Law Who thinks Lucy Letby is innocent?

[deadshot138]

Conspiracies? A senior member of parliament is investigating it. That's not a conspiracy theory.

Which babies were deliberately injected with insulin? What proof of that is there?

Lack of corresponding events in the blood that take place during a natural insulin spike. Did you even look at the medical evidence prior to making this thread?

 

[deadshot138]

Lucy Letby found guilty of attempting to murder baby following retrial | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

Intentionally dislodged the breathing tube of a premature baby and provided no medical intervention and didn't sound any alarms

 

[Hog-train]

I think she's guilty but not a fan of using circumstantial evidence to convict people of serious crimes.

 

[jk7707]

Well we hear about it every time the latest lunatic moron goes and shoots up some kids in America like once a week , so I thought people there might keep up with what was bound to have made the news over there, even if it was about England. It would have made your news. You clearly just don't take any notice unless it's about trump or something like that.


There ya go young one. It's written in American for you.

New Yorker Story Questions Guilt Of Nurse Convicted Of Killing 7 Babies

The magazine questioned whether evidence was ignored in the rush to convict Lucy Letby of killing seven babies and attempting to kill six others.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

Yep. Those threads are filled with links to the details of the stories. Thank you for the link.

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

Lack of corresponding events in the blood that take place during a natural insulin spike. Did you even look at the medical evidence prior to making this thread?

~~~~Another crucial part of the prosecution's case were blood samples from babies who had collapsed with low blood sugar.

They showed exceptionally high levels of insulin and low levels of a substance called C-peptide.

That combination is only generally seen when the body takes in synthetic insulin, leading to the charge that Letby had deliberately poisoned the babies by adding it to their nursery feed bags.

Prof Alan Wayne Jones, an expert in forensic toxicology, is one of those who has challenged the results.

He pointed out that the test used measures the body’s reaction to insulin rather than the substance itself.

"The problem is that the method of analysis used [in these two cases] was probably perfectly good from a clinical point of view, but not a forensic toxicology point of view," he said.

"That test cannot differentiate between synthetic insulin and insulin produced by the pancreas."

The testing lab’s own website states that if synthetic insulin is suspected, the results should be verified externally by a specialist centre.

Clinicians at the Countess of Chester did not do that because thankfully both babies recovered.

At the time, there was no suspicion of deliberate harm.

Prof Jones said he has no doubt they suffered sharp drops in blood sugar levels, but that there could be another natural explanation for why that had happened. ~~~~





Medical evidence? Simple facts like the one detailed above are readily available in the mainstream media.

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

Lucy Letby found guilty of attempting to murder baby following retrial | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

Intentionally dislodged the breathing tube of a premature baby and provided no medical intervention and didn't sound any alarms

That has not been proven at all. Dislodging the tube is something that can just happen without someone doing it deliberately. Look it up.

So you've got the accusation that she didn't raise an alarm when one of the consultants walked in on her not doing anything.

Is that honestly what makes you believe she is guilty of murdering 7 kids?

 

[lsa]

This is not the hill I would pick to die on.

Bich is guilty.

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

This is not the hill I would pick to die on.

Bich is guilty.

Are you saying that due to a reason or just because you trust the media and the justice system to do the right thing?

 

[Mani]

I do. Always have. As one of he resident conspiracy nuts of this forum, I'll be considered talking shit by quite a few no doubt. But I'm saying it here now, she'll be found innocent eventually in one of the biggest miscarriages of justice ever, in which her life has been completely destroyed. Just like Sally Clarke.

Yes.

 

[Billy no mates]

Not me .

 

[deadshot138]

TS she will not fuck you if she's eventually released no matter how much you simp. Put the booze down and go to bed.

 

[newcastleman]

I followed the case last year and listened to a lot of the trial transcripts.
I think it's unlikely that she murdered those poor babies, and quite shocking that she was found guilty on such flimsy circumstantial evidence. It's evident that her defense team did an awful job, especially by not effectively challenging things like the statistical probabilities and circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution to the jury, which was deliberately misleading.
For example, it was stressed that when Letby was removed from the unit, the infant deaths subsequently stopped. Extremely damning coincidence, right? But what they didn't reveal is that at the same time Letby left, the status of the unit was changed so that it no longer recieved high risk babies...
In my opinion the prosecution only wanted a conviction no matter what, and had no interest in actually uncovering the truth.

 

