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?

Isn't that the case with every murder trial though?
All juries can do is examine the evidence they see and make a judgement. Then if new evidence comes up after the trial they present that and appeal.

I’m more curious about why so many, let’s face it white women, don’t accept that that a plain, mousy brown haired, white woman, killed these babies and won’t accept the conviction.

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
Why?

I had a similar experience on a jury, there was one person in particular who kept changing the timeline and making up a new one, and then would be told, would forget and go back to the one in their head. Thankfully I think it went the right way in the end.

The conspiracy stuff on this is nuts. The barrister who speaks on her behalf does not persuade me. He is not lawyerly or measured.

A jury sat through months and months of evidence and convicted her of the vast majority of all the charges against her.

Every normal appeal channel has failed - if there was ANY chance that there was new evidence or flaws in her conviction I do think leave to appeal would have been granted.

People don’t want it to be true. The idea that this number and severity of collapses in small but not otherwise unwell babies could suddenly cluster in this way could not be caused by the (sadly common) shortcomings of a neonatal unit. Babies don’t die like this and it was soon clear to the consultants that something very odd was going on.

The fact that she is white, blonde, young, attractive plays huge part in the movement behind her
IMO.

The emotional affair with the doctor, her attention seeking messages after the deaths , Facebook searches on the babies’ families suggest to me she became addicted to the drama when a baby collapsed and died. The medical notes she had at home by the bucket load - hugely incriminating to me. Souvenirs. Every clinician has patient confidentiality drummed into them - those were delicately taken at the time. couldn’t have been a mistake. One sheet maybe - not the volume that were found.

These notes are being at her home is not something that can be explained by stress during the subsequent investigation. Whereas all the scribbled notes - they could have been as as result of that stress so I am less compelled by them.

Far from being a scapegoat (doctors blaming nurses to cover up their clinical failures) - sadly I think the nurse managements strident defence of her stopped her being halted earlier and made doctors afraid of voicing their fears.

She is guilty IMO

She sounds like a very complex and not very stable personality, a shame her problems weren’t picked up during training when issues were raised that could have indicated she was unsuited to such intense and emotionally draining work.

I have no doubt she is guilty, I do have doubts about her mental capacity.

I totally agree - same with accountancy fraud.

Sadly, people have a poor understanding of the judicial system.

The role of the defense is not to prove that the defendant is not guilty but to put forward enough doubt that the jury can't find the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

That does NOT mean that the defendant didn't do what they are accused of.

People are desperate to act as amateur defendant lawyers. That's fine but pointing out elements of doubts doesn't equate to the defendant being inevitably innocent.

I agree completely. If this was a black male we were talking about far less would doubt it.

Exactly this. This reminds me more of the Nicola Bulley disappearance than the Guildford Four.

Mobs jumping on the bandwagon and whipping each other up with lunatic theories they insist are evidence.

I don't know if she's guilty or not but I think there's been enough doubts raised to warrant a review by the CCRC. I also have my doubts that a jury of ordinary people would be able to make sense of the extremely complex medical evidence involved in the deaths. The fact that there were obviously problems with the neonatal unit and how it was run, staffed and equipped just adds another layer of complexity.

She was found guilty by a jury of her peers. Of course she is guilty.

Was else happened to those babies? How else is it explained? Other than a MASSSSSSSSIVE, unfortunate coincidence?

Could I just correct you on one point? The jury didn't find her guilty on all charges, there were several where they couldn't reach a verdict. The jury had sat through 9-10 months of detailed evidence, and took days to consider their verdict yet still felt there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict her on several of the charges but, obviously, found that she was guilty of the majority of the charges

I feel she's guilty, I respect the jury's verdict because of the length of time it took them and I think, because they were unable to say she was guilty of all of the charges, it shows how carefully they considered each case separately

I watched the documentary last night. The Sun investigative reporter apparently made it to convince people of her guilt but by the time he'd done extensive research and interviewing he was absolutely convinced she murdered no babies. I feel sure she's innocent now.

I went on a couple of dates with someone who was on the jury, he was an intelligent guy and very much convinced she was guilty. I think I'd believe that over FB 🤣 I do think there were also massive failings at the hospital.

This.

This doctor only started working at the hospital after five of the seven babies had died. Only two of the fifteen cases she has been convicted for took place while he was on duty, if we look at testimony from the trial

A prosecution barrister flung in the accusation about her wanting his attention at cross-examination. You can make this sort of flimsy accusation in cross examination to try to draw out a response - it's not the same as building a case, which would have been pretty difficult based on the facts

This.

Well an international panel of experts think that nobody murdered them.

Except arguably the manager running a dangerously disfunctional unit or the undertrained doctors undertaking procedures they ahouldnt have been doing?

I’m generally someone who enjoys going down the conspiracy rabbit holes and also questioning the narrative we sometimes get fed to us. However, on this occasion I’ve never wavered in thinking she was guilty. I genuinely just think we struggle to believe that a young, white, blonde woman could commit such horrific crimes like this. I also think it looks much worse for the hospital to have a neonatal serial killer than it does to have management and staff failings so there’s little incentive for them to make this up to cover their own arses. It’s an incredibly sad case, but I do think she’s guilty.

She was convicted with unanimous verdicts on some charges and Majority 10-1 on others and found guilty. Those conviction stand,her court of appeal bid was rejected,a major public enquiry confirmed her guilt. V new arguments and expert assessments have been complied by LL supporters and legal team to challenge her convictions which are being reviewed by CCRC.
So,for me she remains guilty ,if the CCRC evaluate the new arguments.evidence is sufficient grounds her case will go back to the court of appeal.
Personally ,i will reserve judgement until due process has happened.
Deciding LL isnt guilty from medis reports,speculation or a tv documentary seems unwise.

I think it was a particularly harrowing cases so the pressure to convict was a lot greater than say, case where. had two adults being involv in a knife fight.

Look how long the mum on trial has got int America for killing her children, Lucy’s case seemed more rushed.

The other explanation is what you see in Sussex, Oxford, Nottingham etc - a hospital not coping with complex cases but carrying on until the evidence that something is wrong is overwhelming.

In this case, Chester started taking on higher numbers of vulnerable babies from April 2015, and had a spike in deaths from June 2015 to July 2016, when it stopped taking such children.

Unfortunately we see spikes in deaths like this without murder at hospitals around the UK. The consultants on the unit, each of whom was there one week in seven + on call at home at night, weren't specialists in care of newborns. They only hired a neonatologist after July 2016.

It is an oddity of the judicial system that you can be tried for multiple separate murders at once, where the jury's consideration of the others is likely to influence their decision in any particular case - whereas prior convictions are usually excluded from evidence on the grounds that juries should consider each case in isolation.

The main question I would raise is relation to all the evidence supposedly getting her off is why wasn't this evidence given at trial or accepted on appeal?

I haven't seen a new documentary but I did watch the one released a few months back and I actually went from being fairly convinced she was wrongly convicted to being more open to the idea she did do it.

First of all, (based only from this doc, there could be explanations out there I haven't see) there was no answer as to how the babies ended up being given too much insulin. And then there's the fact she barely gave any defence of herself.
I know it's easy to say you'd act a certain way, or say certain things in her shoes but from the interview footage I saw, she didn't seem to be defending herself at all. Of course, there could be many reasons for that and they have only selected partial clips to air, so there'll be hours and hours of footage we've never seen, which is why I'm on the fence. I also would not take a lot of consideration of what people on Facebook have to say.

Nothing of what I've seen so far can convince me either way. But my opinion doesn't matter. Only those with all of the facts and evidence are in a position to make that decision, which they did.