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.

What mistake?

I don't think anyone can confirm or deny unless you can tell us?

That's a snapshot up to January 2016 only.

It’s called texas sharpshooter

where the case, appears to be, they’ve found the murderer and then find the murdered and set the case around when they were on duty. No other person was investigated. Much of the statistics used as evidence has not only been discredited by statistics professors it didn’t include all the staff.

And all the staff on the labour wards who used the neonatal unit as a shortcut.

Think I’ll bow out until there’s another significant development in this case.

Until then as it stands she’s been found guilty and is under investigation for another two incidents.

As a slight aside, one thing I don't understand is: why was the video of her being arrested made public? I've heard this is routine practice, but why?? Is it to make sure that the tabloids don't say she was dragged out kicking and screaming?

I'm not sure whether she is guilty or not: too many things are not as they seem. I wish I could believe that a nine-month trial following the proper processes gave the "correct" result; but seeing how governments have stitched up convenient scapegoats in the past, and gone to great lengths to present facts to give a result that somebody wants, I don't believe anything that any big organisation says any more. If it turns out in years to come that she was wrongly convicted, and that there was a deliberate conspiracy to stitch her up, I will never believe in the integrity of the justice system again, just as I gave up all faith in the word of government years ago (2020 being the final nail in the coffin). Some might say this has nothing to do with government or politics; I'm not holding my breath on that. The reputation of the NHS matters a lot to the government, for better or worse.

It seems like only yesterday that MN was frothing about Letby refusing to attend her sentencing hearing, and that she should have been dragged in kicking and screaming. This gave the government an easy way to make it look as if they were doing something. "All defendants will now be forced to attend their sentencing."

There is nothing in her history, like most serial murderers, to suggest a disturbed mind. She has had a totally normal upbringing. Is anyone thinking of writing to her in prison? I am thinking about it. I used to be a prison volunteer and prisoners greatly appreciate cards, letters or gifts of books.

What you have to do is enclose a stamped addressed envelope so they can reply to you.

I suggest she didn't attend her sentencing because she knows she is innocent. In his book about miscarriages of justice by Ludovic Kennedy, he said that innocent people often display arrogance and disdain because they know they are innocent which is viewed with incomprehension. The book is "36 murders and 2 immoral earnings." He also wrote "10 Rillington Place" about the grotesque miscarriage of justice which saw Timothy Evans hung and permitted John Christie to continue his slaughter of women who sought illegal abortions. I remember hearing an interview with him where he talked about the enormous satisfaction when an unjust conviction was overturned, Were he alive today, I am sure he would be defending Lucy.

I feel like a lot of the reporting around this is still quite poor. The article below repeats the stuff about Lucy always being on duty but doesn't mention the objections by statisticians.

Or that the unit was downgraded when she was suspended and stopped treating such sick infants.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/06/lucy-letby-convictions-upheld-health-law-public

Also if Lucy worked there before the death rate started to rise (when it started to take sicker infants) why is this not mentioned more?

I agree. That’s generally a good article but failure to contextualise those two points of yours lets it down.

This is just silly. I’m not interested in exonerating Lucy Letby, I’m only interested in the truth. Why aren’t you?

I wrote to someone in prison who was wrongly accused of rape and released halfway through his sentence. He was a personal friend and I knew he couldn't have committed that crime. There are many more like him or her for that matter. Our justice system is not fit for purpose.
.

Murderers like Lucy Letby are quite different to sadistic serial killers, the prosecution claimed she thrived on the attention of being part of these deaths and this was supported by a great deal of evidence from families and her text messages etc.

I'm not saying she's 100% guilty, but I'm finding the absolute disregard of everything that put her away quite astounding.

Well - that’s because it’s all a bit puzzling.

The things that put her away are as far as I can see -

1. insulin, hard to argue with if true. But it seems it isn’t.
2. the only one consistently on duty when the babies died - but this also isn’t true.

The other things are only important if we believe the first. Everything else is fairly innocuous without the damning context.

