Lucy Letby

[kkloo]

New thread as the last one has filled up.

No nothing about her conviction concerns me. She’s a serial murderer as has been proven twice and considered in two applications to appeal. Does it not concern you that you are defending someone who targeted and murdered the most vulnerable people imaginable?

Whether Lucy Letby is innocent or guilty, I don't think anyone can find it a good thing that the CCRC is so slow.

Fortunately, there are already signs that their shake-up after Andrew Malkinson's long ordeal is doing some good. Referral rates are up and new commissioners have been hired, including some with medical backgrounds. New (if pretty obvious) procedures have been put in place to manage cases and stop them from drifting. David Spiegelhalter (who gave evidence at the Thirlwall Inquiry that the spike in deaths at Letby's hospital wasn't an outlier) has been in training their staff on statistics.

You can read about some of these developments here if interested
ccrc.gov.uk/corporate-information-and-publications/

So I think we can be hopeful that Lucy Letby's case won't be dealt with so slowly. I don't see why anyone would want that.

You might want to scroll down this list of 154 people wrongly convicted of murder in the UK to see that, unfortunately, the gravity of the crime doesn't mean the court got it right

https://evidencebasedjustice.exeter.ac.uk/miscarriages-of-justice-registry/the-cases/case-search/

And what excuses are the other medics afforded for not remembering specifics that Letby isn't, and why is she held to a different (higher) standard than the consultants?

There’s not a lot of point in engaging with the posters who haven’t bothered to engage with the key aspects of this case.

It’s not exactly a cause for celebration that the CCRC take their sweet time, is it?

Weren’t there times when she was on holiday/ off shift and no deaths occurred? Surely that can’t be a coincidence? That’s incredibly unlucky if she was the only one who worked every shift where a baby died?

She should be allowed to sue for having her best reproductive years taken away from her.

I’m not defending a murderer.

I’m asking you to take a step back and, in the light of everything that has emerged since the convictions, consider that the evidence of there having been any murders at all is shaky, at best.

Having worked in an NHS trust and seeing first hand how managers will throw one person under the bus to save the department, I absolutely would go that far.

Nothing new has emerged beyond opinion pieces from people who don’t seem to have read the evidence or followed the trials as many of the things they are saying were considered and dismissed at the time. You can find an expert to say whatever you want if you look hard enough. I am satisfied that she is guilty and hopefully the CCRC will take a similar view as will the court (if it gets that far).

I can’t recall the other medics giving consistently deliberately evasive and self-serving answers on cross examination and to the police but in any event they were not on trial.

@hotmumshit "That she was weird and an outsider? Thats it"

I didn't think she was viewed as weird. I thought she was quite popular and liked by most of the staff. I read somewhere that they called her "lovely Lucy" because she was always so sweet and smiley. She was also always willing to pick up last minute shifts which endeared her still further.

Lol maybe in her next lifetime she can do that, given the fifteen whole life tarrifs and all that.

Are you also a Ben Geen supporter (Mark McDonald’s other killer nurse pet project)? Also claims to be totes innocent despite damning circumstantial evidence against him.

You’re right. She wasn’t seen as weird or an outsider at all and regularly socialised with ward staff as well as constantly texting some of them while on shift indicating close friendships. The idea that she was some loner victim who was a whistle blower is such bullshit fantasy that it’s laughable. The police also kept saying how beige and bland she was.

Completely agree with you. Personally I have little doubt of her guilt.

There were also times when she was off shift and babies died. Two of the events the prosecution expert found suspicious happened before she returned from holidays. They decided not to focus on one and ended up having to repeatedly change their story on the other, as described here.

It is worth reading this article to see how determined the expert witness was to fit Lucy Letby to suspicious events, even when the suspicious events had to be moved to a different time to make that happen

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/20/my-kind-of-case-intense-focus-falls-on-lucy-letby-trial-expert-witness

Some of the studies were published after the trial (Chase and Shannon, for example), so I don't see how this is possible.

And it is not just one expert, is it? It is an unprecedented number of experts who are expressing concern about the safety of the conviction, the quality of the evidence used at the trial, the integrity of the prosecution's experts, and the quality of the initial police investigation.

If none of this bothers you, you either don't understand the issues being discussed or you are wilfully ignorant.

The police started from the point of Letby being guilty and worked backwards to prove it, allowing the consultants to act as assistant detectives; this goes against every protocol in place to minimise the risk of MOJs. Even if you do think Letby is guilty, that this happened and was allowed to stand should be concerning to you.

Evans also started from an assumption of guilt, is woefully underqualified for the case, and has a history of being a problematic expert witness. There is also evidence of witness shopping.

Much of the evidence presented at court is based on made-up science (air via the NG tube) that even the prosecution's witnesses no longer stand by, or untested theories (insulin in the TPN bags).

Regardless of Letby's innocence or guilt, failures of this scale should never go unchallenged.

The procecution as part of how they decided which babies were murdered didn't look at any of the babies that died whilst letby wasn't there even though several were brought forwards by parents.
Also at least one of the babies that LLwas supposed to have murdred she never met.

There's a level at which you can reduce everything to opinion. What expert witnesses offer the court is expert opinion. So when further opinion emerges from more, better qualified experts, this is significant. When that is expert opinion offered to the courts by instructed experts, like Shoo Lee's panel, obviously it's more significant still.

So, for example, you could call this piece by Professor Neena Modi in the Guardian an opinion piece. It describes her participation in the expert witness panel offering expert medical opinion for use in legal proceedings.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/12/lucy-letby-case-trial-justice

There is a lot of other new evidence beyond this expert opinion. The significance of this evidence may be a matter of opinion, but its existence (unless multiple respectable media outlets are fantasising) is fact.

Yeah, well maybe this expert can give evidence if LL ever gets a retrial, which seems unlikely. Until then, it's incredibly easy to sit and pontificate when nobody is robustly challenging what you are saying. It's particularly laughable because a lot of these experts believe they are inventing the wheel, omitting the fact that many of their theories were already put to the numerous trial experts by LL's leading barrister and discounted for good reasons. So the jury has already heard a lot of this and still found her guilty. Sorry, two juries I should say. And the three senior judges in the appeal court were also completely unconvinced by Dr Shoo at the permission stage (and they did let him speak but discounted what he said).

Are you in the medical profession also??

These experts read the relevant sections of the trial transcripts. But they are obviously not going to lie and say the most likely cause of death is something that was never suggested to the jury, just to win a legal game.

They have submitted their reports so that they will be scrutinised at the CCRC and potentially again at the Court of Appeal and any retrial. So they are obviously not afraid of scrutiny.

Your objection seems to be that they haven't been cross-examined yet? Bring it on. You can read the list of experts and their qualifications and experience here. https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/#shoolee

They didn't get this far in life without being able to form and defend a medical opinion

You don't need to be in the medical profession to be sure of her guilt. I am also sure of Jamie Varley's guilt and I am not a pathologist.

I admire your confidence in them... Let's see shall we.