Lucy letby

It's a difficult one to know the truth and I just hope that justice is served, for everyone's sake.

Ultimately it's for the judiciary to decide whether this new opinion is probative and compelling enough to overturn her convictions and until then we're all just guessing really.
I think the big difference now compared to earlier doubts is the quality of the current opinion compared to the 'medical expertise' used to convict her.

The Prof said he was interested in how his work had been used. When he found it had been misused he wanted to look at the medical evidence with no interest in whether Letby was guilty or innocent. He used a panel of world experts to examine the medical evidence and they found no evidence that a murder had been committed. They were able to explain the deaths through natural causes or inadequate medical care.
 
Last edited:
All the evidence was circumstantial, when this was pointed out these people were told ‘you didn’t sit through hours, weeks, months of the trail. Trust the jury

People who were critically thinking about the evidence were shunned because the above. These people were not saying letby was innocent, but were questioning has anyone could be sure she was guilty
 
All the reports and documents used in the trial will be available to her lawyers.

The full transcript would cost £100,000 but the chairman said they have some of it.
These guys have done this independently haven't they? It's keeps being said that they don't have all the evidence. Which is very important.
I have no view on this as I haven't been following the case. I would caution anyone who has formed a view on it. We don't get the full picture.
 
got to love a trial by media and a load of riled pitchfork wavers :-( ... and some people still think the death penalty is a good idea.
Hearing Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls and a huge figure in UK jurisprudence, say that he would have preferred the death penalty for the Birmingham 6 as then we wouldn't have had to put up with all these campaigns to free them was just one of the things that made me realise our justice system is sometimes not interested in justice. He could not countenance the idea that the police had lied.
 
These guys have done this independently haven't they? It's keeps being said that they don't have all the evidence. Which is very important.
I have no view on this as I haven't been following the case. I would caution anyone who has formed a view on it. We don't get the full picture.
They are working - pro bono - with Letby's legal team.
 
Hearing Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls and a huge figure in UK jurisprudence, say that he would have preferred the death penalty for the Birmingham 6 as then we wouldn't have had to put up with all these campaigns to free them was just one of the things that made me realise our justice system is sometimes not interested in justice. He could not countenance the idea that the police had lied.
Weird fella - he was a bit of a hero of mine till he said that
 
These guys have done this independently haven't they? It's keeps being said that they don't have all the evidence. Which is very important.
I have no view on this as I haven't been following the case. I would caution anyone who has formed a view on it. We don't get the full picture.

It is more important that the Jury have all the evidence.

Their view, and the view of many who were at the trial and have read transcripts is…
The jury didn’t have all the evidence.
They go further and say the supposed ‘compelling’ evidence is incorrect.

if that is the case - then the verdict is unsafe
 
These guys have done this independently haven't they? It's keeps being said that they don't have all the evidence. Which is very important.
I have no view on this as I haven't been following the case. I would caution anyone who has formed a view on it. We don't get the full picture.

I certainly don't have anything even close to a full picture. As I understand it, the basis of this is the interpretation in a 1989 paper on air embolisms that is now being questioned by many including the lead author of that particular paper.

Whilst my very uniformed and unscientific personal opinion is that this case has always had a bit of an issue passing the smell test is completely irrelevant, if there is reasonable evidence of a wrong conviction its absolutely vital its investigated properly.
 
These guys have done this independently haven't they? It's keeps being said that they don't have all the evidence. Which is very important.
I have no view on this as I haven't been following the case. I would caution anyone who has formed a view on it. We don't get the full picture.
I think this is correct yet the issue raised by this examination isn't whether LL is guilty or not.

The real issue now is whether this should be referred to the CCRC. If you way up the prosecution expert witness - not an expert in the field, long retired, not registered to practice, volunteered themselves to the police and found proof of murder in 10 minutes over a cup of coffee - and compare it with the experts who carried out the review then the conviction is clearly unsafe on this aspect.
 
These guys have done this independently haven't they? It's keeps being said that they don't have all the evidence. Which is very important.
I have no view on this as I haven't been following the case. I would caution anyone who has formed a view on it. We don't get the full picture.
Well the cause of death of all the babies is the evidence that a murder took place, and they are stating that there is no evidence of murder, so the allegations is that the jury were misled.
 
I only know what I have read and that is nowhere near enough to be sure on anything. I think we have a classic situation where it is feasible for an innocent person to be found guilty. However, that doesn’t mean she is innocent.

We have lots of baby deaths, parents understandably wanting answers and to hold someone, in some cases maybe anyone, accountable for their individual tragedies.

A hospital whose managers will want to point the finger of guilt anywhere but on their running of the hospitals in question including any inadequate policies procedures and personal culpability.

We have a media focussing on directing the attention toward a chosen narrative that has flaws.

Specialists that fit the situation to a theory rather than following the evidence accurately toward a case by case conclusion.

A police force wanting to create a case for guilt and choosing which evidence fits their desired outcome rather than necessarily following the evidence as it arises partially due to the media pressures. They failed to release information/evidence that may have been helpful for the defence.

A Nurse who clearly had issues at the time, questioned herself to such a degree writing things down and feeling she somehow was culpable and inadvertently coming across as guilty or indeed a nurse that really was somehow cruel and guilty in some or all of the deaths.

Evidence presented as fact that was actually conjecture by experts that in some cases were not worthy of being called experts.

So much doubt exists that for the accused, the families, the babies themselves and most importantly to ensure true justice is sought, evidenced, presented and delivered for everyones sake above and beyond reasonable doubt, this has to be re-investigated with a completely open mind and leave no stone unturned in the process. By all means keeping Letby inside prison till everyone is clear and certain. Letby may be guilty, but others may also be guilty instead or even somehow alongside her.
 
If it was decided that this was a miscarriage of justice and Letby was released, do you think the general public would afford her a normal life?
 
Back
Top