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

There is without pure conviction.

@skyfirechesnut but in terms of the OP and your question you are absolutely CORRECT.

People read a headline and change opinion.

You gave this case as an example but it happens all the time. Fake news, this crazy click articles. MR WORLD cried. Everyone's like oh he cried, yes as a baby when born.

That's not what I meant. I hate it normally.

Was just an article showing ot wasn't as simple as there is new evidence. She is innocent.

This is not the case.

I believe you and I can't begin to imagine what all the speculation is doing to everyone involved in the case. It's like a cult at this point. Absolutely mental. I think there is SO much evidence that people can't be bothered to read through it all and tie it together so they're only looking at one thing at a time and putting it down to coincidence or disputing the evidence. There are only so many times you can do that before you have to admit something was going on. Even if these new experts are right about air embolism, it's not the only method she used. We have proof babies were overfed for a start without even going into the insulin evidence which no one knew about to pin that on her until police started investigating.

I thought Liz Hull's article was very very strange.

She gave a little summary of each case as the prosecution argued it.

Then she gave a little summary of each case as the new panel of experts argued it.

Then she wrote look - no new evidence, even though the two sets of summaries were quite different, and that new panel of expert arguments clearly relied on new evidence.

I thought perhaps she was abducted by aliens half way through and somebody finished it off without reading it.

Honestly, whatever you think about Letby, read the last section and try to work out her point. It makes no sense at all!

Please link to proof of over feeding.

Pin on her is the right word for the insulin results - she wasn't even on shift when the test was done!

Interesting but I feel that if she'd been a black nurse from Uganda who was convicted, nobody would give a flying fu..

Partly came to this conclusion a while back when I read a blog article proclaiming her innocence where the writer had stated that she reminded them of their daughter! < rolls eyes >

I also heard a bloke at work say that 'Lucy Letby is quite pretty and that she doesn't look like a killer.' He then went into a roll call of how Myra Hindley, Rose West, etc were all ugly women.

Last I heard/read was an investigation was being done on how many babies had died at the training facilities she was at. Her presence does seem to have a high mortality rate. Any news on that?

What about the 40% increase in tube dislodgements whilst she was on shift at Liverpool? Did you conveniently forget that?

She's guilty. But people who believe in alternative facts will claim the contrary. There's no hope for them because if you present facts they will say they heard otherwise on fox news..

She hung the bags beforehand and was the only staff member to sign for both.

I agree with you.

I binged the Mail Podcasts over a few weeks during laboriously long drives and couldn't make my mind up. I didn't envy that jury in any way having to reach a verdict, over a long trial that was very heavy with circumstantial evidence.

I do think that it's in everyone's best interests for the judicial process to be open to scrutiny, and brains far more qualified than mine have come forward questioning the conviction. Probably far more qualified than the average jury too.

I'm happy to sit back on this one and see what the outcome will be without hopping off the fence. It's awful either way, either she's a serial killer of neonatal babies or she's an innocent woman that has received a whole life term... the poor parents now being dragged through the ringer again after they thought that they could move on with their lives.

It's all just fucking shit. All we can hope for is the truth to prevail either way.

https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/23187091.lucy-letby-murder-trial-baby-force-fed-massive-amounts-milk/

You're not wrong. Tattle has some good information on the LL threads - a very good Wiki detailing all the trial evidence etc. Worth a look.

Letby was convicted based on a combination of medical, statistical, and circumstantial evidence. While some claim there was "no direct proof," the prosecution demonstrated a clear pattern: babies collapsed or died at an unusual rate when she was on shift, and no medical explanation (other than deliberate harm) fit the evidence. Experts ruled out natural causes, and her presence at every incident was statistically improbable.

Letby wrote notes where she appeared to confess, including phrases like “I am evil, I did this” and “I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough.” While some suggest these were just expressions of distress, in the context of the case, they were damning. Innocent people rarely write self-incriminating statements like this.

Some argue the hospital had systemic failures or that other medical causes were overlooked. However, the trial considered these possibilities. No alternative explanation matched the facts, and multiple expert witnesses testified that the babies’ deaths resulted from deliberate harm.

Letby had a lengthy trial with a jury, defense attorneys, and legal safeguards. She was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury deliberated for weeks.

People saying she was framed or that the NHS scapegoated her - I don’t buy this as it requires a vast conspiracy involving doctors, police, forensic experts, and the courts. The reality is that multiple professionals, independently, reached the conclusion that she was responsible.

https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/ll-part-21-reflections-on-baby-g

Written by a medic.

DomPom47

As no-one saw here do anything, it is all circumstantial evidence.
The statistical evidence has had so many holes blown in to it its ridiculous that people still bring it up. Not only is the information wrong (entry and exit logs etc.) a door where entry was not logged etc. Let alone that she didn't have contact with one of the babies at all.

try this view

No.

Here's the story of the 40%

At the opening of the Thirlwall Enquiry, lawyer Steve Baker claimed that dislodgements occured on 40% of Letby's shifts as opposed to 1% for other nurses.

This was met with great excitement in the press and widespread derision by medics and statisticians.

Why? It's an impossible measure, badly expressed.

