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?

No one misunderstood Shoo Lee's paper.

Yes, they did.

Lee and paper described Lee’s sign as characteristic of, and seen only in, arterial air embolism. It had nothing to say about rashes or skin discolouration in venous air embolism. It is theoretically possible for air to travel from the venous system via a patent foramen ovale, thus causing Lee’s sign, but this phenomenon has not been observed.

Several of the indictment babies were reported contemporaneously to have rashes and skin discolouration, but Lee’s sign was not observed. Nevertheless, Evans and the COCH doctors referred to the observed rashes as though they were indicative, or at least suggestive of, AE.

This is the misinterpretation, and it was compounded by the appeal court judges.

Why do you think the rashes are relevant?

When you ask questions like that you're invoking a statistical argument, even if you're not putting numbers on it. The second trial was a retrial of Baby K and the jury were allowed to use the fact that she had already been convicted in the other cases as evidence, so they weren't independent events.

A number of incidents which could be suspicious should be the starting point of an investigation, not the end point and we need to be really clear about what constitutes a suspicious event and what doesn't. By not allowing evidence about any events that were not on the indictment, the judge made it so that the defence were unable to make those comparisons.

For the events where she was found not guilty, (baby G, H - twice, J, N and Q I think) are we now saying that it wasn't deliberate harm, that she did it but there wasn't enough evidence or that someone else was responsible? If it's the first then some events have been misidentified. If it's the second then we're basically saying she must have done everything she's accused of, whether or not they found her guilty. If it's the third, when are they going to start looking for another murderer?

If we're saying "what are the chances she could have been accused of so many things but not actually done anything" that's also a statistical argument. Ordinarily serial killers don't use lots of different methods, so this is already an unusual case. I believe that the judge made the point that she'd been extra clever to use different methods to avoid getting caught, but you could equally say that this points to the fact that it's less likely to be deliberate harm by the same person in each case.

V much agree 👍

I accepted it. I found it surprising, which had nothing to do with her skin colour but did have something to do with her sex. It’s rare for women to commit violent crimes and while infanticide isn’t unheard of it is also rare and these were not Letby’s own babies. So of course the case generated an enormous amount of publicity and attention.

I thought as I do now that the notes and the Facebook searches and the more tenuous arguments were nonsense. Insulin was not nonsense and that was difficult to argue against.

Then I read the New Yorker article and then similar concerns and disquieting probing came into the mainstream press. I was already leaning towards this being a miscarriage of justice when I saw the panel convene (and realised that IMO she was done up like a kipper as my dad would have said.)

Rather than focusing on her appearance, why not focus on the unusual nature of the case. I cannot think of any time a panel of experts have come out and stated ‘this is wrong; this did not happen.’ Not in Sally Clarke’s case, or in Michael Shirley’s, or in Andrew Malkinson’s.

Do you honestly think Rachel Aviv, who penned the New Yorker article, and Shoo Lee, and Jeremy Hunt, and all the others on the expert panel - you think they are only doing so on the basis of her skin and hair colour? Do you actually think that?

People are taking sides because it’s a hugely publicised case. It’s like saying ‘oh well people only cared about brexit because we live in Britain.’ Well, yeah People are interested and taking sides because the case is so remarkable and horrifying (whichever ‘side’ you happen to be on) that it’s been rarely out of the news since it happened.

@darkbyeight

there are plenty experts who agree with the previous findings?!

there’s a few thousand experts in the world so there’s going to be differences of opinion - just because this new panel have said they disagree it doesn’t mean their opinion is true

Also two of these experts have quit the panel because they are dubious about a thing or two that is happening with the current set of experts there

To my knowledge, a panel of experts in this particular field have not convened to state her guilt and that murders definitely happened

I very much accepted it until the non-white medical experts criticised the evidence presented in court by the very white Dewi Evans. Why do you think his opinions are so much more important than Shoo Lee or Neena Modi? Is it because Dewi Evan’s is white?

Above written to point out how silly the above comments are

@darkbyeight

Well not publicly no but I guess that out of the ones made available to Myers agreed with the prosecution hence he didn’t bother calling any

Also it’s highly likely that there are experts out there that would still argue her guilt if they got the call to be instructed

Excellent point. Bit suspect the way some posters assume the white British man Dewi Evans must know more than the Asian bloke from abroad, or the British Asian woman. If we're going to be making highly selective dipshit accusations of racial bias, that works both ways.

In my mind there remain this. Babies kept dying and collapsing suddenly deteriorating quickly. The experienced doctors eventually said what's going on here. Answer was Lucy Letby. It took a long time but she was eventually stopped.

The Jolly Contrarian has a list of experts who have spoken out publicly https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php/Lucy_Letby:_those_experts_in_full

He also has some theories on why there was no medical evidence brought by the defence. We can't know for certain, but the expert they had was surprised not to be called.

It's entirely possible that there are experts who support the prosecution but they wouldn't feel the need to speak out unless and until there's a retrial.

