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?

If the babies weren't killed then why is her odd behaviour relevant?

It does remind me a bit of Amanda Know and how everyone was hung up on her odd behaviour where her flatmate had clearly been murdered by someone else, Rudy Guede.

I live in the same town as someone already mentioned on this thread.

AFAIK she still works with children in some capacity (or at least did when I crossed paths with her), and as far as I hear she gets on with everyone just fine.

It's probably important that nearly everyone believes the person I'm talking about is innocent, I'm sure it would be different if people had doubts.

I agree. If zero babies were murdered or harmed, then any behaviour that seems odd is entirely irrelevant.

It all sounds like the kind of random ‘dirt’ someone would dig up to conduct a character assassination than anything else. It certainly isn’t covering any personality traits that have been researched and found to often be part of the psychological profile of serial killers.

Just because the medical experts say they cant prove her actions caused the deaths doesn’t mean she didnt attack or attempt to murder them.

A lot of the evidence from the press release was about how they weren’t being given the correct treatment from the off - making them potentially unstable, or not able to correct a decline as giving the wrong treatment.

So yes potentially some of these babies maybe would have declined anyway.

This doesn’t necessarily mean LL wasn’t attacking them. Some had physical traumas that were unexplained.

Interestingly she didnt have initials for all the babies she was tried for. And only a portion of the babies sheets were in her most special box. So perhaps some were natural.

I just dont get a good vibe off of it and I am not saying she is guilty. I dont know. But I dont think those who are saying she’s innocent without any doubt can be rational people either.

I have also fallen down a bit of a rabbit hole with this the last couple of days.

To me it is interesting that people don't want to change their minds. Because I completely thought she was guilty at the beginning and I think that has led to me feeling duped now. For me that has made me want to look into it more but it isn't a comfortable feeling.

I read the initial press coverage and was totally convinced of her guilt (though interestingly some usually sensible friends who worked in health care were not). I thought it was strange that she had close friends from childhood who were prepared to defend her, because most serial killers don't have friends especially not close ones they have maintained for years. However that just made me think what an awful case it was, do you really ever know someone etc?

Then like others I read that a statistician had taken issue with the evidence. I realised that she hadn't been on duty for all the babies deaths just those that had been classed as suspicious and that it had been circular. They had identified those deaths as suspicious because she was there. But I thought well why did the deaths drop then when she was suspended, I am sure she is still guilty.

Then I had a chat with a friend who told me the unit had stopped looking after the really sick babies after Lucy was suspended. I thought then that the information about the case had been really misrepresented in the press at least if not the court and I said to my husband that even if she was guilty her conviction might not be safe.

Then I thought no more about it until the press conference the other day which I read a Guardian article about. I then watched the press conference and honestly couldn't believe what I was hearing. That there was no real evidence at all that the babies had been murdered and plenty that they had died as a result of natural causes and medical negligence.

Then I started reading about this odd procescution expert witness and how he had decided in ten minutes that it was murder and that his opinion overruled the autopsy and other investigations done up until that point.

I now think she is probably completely innocent.

I don't think the babies did have any unexplained physical injuries. To be honest if they had done I expect the initial autopsy would have picked it up.

The whole process in this case was wrong. They didn't find physical injuries and go looking for a suspect. They found a suspect and went looking for injuries.

It is quite long but the press conference is worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/live/N0nmoGes3IU?si=GT9p03Iq7A6TXyoZ

I basically went on the same journey but now I have come back round to I do think she is guilty due to the circumstancial evidence. It’s not beyond reasonable doubt so I think she will be freed. But in the balance of probabilities Im veering back again towards guilty now.

Some of the babies were not the higher care needs babies. There was a full term baby who was only there because of the mother’s health; and others about to be sent home.

It’s also the paper towel for me. Why would someone go to the effort of fishing a paper towel out of a bin and store it.

And these sheets were trophies for her. She kept her first ever handover sheet in the special box.

Have you watched the whole press conference? Because every baby who died seems to have been either very sick or had their medical care botched in some way.