If dislodgements took place on 13 of Letby's 34 shifts and there was for some reason only one baby in the large level 3 care unit, that would be odd. Still perfectly possible if that one baby was a serial dislodger or if the doctors (not nurses) on duty were bad at inserting tubes, or if nurses and parents were bad at handling babies with tubes ...

But of course there was more than one baby on the ward. There were on average 40.

Let's imagine that 30 of them were intubated in this setting. There should be a dislodgement about one shift in three, even with that 1% rate, which is very low. That would cover Letby's numbers. (In practice the same babies tend to dislodge repeatedly, so you could easily just be on for a week with a wriggly baby)

Nobody ever compared what happened during Letby's shifts at Liverpool with what happened at anybody else's shifts. They just looked at hers alone.

This statistic is like expecting somebody who owns one convenience store to have the same turnover as someone who owns forty convenience stores.

Jane Hutton, a Professor in statistics from Warwick wrote to Baker. She explained the problem and that he was in danger of misleading the public. She offered to help him to explain the statistics properly.

When Baker mentioned this statistic first, he said he would give details later. He never mentioned it again after receiving Hutton's letter. He never explained it.

If you could lock nurses up for something like this - no eyewitnesses, no comparison with other nurses on the same unit, no suspicions at the time over ten years ago - nurses everywhere should be very very afraid.

No, the bag was changed for baby F hours after she went off shift.

It’s a misconception that circumstantial evidence is weak. Many serious crimes—especially ones involving covert actions like poisoning—are proven using circumstantial evidence. The jury was presented with:

• Medical evidence showing unnatural causes of death.
• Patterns linking Letby to the incidents.
• Her own handwritten notes.

Even without eyewitnesses seeing her commit the acts, the overall picture was overwhelming.

Yes, statistics alone wouldn’t be enough. However, the statistical evidence wasn’t used in isolation—it reinforced the medical findings. The defense tried to argue that the data was unreliable, but even when allowing for possible gaps (like the door not logging entry/exit in some cases), Letby was still present for every suspicious.

Multiple independent medical experts concluded that the babies’ deaths and collapses could not be explained by natural causes. They identified specific signs of air embolism, insulin poisoning, and other unnatural harm—all occurring on Letby’s shifts. If the cause of death were natural failures in care, why did these events cluster around one nurse and not others?

The “she didn’t have contact with one baby” arguments misrepresents the case. Babies in neonatal units are not always under direct, constant care from a single nurse, but they are in close proximity. Some victims had unexplained collapses shortly after Letby was in the room. Additionally, there were cases where she had access to syringes and feeding tubes that could have been used without immediate observation.

For me what clinches is her own notes - I can’t ignore their literal meaning:

• "I am evil, I did this.”
• "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough.”

For a wrongful conviction, we’d need an alternative explanation for:

1. Why the babies died unnaturally.
2. Why it kept happening on her shifts.
3. Why she wrote what she did.

The idea that it was all a mistake, or that she was framed, doesn’t hold up when looking at the full scope of the evidence. If someone truly believes she’s innocent, they would need to provide a plausible alternative explanation for these points—not just pick apart individual aspects of the case.

So the 'evidence' of force feeding milk came from Dr Evans who has been discredited by the findings of actual experts.

The insulin evidence has also been discredited. It's the Letby 'guilters' who don't seem to read beyond the headlines.

There's no conspiracy needed. All you need is doctors not understanding that babies were dying of conditions they'd missed or mishandled, insisting (and I'm sure believing) there was no innocent explanation, going to the police and persuading them to investigate. Then the police expert witness was incompetent or dishonest.

Where's the conspiracy?

I think people are far too quick to accuse others of conspiracy theories. Saying, we think this group of people made a mistake and others failed to pick it up is not a conspiracy.

@DomPom47 'For a wrongful conviction, we’d need an alternative explanation for:

• Why the babies died unnaturally.
• Why it kept happening on her shifts.
• Why she wrote what she did.'

Easy. 1. The babies didn't die unnaturally. Read the conclusions of the world leading experts who have explained that actually there were massive errors in the care of these babies and all their deaths can be explained by either natural causes or the medical mismanagement of maternity staff and consultants.

1. Statistical anomalies happen. Sometimes, someone wins the lottery, etc. Dr Jane Hutton has explained that it's far more statistically likely for a nurse to be coincidentally on shift for lots of shifts rather than to be a murderer. The police were advised of this but chose to use faulty statistics. Also they completely ignored the shifts where babies died where she WASN'T on duty, which is shocking but true.
2. It's likely she was writing down fears and emotions as encouraged by her therapist. Serial killers don't tend to write confessions like that then deny their crimes.

And I don't think she was deliberately scapegoated. I think the doctors didn't realise how shit the hospital and their care really was, in all likelihood. And I think the police and CPS are too thick to understand stats and medical evidence. I do think Dewi Evans is an evil, arrogant grifter.

I find it very difficult to believe how such a psychopathic criminal mastermind was stupid enough to leave her alleged "confessions" and "trophies" littered about for the police to find on her third and final arrest, yet intelligent enough to cover her crimes so well on the ward.