Best Amazon Prime Day deals: Mumsnet favourites

Best Amazon Prime Day deals:
Mumsnet favourites

Shop now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Lucy Letby thread

179 replies

Words · 14/06/2026 06:55

Starting this as don’t think we have a new one.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
montysmaw · Today 01:28

Dameputtingonabraveface · 20/06/2026 21:03

@AnonymityAnonymity, no point. Apparently this little cohort know far better than all those who found her guilty based evidence, as they have internet stuff. Their need to prove her innocence totally trumps any respect for the families of the victims involved.

If there has been a miscarriage of justice, I would suspect her legal team would would be working on this. I hope none of those who lost children are on mumsnet. They have lost a child in these circumstances and then loads of random decide it is appropriate to turn it into an amateur investigation thread? Even it is proved there is any doubt surrounding her conviction, these threads are just salacious.

Literally a panel of the world's leading experts in child medicine and science say it was neglect or natural causes. As opposed to the single discredited rent a gob fraudster who testified at her trial.

Even without that, the fact that her previous defense team entirely failed to defend her call the trial into question.

montysmaw · Today 01:35

Oftenaddled · 22/06/2026 22:05

Your question was about why people currently working with the defence didn't speak out during the trial. The answer is that they could not speak out before the trial because they did not know what information and arguments would be produced then, and of course there were media restrictions. These media restrictions continued during the trial.

I really don't see the logic in criticising them for not foreseeing the details of the case and, in most cases, respecting media restrictions.

Actually the head of the panel of experts who sunsequently looked at each case pro bono, contacted the defense team expressing his concerns with the prosecution evidence and offering to testify. That the defense team did not respond to him , calls the whole trial into question. She was not defended.

Firefly1987 · Today 01:47

montysmaw · Today 01:28

Literally a panel of the world's leading experts in child medicine and science say it was neglect or natural causes. As opposed to the single discredited rent a gob fraudster who testified at her trial.

Even without that, the fact that her previous defense team entirely failed to defend her call the trial into question.

It was not just Dewi Evans, why do people insist it was? There were several experts involved in giving evidence as to it being deliberate harm. Are you just listening to conspiracy nonsense to genuinely think he was the only one?

Even without that, the fact that her previous defense team entirely failed to defend her call the trial into question.

Forcing a very obviously guilty woman to call experts to the stand who will actively harm her case if cross-examined is not giving her the best shot at a fair trial. I wouldn't have minded seeing it though.

According to this-https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1raf7m8/full_transcript_of_profclarke_interviewrebuttal/

Shoo Lee has actually "misunderstood" another doctors work in his attempts to desperately find LL not guilty of any murders.

LH: So in Johan Smith's paper, he also talks about the research that's been done into animals, dogs and piglets, to be precise, which also, Professor Clarke says, bolsters the idea that it's possible for bubbles of air that have been injected into veins to move across the heart and into the arterial circulation. We also know, 'cause Professor Clarke's told us this, that Johan Smith, he's been in contact with him, and he also believes that Shoo Lee has misinterpreted his research paper.

Who to believe!

And for the stats lovers, you might find this video very interesting-

A pattern happening on that unit that was 80 million to one....

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9G6FSGo5sU

kkloo · Today 02:43

Firefly1987 · Today 01:47

It was not just Dewi Evans, why do people insist it was? There were several experts involved in giving evidence as to it being deliberate harm. Are you just listening to conspiracy nonsense to genuinely think he was the only one?

Even without that, the fact that her previous defense team entirely failed to defend her call the trial into question.

Forcing a very obviously guilty woman to call experts to the stand who will actively harm her case if cross-examined is not giving her the best shot at a fair trial. I wouldn't have minded seeing it though.

According to this-https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1raf7m8/full_transcript_of_profclarke_interviewrebuttal/

Shoo Lee has actually "misunderstood" another doctors work in his attempts to desperately find LL not guilty of any murders.

LH: So in Johan Smith's paper, he also talks about the research that's been done into animals, dogs and piglets, to be precise, which also, Professor Clarke says, bolsters the idea that it's possible for bubbles of air that have been injected into veins to move across the heart and into the arterial circulation. We also know, 'cause Professor Clarke's told us this, that Johan Smith, he's been in contact with him, and he also believes that Shoo Lee has misinterpreted his research paper.

Who to believe!

And for the stats lovers, you might find this video very interesting-

A pattern happening on that unit that was 80 million to one....

Oh wow he is going to be inundated with job offers as a statistician and world renowned after that video.

Months of research and that’s what he came up with, dear God.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page