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!

It is the website the OP refers to.

Apologies, I was reading back and thought you were talking about the trial podcast.

No worries - some people are referencing the podcast. All sorts are of sources are being used to argue for or against the OP.

Yes to the podcast literally being a report of what happened in the trial.

They say a lot in the podcast they can only report fact and what was said for the exact reason of it's a live trial (or was at the time!).

If they tried to influence or even suggest the evidence pointed towards a bias they would be in big trouble.

She's never getting out of prison whatever her weird fans think she's been found guilty it's not all going to be over turned

It was the same with beverley allit, except she was found to have mh problems and spent her time in forensic mh prisons

No. Can't see what the reasons for appeal are.

Critically reflecting on the quality/ integrity of the evidence presented at trial is not being a “weird fan”. I don’t have any feelings about Lucy letby as a person at all, but I am shocked (and deeply concerned) that a person could be convicted, and given that kind of sentence, on the basis of that evidence. It’s a question of the integrity of our justice system. I don’t think her conviction will be overturned in the short term, there is too much a stake now. But, longer term, I don’t think history will look favourably on this conviction.

Have you listened to the court trials podcast? I'm not sure how anyone could listen to the evidence and interviews with the doctors and detectives and possibly think for a second she was innocent.

Do you feel the same about Beverley Allitt? Or any other child murderers and serial killers who were convicted without being caught in the act

Were you in court during the trial? I don't really see how someone who wasn't in court and hasn't seen all the documentation that the jury saw can say that "that evidence" was inadequate.

I wasn’t on the jury, no, I’m basing my judgement on what is in the public domain. There is also evidence in the public domain that unfortunately didn’t make it into the trial / before the jury, and there are important questions as to why that is. The reality is that juries do make mistakes - frequently. Wrongful convictions do happen, and there’s a reason why - in a democratic society- we prioritise open justice and public trials. These systems are not infallible and it’s important they be subject to scrutiny and held to account.

I haven’t looked into these cases so can’t comment.

That doesn't surprise me

'Allitt administered large doses of insulin to at least two of her victims and a large air bubble was found in the body of another, but police were initially unable to establish how all of the attacks were carried out. It was as only following the death of Becky Phillips that medical staff became suspicious of the number of cardiac arrests on the children's ward and police were called in. It was found that Allitt was the only nurse on duty for all the attacks on the children.'

Sound familiar

Why?

I agree that obviously miscarriages of justice happen. The problem here is the sheer weight of the evidence against Letby, the fact that the defence couldn't find any expert evidence to contradict the prosecution evidence, and cases like the insulin overdoses which the defence admitted must have been administered extraneously, the fact that deaths followed Letby from night shifts to day shifts, stopped when she was on holiday, and stopped again when she was taken off the unit.

People keep talking about circumstantial evidence, but the simple fact is that most evidence in murder cases is circumstantial of necessity without anyone thinking the convictions are unsafe.

Agreed and there was SO much evidence.

Because you don't seem to have a clue how the justice system actually works. That you think there is evidence in the public domain that didn't make it into the trial is telling

Because you don't seem to have a clue how the justice system actually works

there’s no reason to be rude and there’s no basis on which to say this from my posts. The fact that I haven’t looked into one particular case from the 90s is certainly not evidence of this.

That you think there is evidence in the public domain that didn't make it into the trial is telling

Well this is not what I “think” this is fact. (perhaps you aren’t aware of this 🤷🏼‍♀️). And no need to find it surprising. There is often evidence not presented in court. counsel may choose or neglect to present certain evidence for a range of reasons. Some evidence may be ruled “inadmissible” by the judge, and some evidence may simply come to light later. (These factors then often then become the basis for appeals). In the case of Letby one example of evidence in public domain but not put before jury in court is the Royal College report into the COCH neonatal unit from 2016 which documented the dire conditions in the hospital at the time and evaluated the circumstances around the increase in neonatal deaths.

Anyway I have no interest in having a conversation with someone who is going to be gratuitously rude.

No.

Had twinges here and there during her trial, which I followed closely. Since I read who her 2 besties were when she was on remand any lingering doubt has been most definitely stamped out. Guilty guilty guilty.

I've belatedly been listening to the bit in the podcast about how the police painstakingly put together a minute by minute record of what was going on in the unit at the time by reference to medical and computer records, records from swipe cards, phones and the like. People who doubt the strength of the prosecution case or claim there was no evidence really don't understand how detailed it was.

It was really incredible how they did it, I had no idea before listening to the pod cast.

No doubt whatsoever

amazing these scientists that (a) weren’t called to give evidence and (b) seem to know more about how legal cases should be conducted than LL’s King’s Counsel

No. I followed the trial and I'm satisfied that its beyond reasonable doubt. If I were on the jury I'd have voted to convict. And I'm not someone who supports every sensational conviction. I think Darlie Routier is guilty but I would have to vote to acquit because I don't think it's proven.