[The_Renaissance]

The baby collapses changed shifts when she did. She absolutely did that shit. The mysterious deaths stopped when she was taken off whatever wing she was on. She creeped the parents of the dead babies on Facebook to revel in their grief around the holidays. She's an absolute cunt.

Yeah, honestly don't see how anyone can be so warped in the head to think she's innocent. Absolutely all the evidence points to her.

 

[BigDeadFreak]

She's not attractive enough for me to care.

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

Yeah, honestly don't see how anyone can be so warped in the head to think she's innocent. Absolutely all the evidence points to her.

You've obviously not looked into it. There is no real damning evidence at all. For a start, literally all the points immediately brought up here in this thread have all been rendered insignificant. Like the insulin argument previously mentioned. Then the fact the death rate dropped when she left. Of course it dropped, the high risk babies stopped going there after that point.
That hospital had a spike of baby deaths. Lucy letby attended half of those babies. Therefore she is guilty. Not a convincing argument really by anyone's standard surely.

Maybe there's more to it behind the scenes. Maybe it will all start to fully come out. But at the moment, none of the so called evidence they've presented can be considered evidence at all.

I'd recommend reading the latest articles on it if you're interested enough.

 

[MusclesMarinara]

I think Ty T Wrighty did it.

 

[The_Renaissance]

You've obviously not looked into it. There is no real damning evidence at all. For a start, literally all the points immediately brought up here in this thread have all been rendered insignificant. Like the insulin argument previously mentioned. Then the fact the death rate dropped when she left. Of course it dropped, the high risk babies stopped going there after that point.
That hospital had a spike of baby deaths. Lucy letby attended half of those babies. Therefore she is guilty. Not a convincing argument really by anyone's standard surely.

Maybe there's more to it behind the scenes. Maybe it will all start to fully come out. But at the moment, none of the so called evidence they've presented can be considered evidence at all.

I'd recommend reading the latest articles on it if you're interested enough.

Has she even claimed to be innocent though? She just looks like she's had a fucking lobotomy every time I see her, I don't even know if I've ever heard her speak?

 

[The Big Yin]

Lucy Letby didn't have 1 ten month trial, she had 18 separate trials back to back, and the jury would have been instructed that they had to be sure of her guilt beyond all reasonable doubt to convict on every victim.

The fact the jury convicted on each and every one - 8 murders and 10 att. murders, leads me to believe the evidence was strong.

The material in murder cases is enormous. Whatever is being discussed in the media is likely to be a tiny portion of what that jury and the court heard as a whole. Unless you were in that courtroom you cannot say one way or another.

In my last murder trial I only used around 30% of the evidence I had gathered, as the CPS and Defence agreed in the PTPH not to discuss the other 70%. It's called unused material

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

Lucy Letby didn't have 1 ten month trial, she had 18 separate trials back to back, and the jury would have been instructed that they had to be sure of her guilt beyond all reasonable doubt to convict on every victim.

The fact the jury convicted on each and every one - 8 murders and 10 att. murders, leads me to believe the evidence was strong.

The material in murder cases is enormous. Whatever is being discussed in the media is likely to be a tiny portion of what that jury and the court heard as a whole. Unless you were in that courtroom you cannot say one way or another.

In my last murder trial I only used around 30% of the evidence I had gathered, as the CPS and Defence agreed in the PTPH not to discuss the other 70%. It's called unused material

But the argument being repeatedly brought up now is that the way the evidence was presented was not at all fair, and was done in such a way to get a conviction.
For example, the babies that does all had Lucy letby present at some point. But there were twice the number of unusual deaths altogether, and she wasn't preset for the other half.
There is also the fact that these deaths stopped after she was taken off that ward. Sounds damning. But what they didn't mention is that the ward stopped taking in these vulnerable babies.

You sound like you have some insight into this kind of thing (I'm guessing it's your job?), so I would be intrigued by your thoughts on the matter if you looked into all the stuff that is coming out now regarding all the people and arguments that say the evidence needs to be looked at again. Because from what I can see, the conviction doesn't actually rely on any solid evidence whatsoever. Not that they've made public anyway.

I know from personal experience and from people I know, that doctors at the highest level make major major fuck ups and will lie their absolute asses off to save their skin. It wouldn't surprise me if this whole thing was someone whose incompetence resulted in these deaths, and decided it would be better to blame someone else on a lower level.

 

[Bubzeh]

Guilty. I’m usually open minded but I don’t think the innocent mob have much of a leg to stand on here.

Atrocious few years at that hospital.