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 think she's guilty.

I didn't at first but think she's where she belongs.

No but all the evidence comes together like a jigsaw. That's police work.

No. I didn't fall for the "publicity stunt" like they wanted you to.

Well if I’d killed 7 babies I’d deserve to be, whether I wanted to be or not.

each piece of circumstancial evidence on its own is of course not enough to convict or maybe even a few pieces together, but there was a vast amount in this case. Enough to fill a 9 month trial remember. it’s the whole weight of the evidence when pieced together which makes it compelling.

incidentally what do you think DNA would add, other than placing her at the scene- which we already know she was, by eye witness evidence and swipe records. The best evidence would be two eyewitnesses
seeing her doing it, but of course most murderers tend not to act in plain sight.

On what expert knowledge of the law of evidence do you base this dazzling observation?

Do you think anyone in the police service is competent to understand the medical evidence?

each piece of circumstancial evidence on its own is of course not enough to convict or maybe even a few pieces together, but there was a vast amount in this case. Enough to fill a 9 month trial remember. it’s the whole weight of the evidence when pieced together which makes it compelling.each piece of circumstancial evidence on its own is of course not enough to convict or maybe even a few pieces together, but there was a vast amount in this case. Enough to fill a 9 month trial remember. it’s the whole weight of the evidence when pieced together which makes it compelling

You are falling into the trap of thinking that something that doesn’t prove guilt + something that doesn’t prove guilt + something that doesn’t prove guilt can somehow = proof of guilt. It doesn’t. No matter how many things that don’t prove guilt you add together. Also most of what is termed circumstantial evidence is unmitigated bollocks and was misrepresented to the jury.

No, but that’s why operation hummingbird has several teams of medical experts that looks at each case individually.

Wow! I think it is you that is out of the loop. The information that has come out since that press conference shows how terrible it actually was.
I suggest you do the most basic of research.

Sadly loads did. It is scary. Particularly on Mumsnet.

Who would you believe on the insulin cases a paediatric endocrinologist or an engineer that has worked for Xerox? Just wondering.

You look a bit silly with your keep up statement. Falling for that press conference.

@Muckybib
Mr Skelton said there were ‘multiple problems’ with a report compiled by a team of world-class neonatologists.

“The family’s position is that Lucy Letby has been convicted after a protracted trial during which she has access to the finest criminal legal team and numerous medical experts across all relevant specialisms none of whom were ultimately called to give evidence to support her defence,” he said.

“The Court of Appeal has twice dismissed their applications to appeal. In the first instance comprehensively having heard evidence from the Canadian neonatologist Prof Shoo Lee who is now spearheading his latest team of medical experts.

“Cursory analysis from the report published by those experts identifies multiple problems with their analysis.

“What has been presented with great fanfare is new and incontrovertible evidence turns out to be old and full of analytical holes.”

Mr Skelton said that ‘critical evidence’ from the inquiry had been ignored and dismissed.

“Medical hypotheses were advanced based on fragile towers of speculation,” he said.

“Little or no thought has also been given, it appears, to the dignity or privacy of the families and the babies that the experts have publicly discussed, in stark contrast to the way this inquiry has proceeded.”

Sorry but the above statement just sounds like a smear against the expert dermatologists by a non medically trained lawyer. It is rhetoric.

The premise of the argument is that because the dermatologists didn't give evidence at trial their statements are untrue and not worthy of consideration which is patent nonsence.

Again we have the attempt to silence debate by the 'dignity of the families' argument as if a team of experts medics who have devoted their life to improving neonatal care have some sort of bizarre conspiracy to psychologically torment the babies' families.

We have Lady Thirlwall attempt the same rhetoric and I think the public didn't react well to the legal profession telling doctors to shut up and stop questioning potential fallibility of our justice system. The same should happen here.

Did it? I’m not sure that’s quite accurate.

What’s your motivation in characterising Professor Chase of the University of Canterbury, NZ as a photocopier engineer?

There is significant doubt about the safety of Letby’s conviction, and this must be properly examined.

And if you hadn’t killed anyone - you be ok with only circumstantial evidence being used to prove you guilty of a crime you didn’t commit? After all the pieces all put together seem to point to your guilt

incidentally what do you think DNA would add, other than placing her at the scene- which we already know she was, by eye witness evidence and swipe records. The best evidence would be two eyewitnesses
seeing her doing it, but of course most murderers tend not to act in plain sight.

yet she wasn’t present for all the murders, the prosecution just explained - that she could have snook in without anyone seeing her or using her swipe card by tailgating

If a crime happened, then it was probably her. But I’m not convinced that a crime occurred. That’s the difference with this case.

and no, hummingbird did not have teams of medical experts. They had Dewi Evans telling them what is sus and what’s not and they had teams of police investigating the ones Dewi said were suspicious.

Please state your case

Right so the prosecution said there were multiple issues with the report? Well obviously, they want to uphold the prosecution??? On the same approach the defence said there is mew evidence and this is going to the circuits so that must be right? No. I don't have a clamour to free lucy letby, but I am concerned about justice and how it is served. Let's see how this plays out.

Please explain your rationale in stating that people have fallen for that press conference? What have we fallen for? I'd like to be enlightened. As far as I see it you have world leading neo natalists who have all reviewed the cases pro bono and are concerned a miscarriage of justice has been served how Is that "falling for that press conference" its independent non biased fact, do u think the world's leading neo natalists whose very jobs it is is to protect and help babies would suddenly team together to save a child serial killer? So with your closed response and absolute certainty that LL is guilty without taking their findings into account is naive imo. But crack on, I don't really care for trolls.

This is interesting, it is an interview with the 'Advanced neonatal practitioner' on the unit.

You couldn't be more wrong. There are so many things wrong with the press conference. Not only the medical information but the way it was done.

To show people that there were in fact experts at the prosecution.

There is too much to state. If you can't be bothered to research then don't make an outlandish statement.

An example as above with the insulin the immunoassay test is actually a legitimate test and Chase actually used it in one of his own research papers. He is also not an endocrinologist and Shoo lee over egged him in his press conference. That is just a small amount.
As you say come on keep up.