Lucy Letby

Lytham_fy8

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
Decent thread until ItsGrimUpaNonce turned up, I'm still 80% sure of the conviction but there's that nagging voice because I know how the NHS will turn on anyone to save their own reputation.

I'll give the Channel 5 documentary a watch as long as it's not mentalist conspiracy theory types or internet detectives.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
Decent thread until ItsGrimUpaNonce turned up, I'm still 80% sure of the conviction but there's that nagging voice because I know how the NHS will turn on anyone to save their own reputation.

I'll give the Channel 5 documentary a watch as long as it's not mentalist conspiracy theory types or internet detectives.
Click to expand...
I didn’t think the docu was mentalist conspiracy theory types. It explains a little of why nobody is ever prepared to be an expert defence witness in these kind of cases.
Like you I’m not saying I think she is definitely innocent, but there seems room enough for doubt from what I’ve seen and read.
 
Lala said:
I didn’t think the docu was mentalist conspiracy theory types. It explains a little of why nobody is ever prepared to be an expert defence witness in these kind of cases.
Like you I’m not saying I think she is definitely innocent, but there seems room enough for doubt from what I’ve seen and read.
Click to expand...
One of the most prominent people expressing reservations is Dr. Phil Hammond, who writes as "MD" for Private Eye.

So nothing odd or mental about this at all.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
One of the most prominent people expressing reservations is Dr. Phil Hammond, who writes as "MD" for Private Eye.

So nothing odd or mental about this at all.
Click to expand...
Yes, the fact he’s willing to potentially risk some of his credibility must mean something.
There is a criminal barrister on there too who seems unconvinced. Plus a few in the nursing/medical profession who don’t know Letby and are too frightened to have their identity revealed for fear of career repercussions.
 
My thoughts went back to the Sally Clark case and her conviction based on expert witness stating that the odds of 2 Sudden Infant Death Syndrome were 1 in 73 million. He had simply squared the odds of a single death and had not taken into account that the odds of a second death in same family are not the same as a single death due to genetic and/or environmental effects.

From what I have seen from the evidence against Letby there seemed to be some effort by prosecution to discount some deaths when Letby was not present to increase probability of her guilt. Doesn't mean she is innocent but does open up some question marks about the whole case.
 
bollieboy said:
My thoughts went back to the Sally Clark case and her conviction based on expert witness stating that the odds of 2 Sudden Infant Death Syndrome were 1 in 73 million. He had simply squared the odds of a single death and had not taken into account that the odds of a second death in same family are not the same as a single death due to genetic and/or environmental effects.

From what I have seen from the evidence against Letby there seemed to be some effort by prosecution to discount some deaths when Letby was not present to increase probability of her guilt. Doesn't mean she is innocent but does open up some question marks about the whole case.
Click to expand...
Yes, what a tragedy, the prosecution told a few half truths in that case, as well as withholding vital evidence from the defence 😢
That’s another thing with the Letby case, before they decided to look for criminality, all the babies involved at that point had been examined at Alder Hey pathology, with the cause of death being natural causes.
 
I always think trying to determine a case when you haven't been in the court and listened to all the evidence and how it linked together is a mistake. It is sometimes easier to question (but not discount) an individual piece of evidence in isolation, but when part of a pattern of activity or other evidence it can lead to a compelling case. Many cases are not 'slam dunk' ones, but a combination of evidence against the defined legal principle of beyond reasonable doubt.

You will always find an expert or lawyer with a different view or opinion on specific evidence, but they also usually haven't attended the whole trial and have certainly not been in the jury room discussing the evidence and considering the directions from the judge. The jury system is usually a sound one and there is the appeal system for new evidence or a flaw in the legal process.
As far as I am concerned, Lucy Letby is guilty, following an extensive criminal investigation and a proper legal and appeal process.
 
bfcpete said:
I always think trying to determine a case when you haven't been in the court and listened to all the evidence and how it linked together is a mistake. It is sometimes easier to question (but not discount) an individual piece of evidence in isolation, but when part of a pattern of activity or other evidence it can lead to a compelling case. Many cases are not 'slam dunk' ones, but a combination of evidence against the defined legal principle of beyond reasonable doubt.

You will always find an expert or lawyer with a different view or opinion on specific evidence, but they also usually haven't attended the whole trial and have certainly not been in the jury room discussing the evidence and considering the directions from the judge. The jury system is usually a sound one and there is the appeal system for new evidence or a flaw in the legal process.
As far as I am concerned, Lucy Letby is guilty, following an extensive criminal investigation and a proper legal and appeal process.
Click to expand...
I get your point. But the outcome is decided by a jury of lay people. People bamboozled with information, some of it not scientific, but mostly based on possibilities and probabilities, with no counter argument allowed ( the witness for the defence wasn’t heard ) and no forensic evidence at all, has room for doubt I think.
It happens. And she hasn’t been allowed an appeal.
 
