defence to answer to.

Also, let's not forget barristers probably have little to.no knowledge whatsoever on the topic in hand. This is such a sensitive case that you really do need the experts looking at this stuff. The more I think about this trial, the more batshit and twisted it appears to be.

What have those 5 got to save…..their own necks. Dr Lee said some of the babies had substandard care given by the consultants they may have survived if they had been treated by different doctors. He didn’t mince his words.

It doesn’t seem entirely sound. It reminds me of those cases where women were convicted when their children died from cot death. Circumstances dictated that they were there and had opportunity and it was unlikely that multiple children would just spontaneously die under the care of one person. Of course the “expert witness” is those cases has now been discredited.

I mean, it's just crazy isn't it?

14 world-renowned experts say there's no evidence of a single murder or a single attempted murder, and yet Letby is in prison for 7 murders and 7 attempted murders largely based on the medical evidence of a man who has been noted by the court, in another case from last year, of producing a "worthless" medical report, having committed professional misconduct by deciding upon the outcome he wanted then making up an explanation to fit it, with zero regard for his obligation to give a balanced opinion.

If this is the miscarriage of justice that it appears, serious lessons need to be learned.

if this were true, the race grifters would be out in full force saying it was all about race.

Oh, wait rolls eyes