Lucy Letby. Why do some people only read headlines?

[skyfirechesnut]

I was at work today and someone says so Lucy letby is innocent now. They have just gone with the media headlines. Instead of researching.

Sorry for the fail link but this is quite a good article below on the current state of things. The author has attended all trials and listened to appeals and conferences.

I also don't understand people who say she was scapegoated. If people follow the Thirwall enquiry this is far from the case. She was totally protected, her parents calling up, being in meetings, dictating apologies. It beggars belief.

I can somewhat understand people saying she is innocent based on medical evidence after the press conference but even that is nothing new.

You can't say my expert is better than yours.

Also people seem to think it was all Dewi Evans for the prosecution it wasn't. There was Dr Bohin, Prof Arthurs , Prof Hindnarsh and Dr Mar etc.

That is without the Doctor colleagues if you want to dispute them.

Then they new defence have changed ideas from the conference they had in December.

They are also not totally impartial.
It isn't as simple as the headlines.

Here is the article.

archive.ph/NYg7U

.

Yet that's what happened. Trial by media.

Have you watched the recent press conference?

I have no idea if she is innocent or guilty.

However I do think if there is new evidence or a change in the credibility of the previous evidence then a jury needs to hear it. Nothing to do with supporting a baby killer and everything to do with ensuring our criminal justice system is as robust as possible.

@lnks

How do you figure that? I have spent many an hour looking at both sides. Followed the daily courtroom reporting and Thirwall. I even tried to read medical papers but I admit I am limited in my capacity there.

So I think you are being deliberately obtuse. I question every headline before or against.

Because you can't link to any transcript from the court case, the ones which you claim to have read.

@MistressoftheDarkSide

But as I said there were many more opinions than just Dewi.

Shoo Lee has changed his paper in December yet to be peer reviewed. To suit himself now.

You can read why her appeal was rejected even with Dr. Lee saying this.

@MistressoftheDarkSide

Yes there were lits of errors for example baby A's baby had not inherited the genetic condition.

Have you read anything apart from watching the press conference?

I agree OP.

The Trial podcasts have been fascinating.

The question we need to ask is why didn't the prosecution offer any opposing medical opinion witnesses?

The ONLY witness they brought in was the janitor who confirmed the dire state of the ward.

The new barrister is now using the new opposing medical witnesses to use as a reason for appeal.

My fear is the new trial will pit one team of medical opinion against another and will leave the jury to dissect and attempt to understand.

I think the outcome will then be an aqquital due to them not knowing which expert to believe.

Absolutely. It always amazes me the number of people who aren't happy for new evidence to be considered but claim to care about these babies and want to prevent it from happening again in the future.

Shoo Lee updated his paper to reflect new findings since 1989 and to differentiate between venous and arterial air embolism. It's hardly "suiting himself" to want his scientific research to be accurately represented in legal proceedings. It's in the interest of preventing an erroneous legal precedent being set, and suddenly there being an epidemic of unsafe prosecutions against HCPs.

@inks

They were live at the time. It is harder to find links like that.
I followed it daily.

Here are some that are on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/live/arlRjVQ_j0o?si=hJL04tmiFj9A3-tA

There are mamy parts that were said in court all over the internet.

If the deaths of many babies were limited to just the one hospital I might consider that she was made a scapegoat.,, but it wasn’t!
It happened at the hospital she worked at before the Countess of Chester too…

@inks

Seems your only research is the non peer reviewed and non questioned press conference.

With at least two people who very much had a bias.

She has been questioned on liverpool Womens. I wonder if they will bring any new charges.

Yes.

Including stuff not related directly to LL. Like the mechanisms of forcing air into a tiny NG tube with enough force to "splint a diaphragm" undetected on a busy NICU. Like the feasibility of inflicting a liver injury in the manner suggested. A neonates liver is between 5 and 7 cm in size and partially under the rib cage, smaller in a preemie. How did she do it with "the force of a car crash" ? Like evidence for over-feeding as a cause of death. I've read plenty, thank you.

That is a Youtuber who is trying to demonstrate she is guilty. The comments under the videos thank he for as much.

I do not believe you read the court transcripts every day for 9 months

I suspect they will.

You can't expect all people to be fully across all news stories at all times. Can you??

So the 'Similar Threads' section has four more current threads,

HOWEVER the OP obviously thinks her take is important enough to start a new thread, without checking if the others are relevant.

Maybe she read the headline title and didn't do her research ...

Evidence?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/12/nottingham-nhs-trust-fined-over-three-newborn-babies-deaths

I suppose it's the stuff of conspiracy theory to wonder if something institutional has been tragically and inadvertently occurring?

I'm not sure what you are on about. I don't claim to have done any research, I also haven't said whether I think she is guilty or innocent.

I am responding directly to your claim that you have only ever looked at unbiased documents, commentary etc when that clearly isn't true

Of course you do 🙄

I don't actually know if LL is guilty - but I do know that some of the evidence was either a) open to interpretation or b) manipulated to prove a case (such as the diary entries).

If LL is guilty then further scrutiny won't hurt.

If she isn't guilty then those families deserve a proper answer, and LL deserves to be freed.

Our justice system should be capable of standing up to scrutiny.

I think this is one of those cases where an expert jury/panel of judges really was required. The average man on the street simply doesn't understand the medical evidence sufficiently to know how much weight to place on what's being said. And that includes most people who say they followed the trial.

I see the usual names have popped up on this thread already, scoffing at people who are willing to keep an open mind about any new evidence....

When you've convicted someone on circumstantial evidence and one or more of the witnesses has since changed their story, you need to be extremely certain that you got it right.

LL doesn't sound like a particularly nice person. And she may well be a baby killer. Double-checking that conviction with medical evidence which is being peer reviewed by some of the top global experts surely isn't a bad thing?

I know that I don't know enough to be certain because I don't have forensic medical skills (but I do have a professional background in medicine). It's mindblowing that people are so certain when actual neonatal experts are calling some evidence into question.

Again, doesn't mean LL isn't a killer but blowing off these world-leading experts is just ridiculous.