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.

The note is quoted as saying, "I killed them on purpose......etc" but it actually states, "They said I killed them on purpose.....etc". Where she has written the word 'HATE' and circled it, she has partially covered over the 'They said' part so it reads like a confession rather than a statement of what has been said about her.

I'm not saying she is innocent but this IS an important point.

Thanks, that's a good point. It does put a different light on it.

The point is, people are reading stuff on social media and deciding that they know better than the actual experts, or the people who sat through every detail of the trial.

An opinion based on Facebook is not the same as one based on actual qualifications and experience, as unfashionable as that is to say.

One is British, and (at least) two other British doctors have already spoken for the defence.

No i genuinely do, why would I lie, I thought she was innocent too, but I asked him and he told me that there was no chance she was innocent…

That's just not the .case though. There were people jumping on the bandwagon of her innocence from day one. I have my doubts about " experts" ever since the madeleine macann disappearance. Not one British expert gave credibility to anything other than an abduction from the apartment. And they're still spending money "searching" for her.
Miscarriages of justice do occur and when the defence present enough evidence for an appeal she'll get one, with all the publicity surrounding this case. Appearances can be deceptive.

Didn’t follow the case during trial but it went on for 9 months so why weren’t these witnesses called then? She had a top defence lawyer apparently so seems strange her only witness was a plumber.

I have no idea if she’s guilty or innocent but I hope either way the truth comes out.

He has compelling evidence and access to neonatal specialists whose expertise has been proven. Given the verdict, the evidence appears overwhelming

What fundamentally bothers me is that, in order to be properly convicted, Letby has to be proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

There are extremely qualified experts who do not believe there to be any evidence that a single crime has even occurred, let alone Letby being responsible.

I don't live in the UK and followed vaguely the news about LL. I didn't have an opinion one way or the other.

I saw the thread, had a bit of time on my hands and watched in full the conference of the paediatric specialists. For the posters with a bit of time, watch it. It's impossible not to believe a terrible miscarriage of justice has happened. Their conclusion is damning - all the infants died a natural death or thru errors in medical care.

The panel is not just a few random paediatricians, they are some of the best neonatologists' experts in the world.

Miscarriage of justice happens. Our justice systems are littered with cases, and it's by no means are perfect, specially trials with a jury.

I have no idea what happened in her trial. But something went very wrong if she was convicted on medical evidence.

They did review it all though, that's the point. They painstakingly went through every shred of medical evidence. Different experts went through each case so it's not like one person has just flicked through and gone "yeah I'm not convinced"

Has anybody here ever been falsely accused of harming someone and gone through legal proceedings of any kind? Either in the criminal court or family court? With expert witnesses?

If you haven't I can confidently assert that you have little idea of how the system actually works versus how you think it does work. Till you have been the mouse facing down that particular juggernaut, I promise you that you have virtually no chance of understanding how ruthless and impersonal the experience is.

The justice system is adversarial and in some cases has little to do with truth. It's about winning the case. There are multiple opportunities for things to go wrong for a defendant, in this case starting with dubious medical opinion, and then it snowballs.

Every aspect of Lucy Letbys life, conduct and personality will have been dissected and turned into something significant even if it could be innocuous. Pajamas FFS.

If you haven't been in a broadly similar position in terms of accusations based on medical evidence alone, you truly have no idea how terrifying it is.

Can you please give more information as to how you followed the trial very closely? Did you attend court, for example?

I've had misgivings about the convictions for a long time. The evidence against her was wrongly interpreted (the statistics relied on as an example) and it appears that her defence was piss poor.

A really key part of yesterday's press conference was that the 1989 study the prosecution relied on was about air getting into arteries, not veins.

Now I am not saying that LL is innocent, but it's looking increasingly as though the criminal case was heavily flawed and she's a scapegoat for generally poor clinical treatment and hospital management.

The problem is that choosing nursing as a career and working for the NHS is just a horrid prospect. Why on earth would anybody want to go to university to work full time hours on a nursing placement, mostly being used as a spare HCA cleaning bodily fluids for absolutely no money? Being unable to make money whilst they're at uni due to having to work full time hours for nothing on placement at the same time as completing a full academic degree with a dissertation.

Once you qualify, you work 12 hour shifts for an absolute pittance, destroying your physical and mental health. There is often no choice but to work this gruelling shift length because "contunuity of care". The patient having two nurses per day rather than 3 or 4 matters far more to them than the wellbeing of the nurse. The NHS has a bullying culture and it is well known that "nurses eat their young". Patients can be abusive, entitled and rude. There is a reason why in some places nurses are wearing body cameras at work. All of this and most nurses won't even make 40K a year in their careers.

