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?

Yeah, sorry. Badly worded. I meant that if there were no murders there was nothing for her to be innocent of, because there was no crime.

I'm glad to be corrected, and that the billing has stopped.

Watching BBC's Death Row last night (Crisis Stage, series 1 episode 3), there was a lawyer there who had been involved in many, many cases of trying to get death sentences commuted to life imprisonment without parole, prisoners are all inside for the most serious of crimes involving loss of life/murder.

Attempts to refute cases usually involves 3 aspects: questioning the investigation of the case (strength of evidence), checking if legal procedure/the law were correctly followed and checking that the jury were fully aware of any mitigating circumstances in the convicted person's life which may have led them to a different sentencing outcome (or indeed verdict on guilt).

He said a common question he was asked was 'What do you think about your clients who claim they are innocent? Do you believe them?' His answer almost all of the time is 'I don't know. I wasn't there.' Professor David Dow

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03zndw4/life-and-death-row-series-1-3-crisis-stage?seriesId=b071jy7p-structural-1-b03ytxmh 30 mins 30s but bear in mind the trigger warning as straight after he speaks there are crime scene pictures.

He just has to rely on the strength of the physical and circumstantial evidence to support/refute claims of innocence or guilt.

Doubtless, if this was the US (at least in the states that have capital punishment), LL would be on Death Row. So I though it was very sobering to remember this - particularly where there seemed to be little scrutiny of the prosecution evidence and a paltry defence at her trial.

Now, I don't know whether she is guilty or not. But it does seem that there are serious questions to be asked about how robust the evidence is, and whether there is any other compelling evidence which may throw doubt on the veracity of her conviction.

I think we just have to hope that justice (whatever the outcome) is properly served in this case. It's too important to all concerned for it not to be.
It's a question of trying to get to the truth, whatever we believe about LL, or whether or not we think she's 'likeable'. It's the truth that counts.

Not convinced she’s innocent, but not convinced her conviction was safe, it’s quite a clear distinction. Based on recent reports, and also the details from the Royal Statistical Society, I’m surprised anyone could be.

It’s also quite the irony that in this situation you’re commenting that she’d have to be the unluckiest person alive. Rash statistical statements seem to be the order of the day here.

@AlertBrickBear well what else do you call it if she's innocent? The deaths just so happen to follow her from nights to days and stop when she goes on holiday to resume the minute she's back? Then we've got all the times other staff members left their stable babies for a few mins to come back to them collapsing and LL is stood there. Plus the insulin only points to her. I mean if she didn't do it that's one unlucky nurse. Then she's probably the only nurse stalking families and hoarding handover sheets, just because she's nosy apparently. Then the morphine overdose in another hospital, AND the frequent tube dislodgements only on her shifts. Odds like that must be a billion to one when you look at the bigger picture. It's verging on the ridiculous that people could think this is all just a coincidence. They're just unable to admit they were wrong so they're doubling down, that's all it is.

Why do I need to have looked after neonatal babies to see the bloomin obvious? The experts for the prosecution showed us the evidence for murder if her own creepy behaviour and confession notes weren't enough. Ask yourself why they couldn't find ANYONE to defend her except a plumber! The biggest trial for years and you think they really just dropped the ball there? Any alternative explanations for the murders would've been blown out of the water by the prosecution. Because there is no other explanation.

It just sounds like you were close-minded from the beginning and unable to change your view as the evidence unfolded. I also thought she was innocent at first because we had very little to go on before the trial started, but I had to admit I got it wrong.

@SnakesAndArrows if that person goes on to be accused of multiple murders obviously their previous "errors" are highly relevant. Believe it or not we already have the truth.

My daughter was once given ten times the dose of antibiotics by a very senior consultant in a hospital. Mistakes do happen.

But you're quoting statistics that are just plain wrong. There was 61 incidents to start with, they were whittled down BECAUSE Lucy wasn't on shift, they manipulated the statistics.

Have you read any of this thread, or recent reports about this case? Because that’s literally the reason we’re having this conversation, that the way the information and scenarios were presented at trial, the information that you’re putting above, was seemingly cherry picked and statistically flawed. That’s before we even get to the recent report alleging there were no murders to begin with.

Like I said, none of us here know, But there’s certainly a very large, valid question hanging over this. I feel desperately sorry for the parents, because it seems they’ll be going through layers upon layer of unnecessary additional trauma based on this being badly managed from the beginning. Let alone the alleged standards of care in within the hospital.

Because it means you have no understanding what was said in the press conference. You are still going on about confession notes even though it has been explained written under the guidance of counsellor, what weird behaviour was that not sure if you got accused of killing babies how you would react. No one person put up a hypothesis & Chester doctors backed him up. I do worry why these questions were not raised by her lawyer sure the truth will out eventually.
no I felt uncomfortable that she was arrested 3 times over years not days, looking for evidence. There are lots of clinical staff who are uncomfortable with how this trial & prosecution was done. As we have seen in the press conference I am not on my own.