Last edited:
Lala said:
and no forensic evidence at all
Click to expand...
She was very clever in this instance, as the babies were denied the benefits of the equipment in several cases, which would only result in a switch or button being used in which she had a medical reason for using the equipment.

You mention there were no witnesses...as I understood, in the last case she was found guilty on, a Consultant/Doctor entered the ward when a child was in extreme difficulty and noticed Letby was doing nothing to assist the child, just standing around and watching. The alarm function on the machine had also been turned off. At the very least she was culpable of not carrying out her basic medical function of saving life and/or asking for assistance. If these actions alone were replicated, she's as guilty as **** in my book.

Just Plod intuition makes me feel she is definitely guilty. There are just too many coincidences, and her reactions to arrest, questioning and Court just don't give the impression she is an innocent woman.
 
Lala, I think you don't give enough credit to juries. They are usually a mix of people including intelleigent and sceptical ones and they will have sat through the whole trial and heard all the evidence. And they can ask for more information in their deliberations if they want clarification. They know if there is a reasonable doubt that they should aquit. I was on a jury where there was quite a lot of scientific evidence. The lawyers made sure the experts presented the information in a way that the jury could understand it. And we did not convict on the basis of scientific evidence alone, but also other evidence as well. I understand that was also the case in the Letby trial. And the appeal process has not suggested that her defence did not have opportunities to question the evidence or present alternative theories.
Feel sorry for the families in all of this.
 
bfcpete said:
Lala, I think you don't give enough credit to juries. They are usually a mix of people including intelleigent and sceptical ones and they will have sat through the whole trial and heard all the evidence. And they can ask for more information in their deliberations if they want clarification. They know if there is a reasonable doubt that they should aquit. I was on a jury where there was quite a lot of scientific evidence. The lawyers made sure the experts presented the information in a way that the jury could understand it. And we did not convict on the basis of scientific evidence alone, but also other evidence as well. I understand that was also the case in the Letby trial. And the appeal process has not suggested that her defence did not have opportunities to question the evidence or present alternative theories.
Feel sorry for the families in all of this.
Click to expand...
There was no forensic evidence at all. I take your points, but you could have said all of this about the Sally Clark case, and look what happened there. And her’s is not the only miscarriage of justice case under similar circumstances.
I hope she is guilty as then justice has been served and for it to be otherwise is quite disturbing.
I would recommend the Channel 5 documentary, as it details reasons why the evidence to support a prosecution is at times, at best, questionable.
 
bollieboy said:
My thoughts went back to the Sally Clark case and her conviction based on expert witness stating that the odds of 2 Sudden Infant Death Syndrome were 1 in 73 million. He had simply squared the odds of a single death and had not taken into account that the odds of a second death in same family are not the same as a single death due to genetic and/or environmental effects.

From what I have seen from the evidence against Letby there seemed to be some effort by prosecution to discount some deaths when Letby was not present to increase probability of her guilt. Doesn't mean she is innocent but does open up some question marks about the whole case.
Click to expand...
Good point bollie, but discounted or not, she was charged with a fair few, and as I understand it investigations still continue in potential other ones.
Its blindingly obvious to me that the Police are absolutely sure its her, and are satisfied that there are no other identified offenders.
 
Lala said:
There was no forensic evidence at all. I take your points, but you could have said all of this about the Sally Clark case, and look what happened there. And her’s is not the only miscarriage of justice case under similar circumstances.
I hope she is guilty as then justice has been served and for it to be otherwise is quite disturbing.
I would recommend the Channel 5 documentary, as it details reasons why the evidence to support a prosecution is at times, at best, questionable.
Click to expand...
I have watched the C5 documentary and it seems very partial to me and certainly did not present all the evidence in the case.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
Good point bollie, but discounted or not, she was charged with a fair few, and as I understand it investigations still continue in potential other ones.
Its blindingly obvious to me that the Police are absolutely sure its her, and are satisfied that there are no other identified offenders.
Click to expand...
It is blindingly obvious to me also. The problem is that there have been quite a few cases where the Police have thought that and have subsequently proven to be wrong.
 
Just watched the Documentary and whilst there were a couple of points raised, especially regarding the statistically side of her case, I found they were counter arguments with no proof whatsoever, mainly opinion, albeit by experts in their field.

