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.

I think ... and have thought from the beginning... she's been made a scapegoat for shoddy practice.

Your baby was in NICU and you as the the parent, not the Doctor, were allowed (and wanted to) turn off monitoring alarms??

I don’t have an opinion either way because I wasn’t there, didn’t listen to the experts and i’m not an expert myself. But to have followed via the media like the rest of us frankly isn’t following the trial closely

Amen to this. What is most important is that the justice system works as accurately and fairly as possible. So, if there is doubt, it must be looked into.

No but I think it's very possible that a panel of world renowned experts know more than you. And more than the discredited single prosecution expert who was neither registered or qualified.

Re silencing of alarms - unfortunately my mum was in ICU over the summer. Her SATs kept dropping and we were shown how to silence the alarm as it went off so frequently

It happens

You still haven't provided any details on what flaws there were in their conclusions.

Ah well - the fact is it's in the hands of the CCRC now (like all the rest of her lawyers unsuccessful cases). If it's compelling, she'll have a retrial. I shan't hold my breath.

So your expertise is listening to a trial? 😂
Do you have medical, pathological or statistical expertise? Are you qualified in these areas?

Would you do that with a tiny, fragile, ill newborn?

If so I guess we all have differing risk appetites.

So in other words you can't tell us where they are mistaken.... probably because they aren't?

What bothers me so much about this case and has done from the start is that it makes absolutely no sense. Every single serial killer in the world has a MO, has a pattern of doing things. They are also signs that have been red flags.

The method of killing - air embolism, insulin poisoning, overfeeding - it just does not make sense.

LL might have been a bit of a prickly character and not always likeable but honestly I've worked with many of them over the years, as I'm sure most people have.

I think all those poor babies died due to negligence

The judge was not a medical expert, nor was he an expert in statistics. If he had understood statistics, he would never have allowed the prosecution to claim that the chart they produced proved Letby's guilt. It did nothing of the kind. It suffered from both the prosecutor's fallacy and the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Even if it was accurate (which now seems doubtful), at best it proved that Letby was on duty when she was on duty. Sadly, the defence failed to pick up on this and call a statistics expert. This is a repeated failing in the UK criminal justice system - the prosecution produce statistical evidence which they claim proves guilt and the defence fail to challenge it.

The defence did ask for Evans (the main prosecution expert) evidence to be struck out. If that had happened, the prosecution case would have pretty much collapsed. Given that Evans boasts that he has only ever lost one murder trial, he should have been excluded from acting as an expert witness years ago. Expert witnesses are required to act independently. An expert witness talking about winning or losing cases has lost sight of that and thinks their role is to help the prosecution get a conviction by any means necessary.

I think the experts who wrote the report that was released yesterday know a lot more about the medical evidence than I do. They are far better qualified to determine its accuracy than a judge or jury that lack medical qualifications. Indeed, they are far better qualified than Evans.

OR I don't argue with people who are hard of thinking and have an agenda about incredibly complex pieces of medical information on the internet - because I owe my emotional labour to nobody?

Either way it's fine. If you're correct then you have nothing to fear. I'm sure the CCRC and a subsequent appeal can't ignore all this overwhelming new evidence.

@BobbyBiscuits you realise you are not allowed to speak in court unless you are asked a question?

You realise if you are "bawling my eyes out, sobbing, red, face discoloured with tears, crying, screaming and begging the jury" you would not be allowed to be in the court room full stop and the court will adjourn until you behave as they would like. You would be chucked back into your cell until you did behave like LL did behave in court.
Witnesses/experts can appear much more personable than the accused because, a) they are box-fresh from a good nights sleep and a warm comfortable bed b) they don't have the pressure of their liberty in the balance c) they are often only in for the day/week not months and months on end d)they have been invited to court and they get treated completely differently by the court staff/judge/barristers etc and are treated (in general) with respect by both sides.
From arrest to trial ending can be years.
Can you bawling & weep and wail every weekday while being incarnated for years? Imagine how you would be treated if you actually did...

Have you actually been to court or seen real footage of UK court rooms?
It's not Eastenders.
It's not Judge Judy.

