Page 34 | Lucy Letby.....she might actually be innocent?!

Dramatic · 2025-02-04T21:06:51+00:00

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.

Mirabai · 05/02/2025 09:40

StasisMom · 05/02/2025 09:17

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.

Show quote history

Judith Moritz didn’t understand the medical evidence and based her opinion, as she herself admitted, on LL’s demeanour in court. I think Jonathan Coffey will come to regret having written a book with her.

Maia77 · 05/02/2025 09:40

Worldinyourhands · 05/02/2025 09:34

There's been a lot of misinformation on this thread. The notes didn't say 'they said I did this'. The note actually said: "I don't deserve to live". It also included the wording "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them", "I am a horrible evil person" and, in capital letters, "I am evil I did this".

Isn't it just so coincidental that the person who was scapegoated just happened to have this note in her handbag? And had also Facebook searched the parents of the babies that had been killed multiple times, years after their deaths? Including on Christmas day? And just happened to have handover notes for some of these babies in her house, having moved house with them twice, and even though she had a shredder? And just happened to have been on shift for all of their deaths? And just happened to have been inappropriately 'excited' around their deaths, upsetting the parents and her colleagues? And just happened to be found standing over a tiny baby with a dislodged tube having silenced the alarm, doing nothing? What a lot of coincidences from the writer of those innocent notes.

Exactly. I genuinely don't understand how some people will find an excuse after an excuse for all of this. It's one thing after another.

BobbyBiscuits · 05/02/2025 09:40

Nah. She's guilty.
Who writes 'I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them/ I did this' if they were innocent?
If I was innocent I'd be bawling my eyes out, sobbing, red, face discoloured with tears, crying, screaming and begging the jury to see I could never do this. She just looked so dead behind the eyes. No emotion.
I do think if she was a different race and either foreign or working class this whole 'she's innocent' shit wouldn't even be flying.
There was something so creepy and infantile about her life, her home, the cuddly toys and child's diary, her crush on the older doctor. She seemed unhinged. In a horribly quiet kind of way.

Shotokan101 · 05/02/2025 09:41

Floppyelf · 05/02/2025 08:46

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.

Show quote history

Suggest you go back and re-read the rather good post which you quoted and then decided to completely ignore the valid information it contained.....

gallic · 05/02/2025 09:41

Christmassoxs · 05/02/2025 09:39

Interesting to read this thread as so many MNers would have had her thrown into an obliette and literally forgotten about.
I expect some on here had the thoughts she was evil from the onset. Personally I wasn't sure so I couldn't and still can't make a clear decision on the matter.

~oubliette~

I think it needs a retrial

ohfourfoxache · 05/02/2025 09:42

@Worldinyourhands unfortunately there are more and more hospital fuck ups occurring now (raw sewage coming out of the taps definitely counts as a fuck up, and that's without looking at processes and clinical care and system pressures)

Deaths and near deaths are very, very much the norm - across the board, not just NICU

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 05/02/2025 09:42

BobbyBiscuits · 05/02/2025 09:40

Nah. She's guilty.
Who writes 'I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them/ I did this' if they were innocent?
If I was innocent I'd be bawling my eyes out, sobbing, red, face discoloured with tears, crying, screaming and begging the jury to see I could never do this. She just looked so dead behind the eyes. No emotion.
I do think if she was a different race and either foreign or working class this whole 'she's innocent' shit wouldn't even be flying.
There was something so creepy and infantile about her life, her home, the cuddly toys and child's diary, her crush on the older doctor. She seemed unhinged. In a horribly quiet kind of way.

Never mind the comprehensive demolition of the medical evidence by 14 world leading neonatology experts, she had the wrong number of soft toys in her room so she must be a murderer.

heroinechic · 05/02/2025 09:42

Does anyone who watched the press conference know if all medical experts agreed on all cases?

I read further down the thread that the investigation worked by two experts being given a single case, and submitting their findings to the chair confidentially. If the same conclusions were reached by both experts independently of each other it was accepted as the final conclusion. If not, a third member of the panel would also review. I wonder how many times, if at all, a third member of the panel had to review.

I'm interested in this because many posters on here are blindly accepting these conclusions as fact, as these are world experts, and finding that there is "no medical evidence". However, it may be that there is some disparity amongst the experts as to what happened. To be honest, I'd expect there to be, given the nuance involved.

I am mainly concerned with the amount of weight being put on this by the public. At this time the findings of this panel have not been scrutinised by other experts. We (well I) don't even know if they all agree with each other. They were instructed by LL defence team. It's naive to think that because they weren't paid there is no benefit - if this was the case you wouldn't find high profile lawyers taking on potential miscarriage of justice cases pro bono. There is always a benefit to the publicity and coverage.

Also, I've seen a few posters on this thread refer to the evidential threshold as being "beyond all reasonable doubt" and that is not the case. It's "beyond reasonable doubt". It's ok for jurors to have an element of doubt and still give a guilty verdict. Being sure of something doesn't mean than you have to be 100% convinced of it.