The expert panel now working on behalf of the defence are all working pro bono. If they'd have been available at the time of the trial and working on a paid basis, there's no way that LL would have been able to afford them.

I think what some of the "definitely guilty - nothing to see here" people are missing is that this is also worrying. Experts are either employed by the prosecution or the defence. They can disagree, but they shouldn't be putting anything to the jury that isn't true and they shouldn't be speaking beyond their area of expertise or stating anything with more confidence than it warrants. Some people have claimed that the main prosecution expert did just this. I'm not saying he was deliberately lying, but he has certainly commented on "winning" cases and people have said that his reports on what happened to the babies have changed over time, including after the trial. Some people have proposed that the use of experts should be reformed and that they should only present agreed evidence to the jury. I think trials should definitely not hinge on who has the most convincing experts.

It's less about "defending a baby killer" and more about "the problems are bigger than just this case".

if people were looking at this objectively they'd be asking why a baby is crashing the minute LL is near

Umm, it was her job to be near babies in case they crash? If you're near at-risk babies over a long period of time, it's hardly surprising there'll be times when you're near a baby when they crash. That's literally why nurses are there.

I am sick of folk defending this killer.

The experienced doctors didn't so much as flag these deteriorations as concerning at the time. No investigations or entry on warning systems.

If it took them realising Lucy Letby had been on shift to make the collapses concerning, that suggests there was nothing particularly distinctive about these collapses.

One can also overstate these doctors' experience. None was a neonatologist. That can happen in smaller units, but often a paediatrician would specialise, spending extra time in the neonatal ward, building up experience. The doctors at Chester didn't do this. They were paediatricians by training and shared their duties on the neonatal ward seven ways. When they were on duty on the ward, one week in seven and on-call off premises once a week, they were also responsible for the busier paediatric section.

How many of these suspicious collapses were even witnessed by the consultants? Very few - and that's not to disparage them. They certainly didn't have the time to be standing around the neonatal unit.

Oh well.

I would like to ask a question to all those convinced of guilt - are you not concerned that the prosecution’s main expert has had the information he presented at trial, so widely criticised, by so many more experienced clinicians? What if this results in her eventually being cleared even if she is a murderer? Are you not interested in ensuring that all expert evidence presented is of a high quality?

No. The trial is over. She is guilty. If there is new evidence she's innocent then she'll get a retrial or be freed. This really isn't on the cards. I read a bit on the BBC website re the Thirwell report. Friends and colleageues concerned about her lies patients and colleagues concerned about her cold callous nature. She falsified records. She's a killer. I am more convinced than ever. That report is very damning of her and the management who ignored warnings.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/sep/29/mother-feels-betrayed-family-courts-parental-alienation-england-wales

On the subject of expert witnesses...

In both criminal and family courts, their approach should be beyond reproach and subject to rigorous scrutiny. It's all supposed to be in the best interests of the child.... and in criminal cases beyond reasonable doubt and serving truth, justice and the public interest.

Whether we're talking medical or psychological matters, the devastating effects of dubious expert opinion is a real problem when the price is playing God with people's lives.

That is absolutely chilling.

So what you are saying, is that you have no concerns about poor quality evidence being presented in court, providing you think they did it regardless.

Even if someone is clearly guilty, I want a justice system where expert evidence really means something and isn’t widely criticised by more experienced clinicians

It's basically the same PR strategy as the Ramsey's-who also had a PR team. I watched an interview with John and Patsey Ramsey a few weeks ago and it was the exact same thing. They had the "world's best" experts who coincidentally, disagreed with the police's experts about her injuries and what injury came first. And also that Patsy didn't write the ransom note, whereas the police experts said she did. But the police ones were useless, not like their best in the world experts 🙄

To this day people probably think the Ramsey's co-operated with the police but they absolutely didn't.

It's the exact same media strategy just 30 years later. It's all spin and people are falling for it. Why do innocent people need a PR team in the first place...

I don't think they really believe what they're saying.

I am saying no more than what I've already said.

It is not at all the same scenario. In Lucy Letby's case, dissenting experts appeared well before she had pro bono representation, before (Royal Statistical Society), during (Professor Neena Modi) and shortly after the trial. You can read about this phenomenon at

https://theconversation.com/why-calls-to-review-lucy-letbys-case-are-so-different-from-other-miscarriage-of-justice-campaigns-239465

In the Ramsay case there was no trial (as far as I recall) and no opportunity for people to react to the appallingly low standard of evidence presented there.

If a PR firm wants to volunteer to help with Lucy Letby's case, I'm glad to see it. The police certainly had excellent publicity and paid significant amounts for it. But no PR firm has summoned the serious concerns about the case into being.

I am interested what happens in the courtroom and the jury room not what happens in the media afterwards. Talk is cheap until you don’t have to stand up and face cross examination.

It’s not often I agree with @Viviennemary but I too am a bit sick of so many people on here defending LL.