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 am not a troll at all. I have spent time researching this case. I would also hate a miscarriage of justice. This is not the case here. You will see eventually. I think it is you thats the troll. Supporting a serial killer.

Reseach why it is not totally independent. Look at Modi.

Prof Chase is an expert on measurement of insulin and c peptide in neonates. Dewi Evans isn’t.

I obviously touched a nerve and rightly so, u don't want a miscarriage of justice but u are 100 % certain she is guilty. I rather take an open mind and the evidence against her guilt is growing by the day. How u can dismiss the worlds leading neo natalists beats me. Did u watch the video posted a few comments up from someone who worked at the countess of Chester in the same unit as LL and said how bad the conditions were? Please do. Would be interested if u thought she was also supportive of a serial killer. Please try and be a bit more open minded you sound like a daily mail reader.

Can you articulate why you have a problem with Modi having been president of RCPCH at the time of their review? Note: “conflict of interest” is not an actual answer without explanation.

And Doctor Hindmarsh?

Would not touch that newspaper!

The press conference whether you like it or not discussed a lot of what Shoo Lee said at trial.

She is not innocent there is just so much but it would take months to read it all.
Which I have donw but would take longer than a Mumsnet post. Remember there were a lot of experts for the prosecution.
Have you watched some if Dr Susan Oliver's youtubes. She is good at explaining the insulin case. Also the court transcripts discuss what was said in the press conference.
How would you explain all of this and just say but 14 experts? Nope...

What about him? He was (he’s no longer on the register) a paediatric endocrinologist, not a neonatologist, and isn’t an expert in laboratory insulin testing, so I’m not sure why you immediately assume he is better qualified than Prof Chase.

It is absolutely baffling that you think he isn't. I mean a literal paed endocrinologist. You know Doctors that deal with child insulin.

Not work for a motor group for years.

What does “not work for a motor group” mean?

Yes he was a paediatric endocrinologist; no he’s not a neonatologist or a biochemical engineer. Experts, by definition, have narrow fields of expertise.

He’s also not on the medical register any more as far as I can tell (which may very well mean nothing at all).

Well yes I can.
The 14 experts (and these are leading in their fieild so would trump local) reviewed each and every case and also had a 2nd independent expert review in isolation and they all came to the same conclusions. All deaths can be explained by poor care, inadequate practice and some cases incompetence. I think when independent world experts review something it should at least make u question (but I'd say absolve the initial review) which would u want your child visiting if there was an emergency? Global expert top of their field or some local just out of college dr? Experts are experts for a reason and that is normally high intelligence and plenty of time in the field. How u can ignore this is completely bizarre especially as u mention u don't want a miscarriagebof justice. I can't be bothered to argue anymore with u, let's revisit the thread when she's been acquitted.

Of course. I questioned it but on further research. It is nothing new.
I will agree with you there. Will you be back if COA or CCRC refuses?

The crcc Court of appeal don't have a great track record due to previous failings e.g the guy wrongly convicted of rape who spent 20 years behind bars! So if they refuse to hear I don't think that will make anyone change their mind on the case and tge public opinion will just get stronger.

Listen to this podcast, double jeopardy, 2 lawyers who previously thought she was guilty reviewing the new evidence. They are better placed than you or I.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/6X7qLCUX3e8wMvnoC1qftl?si=YXC7GP3ESEuZ2p6bIqgtKQ

Yes sure I'll be back either way.

Have you seen Mark McDonald's list of the fifteen different grounds for appeal they are using, with the international expert reports being just one?

I think a lot of people misunderstand the expert panel summaries. They aim to explain how the children died or became ill. Now if parts of that explanation were discussed at the trial, that's unfortunate from a legal standpoint. But we want the experts to do this job seriously, not to play games.

How likely is it that they'd seriously find explanations 100% different from what the defence suggested? That would look really shady. What the summaries suggests is that they have found things that weren't discussed at the trial, but of course the broader descriptions of causes of death are similar. In other word, they gave produced more certain scientific evidence that the findings at the first trial were wrong.

If that means Letby has to stay locked up just on a technicality, I hope everyone would agree that that's unfair and needs addressing. But there are another 14 grounds for appeal, and the experts will be able to present their reports if there is a retrial.

Oliver is a charlatan and spews out inaccuracies with extraordinary glee and vitriol. I find her videos awful. But if there are any specific points from them you would like to discuss, happy to do so.

The irony of some posting the double jeopardy podcast! Who are wrong, misinformed and take take other people's stuff for views.
Oliver is not wrong but carry in if you people want to keep defending a serial killer. I think you are all trolling at this point.
I am out.

If you tell me what it is that Oliver says that you want to defend or use to support your argument, happy to discuss whether she's right or wrong.

You're right. It's not a problem. People are weird about Letby's case and keep demanding standards that don't apply anywhere else.

Modi's very eminent position is public knowledge. She explained that she acted for herself and not for the institution.

It's fairly obvious she has serious concerns. She hasn't gone from being president of the Royal College of Paediatric and Children's Health to randomly defending a baby killer just to avoid a mild rebuke to another department of an institution she chaired years ago. The risk to her reputation in defending Letby without serious cause would be astronomical. She's not doing it to defend her reputation - she's taking a lot of criticism and sniping in the cause of justice.

MD in Private Eye also throws doubt on Evans' suitability as an expert. Makes for interesting reading, as does all of his insight into the case since he changed his mind on Letby's guilty verdict.

There is also still the FACT that there was nothing untoward in the autopsies of the babies at the time of their inquests. So why should anyone be accused of murder?

The press conference whether you like it or not discussed a lot of what Shoo Lee said at trial

are you saying Dr Shoo Lee was at Lucy Kerry’s trial?

In fairness MD is a gynaecologist, so not a research expert.

MD is Phil Hammond
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Hammond
he's not a gynaecologist but is a GP and an experienced medical journalist and commentator.

I know who he is. He definitely worked in sexual health , I think in Birmingham.

It seems a desperate argument.....It wasn't said at trial so can't be true or should be ignored by an intelligent critical general public. But scary really....it's a bit like we'll the shortcomings of the horizon software weren't discussed at trial so we should put all those post masters back inside.

Its almost like there is a belief that legal process can override material reality.

Intelligent 😂

if there’s one thing the general public have shown themselves NOT to be, on Letby or indeed numerous other issues, it’s intelligent