To think Lucy Letby could’ve done more to help herself if she really wasn’t guilty?

[Seymorbutts]

Just watched the new Lucy Letby documentary on Netflix. I think there’s one of C4 too, don’t know if it’s the same one? I’m leaning slightly more towards that she did it, but only about 60% sure she did it. 40% sure she didn’t do it. On this doc there’s a lot of footage of all her arrests and police interviews. What strikes me as odd IF she’s innocent, is how little she protests her innocence, how calm & composed she is. It’s the same during her arrests. I understand she must’ve been in shock when she was arrested so that could explain it. But she was interviewed for hours. Not once did she say “I didn’t do this” (unless directly asked, which she just answered with “no”) “I’m innocent”, “I could never kill a baby”. Nothing like that. Very little crying too. I know she’s supposedly very quiet and reserved and I’m sure was very scared, but I don’t think personality can account for a total lack of defending herself (or maybe she was just following the advice given by her lawyer). But still, if it was me I’d be absolutely raging, and protesting my innocence at every opportunity and giving clear, detailed reasons why I couldn’t have done it when they put it to me that I did. Or maybe she did do it and she’s a psychopath and unable to show remorse, which could explain her lack of any kind of emotion at all 🤷‍♀️ I really don’t know. If she is innocent though, I feel like the way she behaved made her look guilty. Interested to hear if people think she did it or not and why/why not…

If you'd read any further than the headline, you'd know that isn't the case at all. And Ms Hull hasn't exactly done a stellar job on the reporting front - oh, except as far as grifting for her lamentable podcasts goes.

Your glee is the only despicable thing I can see here.

I think I would probably be like this. I have no feelings either way on her innocence or guilt but I do think a guilty person would be more likely to be hamming up the ‘but I’m innocent, innocent I tell you’ stuff.
People react to shocking events in all sorts of ways, some innocent people may be calm because they believe that is the best response and that it will all get sorted out. Some people may panic.
I don’t think it is possible to judge Lucy Letby either way from her (edited) responses.

I read it all-did you? The expert doesn't agree with Shoo Lee's findings. Get over it!

In what way has Shoo Lee misinterpreted his own work?

The expert does agree with Shoo Lee's findings. That's the funny part.

He and Hull and Cheetham go on about how Dr Lee argued that it was impossible for venous air to cross into the arteries, when in fact he spelt out in black and white in his article and press conference and press release that it was possible.

Transcript of the podcast here for anyone who wants to check it out

https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/s/t8u5vsbpnn

As for Hull discovering a new air embolism case - so what? Has anyone been claiming air embolism doesn't exist? She is further out of her depth than I'd realised

I'd be really interested to hear what anyone thinks her new example of air embolism proves.

Yes, and I also read previous reports and articles where Shoo Lee has addressed this, so it's not the bombshell gotcha you think it is. It's last ditch sensationalism and desperation because one swallow does not a summer make.

BTW your playground temper tantrums don't lend any weight to your posts.

He and Hull and Cheetham go on about how Dr Lee argued that it was impossible for venous air to cross into the arteries, when in fact he spelt out in black and white in his article and press conference and press release that it was possible.

So why is Shoo Lee trying to claim it can't be air embolism in the Letby case then? No one is misinterpreting his paper if he himself claims that air can get into the arteries. Make it make sense. Maybe it's just that no one can make head nor tail of what he's on about most of the time since he seems to be digging himself a bit of a hole.

Here is the full case report by Shau-Ru Ho which Hull refers to

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875957225001627

It describes a child who suffered systemic air embolism after high pressure ventilation like the children in Shoo Lee's original study.

As Lee stated outright in his 2025 study, children in this situation can have air in both venous and arterial blood

"Venous air embolism typically results in right-sided cardiac air but in neonates, venous air can access the arterial systemic circulation through the patent foramen ovale, especially in the face of raised pulmonary vascular pressures" (page 1822)

Hull is therefore describing a case of ... exactly what Lee described

Could this child have had "Lee's sign"? Possibly - it would work fine with his statements. Did the child have "Lee's sign"? The case study doesn't say so. The photos don't show it. Why are Hull and Clarke describing any random rash as Lee's sign?

Lee said that pulmonary vascular pressures could result in venous air embolism passing into the arteries, but that the lesser pressure of injected air embolism has never been shown to do this and to produce Lee's sign.

This new case is a classic "pulmonary vascular pressures" case ... and it doesn't even show Lee's sign, does it?

Here's Lee / Zhou 2025 with their statement on air passing from the venous to the arterial systems on page 1822

Venous air embolism typically results in right-sided cardiac air but in neonates, venous air can access the arterial systemic circulation through the patent foramen ovale, especially in the face of raised pulmonary vascular pressures"

https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/pdf/10.1055/a-2508-2733.pdf

Why are Clarke, Hull and Cheetham seemingly under the impression he claimed this didn't happen? I really have no idea. It's a quite simple, short paper. But nobody could read the transcript of their discussion and come away thinking they know what was in it.

