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.

@Pinckk
Sorry no link, but seem to remember I've read it somewhere. Explains a lot of her traits including obsessions about her patients and the lack of emotions etc.

It's the other way around! People would be falling over themselves to prove her guilty if she wasn't white because it's the fashionable thing to do! Stop making up lies.

Well done making this about race though 🙄

You're clearly not bothered about justice for those babies, you just want to score points for your political agenda.

This is 100% true.

I am fighting for justice with the NHS and the truth is a long way down the list of relevant factors that are being considered.

Personalities seem to be the overriding issue at stake and the butt covering is astonishing.

I think this is a large part of the problem. Irrespective of how experienced and accomplished they may be in their field the lawyers are not best placed to understand technical evidence. Depending on their backgrounds jurors potentially less so. Things have changed a lot since our legal systems were set up. A jury trial may be very balanced and fair for some crimes but I am not convinced it is the best way to deal with trials like LL's.

"The whole system seemed rigged against him, the Duty solicitor advised him to plead guilty and they’d go easy on him."

I read his your story with sympathy and agree that the system is a labyrinth for people accused of a crime. I can however say with near certainty the duty solicitor would have said "you have the option to plead guilty, and my opinion is that if you take that option then you will be sentenced lightly because of X Y Z factors". This is because we are obliged to give all defendants the information on all the options available to them.

Unfortunately for many people with the stress and horror of what happened this translates to "my lawyer told me to plead for a light sentence" (we keep very good notes as a result).

You're rooting for her freedom?? Jesus wept!
She literally wrote notes saying "I'm evil I did this"....!
😡

This comment just goes to show how little those who believe in Lucy Letby’s innocence even understand about the things they are saying. “Circumstantial evidence” is not shorthand for “not evidence at all”. Fingerprint evidence is literally circumstantial evidence, as is DNA. Almost all criminal cases are made up of primarily chains of circumstantial evidence - the accused’s fingerprints are in the room where the victim was found, there is CCTV showing that they were heading in that direction just before the crime, the victim’s DNA was found on the bottom of the boots they were wearing in said CCTV footage. All of this is circumstantial evidence.

There isn’t some clear distinction between “circumstantial evidence” and “real evidence that actually means someone is guilty”.

Jesus fucking Christ.

This keeps being done to death. It was a therapeutic exercise designed to process her feelings and was used selectively with no context in court. It was not a confession - she also wrote that she was innocent. Talk about Schrodingers bloody confession.

The medical evidence presented at trial is an absolute farce. That's where it begins and ends.

Nobody wants to believe such a high profile case could be so fundamentally flawed, but here we are. None of those at the press conference yesterday are doing this because they need a new hobby.

I am rooting for her freedom too.
If you are taking the notes at face value you probably haven’t looked into this very hard.

Mouth like a sewer.....Stay classy.

I think she was a mentally unwell woman venting and blaming herself

It's a weird case but I genuinely think very reasonable doubt applies here

😘

Sticks and stones....

Of course you can convict and build fair cases on circumstantial evidence.

But the Letby case is predicated on the belief that children's deaths were unexplained and (according to the prosecution) can only have happened through murder. A host of information was then gathered to try to fit Letby to the role of murderer.

If the deaths are explained by natural causes and medical error, it all falls apart.

.....Just the unluckiest weirdo nurse in the UK then eh ? 🤔

One aspect of the new "medical conclusions" that I, as a poor ignorant member of the public, can't get my head around is that if what tge new experts are now saying is correct, then why is LL apparently still the only one whose "in the frame" since if as is being intimated the deaths in quextion are "simply" the result of generally poor care/medical practices, then shouldn't any causal/circumstantial evidence have been more widely focused and involved several other staff

Sure you do.

I’ve worked in medical negligence and both defence and claimants routinely get expert doctors to argue their opposing side of science. This is why it’s never going to be clear - it rarely is in medical law. It’s just a belief / interpretation of the medical expert and down to who is most convincing. Obviously one side always comes out the winner but it doesn’t wholly negate the opposing evidence.

you’ll always have doctors who say they could have been killed and doctors who say they could have died of natural causes. Without the bodies to do more tests, it’s all interpretation of previous tests.

I have no faith in the justice system in this country.
It 'works' because the majority of the time a case won't go to court unless there is very clear evidence.
It's an absolutely brutalising system, once you are in it it's clear that the 'truth' 'fairness' are not a consideration at all and it is really about the adversarial & the whim of the judge or the culture within each jury.
It's quite terrifying to be honest and I can't imagine what it would be like to be falsely accused of something, or to be a victim/family of a victim of a crime trying to get justice or a parent in the family court trying to prevent access to your children to an abusive parent.

