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.

Can I ask if there would be any proof that you would believe to she that she didn’t murder the babies.

Were there other articles by actual journalists defending Letby? I don’t mean sad people who never achieved in their life, writing from
their bedroom whom never had a job or actual editorial standards.

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.

I didn't watch the trial. But how on earth the above is medical evidence she murdered the child?

I guess the question is was she negligent or a murderer? There’s quite a gap between the two.

Plenty of deaths occurred when she wasn’t on shift but they’re just being ignored.

I’m not sure I ascribe to the conspiracy theory but I still think there are doubts about the evidence here.

The prosecution relied on a medical witness, Dewi Evans, who has very little credibility/experience and offered conflicting and different theories at various points in the case. Lee’s paper was absolutely used as a basis of proof, hence why he’s gotten involved.

If the prosecution can find 14 equally-matched neonatal specialists to dispute the findings, I’d be willing to listen to them too.

The defence had medical experts ready to testify to LL’s innocence but they were never called. No one seems to know why. The medical experts have spoken out since (not anyone from this panel of 14) to say they believe the evidence doesn’t point to murder.

The deaths only stopped when the hospital was downgraded and was no longer permitted to care for the sickest babies.

I’m not absolutely suggesting that LL is innocent but there are clear gaps in the evidence which were inexplicably ignored before. It’s not unreasonable to want to hear an explanation.

I think she is a psychopath obsessed with ending the lives of defenceless babies. And all the creepy stalking of parents and hoarding medical notes. Even her behaviour points to her guilt. I read that she failed her nurses training first time round. Cause - lack of empathy.

Her mentor said she failed to exude natural warmth, whatever that means. She was allowed to complete her placement with a other mentor. Her eventual reference mentioned that she was withdrawn when feeling stressed, which isn't unusual.

The system has been changed since so that a single mentor's subjective judgement of your personality can't put you at risk of failing.

I haven't followed the case closely, but have taken the view that her killing was so prolific that she could not possibly be convicted if she were truly innocent. That said, there was a case in my city where a young boy was murdered back in the 90s. No murderer was found at the time. I, and everybody I knew, including the police, thought the mother had done it. She was a drug addict from a very run down part of the city, used her kids for drug running. She was into the occult. The most she was tried for was child neglect and cruelty, and everyone thought it was a travesty she escaped justice for his murder. Years later she got her shit together and decided to clear her name, fought hard to get the case re-opened. I worked for the same police force at the time and everyone was dismissive of this and initially rejected her campaign to get the case re-opened. Eventually, she succeeded and guess what? Two years later they found his real murderer and she was totally exonerated.

Quite probably. I don’t think he expected it to go anywhere and it would be dropped. It just seemed that no one was trying to discover the truth just whether they could secure a conviction.

I think my assumption before that was that the truth will out and if you weren’t guilty of anything you’d have nothing to worry about.

The system has been changed since so that a single mentor's subjective judgement of your personality can't put you at risk of failing.

That sounds like a very good thing, regardless of whether or not the verdicts in this case were correct.

I didn't say it was medical evidence of murder. I was commenting on the ridiculous notion of her being used as a scapegoat.

But medical evidence is not the only way to prosecute people. Circumstantial evidence IS evidence.

However, I will be interested to hear if anything comes from this and if it impacts the appeal.

Yeah people really need the smoking gun in this case don’t they?
Unfortunately the case has had to be built together like small pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, and when you stand back and look at the whole you get the full picture.
I believe she’s right where she should be.

solicitors and barristers would have been falling over themselves to represent her it was such a high profile case. Are we saying they couldn’t get experts?

They had defence medical experts lined up who were willing to testify for LL - but the defence never called them in court. The witnesses (or at least one doctor witness IIRC) has spoken out since the trial to say he wasn’t called but would have testified to her innocence.

No one knows why the defence didn’t call the medical experts who were waiting to testify.

