The investigation of Lucy Letby on Netflix

[TheRozzers]

Anyone watched it yet? It’s a really excellent documentary with loads of footage of her police interviews.

You see the police asking her questions about those ‘confession’ notes.

I won’t put spoilers in the OP but I’d love to hear what others made of her responses.

Mid way through I thought she’s 💯 guilty but by the end I’m really not sure. A lot points to her being innocent.

I feel for the parents of those babies so much, the uncertainty must be horrendous 😞

Background failings and alternative explanations were argued at trial, and the jury still convicted. Therefore it’s not new evidence that hasn’t been in front of a jury

I just can’t see anything that’s new or unexpected or explained in terms of professional difference or wasn’t out before the jury already - like the embolism stuff

This table shows how experts who have spoken publicly divide.
It is really not a matter of two equal sides.
Nothing like this hss happened before in the history of our justice system, yet people seem to think it will go away if they deny it's happening.

https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby:_those_experts_in_full

With respect, if there are professionals sitting silently agreeing with the prosecution, their thoughts aren't going to matter unless they come out of the woodwork

When I was a junior doctor I took home a lot of ward handover lists and it would take ages before getting around to shredding them - or take them back to work and dispose of them. It really does prove nothing.

I also spent a lot of time worrying that I might have accidentally killed someone by making a mistake - and I know many new health professionals experience similar feelings. If I was removed from the ward and thought I had made a mistake that harmed someone, I can imagine blaming myself and calling myself a murderer, as I would feel so guilty, even if I knew I had not done anything with any intent

They don’t need to - she’s already been found guilty

I thought there had been some comparable cases

The evidence for the unit's medical failings and the reports showing these failings were entirely excluded from discussion, and weren't given in evidence.

So, it seems only reasonable that a jury should get to see them alongside new expert witness claims, from qualified and science-led experts.

What I can’t get away from is, in the climate that has been the managed decline of the NHS for over 15yrs, and the many other investigations that have identified significant failings leading to avoidable deaths across the nation during that time, I find it much more likely that the NHS failed these babies, than an incredibly rare situation of a female baby killer in the midst who fits no profile whatsoever.

The main UK doctors forum doctors.net is full of doctors who are questioning the verdict - and quite a few neonatologists who find the evidence presented as bizarre

Sure. But we can't use their views as evidence of anything if we don't know they exist. So that means we have barely anyone except Evans and his followers as expert witnesses and the Chester consultants, who were interested parties,as witnesses of fact.

He hasn’t been discredited in the legal sense which is what matters

professionals disagree with each other all the time

i havent looked at what you e posted but they are most likely critiques - that isn’t equal to being discredited - court of appeal knows about these - and emails aren’t equal to being legally discredited - none of this amounts ton the jury being misled

No, not yet, but part of the application to the CCRC is a request to consider whether his statements and appearances since the trial have demonstrated that he lacks objectivity.

I’ve been following some neonatologists on twitter as well https://x.com/NeoDoc11/status/1980218988253560896?s=20

Which won’t be up held I’m afraid

experts contradict each other all the time and his evidence has been cross examined in front of two juries leaving them to decide

teh court of appeal already rejected this didn’t they at LLa appeals

disagreeing with him after doesn’t hold weight - I think they’d have to show he misled the jury which he didn’t because his evidence was cross examined

I don’t think that can lead to a retrial

I read they had already heard enough about them at first trial - they don’t need to hear about all the failings just enough that are relevant which they did so doesn’t 🟰 retrial

the ct of appeal also still rejected appeal after considering post trial critiques of him - they concluded he hasn’t misled the jury

No, no jury has considered Evans's behaviour since the trial yet. We can't know how the CCRC will respond to anything of course, but the information you're giving isn't accurate.

I’ve watched this. I think if she wasn’t white and blonde nobody would give a second thought about her being convicted as guilty.

What makes her seem most guilty is actually her behaviour.

It’s not - they refused appeal when knowing about post trial critiques of his work and concluded he did not mislead the jury

I didn’t say he has been. It’s an incredibly high bar for that to happen, but not being formally sanctioned or struck off doesn’t mean that he’s meaningfully credible as a witness. So we aren’t talking at cross purposes, I’m not talking about the legal likelihood of a retrial or quashed conviction through the CCRC (because as I’ve said, that’s a question of process, not truth at this point), just the reality of the evidence now available. I don’t doubt that he genuinely believes what he’s saying and I’m not suggesting that he’s fabricating evidence and lying, just that he’s mistaken and too arrogant to admit that it could be a possibility.

You are absolutely free to consider him completely credible and the panel are a bunch of fame-seeking baby killer fans, in the same way I can consider him a narcissistic blowhard that gets kicks out of feeling important and inserting himself into legal cases objectively outside of his expertise so he can make his money and give himself a pat on the back, while the panel are a distinguished group of international experts with no skin in the game. To me, his evidence just doesn’t hold up against theirs and only one of them can be right. Unfortunately the jury didn’t have all of the subsequent information available to them to make the call so I’m sure he seemed very believable on the stand.

I’m genuinely very surprised that apparently “lots” of professionals agree with him but none have come forward (how do you know if they aren’t coming forward?). Is there genuinely no one that has thought “I feel the need to comment to make sure people don’t think the baby killer is innocent”? It would have significant impact on public perception.

No, the appeal wasn't based on his behaviour since the trial. That wouldn't have been possible. It queried whether he should have been allowed to continue based on what was known about him at and before the trial

Everyone seems to think that coming up with numerous alternatives for death makes the conviction uncertain - it doesn’t - it just makes lay people like us go “ oo she must be innocent” but it doesn’t make it so

the evidence presented was rigorously cross examined at the time and has been legally upheld by court of appeal - including the embolism stuff

The appeal wasn't upheld not because they don't think the evidence is compelling, but because it wasn't 'new' evidence. The panel of experts could technically have been convened at the time of the trial. The defence called nobody. The British judicial system is broken in this sense.

Coming up with - of course not
Submitting the evidence - some or all of it new depending how the court of appeal judges it - that these are likely causes of death? That should certainly be duly tested and should absolutely make a difference if verified, yes.

And since we are dealing with far more qualified experts than the prosecution had, it's reasonable to think that these experts are not going to present evidence that can't stand up in court.

I believe they didn’t call anyone because like we have said it would likely support the prosecution

the evidence was all scrutinised by cross examination and the defence presenting alternatives at the time - that was the defence strategy to challenge and scrutinise all of the evidence - which it sis rigorously - the jury heard all this and still found her unanimously guilty

the court of appeal new about challenges to Dewey and still refuses appeal

Do you believe that having the panel as witnesses would have supported the prosecution, or just the witnesses they’d gathered at that point?

If there are numerous plausible alternatives for the deaths other than murder (especially alternatives that were not presented to the jury because the evidence is new) then of course this is relevant.

Plausible alternatives would mean that Letby being a murderer is not beyond reasonable doubt.