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!

Nope

Hi OP - is it the science on trial website fighting for an appeal for LL?

I’ve had a read (I believe in reading outside the echo chamber) and am always open to my opinion being changed.

If I’m reading it correctly it seems to largely be taking the position that neo-natal infants are never “stable”, conclusive causes of death are fairly impossible and all the deaths could have been natural? (Yes, summarising).

If so: that’s absolutely true but I think this is where we have to remember that circumstantial evidence IS evidence. When a statistical trend - in this case of infant deaths across multiple hospitals and wards - significantly bucks a trend, one has to ask what is different in those deaths. The key difference here was the presence of LL.

When that is combined with the evidence found in her home and the concerns of other senior staff, I think I remain a believer in her guilt.

That said - I think it’s really, really important we always challenge ourselves and read around the easy-to-find narrative. Thanks for sharing.

Yes the jury disagree with me, hence she was convicted. Thats why my specific concern is that this was a “wrongful conviction” case.
Do you believe that the judgement of juries are infallible?
Juries can only work with the evidence that is before them. Much of the prosecution’s expert evidence was speculative medical opinion/ theory/ hypothesis presented as infallible fact. Meanwhile the defence offered no expert testimony to challenge this. At the very least there should have been a statistician to point out the very obvious flaws in the “she was present for all the deaths” argument.

@SkintMamasita she isn’t appealing - her legal team have lodged an application for permission to appeal. That doesn’t mean an appeal will take place. There has to be new evidence to support a not guilty verdict or evidence of a miscarriage of justice, ie proof that legal procedures have not been followed.
There is also a court hearing next week to rule on whether she will be retried for the 6 outstanding counts of attempted murder.

No.

Just another conspiracy nutter!

It it was a matter of one or two cases then possibly but it isnt

No!

I work for the CQC and my answer to your question is a great big no.

Sorry, but her doing her bit to appeal, as in lodge the appeal application is her appealing her conviction. The approval for it to go forward from the court is a different stage.

No that's Christopher Hitchens, his brother

Nope. Unexplained sudden collapses in Paediatrics are very rare. And she was present for every single one.

Pray tell, what is the ‘very obvious flaw in the “she was present for all the deaths” argument’? Not forgetting that she was also present for all the attempted murders? It’s not obvious to me at all.

Why are idiots fundraising for an appeal. If she's entitled to one she'll get one. It costs a few hundred quid

I think she's become a cause célèbre among a select group of MNers because she too closely resembles their daughters and they simply can't get their heads around it.

sorry if already covered but whats her grounds for appeal

She has applied to lodge an appeal. That’s not an actual appeal.

I don't know better about this specific case than the jury. It is worth noting it's similarity to other cases where someone went from definitely and unequivocally guilty to not guilty after many appeals.

It is often the statistical analysis in cases like these that have been the downfall.

I've read it. It's a pile of shite that will appeal to people who have a tendency to be attracted to conspiracy theories.

What scares me is not my blinkers falling off (or losing my beloved status of sheep), it's that some people are ready to believe "scientific experts" who do not sign their full names or even say what they are expert in.

That website is just fishing for gullible people.

Conspiracy theorists lack the intellectual capacity to understand the scientific method we use to establish proof. They lack the emotional capacity to accept and deal with uncomfortable aspects of life and when there is no deus ex machina, create one.

OP, you are a conspiracy theorist. No one's coming to save you from the stuff you don't like. Don't be a weakass.

Hands up all the MNers whose daughters are child killers 👋🏻

That website doesn't seem to say who they are, just refers to "scientists". If they won't make themselves known and share their credentials then it's impossible to take any of it seriously, let alone the fact that her degree would have used everything possible to get her off so it's ludicrous to suggest that all of the info on the website wasn't considered (and rejected).

Why do you think Lucy Letby's team didn't present it? Are they part of the conspiracy to use her as a scapegoat? Or did they not know it, but somehow the team of nameless experts did?

I would have liked an adult debate but the abuse has started. Another poster said she had to delete her post because of the abuse.

I have no intention of starting or joining a 'Free Lucy Letby' campaign. I just thought the scientists report was very credible and offered findings that were not reported during the court case.

FGS - I meant in lifestyle, education, demeanour.

Agreed, that website is fucking awful