No idea what motivation these 14 extremely experienced experts would have to say otherwise.

Yes I watched it.

One of the babies had blood around their mouth. The mother found LL with the baby and she hadn’t raised any alarms and told the mother to leave.

The mother then rung her husband distressed so has a time record. Apparently this was 9pm and can be proven. LL falsified the records to say this was 10pm that she noticed any blood.

There was also a baby with internal damage which the first autopsy noted but didnt flag. This was apparently then reviewed by a more senior person during trial who likened it to babies in a car crash and he hadn’t seen anything like this before naturally. So yes that was a muck up.

The whole things a muck up.

I did. What I am saying is that I think people think it has to be one or the other.

There is a possibility that it’s both.

I think most people knew the whole “foxy Knoxy kills woman in sex game gone wrong” thing was bollocks though. A lot of people genuinly believe Letby is a child killer.

Thats not to say I think she’s necessarily innocent, I genuinely am not sure either way.

But then a lot of people genuinely believe Letby is a child killer because they have been told she is, unequivocally, by the newspapers and the courts. There’s even a government enquiry taking her guilt as a starting point. It doesn’t mean most of them won’t be receptive to changing their minds.

You don't get compensation if it's believed they had good reason to convict you from my understanding of how it works. I do actually vaguely know someone who had a serious conviction overturned and that's why he didn't get any compensation. The new evidence was based on newer technology that wasn't available at the time so they said the conviction was based on the evidence presented. He's got nothing from it and did 7 years.

Also I have a family member who is a neonatal nurse and she said that some of the care that was reported didn't seem to be in line with clinical guidance. She thought she would be found innocent as a result though and she wasn't.

If Mark Macdonald successfully challenges the verdict based on the dubious qualifications of the expert prosecution witness, I wonder if it would make any difference to her eligibility for compensation that another judge actually wrote to Goss warning him about Dewi Evans and was ignored.

Why?

In this case the original post mortems showed natural causes and there is good reason to believe that Letby was scapegoated for.the failures of the hospital. Even Dr Dewi Evans who wrote a report for the prosecution (that another judge warned the trial judge not to accept), said that if sewage was found in the unit, it should have been closed down until the problem was resolved. He still believes she's a murderer.

No murder: no murderer

Yes I watched it.

One of the babies had blood around their mouth. The mother found LL with the baby and she hadn’t raised any alarms and told the mother to leave."

@Toddlerhelpplease123 - was this given as evidence in the trial? None of the babies died of anything that blood around the mouth would indicate

Yes but that would be between her and the hospital, or whoever that guy works for. It wouldn't be the justice system that compensate her.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-64825649

If you mean this baby - it would seem he had a blood disorder. The claim at the trial was that he died from an air embolism but he did not have unexplained injuries.

No babies had injuries from being hit etc. There were inquests and post mortems on almost all of them (which at the time concluded natural causes).

I disagree since the post mortem evidence was available to the CPS all along. Also the police failed to disclose to the defence that they had hired a statistician and then dispensed with her services. This should absolutely have been disclosed and contributed to the miscarriage of justice.

To answer some of your questions doubt very much that a healthy baby was in the highest level of intensive care was just waiting to go home, it costs money to give that level of intensive care, if that bed was full then they would had to pay out to another hospitals to care for another high risk baby. It doesn’t make sense.
fishing paper towels out of the bin. As any nurse will know paper towels can actually be filed in hospital notes, she may have wanted to keep it if she needed to write a statement . This is not unusual behaviour. Lots of us before Covid had hand written work sheets in our pockets & we went home in uniform the work sheet would be at home, again not unusual.
These incidents might be unusual in today’s climate but then it wasn’t. Hope that has given you a different view of those incidents.

Wasn't the full term baby the one who had several risk factors for infection? That's the one my relative said had really bad care from the beginning.

I haven’t read the transcripts. This is from my reading on Reddit forums about the trial; whilst second hand information they do seem to be very quick to correct one another on there and are quite obsessed about the details.

So it could be wrong.