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.

yes, it’s so weird though given that she is also criticised for being too quiet, too compliant. Someone on either this or the other thread thinks it’s suspicious that she didn’t protest her innocence more loudly.
It’s so witch trial like, this thing where whatever a woman’s demeanour it will be twisted to use against her.

So how did they review all the case files? They weren't just working from social media reports? If Lucy Letby hasn't given permission to look at everything the defence has, yet has agreed that even findings unhelpful to her should be shared, how has that come about? Please provide sources for your claims.

That’s not my take. Many of her supporters are claiming she’s mild, quiet and almost like a childlike fawn to back up their claim that she couldn’t have possibly done it because she’s too nice.

PPs use of ‘harridan’ in a court setting implies that she was actually the opposite i.e angry and controlling. This contradicts some of the Letby supporters PR spin.

Yes, no problem.

On this thread, we are discussing the people on yesterday's panel. The British panel member I am referring to is:

Professor Nina Modi
Professor of Neonatal Medicine at Imperial College, London
Honorary Consultant to Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust
President of European Association of Perinatal Medicine
Former President of Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health in UK

Please link to times when she was "angry and controlling" in court.

No, actually it’s because she was cold, stern, haughty, arrogant, forceful, snappish and petulant.

I expected her to be mild-mannered and meek because of the way she’d been portrayed. She was not, she’s the most confident, unfazed person I have ever seen in my life.

I went to her first trial with an open mind willing her to explain herself. She did not. She constantly contradicted herself (but said with such conviction, it was almost convincing even when she said two separate things in the same sentence). She constantly claimed she couldn’t remember major things like a full term baby dropping dead under her watch, while remember tiny irrelevant details that she thought made herself look innocent/other people look bad. She continually asked stupid questions or pretended to not understand in order to stall for time.

I hope for any sensible readers (not you) this answers why I very fairly described her as a “harridan”.

I do wonder when people get so invested like this and pass judgement on a woman from her demeanour in very stressful circumstances.
if this is a miscarriage of justice - and it seems like it may well be - it needs to be rectified. Being a bit ‘odd’ isn’t reason to condemn any one innocent.

Goodness. Not only do I have a mouth like a sewer, I am not sensible. Amazing what people can glean from a few words on a forum eh?

They didn’t review the case files. They reviewed notes given to them by Letby’s new PR lawyer.

No, do your own research, like I and every other person who actually followed the trial has done.

So, not sufficiently meek then 🙄

How dare a woman be ‘forceful’. How dare she not show sufficient warmth when spending months on trial for something she says she didn’t do.

But this wasn’t a push from her lawyers. These professionals are doing it off their own bat because they believe that these babies were not murdered. They aren’t being paid to attend this press conference and we’re not paid when they investigated her case

I hate it when posters feel the need to be abusive and/or insulting to get their point across! They don’t seem to realise that the rudeness negates the point they are trying to make!

This comment goes to show how people cannot reads posts.

If you have a look at various reports on the case, they all say that a lot of the evidence was circumstantial such as looking up the dead babies parents etc.
No one saw her cause an air embolism, it was believed this was the cause of discoloured skin,

No one saw her mess with feeding tubesz
There are babies deaths during that time they tried to link to her but couldn’t as she wasn’t on duty when they died.
The medical evidence that was in the original trial was based on a paper from 1989 which the original doctor who wrote this has said his research was misinterpreted in the original trial and his research is being used to try and get a re trial.

@WishinAndHopin thank you so much for such an incredible post - genuinely really helpful

If she's guilty then presumably the court will continue to find her guilty? Now, I obviously don't know either way - I have a gut feeling but that's certainly not conclusive! But, if there is a smidge of doubt, then the evidence needs to be re-examined

If she's not guilty (note btw I'm not saying innocent) then we owe it to the babies and their families to look at what actually happened - including, in the event of guilt, how procedures such as door swiping can be improved so that they are as robust as possible for future cases

As horrendous as the situation is, there is always something that can be learned as long as we open our eyes, ears and minds enough

I don't know if she is guilty, but I don't think that the conviction is sound.

The PP who was there for the entirety of the two trials stated Letby came across as a harridan in court. The trial wasn’t televised and the general public only saw the odd pic of her smiling, looking a bit bewildered during arrest or surrounded by teddy bears. The press never really went under the bonnet of who she is.

People in court daily would have seen a more holistic picture and PP said Letby did not come across as an innocent fawn surrounded by teddies in court.

I can believe this. It takes a very calculated, controlling, spiteful and angry person to murder babies. She got away with it for so long because she was good at the Bambie shtick.

I think I’ll stick with listening to what the medically experts have to say over whether or not a woman was angry or not at being falsely accused or shows enough meekness or whatever other nonsense the armchair experts are going on.

She has said she was in court, has she said she was there for the entirety of the two trials?

We only have the word of a stranger on the internet. How do we know the PP isn't lying?

See, it's easily done. Speculate about motives and cast aspersions.

The experts at the press conference yesterday examined the details and concluded that none of the babies were murdered. We already know that Baby C died before Letby even saw the child. That alone is reasonable doubt.

They did review the case files. The "notes" were the evidence that was supplied to the defence by the prosecution, i.e. the case files. If they had not seen the case files, they would not be able to submit their report to the CCRC.

They reviewed the full medical records, the witness statements, and the court proceedings.

There are a range of possibilities here- all are pretty terrible

1. she is innocent and subject to a grave miscarriage of justice.

2. She contributed to the babies’ deaths through negligence as part of wider system failures but didn’t seek to murder them.

3. she was guilty but the evidence is not strong enough to prove it.

You have to take the expert panel’s view on this. If you look at the degree of experience, expertise and their take on the evidence, they have not found medical evidence of murder. Given the implications of misinterpreting the evidence, it seems odd that this sort of exercise wasn’t done during the trial.

There’s no good outcome for anyone at this point. If she is innocent, her life has been ruined and she’ll always be subject to a witch hunt re her behaviour. I thought it was telling that one of the doctors said the hospital would have been shut down in Canada.

So you know you aren’t supposed to take something home, it should be destroyed at the end of the day.

somehow, mistakenly you bring one home in your pocket.

Do you

A - immediately put it in the shredder you have at home.
B - keep it safe, bring it back and put it in the confidential waste on your next shift
C - collect over 200, and keep them under your bed, even bringing them with you when you move house?

No one keeps all of that for no reason, especially when they KNOW they shouldn’t have it. Of course it’s suspish and if I knew a colleague was doing this you can bet I’d be reporting it.

As did I. Alarms go off for extremely minor things, the emergency buzzers are a different matter completely. As someone who has worked in NHS for a long time, you always turn an alarm off when you get to a patient. She was seen waiting over a patient as their o2 levels dropped. How long was she waiting there? How low were these sats dropping? As I have many times, she was probably waiting to see if his/her sats were going to rise by themselves. We have no info on how low they dropped, how quickly they dropped, and so I don’t believe this has any relevance of anything.

Nobody who truly believes Letby is innocent should be happy that this press conference has taken place. It will have killed any chance of an appeal stone dead because it’s put the final nail in the coffin of the chance of any further court appearance having even a hint of fairness.