I'm still so confused about what her defence team were up to. From what I can remember they only really put forward the evidence about the sewage leak on the ward.

Also a lot of people have said maybe they defense couldn't find good expert witnesses.

But in that press conference a few days ago Professor Modi said she wrote to the defense to offer to help as she was concerned about the evidence.

Why wouldn't you want the help of an expert of that calibre?

Do you think perhaps her legal team didn't really understand the medical or statistical evidence, thought themselves that she might be guilty and so didn't bother to put forward a particularly robust defense?

I think some of the arguments were / are

Lucy wrote down she was guilty, so she is - this one is so ridiculous I honestly am a bit stunned anyone is that dense. Did she really have to be as explicit as ‘they are making me feel I am evil and I did this and I have been made to feel as if I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to look after them’?

She also wrote down she’d done nothing wrong but it is weird how that’s always omitted from discussion.

She is clearly guilty because she didn’t behave in the way she should have during the trial / when being arrested / in court

She will have been zonked out of her brains on anti depressants. Unrelated but I’m also fed up of people insisting she’s autistic for the same reason.

She looked the families up on facebook

In no way is this indicative of murder on its own.

She had handover sheets under her bed

As above. I agree these two things with other compelling evidence could point towards her guilt but without compelling evidence I don’t think they do at all.

The thing is, people do weird things. I’ll hold my hands up and admit I do. It doesn’t mean I’m a murderer or even close.

I know I have missed things but there is nothing I’ve seen wheee I’ve thought ‘wow, it was her!’

Do you think perhaps her legal team didn't really understand the medical or statistical evidence, thought themselves that she might be guilty and so didn't bother to put forward a particularly robust defense?

I don't think that's a thing is it? I presume in a case as high profile as this that her defence team were of high calibre, I find it unlikely that they just admitted defeat.

This is all circumstantial evidence, no one is arguing that. But she was not convicted on this alone. The scientific evidence given in the trial was very convincing, and as I keep saying, there was little/no defence. No breaking down of the prosecution's arguments at all.

It was all they could think of. It doesn't stand up.

A handful of texts with her friends and colleagues, a couple of words of praise ... but then she's accused of some attempted murders that were so unremarkable that various members of the medical team said they couldn't even remember them. She's accused of trying to impress a doctor she haven't even met until 5 of the 7 children died. So what was happening with the rest?

She's accused of poisoning children so they would be ill after she left the ward. How does that help get her attention? She's accused of causing a child to suffer from projectile vomiting. Are we supposed to think she expected an admiring crowd watching her clean up afterwards?

It's all just speculation to try to give people a narrative that makes it all make sense. But it doesn't make sense

Theres just no way it can be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ now - to be fair it’s really now beyond reasonable doubt that any murders actually took place!! Both the NHS and our justice system are a laughing stock - seemingly that’s 21st century Britain, what an utter shambles.

You're right - that would be a huge breach of professional standards.

My guess is something like: Hall was conscientious and wanted to concede e.g. that air embolism was possible as one of a range of possibilities. Expert witnesses are not supposed to be biased toward either side. Myers wanted to prevent this so used Hall's reports to prepare his interrogation of Evans etc, which was technical and well informed. He didn't anticipate that Evans would refuse to concede doubts and act honestly, so in trying to reduce risk he walked into a trap. Pure guesswork.

Was her original defence team funded by legal legal aid? Was murder defence their backgrounds? Did they take this case voluntarily?

Can someone explain the process to me? I remember talking to a family court barrister once who said she had had to defend pardophiles as part of her work and you can't refuse to do it even when in reality you know they are guilty you still have to try.

I've not seen much about why LL defence did such a poor job in all these discussions. I've learnt alot about the medical evidence and there have been helpful links to research and the press conference. Maybe someone can enlighten me on how a defence team is put together? Is it possible her defence thought she was guilty but still had to defend her so didn't really try?

She had a criminal KC - no idea about funding,

I think the confusing thing is that her barrister / legal team are meant to be well regarded.