Lucy Letby - Specifically those who think she is guilty…

[BEAchDays2]

I’ve just been reading massive amounts of posts of Facebook following the new doc out about LL. (Blame a long train journey!) and it got me thinking, those who still think she is guilty what are your reasons?

It does feel like the tide has turned generally. I haven’t watched the new doc yet, likewise has anyone seen it, and is it worth it?

She was (and probably is) on medication for her mental health, these drugs are well known for what they do to people's emotions and their emotional state.

No one has put any of their evidence to the test. I find it extremely hard to believe that all the experts at trial just so happened to think this was deliberate harm.

And then months after the trial her new defence team (who are desperately trying to change public opinion any way they can) suddenly came up with no murders at all? If you want to have blind faith in experts who haven't been cross-examined that's up to you. I think I'll wait and see how their theories hold up if there's ever a retrial.

The logistics of scapegoating her are practically impossible.

You do know that they still stand by their work and believe that LL is innocent?

I think it’s probably like the Steven Avery case from Making a Murderer. Definitely some dodgy evidence but he was definitely guilty.

Same with Letby, some questionable evidence but overall she is guilty as sin.

So you think the jury got it wrong where they didn't find Lucy Letby guilty?

I think the convictions were unsafe where they found her guilty, because the scientific claims made to support guilt weren't reasonable.

Since similar claims were made where they didn't find her guilty, I think the jury was right in these decisions too. But what combination of finding the science plausible and opportunity/ evidence of presence they found convincing, I can't say.

I think she’s innocent. I was actually never convinced of her guilt and was shouted down on here when I said so. That said, I think ultimately we’ll never know with 100% certainty. What I do feel strongly about is that there isn’t enough evidence to justify keeping her in prison. Sadly, though, the case wasn’t investigated thoroughly or effectively enough at the time for us to ever be able to say with absolute certainty what happened.

No, if the evidence isn't compelling enough to be beyond reasonable doubt then they can't find her guilty on that charge.

But do I think she harmed every single indictment baby along with many more? Absolutely.

Yes but I think if you believe Geoff Chase the rest are not "world leading experts"...

You can believe it if you want to of course, but I think it's very reasonable for others to point out when you are presenting a no verdict / not guilty verdict as if the accusation reflects the facts.

@Oftenaddled I was talking about her presence though not whether she was found guilty for each baby or not.

She was certainly found guilty of the triplets. It's sad her last victim didn't get justice though. Plus it wasn't only three deaths and a collapse on her days back from Ibiza, a baby also collapsed just a day before she flew out. I just can't believe people actually think that's not in the least bit suspicious. Can you genuinely say you don't have some sort of bias or work for her PR company?

When John Gibbs was most of the way through looking at collapses for the period, he had over 80 to go, @Firefly1987 . That tells us there was well over one a week on average. Of course Lucy Letby was there for some of them, at that rate. That is inevitable and not suspicious.

@Oftenaddled IF they also happened whilst she was on holiday-did they? And where did you get that info about Dr Gibbs? God she really was prolific. Probably explains all those handover trophies she kept.

Of course Lucy Letby was there for some of them, at that rate. That is inevitable and not suspicious.

It's very suspicious, unless you're biased for some reason. You don't seem to be able to distinguish between "there for a lot of deaths/collapses" on random days and "there for a collapse on her last shift before holiday and there for another death the minute she's back (and another the following day, then a collapse on the 3rd day) that's a very clear pattern. It's not random at all, the deaths are following her around. I'm not sure how much clearer she could make it for people tbh, you must be one of her managers.

Well, we know they happened when she was off shift: with baby C, baby J, baby I, baby N, baby O, baby P that we know of, at least. So why it matters whether she was off shift and in Chester or in Ibiza is not clear to me. We don't have a calendar lining up collapses with her shifts. Pretending we have by cherry-picking and assuming all collapses are suspicious doesn't make your suspicions more convincing - it just shows that you are determined to force a pattern without complete data.

Spot on. This needs to be more widely understood. Someone talking in a documentary, no matter how learned and sensible they may seem, is not evidence. For all the viewer may know, it may have already been discredited at trial, or may have been fully aired and rejected by the jury for good reason, or simply would not have flown for a whole host of reasons best known to those conducting the trial.

