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?

The only documentary I want to watch is the one where every single manager and senior medic in that department gets investigated and thrown in jail along with her.

I could only find one article on this, and it suggests they think their baby may have contracted the virus from the hospital, which may well be true and clearly the hospital is to blame in part regardless, but it didn’t say they think the collapse of their baby wasn’t caused by Lucy. Just that the hospital made the baby ill in the first place.

There is a rather big difference in the jury selected and the panel who convened.

There are problems, big problems, with the leading expert.

If the Jury had seen all the evidence that's cone to light since then I very much doubt they would have found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

I know the recent documentary was showing one side but that's what her defence should have been.

I don't think we will ever know now, unless she confesses to it.

Could well be the biggest miscarriage of justice ever seen

Im never going to agree with conspiracy theories on this so let’s just leave it there.

The experts in the documentary say there is not enough evidence to say that a single one of the babies was definitely murdered.
They went through each method & not one could be proved & could be explained by natural causes.

There may not have been a single murder.

Seems unlikely to me

Guilty or not, I do not think a jury selected from the population at random is able to understand medical evidence better than a panel of medical experts is.

It's no longer a conspiracy theory though is it?

That evidence should have been used as her defence at the trial

If it had done there is no way a jury would have convicted her beyond reasonable doubt. She may well still be guilty but if I had been on that jury and presented with all the evidence on both sides there is no way I could have said guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Experts with huge amounts of experience are saying the same after seeing the full evidence.

I think stating that you want to be "a fly on the wall" at a murder trial, where multiple babies have died, is absolutely disgusting.

It's not some game for your entertainment. It's the devastating loss of babies.

If that’s the case I’m sure there will be a retrial. Until then for me, it’s conspiracy theory

Personally (and at the time of the trial!) I wouldn’t have convicted her based on the evidence available to the public because I studied statistics at university and I could see there was definitely reasonable doubt. I am not 100% confident she is innocent. But the way the data was ‘selected’, the overall trust’s safety record and behaviour and how so much more concrete having a scapegoat is than simply widespread negligence makes me have serious doubt.
The supposedly knock out evidence of the diaries were never at all conclusive to me because I had therapy and I’ve felt guilty about things that weren’t my fault. Feeling horribly guilty and being guilty are not the same thing.

@TallSturdyGirlsIt may or may not surprise you that I don’t actually mind what you think of me. Random person on the internet.

Agree with you @Portmore

Having seen all the evidence in Monday's documentary could you hand on heart say that you could have found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt if you were on that jury?

She may well be guilty but the test is 'beyond reasonable doubt' and there is certainly expert document after expert document of reasonable doubt.

Honestly, I read all the trial transcripts, and came to the same conclusion as the jury. I suggest anyone wavering do the same, because it was eye-opening.

Everything said on Facebook or elsewhere that claims to be new evidence simply isn’t. It’s a misunderstanding or misrepresentation (wilful or otherwise) of the evidence presented at trial.

I’d also point out that two different juries found her guilty as one case was tried separately.

It's up to the course to decide not social media, or books and documentaries or people who just feeling that she must be innocent. Obviously they are written from a particular view point. The courts and the appeal courts have the evidence.
I have no view I haven't seen all the impartial evidence.
But I do feel extremely sorry for the parents of the babies who died and I think some of Lucy Letby's supporters have behaved very badly with no thought about how hard it is for parents whose wishes should come first. The mob were shouting very loudly outside the building when Justice Thiriwell was reporting her findings. The grieving parents were also in the room trying to listen to the findings. They had no thought for the still grieving parents.
If she is innocent then the way to prove it is present evidence and do it through the courts. If the evidence is strong enough she will be allowed to appeal.

She was found guilty of mass murder and is serving 15 whole life orders. That probably has something to do with it.

I honestly don’t know how I feel about LL…I just can’t work out whether she did it or not.

Part of me wonders if she was just bad at her job and accidentally injected air into the bloodstream, etc.

I think, due to the nature of the case, there was a lot of pressure to convict.

I would need CCTV of her doing something to not have any doubts

She is guilty however if the proper protocols and systems etc were in place at that hospital less babies would have suffered. People take advantage of situations in their favour and sadly the advantage for letby were the failings in the Chester.

I have no interest in this case but just wanted to say that I agree with this 100%

I agree with this. Everyone seems to be forgetting about the parents of the babies who died and how they must feel when this is constantly in the media.

Having done jury service (not for a murder trial) I would not have wanted to be on the jury for this case. I was heavily pregnant and very tired but ended up being foreperson because no one else would do it. I would not have wanted any evidence in a trial where I was the defendant being considered by the jury I was on. The whole experience really knocked my belief in the jury system - if one or two people on the jury have a fixed mindset and won't listen to evidence or reason from their fellow jurors you are basically stuffed.
Most of my jury were decent people who could listen and put forward their views based on the evidence, a couple were not and would not listen to anything. They were very young and really came across as not mature enough to be in this role.
After the experience the thing I most wanted to do was ask the judge what her view was (guilty /not guilty) as because of these two people on the jury we could not deliver the verdict the rest of us wanted to. It was a enlightening and extremely frustrating and quite stressful experience (not something you want just before you have a baby!)

The long and short of it is that I have not followed this trial but I would not feel confident in any verdict by a jury in a case this complicated and where experts are not in agreement.i would not want to be put in this position as a juror. I suggest a case like this should be decided by a panel of 3 or 5 judges who are used to seeing the kind of technical evidence etc this would have involved. It should not be about persuading a jury there is enough doubt.
I have no idea if she is guilty or if the babies were actually murdered, it's all such a big mess. Poor families

But it’s not one verdict is it? It’s fifteen.