And look - Lee said the same thing in his press conference summary - the very first case report:

When air is injected into the veins, air bubbles must first traverse the lungs where they are filtered out by a vast bed of small blood vessels. In infants, there is a hole in the heart (foramen ovale) that normally closes shortly after birth, so it is possible for air bubbles to escape through the hole into the arterial system but Zhou and Lee reported no patchy skin discolorations in
infants with IV injection of air

lucyletbyinnocence.com/shoo-lee/International%20Expert%20Panel%20-%20Summary%20Report.pdf

There are also clips out there of him saying as much at the press conference itself.

I have no idea how Hull, Cheetham and Clarke have got this so wrong.

Yes - it's not as if we believe people just because they say they are innocent either. Really can't judge based on this.

Well he's wrong isn't he!

The rash / discoloration / whatever thing is possibly one of the biggest red herrings in this whole case in my humble opinion. Given that these "rashes" were described so variously, and none seemed to be the alleged "sign" of air embolism, I find it extremely worrying that no nurse or doctor at the time of observation sought further advice or properly documented them.

In court the rashes were both downplayed as not diagnostic, but also potentially as significant, which was seized upon by the media.

As I recall, it's not clear who / when instigated the rash issue, and if 18 research papers were used by Evans, how come Shoo Lees paper was given such prominence - wasn't it Jayaram who had the eureka moment having found it on line?

This whole situation has been a complete car crash, and absolutely makes the conviction unsafe. Even if the babies did die of AE, there is no proof Lucy Letby did it.

It gives me a headache as a mere observer from the public gallery as it were - can't imagine how those working on the front line of the case feel - it's like Groundhog Day in hell, cubed.

Well that's conclusive - you've solved the issue all on your own, once again we can forget about a retrial, FF has spoken.

Based on?

There was a report last week about a parent whose child had exactly this kind of rash at this hospital. But because it was long after LL had been arrested it was disregarded.

This whole situation has been a complete car crash, and absolutely makes the conviction unsafe. Even if the babies did die of AE, there is no proof Lucy Letby did it.

So now you're willing to open your mind enough to believe that someone was deliberately inducing AE, it just wasn't Letby?

Wrong about what exactly?

Try backing up your points with facts, evidence, anything other than your opinion.

Given that there are other mechanisms that can induce AE, which are far more likely in a clinical setting, not sure how you can extrapolate that I'm considering it was deliberate. The word IF is also a big clue as so far the evidence for it is pretty much non existent except in Evans head. And no, "baby collapsed and died" repeated ad nauseam in court is not evidence.

There remains no proof or evidence that Lucy Letby did anything, beyond a crock of circumstantial shit.

@MistressoftheDarkSide it's an incredibly rare phenomenon so what's your theory as to the cause in all these babies if it wasn't deliberate? You might just crack the case...

And no, "baby collapsed and died" repeated ad nauseam in court is not evidence.

Well that IS one of the major symptoms. So you're unhappy that AE doesn't present in ways you find satisfactory proof, not Evans' fault is it.

Vascular air embolism is an extremely rare but often fatal, underrecognized complication in neonates, primarily affecting premature infants on mechanical ventilation. While generally rare, it is not infrequent in preterm infants with severe lung disease (RDS). Mortality is very high, often exceeding 70% in reported cases.
National Institutes of Health (.gov) +3
Key Aspects of Neonatal Air Embolism

• Risk Factors: Primarily associated with high-pressure ventilation, air leak syndromes (pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum), central venous catheters, and sometimes necrotizing enterocolitis.
• Prevalence: Mostly reported in preterm infants, with studies identifying it as a rare complication. One review of literature found only 117 reported cases, suggesting it is often overlooked due to high mortality and low awareness.
• Symptoms: Sudden clinical deterioration, cyanosis, and cardiovascular collapse.
• Diagnosis & Prognosis: Diagnosed via chest X-ray or ultrasound, showing gas in major vessels. It carries a very high mortality rate, particularly in preterm infants.
• Prevention: The most critical approach is reducing ventilator-induced barotrauma and careful management of catheters.

Although rarely reported, some cases may go unnoticed if the infant passes away without a post-mortem, or if the air embolism is asymptomatic, such as small amounts of air entering through intravenous lines.

Nobody is denying that babies die of air embolism, but we need good reasons to diagnose air embolism when a baby dies

Exactly, and certainly not jump immediately to "serial killer".

In the absence of any other explanation...or do you think they should keep looking for obscure explanations that don't stack up when the reality is staring them right in the face? That expert literally said for 3 babies to all have symptoms of AE in such a short space of time says it all. Again it's what's beyond reasonable doubt not "I don't want to believe this so lets keep looking for other reasons and if we don't find them that just means we haven't looked hard enough"!

They could just work with what the pathologists found at post-mortem?

If in doubt, they could then convene a multidisciplinary team to find the most likely causes of death, which did not happen in Lucy Letby's case until Lee's panel was convened.

It's not at all clear why the police did not follow procedure and advice and convene a multidisciplinary investigation

This new video on the problems with the police investigation is really excellent