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

when its circumstantial, it is harder to find solid evidence that she was a murderer. If there was a particular piece of solid unequivocal piece of evidence it would be harder to disregard

is it possible that, they were relying on her being proved guilty - as in uk system you don't prove someone is not guilty. Thus the team believed there was reasonable doubt throughout?

But the prosecution in the original case DID put forward convincing medical evidence, supported by experts at the trial.

These experts disagree with those experts.

Of course.But people haven't accepted the guilty verdict. Why should I accept a not guilty one.

The medical evidence of insulin administration was flawed, though.

I was convinced at the time - insulin presence without C peptide = medicinal insulin, not the body’s own natural insulin - so it seemed absolutely damning.

But the jury wasn’t told that the test used was inadequate to determine whether the insulin was endogenous or medicinal, and it wasn’t told that neonatal spontaneous hypoglycaemia/hyperinsulinaemia is a thing.

Because it was based upon half truths and incorrect information. It really is as simple as that.

Because the evidence used to obtain the guilty verdict is demonstrably full of massive holes so there’s a real possibility that there were no murders and this has been a miscarriage of justice.

If the evidence changes one should be open to changing one’s mind.

I’m not suggesting that you should change your mind at this point, but to rule out the possibility of ever changing your mind, regardless of the evidence, is frankly bizarre.

Yes I agree op. At the time I didn't think there was enough evidence but now I think it's even worse and it is clearly a miscarriage of justice.

None of this is evidence she killed anyone.

There really isn't though. The only evidence we're claims that the babies did not die of natural causes and that Lucy was the only person who could have harmed them. Now it's fairly clear that neither are try

The court transcripts are not publicly available.

Broadly one particular paediatrician claimed that baby deaths were caused by air being injected into their lungs or veins based on an academic paper. The expert who wrote the paper has said his interpretation was wrong. The post mortems and inquests at the time determined the babies died of natural causes

Absolutely. There were four drs who started the campaign against lucy Letby. At least one was responsible for killing a baby by inserting a breathing tube in his gullet instead of his windpipe. All consultants were under pressure as the ward was performing poorly and one of the issues identified was that consultants were not spending enough time on the ward.

Why don't you read what the experts said about the insulin then? Basically, the test they did was unreliable and the trial expert presented a misleading conclusion.

What is obvious to me is that Lucy is entitled to an appeal, to deny that is an outrage.

The media do not help.

The four doctors made the chart claiming she was present at every suspicious death (she wasn't - the chart just picked the deaths where she was involved in patient care and claimed they were suspicious while ignoring other deaths). They were reprimanded for their campaign against her. It may have been in good faith because they genuinely believed she was harming babies but it should not have been allowed to harm the investigation like that.

And either another or the same one stuck a needle into another baby’s liver causing the baby to exsanguinate to death. And one didn’t understand that the baby he was trying to resaturate was losing 94% of the air he was pushing in because the tube was too small. Or that continually giving individual doses of dextrose causes insulin to be produced and therefore the blood sugar goes up and then down again. All in the notes but not properly analysed to inform the decision on whether the deaths were intentional.

The only evidence to convict her was dr dewis claims of how the babies dies and that she was the common factor. It seems his analysis is nonsense so yes, that is evidence the jury should have heard

The issue was that the ward was unhygienic and poorly staffed and equipped. Moving Lucy Letby off the ward made no difference

"Thanks.

I wonder if the deaths deemed not to be suspicious were in any way comparable to the ones that were deemed to be murders. Presumably nobody knows as their info will be private."

@Halycon - there does not seem to be any objective difference except Lucy's presence or absence. All of the deaths she was convicted of had previously been considered natural deaths (all except one has post mortems and coroner's inquest which found they were not suspicious

It's not the job of the defence to prove how. That's how lynch mobs work, not the justice system.

They only had two witnesses- the plumber and Lucy herself. I don't know what the explanation is for their strategy.

I'm not saying she is any sort of saint. U have no idea what kind of person she is. But there really isn't enough evidence

Well it is the job of the defense to challenge the prosecutions evidence, and they didn't do that very well. Imo

Is it possible that medical professionals / consultants were reluctant to act for the defence given they would effectively be standing against their colleagues and peers? You'd have to be so very sure of your ground in such a high profile and emotive case. And these are generally very busy people. So I can understand why it look a while and ultimately had to be done collectively.

It's fairly obvious this will go to retrial and that she will be acquitted as a miscarriage of justice has occurred. This was a media frenzy and all appear to have lost their senses including the approach of her own defence team at the time. She will get out its just when. The CCRC will be under lot of scrutiny so hopefully they act swiftly. It's going to be very embarrassing for the prosecution, Dewi Evans, Dr ravi and Co, Chester hospital, the thirwell enquiry, the British legal system and the government. This isn't goingvaway so they should retrial asap and get it over with for everyone's sake, parents of the children who need answers and LL whose life has been ruined.