In order to sort staffing levels, we need to completely rethink how we train and retain our nurses. At the moment, it just simply doesn't seem a worthy career prospect in this country.

She didn’t need 14 …..

has her legal team stated that she couldn’t afford expert witnesses?

The answer is NO, they didn’t say too expensive.

Is she? Is there a link to this?

It’s really important that we’re able to trust our justice system.

And that’s why if you get 14 independent world-renowned experts saying “There is no evidence that these babies were murdered and the data has been misinterpreted.” - we really need to consider if they have a valid point.

So many people on this thread have already decided Letby is a baby-killer - and maybe she is.

But if eminent, independent parties are raising serious concerns about the basis on which she was convicted, we need to take it seriously.

Worth noting, when they undertook the investigation, they made it clear they would release their findings even if it showed that LL was guilty.

Also worth noting, their report isn’t actually about LL, it’s about whether the babies died in the way/from the causes that the prosecution alleged. And this panel of experts who are top of the neo-natal field believe the prosecution are wrong about the causes of death.

Too many people here are only concerned about their opinions being proven right. What really matters is that justice is served. And that might mean admitting the jury were wrong. Or they might be proven right. It’s really important that we’re focused on getting the right outcome, not just scoffing at others and ignoring evidence that we don’t like.

I honestly don’t know if LL is guilty of murder, guilty of negligence, or been a victim of a grave injustice. But I do think there are sufficient doubts to warrant a further investigation.

The jury can only decide based on the evidence presented to them. A medical expert has already said he was willing to testify for the defence but wasn’t called. We should be asking why because that’s a serious issue - lots of people on this thread are pointing to the lack of medical experts as proof of LL’s guilt when actually there were experts available who were simply not called. We need answers.

We need the case reviewed with proper, robust evidence, not some flimsy allegations based on LL viewing FB pages and a diary note written as part of her therapy. If that means her conviction is confirmed then fine, at least we’ll be sure.

By the way, if you don’t think the press selectively cherrypick the juiciest parts of the case to report on, I’ve got some magic beans to sell to you.

None of us know the truth for sure, there are miscarriages of justice and therefore this case like others has to be re-examined. The points about her ethnicity are unhelpful and irrelevant that is deflection - race had nothing to do with case and trying to claim now it is relevant in looking at a retrial is wrong.

Also, on LL's demeanour, etc - she was suspended from work and under investigation for years before the case went to court. Anyone who has been subject to disciplinary investigation, etc and suspended knows how difficult this is. Add to that being accused of multiple murders and the psychological effects will be huge. I can well believe she was utterly defeated and if she isn't guilty of murder that would crush the strongest of personalities.

Btw juries are told they have to be sure the defendant is guilty of the charges. That is how "beyond reasonable doubt" is conveyed nowadays. It's not a change in the law at all, but for clarity.

That is why there are people who cannot understand how she was convicted. There wasn’t enough evidence. Have a look at all the trial notes and evidence that was brought up in court.
There are still unexplained deaths that happened at the hospital when she wasn’t on duty.

There are senior neonatologists across the world who have casted doubt on the whole case. The doctor who was brought in regarding the air embolism quoted a paper from 1989 and he has been questioned about this too.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-update-trial-new-evidence-guilty-confession-b2692425.html

I actually knew someone who was falsely accused of something. It was an assault and he genuinely hadn’t done it. He knew the bloke who had done it and had bought his car off him. The police arrested him and he was at work that day. Still insistent it was him, he’d leapt in his car drove to the other side of town attacked someone with a hammer and straight back to work. He was identified by the victim, zInthink he and the perpetrator shared a look.

The whole system seemed rigged against him, the Duty solicitor advised him to plead guilty and they’d go easy on him. As I understand it his family tracked down the bloke who’d sold the car and he made a statement to say he’d been in possession of car that day and the case was dropped.

It was a fascinating look into how the wheels of justice work. It was although once the decision was made that it was him any evidence to the contrary was ignored until it was ridiculous.

I've always thought she was innocent. There is no actual physical evidence.

It's confirmation bias.

No she wasn't.

They decided after her not being on duty when one death they thought was murder that it couldn't be because she wasn't there.

Because the unit was downgraded and is no longer allowed to treat neonates and only has babies born after 35 weeks.

As a lawyer, the lawyer sitting at the other end of the bar table will often strongly believe their case, and be wrong. Or so might I. It doesn't mean much of anything.