Page 9 | Lucy Letby. Why do some people only read headlines?

skyfirechesnut · 2025-02-12T17:16:04+00:00

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. https://archive.ph/NYg7U

Nottodaythankyou123 · 12/02/2025 21:58

JandamiHash · 12/02/2025 21:46

I feel like this excellent post should be pinned.

Show quote history

I think that’s the nicest thing anyone’s ever said to me on here 😅

newrubylane · 12/02/2025 21:59

DomPom47 · 12/02/2025 20:38

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.
.

Show quote history

They didn't only cluster around one nurse though. As someone said elsewhere on the thread, they ignored the deaths that happened while she wasn't there. If I remember correctly, someone on one of the other threads pointed out that even if you disregard the deaths she has been convicted for, the death rate at Chester was still considerably elevated. So something else was causing a lot of deaths there regardless.

Oftenaddled · 12/02/2025 22:00

Nottodaythankyou123 · 12/02/2025 21:57

No - she’s down to the CCRC, the evidence needs to be entirely new, not just a different interpretation by someone else.

Show quote history

CCRC can refer on any grounds it thinks fit. New evidence or new argument are what it mentioned in its press release on Letby. Unreliable expert witness is another established reason, and McDonald has said he will use this too. Then there are public interest grounds.

Of course, there's plenty of new evidence anyway.

contentlycontent · 12/02/2025 22:01

IWantToGetOffHelp · 12/02/2025 21:52

I didn’t follow the case too closely, just read some of the court reports in the papers and assumed she was guilty. However, after I watched the 2 hour conference the other day I was absolutely shocked! Shocked that the ‘exoert witnesses’ used to prosecute her were anything but experts. Shocked that the statistical
evidence was so flawed and shocked what a poor representation she had.

The new experts weren’t brought together by her defence - it all started when the doctor who wrote the paper that essentially convicted her heard that his paper had been used in a trial and was interested to find out how. He was horrified when he found out it was a 20 year old paper and how completely wrong and out of date it was. This made him look into it deeper and then, so horrified was he with all the errors he found, he asked other experts to have a look. None of these people had heard of LL before. They had no agenda and they really are the top of their field! Have a look at their credentials.

These doctors then spent months of their own time reviewing every death and each concluded, independently, that every death was either of natural causes or by poor care given by a failing hospital. In fact, one doctor said that if such a hospital existed in Canada it would have been closed down. Even more damning, is that they believe that many of the injuries were caused by consultants’ bad practice. These were babies that needed a lot of care. In Canada, they would be checked on by a consultant three times a day. Here, they were checked on twice a week! Even the machine that they used to measure a chemical produced by natural insulin was a machine that wouldn’t actually read the level in neonates! And that was something that helped convict her.

None of these experts have any agenda. They owe nothing to LL. Do you seriously think that 14 WORLD RENOWNED doctors would put their reputations on the line if what they were saying wasn’t true?

If any of you have spent any time with a baby in UK hospitals you will know how bloody dangerous they are. There aren’t enough staff, there’s poorly qualified staff who don’t speak good English, consultants who think they are god and a culture of covering up mistakes. In fact, since the press conference, 11 nurses have come forward to say that there was bad practice in the unit but they were too scared to speak up.

I gave birth in Shrewsbury hospital during the baby scandal there. That was covered up for many years. It was only one parent of a baby who died who wouldn’t be fobbed off that brought that scandal into the open otherwise we would never have known about that. There were a lot of doctors there who covered their own arses and threw other people under the bus. Have you seen how many babies died here because of substandard care? They weren’t murdered but might as well have been.

I have no idea if she is or isn’t guilty (but I suspect not now) but we should all be horrified at this conviction and how unsafe it is. It makes an absolute mockery of our legal system and changes need to be made.

Edited

Now is probably a good time to go back and see the original case before casting judgement. Multiple explanations that were provided by the new experts were considered and discussed at the original trial. Agreed they are experts and have used their own time and expertise but they are also giving an opinion on one aspect of the case. She was convicted based on a whole picture, not just the one side of it.

The hospital protected Letby so throwing under a bus is not the correct approach.