You have to conform to the protocol, you are not treated as if you are innocent, you are treated as if you are the least worthy/important thing in the room.
You don't exist, you have to sit there mute and without expressing yourself throughout the trial unless you are answering questions. Even then you are not allowed to explain or monologue or express your side of events, the questions must be answered in a very specific way.

The word play of the barristers can make it incredibly hard to follow, and the accused as little to zero opportunity to defend themselves directly.
You are very naive about how the system works and the idea that if you 'perform' as innocent you will be acquitted (or vice versa) is just not true despite what TV shows and the newspapers who have you believe.

BTW I have never been in court as an accused nor my family, so I'm not bitter about something that has happened directly to me, but only how I have observed how the system works.

You being autistic is not an excuse or reason to say things that aren’t true. You implied she was autistic with no facts to back up your claim.

Whether I’m ND is none of your concern.

I was just to about to agree with @BoredZelda too - in my case, twins, prem babies in NICU, sedated, breathing tubes, same experiences. Sedated babies aren’t statues. They can be right little buggers and when they’re so teeny-tiny, it’s really hard to insert everything in the right place/keep tubes where they should be.

I find it interesting that many of us on this thread who have had babies in NICU are willing to at least consider the evidence. In theory, we should be baying for LL’s blood because we know what a bloody tough place NICU is for parents and how helpless you feel.

In our case, although the nurses were wonderful, it was sheer chaos. Conflicting information about safety, not enough staff, babies couldn’t be taken out of incubators for skin to skin care (which is beneficial for their health) because no nurses around. At one point one of my twins was going to be taken to another hospital as they didn’t have two beds in NICU. My DD got an infection while in there and got very, very sick overnight, right out of the blue.

We were discharged before we should have been by a new doctor covering NICU who hadn’t read the notes properly. It was Christmas so no community care to carry out checks. Our midwife put in an official complaint when she found out as she was furious. DD still only weighed 3lbs and was losing weight. Crappy, uninterested NICU doctor.

It was a mess. What I’ve written here is just the tip of the iceberg.

So do I find it believable that the dept was shoddily run and that failings contributed to the babies’ deaths? Absolutely. What is still unclear is whether LL’s contributed to that.

I don't know - mercifully I've never been in a position to have "had" to do it (when DS1 was in NICU it was relatively quiet and there was a nurse there all the time)

I didn't have an option with mum - it was packed in ICU and the alarm was distressing for mum (heart rate went up every time it went off and made things worse). It's not something I would choose to do

It's weird to come on a forum and state that you KNOW that 14 world renowned experts are clearly mistaken but then refuse to say how you know this. It discredits everything you're saying

Yes there's protocol in court but you're very naive to assume that that means nobody gets upset! They absolutely get very upset - even when they're guilty! On top of that, LL's demeanour was this way from her very first police interview. Like most sane people I can't countenance not saying 'OMG YOU THINK I DID WHAT?!?!?' when faced with this. I can't imagine the horror of being faced with those accusations but I certainly wouldn't be calm and confident like she was.

Weren’t there other deaths too which happened when she wasn’t there but they weren’t included?

Luckily I don't need to be credited or discredited then isn't it? The case isn't being referred to me - it's being referred to the CCRC. If I'm just an internet weirdo with no knowledge, then you'll undoubtedly get the outcome you're after and the case will be sent back to appeal. As I said - I shan't hold my breath.

I thought at the time of the autopsies of the babies that nothing suspicious was flagged at the time. I heard news on the radio yesterday that now says she wasn't present for half of the deaths. It is shocking for the accused and the families both to create a witchhunt to cover an underperforming hospital. The 'expert' witness/dr also withdrew one of the things he said was definite after her conviction. MD in Private Eye has been following this case and from being convinced she was guilty has changed his mind due to people not being allowed to testify for her and other factors.

With regards to things like adding insulin to IV lines - it doesn't always have an immediate effect - it depends on the quantity and how quickly it is added. So there may have been things done on shift which didn't result in a death until hours / days later. Just because she wasn't physically in the building doesn't mean that she didn't do it.

Run along then, and don’t go wasting your precious emotional labour.

She did different methods for each baby depending on their circumstances. You couldn't kill a baby by over feeding if they haven't got an NG tube. You couldn't give insulin if they didn't have a line in etc. So although the methods weren't the same for each one it doesn't mean it didn't happen.