What was very evident with the documentary was (for reasons explained at the end), no counter argument from the Prosecution to give a balanced perspective.

It remains to be seen if any further evidence (not circumstantial), comes to light which benefits either the Prosecutions actions, or an unsafe conviction on behalf of Letby.

As the credits pointed out, she has been before several juries, and repeatedly been found guilty.

I will be very surprised if it transpires in the future she is not.
 
I see the cps has admitted making mistakes, apparently some access cards to the unit were incorrect, in other words, they can’t be certain who went into the unit at all times.
 
'The prosecution said door-swipe data showed that the baby’s designated nurse had left the intensive care unit at 3.47am. But the data was amended in the retrial to show the nurse had returned at that time, meaning Letby was not alone.'

The door swipe data was pivotal in the initial trial, used to demonstrate Letby was the sole nurse present during several catastrophic baby collapses. However, the CPS has not confirmed the accuracy of all other door swipe data from the first trial.

Sir David said: "The door swipe data is clearly vital to knowing which nurse was where at one point in time, and this in turn was vital to the prosecution's case in the first trial. It is therefore essential that the CPS makes it plain whether those errors occurred throughout any of the evidence of the first trial."

Oh dear - that's not good - and makes you wonder what else they have got wrong.

It comes after former cabinet minister Sir David Davis told The Independent he was set to spearhead a probe questioning the conviction of Letby after a series of experts cast doubt over her guilt.

Sir David said he hopes to visit Letby in prison as part of an investigation into whether the serial baby killer may be the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
 
I have not watched the programme but it is worth saying that if there is any reasonable doubt in this - or any other - case, then the Crown cannot convict.
 
Seems like there is too much coming out now that questions the whole basis of the prosecution. It will be a very sad day for the British Justice system if this turns out to have been the result of a witch-hunt.
 
Long-shanks said:
I'll admit I'm late to the party on this one but it's looking very unsafe. Why you so sure?
Click to expand...
It is troubling, if you have done any reading around the subject at all. Only Blood knows whether he has.

I've gone from not even entertaining the thought that she could be innocent, to having some nagging doubts about her guilt. If a lot of people are in the same boat that isn't good.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
It is troubling, if you have done any reading around the subject at all. Only Blood knows whether he has.

I've gone from not even entertaining the thought that she could be innocent, to having some nagging doubts about her guilt. If a lot of people are in the same boat that isn't good.
Click to expand...
I think I too am there. The damning evidence that she was the only nurse (no other staff) present during the babies referenced in the case, totally ignoring other cases of baby severe distress which were not analysed for staff presence.

The technical eveidence about air embolisms looks dodgy even to my limited knowledge.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
It is troubling, if you have done any reading around the subject at all. Only Blood knows whether he has.

I've gone from not even entertaining the thought that she could be innocent, to having some nagging doubts about her guilt. If a lot of people are in the same boat that isn't good.
Click to expand...
there was another thread on ir where i said my missus had serious doubts about the conviction. She's that disturbed about it she's written to the ICJ about her concerns. For the record my wife is a qualified nurse and former midwife. She knows what she's talking about and long has had concerns about this case.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
It is troubling, if you have done any reading around the subject at all. Only Blood knows whether he has.

I've gone from not even entertaining the thought that she could be innocent, to having some nagging doubts about her guilt. If a lot of people are in the same boat that isn't good.
Click to expand...
She’s guilty
 
Even if it’s just based on the last Court appearance with the case where she was caught looking at a baby suffering trauma and doing nothing and the machine had its alarm mysteriously turned off.She’s guilty
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
Even if it’s just based on the last Court appearance with the case where she was caught looking at a baby suffering trauma and doing nothing and the machine had its alarm mysteriously turned off.She’s guilty
Click to expand...
That was the situation where they said she was alone and someone walked in and saw her doing nothing, but then the door entry data was confirmed as incorrect and she wasn’t alone ! I think it was this case.
It’s really poor that such evidence was incorrect in the first place, and it doesn't make the consultants evidence seem credible. So who else’s evidence isn’t credible.

