Lucy Letby innocent?

[dubsie]

I posted a thread a while back saying that the conviction of Lucy Letby was questionable and I believe it might be a miscarriage of justice.

The more I read and the more evidence that comes to the public space the more I think this is going to be one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in British history.

Turns out there's no medical evidence at all

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/04/no-medical-evidence-to-support-lucy-letby-conviction-expert-panel-finds

So the conviction has been based on circumstial evidence and a written note authored on the advice of a therapist.

I think a rapid look at this trial and the evidence is imperative.

I still think she is guilty.

She was too involved, stalking parents on Facebook, remembering anniversaries, taking notes home. Making parents feel uncomfortable, one walked in on her and her baby was screaming and unwell, she lingered around when one set of parents were saying goodbye and made them feel uncomfortable.

Just stacks up too much for me to think she is innocent.

If the decision is ever overturned I think this is the sort of case where those who think she's guilty will always think she's guilty. There's no magic DNA that will prove her innocence.

I wish we knew why the defence didn't call an expert.

Making somebody uncomfortable doesn't make someone a murderer.

Even if it's a gross miscarriage of justice it will take years for any court to overturn it if at all. I read Ludovic Kennedys book about it where he stated that the powers that be in the British Justice System simply don't want to look like they're wrong even in the case of glaring injustice. Look at the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 and that man who was locked up for 15 years for a rape he didn't commit even after very solid evidence that he didn't do it. Kennedy also pointed to the police having tunnel vision: once they've decided someone is guilty, nothing will persuade them to change their minds.

In effect, the NHS stitched up a nurse for serious failings on that ward. Very convenient, when you have male doctors and consultants who have failed.

There is evidence for goodness sake -

What is wrong with you?!

Have you watched the press conference?

Being awkward and making people feel uncomfortable is more likely to be due to some sort of neurodiversity than being a killer (I know this from personal experience, unfortunately).

@Dramatic

Ill do that when you read the court transcripts and look over all the other evidence

She was too involved, stalking parents on Facebook, remembering anniversaries, taking notes home. Making parents feel uncomfortable, one walked in on her and her baby was screaming and unwell, she lingered around when one set of parents were saying goodbye and made them feel uncomfortable.
Just stacks up too much for me to think she is innocent

none of the things listed above are evidence of murder.

they are evidence of being over involved, socially inept, etc etc
I'm an odd bod at work and have many times had awkward interactions. Remembered anniversaries , stalked people on facebook

i want robust justice system that puts someone away for life when there is evidence
that they are guilty and that may mean that she walks free and could still be guilty. It’s a horrific situation all round

I listened to the trial podcasts and was convinced she was guilty. Her defence at the time seemed to be that in each case that poor standards on the ward caused the death, but nothing specific to explain how.

I know a lot of premature babies are at higher risk of dying, but in a lot of these cases the babies were doing well and their downturns were sudden and unusual in presentation.

But if evidence was held back, I think it will come down to proof.

The evidence is all circumstantial and I'm saying there's doubt over her conviction and that must be looked at.

There is no medical evidence of any foul play, no evidence of air or substance being injected. The statistical anomaly that led to a police investigation.... found circumstancial link and a diary entry from Lucy Letby.

Has anyone considered that this might be just a poorly functioning hospital department. It's not the first time...Stoke on Trent, Nottingham....all very similar.

If she is innocent I hope she sues the hospital trust for hundreds of millions in damages. Because they threw her to the wolves if that's the case.

@dubsie "There is no medical evidence of any foul play, no evidence of air or substance being injected"

is there no physical evidence? What was the basis for the convictions?

(I had a nervous breakdown that year so I'm afraid I didn't know much about the outside world - I kind of was living under a rock!)

It’s looking increasingly like a stitch up and a miscarriage of justice

I watched that two hour press conference last night absolutely aghast. How on earth has this been allowed to happen. Poor woman, and poor family of the babies.

I agree. Have said this all along. She was an easy target for blame.

@Quitelikeit Strongly recommend you watch the press conference before commenting further

I thought this too, until I watched the press conference. When you see who the experts are on that panel, top in the world in their field. The reasons they did this and hear their findings, it's pretty damning

Like most people, I have no idea whether she's innocent or guilty. What seems pretty clear, though, is that this conviction is unsafe.

I’d like to know more about the Dr/ consultant who first highlighted and pointed the finger ? A male with more authority whose baby ward went to shit!
I do think LL is very odd as well which probably didn’t do her any favours.

I think her relationship with her parents was weird. I read somewhere.
i can’t say why but I’m still not convinced by her innocence.

What went wrong with her defence? Apparently her team was extremely good, experienced, well qualified etc. So, where did they get it wrong? People not called for evidence, things people are saying that weren’t brought up in court…..

Experts have been saying pretty much from the beginning that there were problems with evidence etc etc etc, so I just don’t understand it.

I wonder if her defence thought she was guilty too and weren't as thorough as they could have been.

There were some things which should have been challenged in court and weren't - the duty log, the use of statistics, the insulin evidence. There's probably more but I haven't delved into it really.

I think her defence were neglectful tbh. She might be guilty but her poor defence made weak evidence look stronger than it actually was in reality, imo.

I don't really know where I was during the trial, but I didn't tune in until the closing days of it. I had pneumonia that summer and spent a lot of time in bed recovering and distinctly remembering reading all of the detailed coverage as the journey went out to consider their verdict.

It seemed very clear to me that she hadn't murdered these babies and that in fact, perhaps nobody had. I think that the hospital was failing miserably and management wanted somebody to be answerable for its failings. A safe bet in some ways, because who wants to be seen to defend a "baby murderer"?

If she didn't do it, it's one of the worst, if not the worst, miscarriage of justice in our country's history.

I’ve always thought she was used as a scapegoat and to cover up bad medical care.

It's so ridiculous that people are now claiming "it was so obvious she was innocent". I listened to the trial coverage and it really wasn't, which is why she was convicted. Convicted by a jury who listened to all the evidence, not skim read a couple of articles and made a decision based on that.