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!

I was listening to an Alex Murdough podcast yesterday. One prosecutor made an interesting analogy. If you walk outside your house one morning and everything is covered in soft, cold, wet white powdery stuff, you can say with 100% certainty that it snowed during the night. You didn’t see it. You didn’t hear it, but you know it’s true. It’s the same with certain types of circumstantial evidence. There may not be a witness to an event, but that doesn’t mean the event didn’t happen.

Like being born... the KC Nick Johnson used this in court.

No, I followed the trial closely. She is guilty. Unfortunately the media have cherry picked the sensational parts , the notes at home, the air embolism, poisoning and people think that's the only evidence. Please read up on the whole case before pushing nonsense and distressing the victims families even more. I had doubts early on but if she was innocent why did she tell many lies, falsify documents, and essentially attempt to cover her tracks? The most convincing evidence of her guilt came from lucy herself.

This article you are suggesting we read, it wouldn’t by any chance be part of a fundraising campaign to fund an appeal for her? If it is I think you need to be up front about it.

agree with this 100%.

I've always said I wasn't sure of her guilt until she spoke.

I see that it’s possible she didn’t do it. But it’s overwhelmingly likely that she did.

Oh the irony of this comment.
Please OP, you appear to be the one actually putting your own blinkers on.

It is

It’s the babies killed by insulin is what makes me fairly certain of her guilt. She admitted that someone must have given them the insulin deliberately but it wasn’t her. It’s indicative that someone was harming the babies purposefully. So it’s more of was it her or someone else? That plus all the other evidence was strong to me.

What are you scared of? That you'll have to take your blinkers off?

😂😂

Oh, here we go.

OP, I think you forgot WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!!!????!!?!!!

No.

Just that we've read it all and still think she's guilty. But that's based on our thoughts and beliefs.

There is no 100% sure in virtually any criminal case.

So there will always be some doubt.

Anyone that says well she's 100% guilty is is being silly. No-one 100% knows unless they are accused if anyone is 100% guilty, it can't be proven in court.

I'm not scared of anything. I think LL has a tiny chance of being innocent, same as anyone else convicted that I don't know because I wasn't there. I still think there's a chance, but I'm not going to fret about it.

Clearly the jury disagree with you. They thought the evidence was wholly adequate for them to make their decision. Thankfully!

That blog is very badly written and contains no new information?

I have read it. Nothing in it makes me think the jury got it wrong. The article says "the prosecution weapon used the evidence". That is literally their job! To use the evidence to demonstrate guilt. Which they did.

You says it written by a scientist with no association to LL but the landing page says this:

Science on Trial is the first organisation dedicated to fighting for a new trial for Lucy Letby.

Hardly independent?

Name change for this, as I know it’s not popular to have doubts.

The evidence is mostly circumstantial. It’s no doubt some of the deaths were infanticide and not natural, but there wasn’t any evidence beyond circumstantial to link Letby to all the deaths.

The post it note was written after she’d been moved out of the ICU and had heard the rumours that she was under suspicion for having caused the babies deaths. Looking at the whole post it, as in everything she wrote on it. I can see in the context she explained that she felt like she must have made horrible mistakes and it was her fault. The post it note isn’t a confession imho.

The fact she had the clinical notes on the babies that died at home doesn’t show intent to murder either as she had the notes for hundreds of babies and these were just in there in chronological order with all the rest. It’s like she had a habit of taking home all the notes so of course the notes for the ones that died would be there too. The prosecution made it out like she had taken only the notes for the babies that then died…like it was part of a plot to murder.

The fact that the deaths stopped not when Letby was moved out of the NICU on 30 June but from 7 July when Hospital bosses reduced the neonatal unit service by cutting cot space numbers and increasing the gestational age limit for admission from a minimum of 27 to 32 weeks. If babies were only dying due to Letby and not staff shortages and very premature babies, then why did the hospital increase the staff to baby ratio and start refusing to care for the most premature babies with the highest risk of not surviving? This indicates to me that some of the deaths were known to actually be caused by insufficient nursing staff, and doctors not really qualified to care for very premature babies. So I do wonder if Letby became a scapegoat to cover up hospital wide failures.

I think her trial was hurried because of the pressure to explain the deaths in a neat package that wouldn’t lead to more questions or investigation into the hospital itself.

I am glad there is an appeal and will see what comes out in it.

I think a lot of the evidence was circumstantial and her defence didn’t do a great job. So I’m sure she’ll get her appeal.

However, I’m also sure she did it so I don’t think she’s going to get off.

Ooooh, a subreddit, you say? I take it back, fully convinced of her innocence now you tell me there's a subreddit.

Bloody hell Russell , appreciate you’ve had a bad week or two and are wanting to deflect but this is low even for you.

No.
Some people just don’t want to believe an average looking person in a caring job could do something like this. They can and they do. I imagine more than we realise do and just weren’t caught.

I admit that during the trial I thought the evidence as described in the media was short of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. But I wasn't in the courtroom, and I have to trust the judgement of those who were. If significant and relevant evidence was excluded, no doubt it will come up on appeal.

Goodness me. If you are interested in the case why wouldn't you want to read it. I'm not saying she's innocent but I am saying I'm disturbed by the findings in the report.

The evidence presented was very clear yes, its what wasn't presented that is worrying.

I've read it - I can't see any evidence of her innocence in the article. It seems to focus on three things - the use of a Dr as an expert witness and complaining that he isn't a pathologist but the judge was happy to have him as a expert witness and if the defence had their doubts about his qualification they should have stressed this to the jury pursued his unsuitability in their questioning.
The fact that there were lots of notes (both medical and Lucy's scribblings) that weren't connected to the cases or contradicting each other. E.g. I did it I don't deserve to live alongside I'm innocent, I've done nothing. I can see why someone who is guilty would deny their crime at times and 'confess' at others but I can't see why you would do this the other way round.
The third thing seems to be that she wasn't found guilty on all counts. I've sat on a jury where we convicted on several counts and acquited on others. It wasn't because we thought the defendant definitely didn't commit the other offences - just that the evidence was weaker and potentially challengeable on technicalities at a later stage. We were much happier to convict on a dozen water tight cases and let the others go than risk a guilty person walking free on appeal because of a query over the chain of evidence in a couple of charges. My only regret is not being able to tell the victims of those charges we acquited on that we believe them.

our justice system is one of the best in the world.

I honestly believe that the vast vast vast majority of the time if people are found guilty then they’re guilty.

LL has the right to appeal if there are facts that have not been properly considered.