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.

There never was any evidence againgst her in the first place

That's actually wrong. Dr shoos 1989 paper which was used in the prosecution and was a factor in the prosecution has now been updated by Dr shoo and as such this is now new evidence.

I ask the naysayers this:
Is it normal to have experts interfere in a conviction and give their time pro bono? No don't see this with myra Hindley, Harold Shipman, Fred West, marine Carr, why becuae their convictions were solid and this isn't. You will find the experts actually are flabbergasted that she has been convicted and that's why they are doing something, they don't have to its just they can see it wasn't right.

Can you share those examples please?

Nor all the unexpected deaths and collapses on the maternity ward at the same period of time which LL absolutely cannot have been involved with (as far as I know only the consultants went between these two parts of the hospital?).

Which of us aren't a bit odd if they started picking into our lives?

The prosecution ignored evidence from a statistician and presented their own version which was completely flawed.

They actually dismissed a statistician who was helping them on the case when she said they should weigh up the evidence with other possibilities like deaths being caused by a failing hospital which was later downgraded.

Absolutely. Probably the single most interesting thing about Mn is how plain odd, in minor ways, everyone's life is, and how mostly we don't realise until we're brought face to face with the evidence that someone does whatever entirely differently.

If someone starting poking around in the minutiae of my past, and asking people I went to school with about me, I feel sure that it would be (or certainly could be made to look like) a quite damning picture, if viewed as 'supporting evidence' for me subsequently committing a horrible crime.

Yes I'm sure we are all odd in our own way, but it's still hard for me to accept that her particular oddness of the way she spoke about the deaths (which I found quite chilling) , the hoarding of handover notes, the Facebook stalking of the parents on the anniversary of the deaths etc etc was a coincidence.

They really got lucky with her as the scapegoat didn't they.

What was odd about the way she spoke about the deaths, though?

And why wouldn't she be thinking of the parents on the anniversary of their bsbies' death? I think it's only in one case she looked them up then, presumably to see how they and the surviving child were doing.

Re the handover notes, I don't work in that setting, but we have had people on here say it's not unusual to end up bringing them home by accident. My guess would be that they were all in her pile of "must bring in to work and put in confidential waste" before the suspension, and that they may have been forgotten then, or she may have kept them so she would have something to remind her of details once she had people accusing her of murder. She had notes for lots of children, not just the ones on the charge sheet.

She barely moves the needle towards odd for me.

She kept the handover notes and moved them from house to house. I would listen to the podcast that covered the case daily, the circumstantial evidence sounds flimsy when mentioned here but was compelling during the case.

The messages are outlined here www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120198.amp

For context she had over 200 handover sheets - only a fraction related to the murdered/ collapsing babies - so not really trophies

And she facebook stalked lots of different people eg other members of staff, her zumba teacher, other families of babies on the unit - so not specifically focussed on the babies who died/ collapsed

Both were misrepresented by the prosecution which grabbed the attention of the media

Sion Jenkins' conviction was quashed based on a "reinterpretation" of the blood spatter evidence...

Yes I've read them.

Not one of them is at all suspicious.

Why does anyone think they point to murder?

Yes, I also bring papers with me when move house. In an ideal world I would sort and shred and take the absolute minimum. I don't. I am not a murderer though.

What i don't get is that Dr Lee's 1989 paper was pivotal in securing a conviction and now the sceptics are saying he's a know nothing and attention seeker. This Times piece worth listening to.

I know an awful lot of medics, and the way they speak about deaths encountered in the course of work doesn't always necessarily translate as 'normal' or 'concerned' in the non-medical world. I can easily imagine my medic friends and neighbours saying 'You'll never guess what happened' to one another about an unexpected death on their roster -- treating it as a work problem, rather than a human tragedy.

I also think there's still a strong gendered expectation of nurses (still overwhelmingly female, about 90%), and children's nurses in particular, that they be 'warm', that isn't expected of doctors. LL sounds as though she wasn't warm in manner, or particularly good at dealing with the distressed parents of seriously ill babies. She may even not have been a particularly good nurse. That still doesn't make her a murderer.

Obviously, I don't know whether or not she is innocent. I'm just wary of pathologising, in the absence of rock-solid scientific and statistical evidence, the manner of a rather odd, awkward nurse.

I think the Daily Mail podcast, if that's the one you mean, adds a lot of emotion and drama and makes things seem more compelling than they are.

You need to be aware too that a podcast or court report can include the prosecution's leading questions, like "you're a liar, aren't you, Lucy Letby", and their false assertions, like "you cried over Doctor A but never over the babies". Unless the accused says, yes, that's true, the jury is not supposed to treat them as evidence. But they create a tone, and the press can use them any way they like.

I mean this respectfully. Isn't is possible that if that evidence against Letby seems flimsy away from the podcast, it really is flimsy? Because the prosecution of course do their best to make you think badly of the accused. And the Daily Mail invest in a podcast to keep you hooked, so making drama out of details suits them perfectly.

It's really hard to see how those details would add up to murder

I don't think that's fair about the daily mail podcast at all actually, despite the fact it is from the daily mail I actually found it very UN dailymailish and matter-of-fact, simply reporting on what was brought to court as evidence. I never listened to the extra "filler" episodes.

The messages have always struck me as her thriving on the drama. And it's okay to say that keeping handover notes is weird, it doesn't mean she's guilty, but it is something of a coincidence that the nurse they picked as a scapegoat had this strange habit. Most nurses would hate to hoard that kind of data.

The DM podcast along with many other media examples eg Panorama programme, Channel 4 piece etc etc was cited as being hostile to LL wrt her appeal in re-trial Baby K murder case

It's recognised as not being neutral

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/the-radio-national-hour/lucy-letby-review-panel-/104911852?utm_content=twitter&utm_medium=content_shared

Worth a listen

The panel had all the medical evidence supplied to Letbys lawyers, are you suggesting that the prosecution withheld vital evidence?

Are you going to enlighten us further on all the inaccuracies? I see it mentioned repeatedly, along with rubbish about Shoo Lee being an attention seeker/Ambulance chaser etc. But no one is ever able to able to explain more.

I think some people are a little ignorant on the latest developments. With logic and reason it's hard to think why people now wouldn't think a retrial or even acquittal is the obvious next step. I also think some people just enjoy being trolls, many will have so much humble pie to eat. This is a terrible state of affairs.

I don't get how entrenched people get and actively want her to be guilty rather than being worried about cover ups in the NHS and institutions protecting themselves to the detriment of patients.

Oh and miscarriages of justice.