I agree her defence was shockingly bad and cannot find any reason for them not calling any more experts to defend her.

You can’t deem the conviction as unsafe without actually looking into the trial in detail yourself

JandamiHash · 12/02/2025 22:01

Oftenaddled · 12/02/2025 21:46

I don't see any challenge to what the panel said. She summarises what they said. She summarises what the prosecution said. End of article.

What's her point? I don't get it

Show quote history

You haven’t read it properly then

kkloo · 12/02/2025 22:03

Nottodaythankyou123 · 12/02/2025 21:57

No - she’s down to the CCRC, the evidence needs to be entirely new, not just a different interpretation by someone else.

Show quote history

That's not true.

Oftenaddled · 12/02/2025 22:03

Nottodaythankyou123 · 12/02/2025 21:55

You’ll know then, that in this case the doctors accusing her were threatened with the GMC and dismissal for raising concerns. That at every turn, the hospital had her back, allowed her parents into meetings, forced consultants to apologise, authorised her going to Alder Hey children’s hospital once she was already under investigation and protected her steadfastly, resisting a police investigation for as long as possible. Hardly the actions of an institution trying to throw her to the wolves

I won’t refer to you as a half wit, but I’m assuming in the scenario you’re discussing you hadn’t also written “I killed them on purpose” in relation to dead babies, or kept hundreds of handover notes on said dead babies under your bed or in your garage in boxes marked “keep”, despite multiple house moves and opportunities to get rid of them.
That a pattern of unexplained deaths hadn’t followed you from night shifts to day shifts, stopped whilst you were on holidays.
That you hadn’t looked up families of dead babies (in some cases of which you weren’t even the designated nurse for and had limited involvement in) for years after the events, linking them together in a way nobody else had grouped them yet, as if only you knew what linked those specific babies.
That you didn’t have 40% tube dislodgments on your shift, when the average is less than 1%.
That you weren’t the only nurse on duty for every unexplained death (not every death, but every unexplained death).

Where this panel falls down is the suggestion that only the medical evidence is relevant in this case - this was a jigsaw of evidence, some circumstantial, some medical, which when two seperate juries looked at in the whole, were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt showed she had murdered and intended to murder multiple babies.

Show quote history

The doctors weren't threatened with the GMC or dismissal. They were advised to apologise to Letby to help forestall a complaint from her parents to the GMC. In other words, hospital management tried to protect both Letby and the doctors.

IWantToGetOffHelp · 12/02/2025 22:03

Take a look at Professor Shoo Lee’s credentials…..then have a look at Dewi Evans. Which one would you want looking after your premature baby. Now have a look at the Linked In profiles of the other 13 panel members. No one can be so arrogant to think that their opinion should be disregarded.

www.linkedin.com/in/shoo-lee-78092a10?trk=people-also-viewed_member-name

JandamiHash · 12/02/2025 22:05

Oftenaddled · 12/02/2025 21:47

Evans was the only expert witness for the prosecution to write his reports independently. The others worked with him or based on his.

Show quote history

Can you elaborate on this please?

Oftenaddled · 12/02/2025 22:07

JandamiHash · 12/02/2025 22:01

You haven’t read it properly then

Show quote history

I can usually make sense of Hull's articles, but in this case I really can't see the logic of her column.

The experts and the prosecution disagree. Well obviously - they're trying to get the case appealed.

Some of the things they say overlap. Obviously again. They're dealing with the same cases, and nobody is saying anyone got the facts 100% wrong.

I don't understand why Hull thinks this is a big revelation or why it matters?

JandamiHash · 12/02/2025 22:08

MistressoftheDarkSide · 12/02/2025 21:48

Well. Poor care of babies is a good starting point. Ward rounds by consultants as little as twice a week. Repeated failures at intubation in one case at least. An attempt at aspiration that punctured a liver. Plenty of other examples of poor care.

Doctors pointing the finger at a nurse. Doctors giving interviews and changing their minds to suit the Lucy Letby is guilty narrative.

I could go on. Police aren't Doctors, they have to trust doctors. They were influenced by doctors.

