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.

The whole thing has made me lose faith in the justice system.

There is clearly no proper evidence against her at all. And yet everyone just carries on...

But none of that is EVIDENCE.

Odd behaviour is not evidence.

Yes, it is. It’s part of the whole jigsaw of evidence in the case. If it wasn’t evidence it wouldn’t have been allowed to have been led at the trial.

It’s circumstantial evidence

regardless of whether we think LL is guilty or not guilty - she has been found guilty. that may change on an appeal system but for now ZlZl is guilty in the eyes of the justice system.

I am doubtful it’s a safe verdict, there are so many discrepancies, for example her not meeting one baby until after an X-ray taken and used in evidence. The prosecution stated she could have accessed the ward unknowingly to anyone else - but that’s hardly evidence, oh she may have slipped in off duty. 14 experts coming out stating they don’t believe there were any murders.

It shouldn't have been allowed in the court.

Reading about this case has left me thoroughly disillusioned with our legal system.

It seems to be an extremely expensive act of performance art designed more to sell news papers and get the public riled up than to seek the truth in any meaningful way.

And don't get me started on the idiocy of spaffing even more millions on a public enquiry into why a non existent serial killer wasn't stopped.

Regardless, it was not a safe conviction.

Why and how was Dr. Jayaram de bunked? His explanation of things sounded plausible.

Yes I know it’s circumstantial evidence. It’s still valid evidence.

would you want to be licked up on circumstantial evidence alone? Nothing other than circumstances. Not like they had finger prints on a gun and DNA

Money and time would have been better spent on the poor state of neonatal healthcare in a range of trusts. There are depressingly periodic stories about maternity units in general being of poor standard and this should be the real focus of public attention. The trial and subsequent medical opinion has shines light on both the precarious health of these neonates but also the woeful lack of care that underresourced departments can provide.

Of course it is the parents who are suffering in this case as they have in reality been left in limbo with possibly never really being able to reconcile the nature of their children's deaths. Can closure come to parents who now will have doubts about whether the cause of their baby's death was natural or not and the fact a young women's life may now have been unjustly destroyed?

The rhetoric of Lady Thirlwall now seems quite hollow and the whole public enquiry may now lack integrity in the public eye. For a lot of people now the denial of a retrial looks like simply a face saving measure of our legal system; a verdict 'too big to fail'.

There now seems to be a raft of executives who though maybe failing in other regards are now being set up as additional scapegoats for criticism maybe for the expedient reason of diverting from the medical evidence controversy and a blunt way of cementing Lucy' verdict.

Circumstantial evidence can be enough to convince me.

If you have three convictions for murder but in the fourth no body has been found but you are known to have been in that area at that time (which petrol receipts prove and witnesses prove) then I’ll take that.

The circumstantial evidence in this case is more like ‘ she looked up people on Facebook and sent a card expressing sympathy.’

@mids2019 The whole system relating to legal expert witnesses is completely messed up. There is no impartial search for the truth and a bizarre notion you are either an expert or not with seemingly no understanding that some people might have specialist knowledge of particular areas but not others.

Really that is where pathologists should come in, and a murder charge usually proceeds when a death is found to be suspicious. But the pathologists in these cases didn't find evidence of murder.

How can that then proceed to a murder charge on the basis of a non statistically valid hunch from the consultants that Lucy was always there when babies died (she wasn't) and the frankly wild speculations of a retired doctor?

Obviously there needed to be a proper and impartial investigation by actual outside experts before anything proceeded.

Even that is very dangerous. Imagine this scenario. Some one is murdered. The police obviously have access to details of all the criminals in the area. It's London, so there are thousands of them, but the new computer system can whizz through and cross reference with number plates and cctv. Fantastic, a murderer out on parole was near the scene at the time. Job done. Issue is that the murder was actually done by someone else.

I can't say that anyone would feel too sorry for the wrongfully arrested murderer. Problem is that now there is a new one on the loose, who hasn't been stopped.

Also weirdly that is kind of what happened to Lucy too. The best evidence they had was related to insulin (though from experts in the very specialist field of insulin levels and premature infants it was apparently totally unreliable) and the jurors were told that if they concluded that Lucy had murdered those babies they could take that into account when deciding if she murdered the others.

And again at the second trial though there was very little evidence she was convicted again of murder really on the basis that she had already been convicted.

So then you end up with this huge number of wrong convictions leading back to a small amount of bad evidence.

And how were the jury supposed to spot the problem? They didn't have phds in the study of insulin levels in premature babies did they?

If the justice system is fair and stands for justice and you are only found guilty if its beyond reasonable doubt then I think its fair to say that there is now reasonable doubt most notably with Dr shoo andbtgebworlds leading neo natalists stating all deaths can be explained. Now if the reason she can't be retrialled is due to the system not having that flexibility in place then it's not really a justice system that serves the people. There is reasonable doubt so just hurry up and retrial her rather than waste millions more of tax payer money on a potentially irrelevant enquiry. No wonder this country is rapidly going to the dogs when we are stuck in all this bogged down beurocracy. Just because those in power set the rules it shoukd nit mean they are not called to account, they are supposed to serve the people and they seem incapable. Right rant over.

And another thing, why are we spending billions of our tax payer funds on a war in Ukraine and previous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when we could be spending that on our NHS, public services, homeless people, opportunities for teenagers? We need some serious reform and a root and branch review of public expenditure, value for money and benefits to society that can be worked towards. They are so out of touch and only serve their own career agendas. (I know I've gone off topic, but what's it coming too!)

Reforming the tax system that lets the rich legally hide their money, taxing rich corporations, bringing in the Robin Hood tax etc would help all that but blue labour don't like that, they want to be tories.

Why retrial if there is no evidence? Shouldn't they just let her go now as she's lost time in prison for something she didn't do?

I agree, it is appalling.

Whether she is guilty or not there are sufficient grounds for a thorough review. She is entitled to that, anybody should be.

Everything that the press conference was said a trial. I agree with Skelton and the information from the families at Thirwall this week. It's appalling. There really is nothing that wasn't covered at trial.

https://archive.is/8FLJO

It wasn’t said at trial. There were no expert witnesses for the defence called at either trial.

I’m still absolutely baffled that someone can be guilty and go to prison on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

You are obviously quite out of the loop with that response. The 14 world renowned neo natalists who have reviewed all the cases did not present evidence at the trial. If they had I think its fair to say that that would pit reasonable doubt into the jurors head? The reason Dr Shoo did this pro bono is because he has seen a miscarriage of justice AND the paper the prosecutionnused to help secure her conviction is out of date and incorrect, so I think abfair bit has changed since the trial. Come on keep up!

She was quite often where she shouldn't be. Going in on her time off. I am convinced she is guilty and is devious and cunning and chose the most vulnerable victims. I saw a programme on her. It was very convincing that she is guilty.

Nurses going onto their wards when they are not on duty doesn’t show murderous intent, though, does it?