The CA and the CCRC understand what new evidence actually is. The pontificating going on in the media just isn’t.

That was what was shown to the jury and looks very compelling. But they removed other children who died suddenly in similar circumstances in order to force a pattern which isn’t there from the full data set.

There is a position between automatically assuming everything the media shows is correct and disregarding everything mentioned outside the courtroom. I'd say either extreme is untenable.

However, as you say, one can check whether media claims have been dealt with in court (bearing in mind that the underlying arguments can be challenged, not only the conclusions proposed by the prosecution).

It is possible that various media outlets, Guardian, New Yorker, Sun, BBC, Telegraph, Times etc have invented or exaggerated everything significant they have presented. It seems unlikely, but let's bear it in mind. We are still left with claims made by the prosecution at the original trial that are obviously unscientific and unreliable, and this was the case before the media produces a word doubting the prosecution case.

Obviously what those who doubt the conviction want is to see the new expert evidence heard in court. In the meantime, it's reasonable to discuss the very real doubts raised by media reports and other material.

Why would you suddenly start believing Chase when a couple of weeks ago you were taking the piss out of him for being an engineer and irrelevant?

This is a good example of evidence or arguments which appear new but actually aren’t. You say they ‘removed’ these other deaths. Removed from that table that was shown to the jury, yes. Removed in the sense that the table shown to the jury included the deaths she was charged with.

But crucially, the defence would have known all about those other deaths. There are duties of disclosure. They were not secrets that have only just come to light. Believe me, if they were, Mark McDonald would have told us all. So it was open to the defence to use those other deaths in whatever way they wanted to help LL’s case. Just like you are now. So how does it actually help to talk about it now?

In any case, what Chase and Shannon have disputed is the probabilities on two specific issues: random immunoassay error and impact of hyperinsulinism on immunoassay results. This obviously doesn't affect the bulk of the panel's work (on non insulin cases). How much it affects the CCRC submission isn't clear either, given that McDonald has stated they haven't seen that or the other experts' reports.

It's not at all clear Myers knew about all other deaths. It is clear he didn't know about all other collapses, since he asked for disclosure of the relevant reports in the course of the trial and it was denied.

Alleged police leaks suggest the undisclosed files dealt with deaths as well as collapses, but leaving them aside for now: the record of the trial in itself shows that Myers was not allowed to know how the charges on that sheet were selected or to have details of the incidents not included. He requested these things and was refused both

I can see why we might hope and even assume he had access but the record shows clearly that he didn't.

The defence wasn't permitted to discuss the construction of the charge sheet in court. Perhaps if Goss had allowed this, there would be fewer concerns about the conviction. I don't see any reason to believe the defence has access to the relevant material even now.

Worth being aware that the CCRC application does indeed rely on non-disclosure of certain medical records at some points: https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/document/letter-from-bhandal-law-to-lady-justice-thirlwall-dated-17-march-2025/

Non-disclosure of relevant documents to the defence is a frequent feature of cases overturned by the CCRC and Court of Appeal. Judge Goss of course made his decision in court that the challenge to some non-disclosures should fail. But the paradox is that the defence is in a bad position to argue material is relevant without seeing it.

Some of the non-disclosures challenged by the defence here appear to be documents uploaded (and in one case rapidly removed!) by Thirlwall. It would be lovely to think the justice system works fairly and blindly to protect the defendent when you place these decisions in the hands of the police who have prepared the charges, but history tells us otherwise.

I believe the full stats are much worse than presented for her. Dr Gibbs recently said that she was involved in deaths not discussed in court. If statisticians want all the data I think they'll be very disappointed because even they won't be able to deny she's a killer.

Gibbs wasn't terribly clear, but I think what he was saying was that she wasn't convicted of all charges.

If he is saying she committed other crimes he is way out of his lane. The consultants were very clear that they had no evidence against Lucy Letby except for her presence at so many incidents. How that would have changed for Dr Gibbs in retirement isn't at all clear.

@Oftenaddled he was talking about the number of suspicious incidents she was there for in the context of the statisticians not having all the data to go on.

If he is saying she committed other crimes he is way out of his lane.

He's not. He's saying she was involved in more incidents than were discussed in court and that would change the stats (not in her favour). Aren't statisticians way out of their lane weighing in on whether there were any murders or not?