NoBodyIdRatherBe · 05/02/2025 09:43

The worrying signs that it’s not a safe conviction for me are -
No history of red flag behaviours (such as the history of other similar murders like Beverly Alitt)
No consistent MO
One the convictions she wasn’t there and the insulin in the bag theory seems very far fetched
Lots of the evidence used seemed very poor
No robust defence (IMO)
I don’t think we can ever know 100% unless she confesses but I feel there is realisable doubt.

ohfourfoxache · 05/02/2025 09:43

Can we stop with this "she's white" shit please - Beverley Allitt is white and I don't see anyone claiming she's innocent

Worldinyourhands · 05/02/2025 09:45

ohfourfoxache · 05/02/2025 09:42

@Worldinyourhands unfortunately there are more and more hospital fuck ups occurring now (raw sewage coming out of the taps definitely counts as a fuck up, and that's without looking at processes and clinical care and system pressures)

Deaths and near deaths are very, very much the norm - across the board, not just NICU

Repeatedly saying something doesn't make it true. Even your raw sewage comment is a misquote of what actually happened. None of the babies died of an infection linked to hygiene. MOST babies in NICU go home safely with their parents. In all hospitals, it's the large, large majority. But not the ones nursed by the murderer Letby.

Original poster

Dramatic · 05/02/2025 09:45

Shotokan101 · 05/02/2025 08:27

.....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

Yes, that's exactly what the experts were saying, that there was negligence throughout the medical team.

OP posts:

Minnie798 · 05/02/2025 09:45

She just looked so dead behind the eyes. No emotion.
Probably the medication she was undoubtedly on.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 05/02/2025 09:45

heroinechic · 05/02/2025 09:42

Does anyone who watched the press conference know if all medical experts agreed on all cases?

I read further down the thread that the investigation worked by two experts being given a single case, and submitting their findings to the chair confidentially. If the same conclusions were reached by both experts independently of each other it was accepted as the final conclusion. If not, a third member of the panel would also review. I wonder how many times, if at all, a third member of the panel had to review.

I'm interested in this because many posters on here are blindly accepting these conclusions as fact, as these are world experts, and finding that there is "no medical evidence". However, it may be that there is some disparity amongst the experts as to what happened. To be honest, I'd expect there to be, given the nuance involved.

I am mainly concerned with the amount of weight being put on this by the public. At this time the findings of this panel have not been scrutinised by other experts. We (well I) don't even know if they all agree with each other. They were instructed by LL defence team. It's naive to think that because they weren't paid there is no benefit - if this was the case you wouldn't find high profile lawyers taking on potential miscarriage of justice cases pro bono. There is always a benefit to the publicity and coverage.

Also, I've seen a few posters on this thread refer to the evidential threshold as being "beyond all reasonable doubt" and that is not the case. It's "beyond reasonable doubt". It's ok for jurors to have an element of doubt and still give a guilty verdict. Being sure of something doesn't mean than you have to be 100% convinced of it.

I think it was all but two.

But that doesn’t mean the two disagreements were murder vs not murder, they were about most likely cause of death.

mumofoneAlonebutokay · 05/02/2025 09:46

sinon · 05/02/2025 08:30

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

Agree with all you've said, no faith at all 🥺

They may get it right sometimes, but then you'll find out that this person was a risk long before they committed the crime and it could've been prevented 🙄

Lostcat · 05/02/2025 09:46

Worldinyourhands · 05/02/2025 09:25

I find it weird when people bring this up - like are they just saying maybe her defence didn't bother calling any experts? That in a hugely high profile case with their client's life on the line for the most serious crimes imaginable, they just thought... nah. OBVIOUSLY there are very good reasons why they didn't call the expert witnesses and frankly, the only reasons that could possibly be are either that the experts had nothing convincing to say or - more likely - what the experts had to say would actually help support the prosecution.

Show quote history

OBVIOUSLY there are very good reasons why they didn't call the expert witnesses and frankly, the only reasons that could possibly be are either that the experts had nothing convincing to say or - more likely - what the experts had to say would actually help support the prosecution

How in god’s earth that you can think this likely, let alone OBVIOUS (!) , given the expert testimony we’ve heard since the trial boggles the mind. It truly does.
Did you watch the press conference? I’m guessing not…

TriesNotToBeCynical · 05/02/2025 09:47

ohfourfoxache · 05/02/2025 09:31

There are widespread, systemic failures in most hospitals - deaths and near deaths are, sadly, the norm these days

If the deaths occurred as a result of hospital failures, then we would be doing the grieving families and those poor children a disservice by just labelling LL as guilty. We owe it to all involved to truly get to the bottom of what happened

Lots of deaths would occur even in perfect hospitals! We are not immortal, and cannot cure all diseases.