It’s just odd. I can’t think of any reasonable explanation 🤷‍♀️

It seems unprofessional at best not to unless LL herself told them not to.

And it meant that the evidence was very one-sided and it's not surprising the Jury found as they did. They had no medical experts to counteract the ones claiming the insulin readings were suspicious, for example, even though we now know this is heavily contested by experts.

do you have a link ?

No prior experience of the case, means they took a completely open unbiased approach to the evidence.

Not entirely sure this is the case. It does rather depend how they were approached.

"Hey complete stranger, here's some evidence in a case, can you say if there was murder"

"Hey, person I vaguely know, here's some evidence in a murder case, the defendant was convicted, can you say if there was murder"

"Hey, valued fellow professional I've known for a long time and get on well with, here's some evidence in a murder case, the defendant was convicted, the prosecution used my research but they misinterpreted it, can you say if there was murder"

All of those are people who have no prior experience of the case, but they will bring a different level of bias, even on an unconscious level. It is virtually impossible for a person to have absolutely no bias.

I’d be interested to know more about Letby’s parents and their connections. They seem to have a lot of pull.

It's a fair assumption from him, and a horrifying realisation that when you're in the machine you're sort of sucked along all the way through, and even if the right outcome eventuates, it's at a significant cost to the innocent parties involved.

Really? On what do you base that?

It wasn’t the parents that made this review happen. It wasn’t even her barrister initially. It was Dr Shoo Lee whose attention was grabbed when he realised how the prosecution had misrepresented his research.

@wipeywipe she might be average, but she is white.

Prosecution barrister? I also spoke with Judith Moritz's (covered the trial for the BBC) husband and he said there is no doubt she is guilty. I really have never been sure and no, I was not in court every day but I followed the trial fairly closely and listened to the podcast also. I can totally see how there is (circumstantial) evidence which points to guilt, but something holds me back from being convinced.

None of the consultants working in the unit were neonatal specialists. Sometimes you don’t even know what you don’t know!
The unit was downgraded, which could explain why the number of deaths reduced. They weren’t allowed to care for the sickest babies anymore - there will have been very good reasons for this.
The panel, made up of neonatal specialists have highlighted numerous medical errors in the care of the babies. They say there is no evidence of murder.
The author of the paper used as evidence in the trial has said his findings were misinterpreted.
Any health care professional who has ever lost a patient, particularly at a young age knows that you over analyse, blame yourself and think you must have done something wrong etc. This is usually talked through with colleagues, supervisors etc. LL wrote hers down and then only certain aspects were released, to fit the narrative.
Of course there needs to be a review.

No parents or families complained about her at all before they were told she murdered their babies.

My baby was in NNICU. I had never been in NNiCU before, had no experience there, had no idea what was good care or bad care. I met about a dozen different nurses over that time. Some were there all the time, some I saw sporadically. I was rarely there when the night shift were on. I was focussed on my baby, my hormones were all over the place and I had a child who may or may not survive. I had no choice but to trust what care my baby was getting. I would have had to have been pretty certain someone was harming my baby before I raised a concern at that time.

There are one or two of the nurses I met who, if they had told me went on to murder, I'd have been able to point to things that could support that argument. Equally, there are a whole bunch of them I could say there was absolutely nothing to suggest it. But in theory, every one of them could be capable of it and I'd have no idea.

What the parents going through a very difficult time didn't say at the time, has no bearing on whether she was guilty.

100% this. The fact that she was a woman did not help her here. She was perceived as an easy target by those senior doctors who were primarily acting out of interests to protect their own backs, and she was instantly demonised in the media as an evil witch. Amanda Knox vibes.

Because any baby that died when she wasn't on duty was removed from the evidence.

An X-ray of baby C used as evidence was taken 2 days before LL was on duty.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/lucy-letby-was-not-working-on-day-baby-c-was-harmed-bbc-investigation-finds/ar-AA1rx5Rc