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

'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.'

A lengthy trial is sometimes due to a weaker case, not a stronger one. It wasn't a slam dunk.

Do you not believe that miscarriages of justice exist? Heard of Sally Clark?

You have a major factual error at the core of your argument.

It's an objective error.

Multiple independent reports did not conclude that babies' deaths and collapses could not be explained by natural causes.

Multiple independent reports (at least two each before and after the trial) concluded that babies' deaths and collapses could and should be explained by natural causes.

There weren't multiple independent reports at the trial. There was a single set of reports from Dewi Evans, reviewed by Dr Bohin who wrote her own reports in response to his, with supporting evidence on detail from other expert witnesses who liaised with Evans and Bohin.

Evans's reports and causes of death came across as absolutely ludicrous to experts in the field, who have been querying and debunking them since reporting restrictions lifted.

If there is evidence babies died naturally, you can have all the other evidence you like, but you can't have a murder case.

The consultants at the Countess of Chester Hospital didn’t immediately assume foul play. In fact, they initially believed the deaths were due to infection, staffing issues, or natural causes. It was only after ruling out all medical explanations—and seeing an alarming pattern emerge—that they raised concerns. From what I have read…

• Before involving the police, they conducted internal reviews, consulted external experts, and examined all possible medical explanations.
• These were experienced neonatal doctors. Suggesting they collectively "missed" or "mishandled" so many cases in a short period, yet only on Letby’s shifts, strains credibility.

The case didn’t rely on a single police-appointed expert. Several independent specialists in neonatology, pathology, and forensic medicine reviewed the cases and concluded that these deaths showed clear signs of unnatural causes (such as air embolism and insulin poisoning).
If one expert were incompetent or dishonest, why did so many reach the same conclusion?
They
The defense did challenge the statistical evidence, but even allowing for possible errors in logging staff movements, the pattern remained:

• The deaths and collapses overwhelmingly happened when Letby was on shift.
• When she wasn’t working, the incidents stopped.
• No other nurse or doctor had a similar pattern.

Even if we assume mistakes were made in diagnosis, why did these "mistakes" only cluster around one nurse?

Again, her own writing "I am evil, I did this”? That’s not a note of frustration about being accused—it’s an admission of guilt.

If the claim is that doctors made a mistake, the argument needs to specify what that mistake actually was. What natural condition explains all these cases? If the prosecution got it wrong, what’s the alternative explanation?

The argument that “this was just a tragic series of medical mistakes” sounds reasonable at first, but for me it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Multiple independent experts confirmed unnatural causes, the pattern of incidents was statistically implausible, and Letby’s own writings suggest guilt. If she were innocent, there would need to be a plausible alternative explanation that fits all the evidence—not just a vague claim that doctors made errors.
.

You accuse people of only reading the headlines and then link to a Liz Hull daily mail and a spiked article. Interesting. Honestly watching the press conference is a really good idea before continuing to comment

Why?

@DomPom47 'was only after ruling out all medical explanationsa'

They didn't do this very effectively then, did they? Have you watched the press conference or read the summary?

The difference here is that she has been convicted of killing those babies. So those baby killer headlines and the response to them is perfectly valid.

But the way that people are behaving you’d think that her convictions have been overturned. they haven’t. If, and only if, those convictions are ever overturned should people start insulting those who believe, based on the trial/s that she is guilty.

IMO she is 100% guilty. Anyone is perfectly entitled to that opinion without abuse or posters demanding to see proof of x or y, based on the fact she is a convicted murderer.

'If the claim is that doctors made a mistake, the argument needs to specify what that mistake actually was. What natural condition explains all these cases? If the prosecution got it wrong, what’s the alternative explanation'
Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you not very bright?

This is all in the press conference and the statements from the experts!

yet the babies that died when she wasn't on shift have been discounted even though there was a spike in their number.

@DomPom47 'If she were innocent, there would need to be a plausible alternative explanation that fits all the evidence—not just a vague claim that doctors made errors.'

Again, this was the point of the press conference. Catch up. You're on the wrong side of history here.

The jury must have had a terribly difficult job going through everything that saw and heard. I do not envy them one bit.

While some have pointed to certain reports as evidence that natural causes could explain these tragic incidents, it’s important to look at the full body of evidence. Multiple independent experts testified that natural explanations simply couldn’t account for the consistent and statistically anomalous pattern of incidents occurring on Letby’s shifts. Even if individual reports had flaws, the overall evidence—including forensic findings, detailed autopsy reports, and Letby’s own incriminating notes—paints a picture that can only be reconciled with deliberate wrongdoing. In complex cases like this, it isn’t enough to highlight isolated opinions; one must account for the full spectrum of data, which overwhelmingly supported a conclusion of murder.

The experts established a clear explanation for every single death. Sometimes natural causes and sometimes medical malpractice. If you can't read or watch the press conference it's just stupid to share your ill informed views.

All entirely irrelevant until evidence suggests otherwise.

I hope the bitch burns in hell.

21st century witch hunter @Never2many

You'll be proved wrong and her conviction will be overturned.

The doctors at Countess of Chester were not neonatal doctors at all. It's a shocking thing, but they were running that unit with general paediatricians and only hired a single neonatologist after Letby left the ward.

Chester became a level 2 intensive care unit in 2012. They seem to have coped to an extent until 2015, when they started receiving smaller, sicker babies. Liverpool, where more acute cases should have gone, was struggling to admit them. The transport system to other hospitals for difficult cases started to fail.

Most babies were okay, but a small number of children were not given the treatment they needed, and they died. With these very fragile children, life was on a knife edge. They needed more specialist care.

Doctors like all of us have their limits.

Because folk are a load of sheep. And they've all jumped on the Letby's innocent bandwagon.

Yep so gullible because a defence team booked a meeting g room and booked in some experts who weren’t expert enough to represent Letby in court

Multiple independent experts have not found suspicious circumstances in a single one of these deaths. The prosecution reports were produced collaboratively.

All of that children had multiple reports finding natural causes of death, before and since the trial.

It just takes one expert witness to get it wrong in this case, and even that man himself admitted to getting three cases wrong. It's not a safe conviction.

Liz Hull is extremely dumb and extremely wrong.

YABU.

Actually I'm going to hide this thread I don't think I've got the stomach for it. Truth will out

You can dismiss my points as 'ill informed'. I believe that a careful review of all the independent reports and data leads to a very different conclusion from the one implied by the press conference. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint.

What's more likely -- a hospital had a spike of deaths due to poor care, or a woman was murdering all the babies? Gee whizz.

Truth will out and she will be released.

The 'burn the witch' brigade will still not admit she's innocent so she'll have to live a life in hiding.

You sound like an AI bot with zero actual knowledge. Go watch the press conference.

Whether you think she’s guilty or innocent, why do those convinced that ‘I am evil, I did this’ must be taken at face value ignore the fact that the same note said ‘I haven’t done anything wrong’?