I deliberately avoided the trial as it happens, due to carefully controlled personal bias and "projection". It was the furore after the verdict that pulled me in. The emotive bullshit , such as the violent liver injury. Resonant as hell to be sure.

You see, you really have to have been in Lucy Letbys shoes to get it. Not that there was death or a criminal trial in my case, but close enough, thanks.

So, take your "projection" and patronise someone else.

This case is unsafe because the medical evidence is easily disputed, and without that, the rest falls apart.

Show quote history

You think police don’t have experience of medical investigation and are relying on colleagues of the accused?

I don’t want to be in the shoes of a baby killer I don’t need to understand why she did those awful crimes.

JandamiHash · 12/02/2025 22:09

Oftenaddled · 12/02/2025 21:48

Substandard care misjudges whether or not babies are improving. That's the point

Show quote history

Blood tests, observations and medical data don’t lie though. Unless you thought the process was looking at a baby going “yep. Looks better”?

Nottodaythankyou123 · 12/02/2025 22:09

Oftenaddled · 12/02/2025 22:00

CCRC can refer on any grounds it thinks fit. New evidence or new argument are what it mentioned in its press release on Letby. Unreliable expert witness is another established reason, and McDonald has said he will use this too. Then there are public interest grounds.

Of course, there's plenty of new evidence anyway.

Show quote history

The CCRC are incredibly narrow. By new evidence it means things like dna evidence obtained where dna testing hadn’t been scientifically available. So someone convicted prior to the use of dna in criminal cases, but then once dna is routinely used then they find someone else’s dna. It’s that level of extreme new evidence. Just an example by the way!

Nothing here was unavailable at the trial, they might be interpreting it differently, but it’s not of itself “new evidence”.

And no, it’s not just any new argument, it’s a legal argument, something that was fundamentally wrong in the legal aspect.

It also can’t be anything they’ve already tried to appeal on, which again narrows the scope.

Between 1997-2024 the CCRC received over 32,000 applications, of which only 855 have been referred back to the appeal courts which gives an idea of how restrictive their criteria are.

JandamiHash · 12/02/2025 22:09

User14March · 12/02/2025 21:48

So, what is likely to happen next?

Nothing. She will rot where she belongs with any luck

JandamiHash · 12/02/2025 22:10

Glitterbomb123 · 12/02/2025 21:48

Because if someone's asked you to name the evidence, you're obviously going to name the strongest bits of evidence.

I didn't actually think I had read all the evidence but seeing as I only ever see the same things being said, maybe I have. And I just can't see how that's strong!?

Show quote history

How do you know the strongest bits of evidence of you haven’t read the evidence?

JandamiHash · 12/02/2025 22:11

TuesdayRubies · 12/02/2025 21:49

@JandamiHash mottled skin is found in sepsis. Tubes do get dislodged. The consultants were poor at putting them in for a start. You've been misled.

There was no evidence of sepsis in the post mortems done on the baby who the label said died of sepsis.

JandamiHash · 12/02/2025 22:11

Oftenaddled · 12/02/2025 21:51

You don't win by saying your experts are better.

You win, when a case has been messed up like this, by having better experts.

These experts then conduct the studies and experiments and investigations you need to prove your case.

Show quote history

How do you measure when an expert is better than the next?

JandamiHash · 12/02/2025 22:13

Shocked that the ‘exoert witnesses’ used to prosecute her were anything but experts

Sorry are you saying ALL of the expert witnesses were frauds and masquerading as doctors and academics?

Do you even know who they are

I I am laughing at “I didn’t follow the trial but this panel is so amazing”. How do you know when you don’t have the full facts?

JandamiHash · 12/02/2025 22:13

None of these experts have any agenda

Hahaha sure they don’t

FrippEnos · 12/02/2025 22:14

JandamiHash

As I see it
The statistical evidence
I have already posted before about the holes in this.
The medical evidence.
We now have other professionals putting forward a different opinion.
The "witness" that saw her
He has changed his story 3 times now and a nurse has disputed what he saw
The "confession"
Taken out of context and was part of her therapy
The missing insulin
No one knows who took it just that she was on shift
That she was on shift when all the babies died
All bar one and the other babies that died but were never brought forward or investigated as they didn't fit the perceived timeline of events
The evidence of the pathologists
They either didn't test for things or tested outside of the recommended time for the tests.
That the number of babies that died dropped after she left
The unit stopped taking in babies of that level of need.

