To wonder what would happen if LL were ever released?

[Pleasehelp12345]

I'm not intending to state whether I think she is innocent or guilty but I am just curious as to how her life would look if she were released.
Even if her conviction was overturned, it's highly unlikely she'd be able to go back to a regular life, or would she? Would she walk away with no convictions?

@MyrtleLion most of the babies in the LL case were healthy, they certainly weren't expected to suddenly collapse. I'm sure some expert could come out and say the evidence was wrong in the Shipman case as well. What about the baby she overdosed with 10x the amount of morphine at another hospital? Can't blame it on a poor unit or doctors out to get her that time. That would've probably been her first victim if colleagues hadn't spotted the "error" in time.

I find it disgusting that you are claiming Shipman might not have been a murderer when the cases are completely different. It undermines your position that Letby is a killer if you cast doubt on his convictions.

Babies in the NICU and SCBU are not healthy. Some of the babies were only 25 weeks gestation when born. This is at the margins of survivability.

The experts that you dismiss are the very men and women whose work over the last 35 years had allowed such premature babies to survive. Don't you dare dismiss their expertise as if it is nothing.

You're not going to have your mind changed about Letby, that's obvious but stop making claims that you can't substantiatree.

@MyrtleLion of course Shipman is guilty, and of course Letby is too. Why do you think it's ok to defend LL? Your reaction to me playing devil's advocate about Shipman is exactly the same as how I and others feel when you defend a multiple baby murderer. I'd say the evidence is on par, she's not sitting there with multiple WLO's for no reason. Why are YOU daring to dismiss the other experts, doctors who did all they could to try and save those babies and experts that testified she harmed them?

Edit-obviously you have no response to the morphine evidence...

I realise you’re playing devil’s advocate with the Shipman evidence, but if you can’t see that the evidence in his trial was full of smoking guns, whereas in Letby’s case it’s full of holes, then there’s not much I can do about that.

The thing about Lucy's case which drew it to my attention is how many scientists, doctors and mathematicians keep trying to raise the alarm because they can see the evidence makes no sense. These are not your usual campaigners.

It's very unusual perhaps unprecedented. All the evidence seems to be either smoke and mirrors or totally, factually wrong. The investigation and trial basically seem to have been a very long and expensive witch hunt.

Your morphine comment is a good example of why lay juries are not competent to sit on trials like this.

Controlled drugs are prepared and administered by two people, and in this case the checker was senior to LL. LL would have had no expectation of being able to get a “deliberate error” past the checker.

Lucy Letby a Nurse accused of killing babies

Well she did get the error past the checker didn't she? You can't know what her expectations were-we are dealing with a serial killer here (well hypothetically for you since you think she's innocent) they don't exactly follow rules, they take risks. There were two people responsible yes-and the more senior nurse was so devastated by the mistake she almost resigned. Lucy was just pissed she couldn't administer drugs for a bit. So what are you saying, it was all just a mistake? She seems to make a lot of those...

I feel extremely sorry for her if she is innocent. Goodness knows how she would build a new life, and I believe she is an only child too, so little / no family around to support her.

She's also spent many years in prison when she could have been having a family, developing a career and friendships etc.

I know. If she is innocent, it really is the must hideous miscarriage of justice.

The hospital thought it was all just a mistake. I think it would have been reported if the second nurse had thought there had been sleight of hand, rather than an error.

And yes, medicines errors do happen because of carelessness, distraction and many other possible underlying causes. I’m aware of one other error that she made, which is not good, of course, but there’s no catalogue of errors.

Making an error and being ungracious about the outcome of the investigation suggests someone immaturity, but doesn’t suggest someone is a murderer.

And for the record it’s not that I think Letby is innocent, rather that I think there were no murders given the paucity of evidence and the fact that some of it seems to have been hallucinated by an expert witness. I’m only interested in the truth.

Can I just add if there were no murders then she is innocent surely or am I missing somthing?

Yes. If the CCRC accept the experts' views in the two reports then they will regret it to the Court of Appeal. The court will decide if the conviction is unsafe and may rule there were no murders. I doubt they would order a retrial.

The CCRC is aware that there is a lot if interest and it's expediting this, but it will still be a long process.

Oh come on, you don't think it's slightly suspicious that it came out she'd given a baby TEN times the amount of morphine years earlier? How many excuses will you make for this woman?

You know there were two nurses involved in this incident? You know they both got it wrong? You know this kind of mistake is common with around two thirds of nurses making medication mistakes, with dosage or infusion rate being the most common? These are facts, not excuses.

What are you basing that assumption of her feelings about the incident on?

Are you usually so sure in these situations? Most people admit it’s a very complex situation with the most recent report making it more so, given their positions.

@prh47bridge I'm sure if it was your baby she almost killed you'd be just as blasé. Yes we know there were two nurses, it's been covered. It was still Letby's "mistake" in the first place that wasn't checked by the second nurse. It's not like she expected her co-worker to be purposefully trying to kill babies, but yes she should've picked up on it. Which is obviously why she was devastated enough to almost resign. Something Letby never would've done despite being so "incompetent" at best. Nurses regularly nearly kill babies with morphine overdoses, really?

It’s not ‘blase.’ It’s a careful discussion about an awful situation. I also wouldn’t presume to know how the parents felt.

I am not blasé. We should be doing everything we can to eliminate this kind of mistake. But yes, around two thirds of nurses have made medication mistakes. Being out by a factor of 10 or 100 is one of the more common mistakes. Some deaths have been caused by such errors. They do not prove anything about the mindset of the nurse who made the mistake.

There aren't many situations like this to compare but yes I'm as sure as I can be given I've said before that for her to be innocent she'd have to be the unluckiest person alive. The people who think she's innocent seem to be convinced too. I have a feeling it'll be a bit awkward for them in a couple years when more of her crimes come to light.

How many neonatal babies have you looked after? Have you actually listened to the press conference? Considering you seem such an expert. Lots of us have doubts about her conviction , I did right from her arrest. I have had quite heated discussions with colleagues about her guilt most of us working in women’s & baby health. Most of them have gleaned their info from the media, but if you actually look at the clinical arguments I know where I stand.

I’m not making excuses. I’m explaining why deliberately making a medicines error during administration of a controlled drug is not going to get past the checker 99.99% of the time, because that check is usually effective.

Do all errors indicate future malfeasance? You’re ramming in the jigsaw pieces to make the picture you want.

Once again for the hard of understanding, I’m the one interested in the truth.