IMG_7520.png
 
Last edited:
Lala said:
That was the situation where they said she was alone and someone walked in and saw her doing nothing, but then the door entry data was confirmed as incorrect and she wasn’t alone ! I think it was this case.View attachment 20948
Click to expand...
It probably is LaLa, but mistake or no mistake, Letby didn't do anything, the alarm was off and the evidence presented to a new jury was obviously compelling enough to find her guilty.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
It probably is LaLa, but mistake or no mistake, Letby didn't do anything, the alarm was off and the evidence presented to a new jury was obviously compelling enough to find her guilty.
Click to expand...
There was another nurse with her, infact it was the nurse responsible for that baby, so she must have done nothing too.
Yes, they found her guilty based on statistics and probabilities that are now being questioned. As you said in your previous post, that one piece of evidence about her being alone and doing nothing was about the strongest evidence produced, as less circumstantial than the rest, but it wasn’t real.
I think time will tell regarding what happens now. If she is clearly guilty I’m sure the conviction won’t be challenged, and rightly so, but if there is doubt, then it should be challenged, and maybe it will.
 
Lala said:
There was another nurse with her, infact it was the nurse responsible for that baby, so she must have done nothing too.
Yes, they found her guilty based on statistics and probabilities that are now being questioned. As you said in your previous post, that one piece of evidence about her being alone and doing nothing was about the strongest evidence produced, as less circumstantial than the rest, but it wasn’t real.
I think time will tell regarding what happens now. If she is clearly guilty I’m sure the conviction won’t be challenged, and rightly so, but if there is doubt, then it should be challenged, and maybe it will.
Click to expand...
I agree, if there is a chance its an unsafe conviction, then there needs to be a retrial
 
Lala said:
There was another nurse with her, infact it was the nurse responsible for that baby, so she must have done nothing too.
Yes, they found her guilty based on statistics and probabilities that are now being questioned. As you said in your previous post, that one piece of evidence about her being alone and doing nothing was about the strongest evidence produced, as less circumstantial than the rest, but it wasn’t real.
I think time will tell regarding what happens now. If she is clearly guilty I’m sure the conviction won’t be challenged, and rightly so, but if there is doubt, then it should be challenged, and maybe it will.
Click to expand...
But could that other nurse have been occupied elsewhere? The fact that the defence accepted it was a mistake and didn’t pursue it further makes me think it’s being given more prominence than it should. At the very least I’d like to hear what the other nurse had to say and the defence reason for not questioning this.
 
traffordtang said:
But could that other nurse have been occupied elsewhere? The fact that the defence accepted it was a mistake and didn’t pursue it further makes me think it’s being given more prominence than it should. At the very least I’d like to hear what the other nurse had to say and the defence reason for not questioning this.
Click to expand...
The other nurse was in the room with her, so I imagine it would be difficult to not see anything untoward going on when a baby is deteriorating. The defence may have questioned it, but as you say, not a lot of prominence was given to anything other than stats and possibilities and medical explanations that are now being questioned.
All of the babies who died had post mortems carried out at Alder Hey and were reported as dying of natural causes originally.
There were also another 6 babies who died in the same timeframe when Letby wasn’t on duty, but their deaths haven't even been re-investigated !
Seems like a lot of ‘trying making things fit’ to me.
 
Bloodtangerine said:
Should have just tried her via AVFTT posters …..they can google a few bits and form an opinion 👍
Click to expand...
But it’s not avftt posters that are prompting a reinvestigation is it. It’s credible medical experts.
I’m as medically trained as you no doubt, we are just erring on different sides of the debate.
 
I haven't really followed this but the UK justice system is somewhat flawed, including police with one track and absolutist opinions being treated as fact, expert witnesses who are not expert, or simply lie, prosecution and defence barristers who don't avail themselves of all the facts, and occasionally ate selective in their use of facts / evidence.

The post office springs to mind, institutional management prepared to hide facts and blatantly lie to cover up systemic errors and plain incompetence
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
Bit of a brief report on some of the doubts by the BBC with expert input.

www.bbc.co.uk

Lucy Letby: Experts raise doubts about medical evidence presented in court

Doctors and scientists' concerns contribute to speculation about the safety of the nurse's convictions.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
So there are certain events that would have to be related to these crimes that state that Letby wasn’t on shift at the time, and the prosecution stated ‘ she may have visited the hospital whilst off shift ‘ but provided no evidence to support this. Wow, that is trying to make it fit at it’s most ridiculous.

And if searching someone on Facebook makes you guilty, then guilty as charged your honour, and I’m not even on Facebook !!
 
Lala said:
So there are certain events that would have to be related to these crimes that state that Letby wasn’t on shift at the time, and the prosecution stated ‘ she may have visited the hospital whilst off shift ‘ but provided no evidence to support this. Wow, that is trying to make it fit at it’s most ridiculous.

And if searching someone on Facebook makes you guilty, then guilty as charged your honour, and I’m not even on Facebook !!
Click to expand...
There's definitely sufficient doubt about the prosecution case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top