I've not followed the LL case, but if people are talking about the trial rather than the crimes, then it seems to me there must be very many who believe there has been a miscarriage and they are likely right

But of course she's already had a "fair tfial" irrespective of whether this "new evidence" is valid or not?

I'm 64. If I had kept a diary containing all of my thoughts, I'd be convicted of planning several murders.

There is a huge difference between writing intimate thoughts (as awful as they may be) to carry them out and be convicted to 15 life years in prison for having them.

Our thoughts are the only thing that's truly personal, free and unpoliced to us all. Maybe LL expressed those feelings in her diary as a way to get rid of pressure and stress. The problem is when that diary became a circumstantial tool to convict her of mass murder when the medical evidence didn't exist.

I’m not convinced on this case either way so no agenda here.

But….

That note you’re referencing was written as part of her therapy, to write down her anxieties/fears/intrusive thoughts. Also, that’s only half of what she wrote. She also wrote “they said I did it” and in other notes she wrote about being innocent - but that wasn’t as widely reported.

Also, you might not have seen a heartbreaking post earlier in this thread from a mum whose son died in a car accident. I can’t remember exactly how she phrased it but she basically said that she was guilty/she killed him - even though she wasn’t there. Those feelings are because she feels she should have protected him.

Deaths can provoke intense, irrational emotions. And working with tiny babies who have suddenly died, and the finger being pointed at you, could absolutely cause real emotional turmoil.

Again, I’m not suggesting that this proves she’s innocent but the evidence needs to be viewed in context and not blown up out of proportion.

@Newfoundzestforlife I agree with pp, I can't claim she's innocent or guilty but relying on that note isn't the way to go

Was it common practice that they had the notes of just the patients that died? Was it also common practice for them to keep these notes under their bed? Her excuse for keeping these notes was that she 'collected paper'. Yet she shredded things like her bank statements.

I find the idea of a hospital cover up and making Letby a scapegoat floated multiple times on this thread absolutely ridiculous. In what world will it have been better for the hospital to have allowed a serial killer, that they had alarms raised about by 7 consultants, just roaming the halls?

One of the consultants testified that when a child was crashing he walked in to find Letby standing by the cot and doing nothing. He was also made to apologise to her for putting her on admin duties. Fearing she would raise a claim the hospital put her back on the ward despite the fact the mysterious deaths had stopped.

I have been listening to the press conference. I doubt the prosecution just relied on Lees paper to prove air embolism due to discolouration. I also believe you could find another 14 highly qualified medical experts who would say they were murders.

So there were 18 deaths on or associated with Letby's ward in the period in question. We know that earlier reviews also found significant medical errors in the treatment of some of these children.

Seven were brought to trial - Letby wasn't tried for all deaths for which she was present, and nobody was charged with most of the deaths.

It seems that the police and consultants fell into a pattern of assuming deaths were suspicious if Letby was around, but if not, not.

Some of the posters, squealing her innocence are usernames I’ve never seen before. Sounds like Musk and Robinson have found a scarecrow to distract the British public. No matter how many people claim they believe her innocence, they were not privy to all
the evidence the Jury and judge were given. Neither were the so called experts… who paid these experts. Experts don’t do things for free.

Father Letby, actually walked into hospital and harrassed the management into attacking different senior doctors. So don’t believe this Letby is a innocent bunny crap and the prosecution was brought despite threats of legal action by letby’s father.

With respect you’re wrong. The trial was reported on as it happened.
Not every single thing was reported. Distilling a full day of trial into one two minute piece, ot 300 word article means you have to choose what to say.

I think some people think it’s too biased towards the prosecution but actually what happens in English trials is the prosecution goes first. So if that’s what’s reported - because that’s all that CAN be reported at the time - people whine about a media bias

This is not what I am talking about. Even in a prosecution case there will be some evidence that is more report worthy than others. The prosecution case does allow for cross examination. That little nugget "I saw the defendant walking up the road with a knife" is going to make it in to a report over, "here's half a day of testimony of the history of DNA and why that teeny tiny blood sample might show the defendant didn't commit murder"

The “boundaries of contempt” couldn’t be tighter. You can report anything other than what was said. Absolutely no opinions on the trial, objective reporting only.

Again, "objective" is in the eye of the beholder. You can still report on what has been said that day, and choose what to lead with. The boundaries of contempt can't be tighter, because it is impossible to be prescriptive about how pieces are written. It doesn't necessarily have to be about bias, for the reporter it is about people choosing to read your piece over someone else's.