Carezzamia · 05/02/2025 09:47

She wrote down notes confessing, mental break down diary of some sort, found in her house, no?

Worldinyourhands · 05/02/2025 09:48

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 05/02/2025 09:42

Never mind the comprehensive demolition of the medical evidence by 14 world leading neonatology experts, she had the wrong number of soft toys in her room so she must be a murderer.

Show quote history

Their 'comprehensive demolition' just doesn't exist. It's just people without all the information throwing a bunch of mud and hoping enough sticks to whip up the public. Why do a press conference if there's such compelling evidence - ask yourself.

Loloj · 05/02/2025 09:48

BobbyBiscuits · 05/02/2025 09:40

Nah. She's guilty.
Who writes 'I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them/ I did this' if they were innocent?
If I was innocent I'd be bawling my eyes out, sobbing, red, face discoloured with tears, crying, screaming and begging the jury to see I could never do this. She just looked so dead behind the eyes. No emotion.
I do think if she was a different race and either foreign or working class this whole 'she's innocent' shit wouldn't even be flying.
There was something so creepy and infantile about her life, her home, the cuddly toys and child's diary, her crush on the older doctor. She seemed unhinged. In a horribly quiet kind of way.

But she didn’t write that. She wrote a lot of scrawl “it’s my fault” etc but that doesn’t prove anything - she was apparently told to write intrusive thoughts down by her therapist - it doesn’t make her a murderer.

Just because you would be crying and red faced it doesn’t mean everyone would act like that. She was likely drugged up on anti depressants and so overcome by what was happening - you have no idea how you would react as you haven’t been through it.

Also just because she was weird, and acted younger for her age - this again is no proof of being a baby murderer.

Watch the press conference and then say you still think she’s guilty/ doesn’t deserve a re-trial.

Coloursofthewind2 · 05/02/2025 09:48

Didn't someone catch her standing over a baby doing absolutely nothing but watching as the baby was in trouble? That convinced me. Also I'm assuming the jury would know everything more in depth than me.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 05/02/2025 09:49

Worldinyourhands · 05/02/2025 09:48

Their 'comprehensive demolition' just doesn't exist. It's just people without all the information throwing a bunch of mud and hoping enough sticks to whip up the public. Why do a press conference if there's such compelling evidence - ask yourself.

Show quote history

You obviously didn’t watch it and haven’t taken in who these people are.

Worldinyourhands · 05/02/2025 09:50

Lostcat · 05/02/2025 09:46

OBVIOUSLY there are very good reasons why they didn't call the expert witnesses and frankly, the only reasons that could possibly be are either that the experts had nothing convincing to say or - more likely - what the experts had to say would actually help support the prosecution

How in god’s earth that you can think this likely, let alone OBVIOUS (!) , given the expert testimony we’ve heard since the trial boggles the mind. It truly does.
Did you watch the press conference? I’m guessing not…

Show quote history

Oh come on. It's utterly insanely implausible and frankly ridiculous to claim that her barrister was just a bit shit. You do know she retained him for her next trial, right? Whatever decisions he made - she was comfortable with them. He probably explained to her - look, we can't ask this expert x or the prosecution will ask him y and weirdly the answers will make you look like a murderer. Strange that.'

The mickey mouse 'press conference' doesn't change the evidence heard in the 10 month trial, all of which was highly compelling. It's a safe conviction. She's staying behind bars. This current circus is just her oddly unsuccessful self-appointed new layer trying to drum up a bit of support for his fruitless campaign.

Worldinyourhands · 05/02/2025 09:52

Coloursofthewind2 · 05/02/2025 09:48

Didn't someone catch her standing over a baby doing absolutely nothing but watching as the baby was in trouble? That convinced me. Also I'm assuming the jury would know everything more in depth than me.

Yes - a very tiny baby who could not self correct or dislodge their own tube. She'd silenced the alarm and was just standing. When she was left alone with that baby for a few minutes while ttheir nurse talked to the parents. And the doctor who found her went in specifically because he felt uncomfortable about her. The nurses had already started calling her 'the angel of death' and he realised she was alone with the baby.

Loloj · 05/02/2025 09:52

Worldinyourhands · 05/02/2025 09:50

Oh come on. It's utterly insanely implausible and frankly ridiculous to claim that her barrister was just a bit shit. You do know she retained him for her next trial, right? Whatever decisions he made - she was comfortable with them. He probably explained to her - look, we can't ask this expert x or the prosecution will ask him y and weirdly the answers will make you look like a murderer. Strange that.'

The mickey mouse 'press conference' doesn't change the evidence heard in the 10 month trial, all of which was highly compelling. It's a safe conviction. She's staying behind bars. This current circus is just her oddly unsuccessful self-appointed new layer trying to drum up a bit of support for his fruitless campaign.

Show quote history

You obviously haven’t watched the press conference. As it was as far from being “mickey mouse” as you could get.