Lucy Letby

[kkloo]

New thread as the last one has filled up.

haha the Letby cult.

It is just decent people that feel sorry for an innocent woman and her parents.

You obviously know nothing about the case and just watch government tv.

If the FBing specific parents and the collapses and deaths of their specific children i.e connected, were really so close together then that's a good point.

"Yeah but I can understand the scientific/statistical data."
Which tells you precisely nothing about whether she committed any crimes.

But it tells a lot about whether her conviction was safe. Which is what should determine whether she stays in prison. What happened at the hospital may not be knowable, but what happened in court is well-documented, and whether specific claims or inferences made in court are supported by settled science is much more knowable.

Weak-minded... Letby cult....blah blah blah, why don't you take a break from typing the same crap you always type and tell us what you think about the latest on Jayaram?

I have worked in professions involved in supporting people , not healthcare, and I wouldn't dream of spying on people on FB.

Less than an hour ago you asked who is insulting anyone?

Clearly, once again, it’s you doing the insulting. I’m beginning to wonder whether you’re posting in good faith.

No, neither would I. But it is pretty standard behaviour from the SM-addicted generation. I think it’s distasteful, but it isn’t illegal.

I'm not talking about people on here I meant the general public who know nothing about this case. They've been convinced there were no murders, despite the trial saying the exact opposite. People are just parroting it now as if it's fact. Same as the "therapy" thing. You cannot declare there were no murders simply because that's Shoo Lee's opinion.

I think a lot of people with only a passing interest in the case were thoroughly convinced by Shoo Lee's intervention, yes. I know people who reacted that way. They went from, presumably she is guilty to, presumably there has been a miscarriage of justice. I happen to agree with them but I agree with you that, inevitably, most people will base their opinions on quick impressions - life is short, and Lee seems to have made a good impression.

So we've gone from "stop mentioning the babies parents to shut down conversation about it being a possible MOJ" to "won't someone think of poor Lucy, she won't be able to have her own kids, think of her poor parents" waaahh-emotional manipulation. I can already tell you're in good company with the others in not having followed any of the trial.

The Jolly Contrarian blogger wrote a great article on why it is so futile to insist people can't understand the verdict unless they were at the trial - and his logic applies to people who followed the trial too:

jollycontrarian.com/index.php/Lucy_Letby:_you_had_to_be_there

https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php/LucyLetby:youhadtobethere

What difference does it make whether somebody followed the trial at the time or looked into it later? All the same reporting, podcasts etc are still out there.

Sure there are some members of the general public who think she's guilty who know nothing about the case either, there's uninformed people on both sides.

Because you've already been biased towards her innocence by reading the likes of the New Yorker which was specifically designed to make you think she didn't do it. THEN you get interested in the case, the minute you thought it might be a MOJ-because that's clearly your interest.

And you weren't biased to her guilt reading months upon months of "science" by Dewi et al before the defence got a chance to speak?

Worrying to think he's still practicing.

How is that different from starting by hearing the prosecution's opening speech, which is designed to make you think she did it? And the whole prosecution case, for months on end, before the defence put theirs? Reported by journalists who had been admitted to a confidential press conference by the police at the beginning of the trial, and given a prosecution case handout to use?

What is to stop people from cross checking an article like the New Yorker's with records from the trial? I did. I couldn't believe Evans had said what the article claimed. He had. And worse.

It would have meant that a lot of people first started reading about it while being open-minded, what's wrong with that?

If there was no substance to the doubts and if the evidence against her had been as strong as you think it is then many of those open-minded people would have read some more about it and thought 'nope she's guilty' or 'maybe she has a chance of getting out if the evidence is indeed shown to flawed, but I still think she's guilty so I hope she doesn't'.

Probably, but that's the way trials go. Lucy's problem irrespective of anything to do with Dewi Evans, is she didn't have much of a defence.