That is just off the top of my head.

JandamiHash · 12/02/2025 22:15

Oftenaddled · 12/02/2025 21:54

There's no comparison between the experts at trial and the experts on that review panel. Different class.

Show quote history

Can you elaborate on this please? Are you saying doctors from two of the greatest childrenMs hospitals in the planet are a low class of professional?

JandamiHash · 12/02/2025 22:16

Anonymous6943 · 12/02/2025 21:55

So just add my own theory in to the mix… the trial mentioned a few times that Lucy had a serious crush on the doctor that would come in when the babies would crash… I kind of felt like maybe she was doing things to the babies so that she could see him as she knew he would come if there was a problem with one of the babies and her obsession with him somehow spiralled in to all of this… just my thoughts but I don’t know why this option wasn’t considered more as people can do bat sh*t crazy things when they are obsessed with someone

Yes it was all but implied they were having an affair. They went on weekends away together but the public weren’t privy to all the information and he had anonymity, and was married to someone else. It was an interesting theory as a motive

JandamiHash · 12/02/2025 22:16

Nottodaythankyou123 · 12/02/2025 21:55

You’ll know then, that in this case the doctors accusing her were threatened with the GMC and dismissal for raising concerns. That at every turn, the hospital had her back, allowed her parents into meetings, forced consultants to apologise, authorised her going to Alder Hey children’s hospital once she was already under investigation and protected her steadfastly, resisting a police investigation for as long as possible. Hardly the actions of an institution trying to throw her to the wolves

I won’t refer to you as a half wit, but I’m assuming in the scenario you’re discussing you hadn’t also written “I killed them on purpose” in relation to dead babies, or kept hundreds of handover notes on said dead babies under your bed or in your garage in boxes marked “keep”, despite multiple house moves and opportunities to get rid of them.
That a pattern of unexplained deaths hadn’t followed you from night shifts to day shifts, stopped whilst you were on holidays.
That you hadn’t looked up families of dead babies (in some cases of which you weren’t even the designated nurse for and had limited involvement in) for years after the events, linking them together in a way nobody else had grouped them yet, as if only you knew what linked those specific babies.
That you didn’t have 40% tube dislodgments on your shift, when the average is less than 1%.
That you weren’t the only nurse on duty for every unexplained death (not every death, but every unexplained death).

Where this panel falls down is the suggestion that only the medical evidence is relevant in this case - this was a jigsaw of evidence, some circumstantial, some medical, which when two seperate juries looked at in the whole, were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt showed she had murdered and intended to murder multiple babies.

Show quote history

Another excellent post

JandamiHash · 12/02/2025 22:17

Oftenaddled · 12/02/2025 21:57

That was gossip about one doctor who didn't start working on the ward until the last two babies died. Letby could just have met him for coffee or asked him to come and help her if she wanted to.

Show quote history

I don’t think you’ve followed the trial properly if that’s what you think.

SnakesAndArrows · 12/02/2025 22:18

FrippEnos · 12/02/2025 22:14

JandamiHash

As I see it
The statistical evidence
I have already posted before about the holes in this.
The medical evidence.
We now have other professionals putting forward a different opinion.
The "witness" that saw her
He has changed his story 3 times now and a nurse has disputed what he saw
The "confession"
Taken out of context and was part of her therapy
The missing insulin
No one knows who took it just that she was on shift
That she was on shift when all the babies died
All bar one and the other babies that died but were never brought forward or investigated as they didn't fit the perceived timeline of events
The evidence of the pathologists
They either didn't test for things or tested outside of the recommended time for the tests.
That the number of babies that died dropped after she left
The unit stopped taking in babies of that level of need.

That is just off the top of my head.

What missing insulin? People keep mentioning it but I’ve seen no reports of missing insulin.