Anyone else doubting Lucy Letby's guilt?

[Nickersnackersnockers]

Don't know if I am allowed to share a link so please Google 'Science on Trial Lucy Letby'.

It's written by a scientist with no association to LL who is asking questions that were not addressed in court.

I am very disturbed by the article. Don't start slinging mud at me, make a large coffee, go read it, come back, and tell me what you think!

That's because you don't want to believe it. Honestly your comments are a real stretch. For whatever reason you don't want her to be guilty.
But it's clear to the majority she is. Just as well the jury concluded it too.

What a strange thing to say "At first I thought ah hah more proof that women can be just as bad/evil as men."

Why are you happy to have women just as bad/evil as men?
I mean we know it's bollocks and they will never come close to the amount of awful things men have done and do. But for you to be excited at the prospect a woman has done something horrific is just plain weird.

"No one has analysed the probability properly" - I don't even know what this means. Something can happen even with a tiny probability. You know, like people winning the jackpot on the lottery? if you have enough evidence it's irrelevant.

Things found at her home were, in my view, made too much of why? Because it helped show her actual personality and her actual thoughts which helped to seal her fate?

I really don't know how you explain this away if she was innocent, especially as it was hidden away in her own room. She wasn't confessing for attention at a police station as mentally unwell people sometimes do.

I can't get over the home made card with the picture of the baby without the oxygen tube so gasping for breath. I mean WTAF 😢

Not for babies being discharged and that are 3 months old despite being premmie.

And frequently. She also lied to the parents about it being removed for cleaning.

Sod it. I tried to look at it from the point of view that she was innocent, but she's guilty as hell.

The judge said in hos sentancing remarks

"On occasions, your cruelty and
callousness was revealed by making inappropriate remarks to some of the grieving
parents at the time of or in the immediate aftermath of a death".

Awful person

I’ve just been listening to the podcast episode with expert witness Dewi Evans. He was asked by the police to look at 32 cases initially - 7 he says need to be looked at in more detail (3 deaths, 4 survivors).

He is now looking 48 additional cases as far back as 2012 but most of them from 2014 and thinks 8-10 were “put in harms way”. He thinks most of these were babies having their airway tube deliberately dislodged and she escalated into over feeding and air embolus later.

I wonder if medical evidence will advance and prove her innocent. It wouldn't be the first time .

I wouldn't bet on it. But there are some loonies who think she's innocent.

No, because she's guilty!

I'm still slightly dubious at her guilt. The crux of the prosecution seemed to be based on balances of likelihood. How likely was it for her to be present at every case. The problem for me with figures like that, is one, they are not infallable. And two, there are always exceptions to the rule where variables are concerned.

I don't know if it was brought up in trial, but the hospital she worked at appeared at the time, to be the go to place for more seriously ill babies. I'd like to see the figures for a like for like similar ward in other parts of the country.

Have you listened to the pod cast The trial of LL? I went in completely blind and didn't follow it at all while it was going on but was convinced of her guilt within the first couple of episodes. They go through very clearly what happened to the babies. It's horrific.

One of the mums interrupted her killing her baby, the baby was screaming and LL was over the other side of the room ignoring him. As someone who spent a weeks in the SCBU my experience is when a baby cries nurses come running, they don't stand around doing nothing.

I haven't listened to that podcast. The problem with podcasts, tv documentaries and even the national news networks, is that the narrative of what the producer of each wants to get across is put out.

Unfortunately with a subject as emotion provoking as this, which does draw at the heart strings, it can cause us to view things less than analytically.

I am genuinely unable to say one way or another, based on the bits that came out on the news I heard.

There were more than a few 'bits' to point to her being guilty.

Callum one of the things this podcast does is point out they can only share information that the jury heard. So the jury heard this info that pointed to her guilt and far more than we heard.

There's more in depth reporting in the Chester chronicle. Again only reporting exactly what was said in court.

It's worth a listen because I was another who was unsure until I heard the evidence.

What sealed it for me was LL own defence in the stand. Her continuous lies (which could be proven) showed she didn't tell the truth. At one point she refused to allow a body cam video to be played because she admitted it contradicted what she said and showed she was lying (about her arrest).

I understand why people are questioning this because it's too horrifying to want to believe someone did what she did.

But the evidence was so overwhelming even her extremely good defence barrister couldn't find witnesses to testify against the evidence or offer an alternative explanation.

O went to unsure to being certain of her guilt on the charges she was found guilty on and believing she was probably guilty for a good percentage of the no verdict ones too. But I respect due process and she shouldn't be convicted unless beyond reasonable doubt.

The problem as I see it is that the bits I heard on news reports etc, could also be construed differently.

One of the pieces of evidence that stood out for me was the prosecutions claim of lying about not remembering one child from 2015. They made a big deal of letby googling the parents 3 months later.

Without wanting to sound blase, It would be like a car mechanic trying to remember one car from 8 years ago. Or a nurse in an adult ICU remembering a patient in a similar timescale.

I don't know if it was brought up in trial, but the hospital she worked at appeared at the time, to be the go to place for more seriously ill babies. I'd like to see the figures for a like for like similar ward in other parts of the country.

It wasn’t. Liverpool womens and Arrowe Park were more specialised than The Countess. Arrowe Park is a level 3 unit. Liverpool Women’s is a centre of excellence and takes babies from a huge area. LL had to go to Liverpool womens for her ICU training because it’s a bigger unit. It takes some of the sickest babies in the country. Several of the babies should have been in those units but ended up at the Countess because of cot shortages. Baby P was murdered when the Arrowe Park transport team were en route to collect him because the Countess were worried about him after his brother, baby O died unexpectedly the day before. The transport team ended up taking his surviving brother instead. Baby G and Baby I were both born at Arrowe Park and transferred only because they were stable/improving. Sick babies were transferred out of Chester, not in.

Death rates at the Countess were amongst the worst in the country - around 10% higher than other similar units and worse than many specialist inits with sicker babies. It was highlighted by the MBRRACE-UK audit and widely reported in local press in 2017, before any arrests were made. There were some figures - maybe in the podcast or in the police documentary - that detailed how the death rate was even bad for a highly specialised unit with extremely sick/premature/vulnerable babies let alone a level 2 neonatal in a DGH with only 3 ICU cots.

It's not quite comparable, because deaths in a neonatal ward are nothing like as frequent as cars passing through a car mechanic's hands. I think the point is that this clearly wasn't routine if she was looking up the parents three months later, so it would be surprising if she could remember absolutely nothing subsequently. Also we may be talking about what she could remember when she was arrested in around 2018 rather than what she can remember now?

The podcast was broadcast throughout the trial, before they had any idea what the verdict would be, and it had to be scrupulously neutral otherwise the reporter would have been chucked out of court.

The unit had similar understaffing levels to other comparable units in the area. However, during the relevant period it had much higher death rates.

The Science on Trial website is notoriously run by a couple of fantasists with an agenda of their own and no relevant qualifications. There are reports of them engaging in activities like attacking the babies' parents and accusing them of lying. One of them has been declared not competent to represent herself in her own litigation, yet she is trying to persuade people to donate to her personally with a nebulous claim that she will use the money to try to lobby for an appeal. As she's in California and blatantly knows nothing about our legal system, goodness only knows how she thinks she can contribute anything useful. I've seen articles on their website that are laughably easy to pull apart.

That's not the podcast posters are referring to.