Yep, I can't remember the first thing I read which expressed doubt, I think it might have been the substack and not the New Yorker, but I fact checked anything that shocked me, a lot of the time I expected that it wouldn't be there because some of it seemed so unbelievable but then I'd see it had happened/been said.

From that article,

But no new experts, not already involved, came forward to defend the prosecution. This was despite energetic efforts from contrarian news sources — notably Private Eye — who have repeatedly appealed for experts to corroborate the views presented in evidence to support what would, presumably, be an easy status quo. None have.

Now, since the NHS is the largest employer of medical expertise in the UK and the Crown Prosecution Service the largest user of professional expert evidence, we might put this down to professional courtesy, or even self-interest — a reluctance to bite the hand that feeds, so to speak — were it not for the fact that medical experts from around the planet were queueing up to challenge the CPS and NHS narrative, free of charge. It was just no one was lining up to support it.

So we have dozens of experts from around the world saying, the medical evidence used to convict her does not stand up to scrutiny. But not one expert has arrived to defend the version given in court. And moreover, Evans and other experts for the prosecution have had to withdraw some of their evidence or changed their reasoning.

It's very telling that no one has spoken out in support of Dewi. People generally enter caring professions because they care. If any of them believed Letby was guilty and were able to give any kind of robust defence for the evidence Dewi presented, they would have spoken out.

And now she does, and instead of just accepting that for whatever reasons the defence didn't get these witnesses during the trial and that they genuinely have serious concerns about the evidence, you insist on trying to make out there's a big cult at play.

@kkloo Thirlwall explains a bit about the issues with Shoo Lee's panel and their theories starting around page 150-

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Written-Closing-Submission-of-Family-Group-2-and-3-7-March-2025.pdf

It seems even the wonderful Shoo Lee is not immune to criticism and people saying he's got it all wrong. Which takes us back to square one really.

And you know what @Firefly1987 I'm fine with that and don't feel the need to go off on a tangent and instead I can just weigh it up.

Some of it I disagree with straight away, such as thinking the panel should have looked at all of the evidence rather than just the cases, they're not a jury and their opinions on the medical evidence shouldn't change based on whether they think she's guilty or not.

Other parts of it I had to look up and they don't seem like fair criticisms either, for example:

They say that the panel didn't mention that Baby G had a large projectile vomit, but the panel did mention the vomiting and incorporated the vomiting into their analysis.

For Baby 9 (Child I) the Panel postulate that colonisation of an endotracheal tube (ETT) with Stenotrophamonas maltophilia caused thick secretions to block the ETT and interfere with ventilation causing: “…recurrent episodes of apnoea, desaturation, bradycardia, respiratory failure, and collapse. S. maltophilia colonisation would have further compromised her ventilatory capacity.” The summary report omits to explain that Child I was never treated for S. maltophilia because testing never revealed evidence that Child I developed an infection due to S. maltophilia. The Panel also fail to recognise that whilst Child I was ventilated using an ETT during the early part of their life, they were not ventilated and did not have an ETT in place at the point when Letby caused their death, and had not been so for some time.

But the baby did in fact test positive for this. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/31/lucy-letby-victim-deadly-bug-lung-time-of-death/

It seems even the wonderful Shoo Lee is not immune to criticism and people saying he's got it all wrong.

What were the credentials of the people pointing out these criticisms? This was a submission by lawyers on behalf of some of the families so it seems to be criticism from lawyers, not medical experts? Is that correct?

Which takes us back to square one really.

Square one means we don't know if she's guilty or not, which means the conviction isn't safe, which is what we're saying.

What were the credentials of the people pointing out these criticisms? This was a submission by lawyers on behalf of some of the families so it seems to be criticism from lawyers, not medical experts

lawyers for some of the families, the usual X trolls and CS2CR critiqued the panel’s findings and all of them either misinterpreted or misrepresented what the panel said in order to then argue against the findings and attempt to discredit the panel.

And once again @Firefly1987 what do you think of the latest on Jayaram?