She would get compensation surely as she wouldn't be able to work again. And would probably be best to move to another country- whilst she's known internationally there naturally isn't anywhere near the same level of interest in her elsewhere.
In Australia we had the Lindy Chamberlain case where she was wrongfully convicted of killing her baby with poor evidence based somewhat on her personality.
The government paid her $1.3 million in 1992. At the time a fair proportion of people were sure she did it, but now they've been lots of dingo attacks at the same place her baby was taken and killed by a dingo most people now accept it. She did publish a book at some point and lives in Australia somewhere getting on with her life.

@AlertBrickBear if the stats were cherry picked do you not think that would be the very FIRST thing her defence would point out? Look at all these other deaths that happened when Lucy was nowhere near is what would've been presented. Case closed. The reason that didn't happen is because she was responsible for EVERY suspicious death and incident and pointing the others out wouldn't have helped her in the least. It would've cemented her guilt even more.

It's not been badly managed, at the end of the day some people will only be satisfied if she confesses (in person, since they discount her note) or was recorded on CCTV harming babies because nothing else will do in their eyes. In the job she was in that's just not possible so we have to go with the circumstantial evidence, which is overwhelming.

Also in Australia wr had a mother tried and convicted of killing her 4 children - spent 20 years in jail and was known as Australia’s worst female serial killer, and most hated woman in the country. The evidence was that the 4 children died (supposedly by suffocation despite any evidence of that) and she had written things in her diary that were taken to be signs of guilt. The case was only overturned about a year ago with new genetic evidence that at least 2 of the children had a genetic disorder making them more prone to infant sudden death and also from memory around how her diary notes should not have been considered evidence of guilt. I'm not actually sure where she is now and what she is doing after spending the past 20 years in jail.

She should go to wherever you are lol

The ten-fold mistake is one of the commonest dosing/prescribing errors because the decimal point has ended up in the wrong place when calculating the dosage to be administered

It would be more suspicious if LL [and her colleague] had administered for example x8 or x12 and difficult to see how that could happen by accident

Hope that your daughter suffered no ill-effects

Have you ever heard of an inadequate defense? And do you think that having an inadequate defense means that you should go to prison for the rest of your life? Or that the truth about situations where that’s the case shouldn’t come out? I don’t think we’re going to meet in the middle regarding the understanding of the complexities in cases like this. I do hope that you don’t get called up for jury service though.

@AlertBrickBear It's only inadequate to you because you think she's innocent. If you look at it actually logically you'd realise he did the very best he could with what he had and there was a very good reason that wasn't enough. Your lot always have to get personal. Pretty funny really considering you've all slandered the doctors involved, her defence AND the jury (probably the judge too) so I guess I'm in good company. Even a 10 year old would've managed to present the times she wasn't on shift for baby deaths/collapses and you think her defence just what, forgot? Couldn't be bothered? You think during one of the biggest and most important to get right trial of our lives they didn't get one of the best people to defend her? Or he just was inexplicably shit this time?

The insulin deaths have been debunked: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/07/stron

The 100-page report will be sent to the CCRC soon. This is in addition to the report sent last week.

Additionally the deaths of the babies that Letby was convicted for were not the only deaths on the ward. They suspected Letby and looked at the babies they thought she might have killed. Many people have said its like drawing a target around the bullet holes or arrows after they have been fired.

They should have examined all the deaths on the ward, not just the ones they chose.

Hi @MyrtleLion unfortunately that link doesn't go anywhere for me - it looks a bit short??

@MyrtleLion yeah you all keep saying that, my point was why did her defence not come up with ONE suspicious death/collapse she wasn't there for? You don't think that's the first thing they would've looked into? Tumbleweed on that because you have no explanation.

That link doesn't work, and no babies died from insulin, at least get the facts right.

Thinking the jury came to the wrong verdict because they were misled isn’t the same as slandering them. There is nothing about our legal system that suggests it’s predicated on the idea that juries are infallible.
But perhaps if you can’t comprehend the difference between disagreement and slander that’s one reason why you are so exercised over people daring to question a verdict.

Again, I have literally not said I think she’s innocent anywhere. You’re making shit up. Ironic.

Well have you read some of the stuff posters have said about the doctors and experts? Absolutely shocking stuff. But how nice of you to go easy on the jury who had to sit through a harrowing 10 month trial. Apparently it was all for nothing though, I'm sure they'll be comforted by that!

I think they’ll be pretty bloody furious at the waste of their time and effort tbh.

The defence weren’t allowed to discuss other deaths because they weren’t part of the trial.