Law Who thinks Lucy Letby is innocent?

[The Big Yin]

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.

Before I took early retirement I was a deputy SIO for murders, so I have a fair amount of insight

What you are forgetting is that Letby had a barrister, likely a KC, defending her. Barristers work out of chambers and work both prosecution and defence. Their careers depend on success rate regardless of who they are representing. They would have had access to all the evidence presented in the trial, including the baby death data, and had their opportunity to dispute the facts as presented by the prosecution. As well as the barrister, she also had a dedicated defence firm fighting her corner who would have made bank big time if they successfully defended her

Another check and balance is the judge who can intervene and direct a jury if he thinks the evidence has been misrepresented or not challenged strongly enough. Effectively what people are arguing is both dishonesty form the prosecution, incompetence from the defence and a conspiracy by the hospital, police and entire CJS, All of which I find highly unlikely.

This was a once in 40 year case and the scrutiny on the evidence would have been enormous. Armchair pundits picking holes in evidence after the event is common and they rarely have all the facts to hand

 

[Gas121]

Case was a mess in hindsight. I’m on the fence. When you dive deep. You start to see there are big holes in this conviction.

 

[SummerStriker]

I always thought that girl who killed her roommates in Itali was hot.

 

[scoopj]

A few things don’t add up for me. Why was Lucy removed from the ward? Why did the ward stop taking in the vulnerable babies at the same time? And why the hell would she hire a barista for her defense?

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

A few things don’t add up for me. Why was Lucy removed from the ward? Why did the ward stop taking in the vulnerable babies at the same time? And why the hell would she hire a barista for her defense?

Because he made good coffee?

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

Before I took early retirement I was a deputy SIO for murders, so I have a fair amount of insight

What you are forgetting is that Letby had a barrister, likely a KC, defending her. Barristers work out of chambers and work both prosecution and defence. Their careers depend on success rate regardless of who they are representing. They would have had access to all the evidence presented in the trial, including the baby death data, and had their opportunity to dispute the facts as presented by the prosecution. As well as the barrister, she also had a dedicated defence firm fighting her corner who would have made bank big time if they successfully defended her

Another check and balance is the judge who can intervene and direct a jury if he thinks the evidence has been misrepresented or not challenged strongly enough. Effectively what people are arguing is both dishonesty form the prosecution, incompetence from the defence and a conspiracy by the hospital, police and entire CJS, All of which I find highly unlikely.

This was a once in 40 year case and the scrutiny on the evidence would have been enormous. Armchair pundits picking holes in evidence after the event is common and they rarely have all the facts to hand

Whereas I fully get what you're saying, I have little faith in many areas of the British justice system.
I'd bring up the cases of Angela Canning and Sally Clarke. Both convicted of child murder, both completely innocent. They both had evidence presented by so called experts who basically hung the innocent women out to dry and had them jailed for life terms. Sally Clarke never recovered and went on to drink herself to death after spending years in prison being terrorised by inmates because she herself was a lawyer and a supposed child murderer.

So it can and does happen. More than we know obviously because not all wrongly convicted people get exonerated (obviously).

 

[scoopj]

Because he made good coffee?

Thank you for that clarification. Then I’m going with innocent.

 

[The Big Yin]

Whereas I fully get what you're saying, I have little faith in many areas of the British justice system.
I'd bring up the cases of Angela Canning and Sally Clarke. Both convicted of child murder, both completely innocent. They both had evidence presented by so called experts who basically hung the innocent women out to dry and had them jailed for life terms. Sally Clarke never recovered and went on to drink herself to death after spending years in prison being terrorised by inmates because she herself was a lawyer and a supposed child murderer.

So it can and does happen. More than we know obviously because not all wrongly convicted people get exonerated (obviously).

You're comparing apples and oranges with Clarke and Canning as those were convictions based on a misuse of statistics and the lack of knowledge around SIDS

The children in the Letby case had injuries, namely injection of air, insulin and the force feeding of milk. These injuries, or symptoms of injuries, were picked up on medical reports immediately prior to death, postmortem and toxicology.

You then start layering in the keepsakes she had at her home address of the dead children, which were their medical material and her "confession" notes. Regardless of why you think she wrote them, and what you think they refer to - it shows a deeply unhinged and seriously unwell person.

She also wasn't arrested immediately. The police were called in to investigate as the child deaths were excessive and they exhausted all reasonable explanations before looking for potential suspects. Letby was the common denominator in all cases. Following arrest they then found the medical paperwork of her victims and her notes. She wasn't named by anyone as responsible, she became the likely suspect following months of painstaking analysis and research.

 

[The Big Yin]

There was a cover up, but it wasn't scapegoating Letby. It was Dr Stephen Breary raising concerns directly about Letby in 2015 to be met with punitive measures by the hospital for effectively bullying her.

 

[scoopj]

You're comparing apples and oranges with Clarke and Canning as those were convictions based on a misuse of statistics and the lack of knowledge around SIDS

The children in the Letby case had injuries, namely injection of air, insulin and the force feeding of milk. These injuries, or symptoms of injuries, were picked up on medical reports immediately prior to death, postmortem and toxicology.

You then start layering in the keepsakes she had at her home address of the dead children, which were their medical material and her "confession" notes. Regardless of why you think she wrote them, and what you think they refer to - it shows a deeply unhinged and seriously unwell person.

She also wasn't arrested immediately. The police were called in to investigate as the child deaths were excessive and they exhausted all reasonable explanations before looking for potential suspects. Letby was the common denominator in all cases. Following arrest they then found the medical paperwork of her victims and her notes. She wasn't named by anyone as responsible, she became the likely suspect following months of painstaking analysis and research.

In light of this new evidence, I'm changing my opinion to guilty, despite the barista thing. @CyberRubberDuck what say you compadre?

 

[Croo67]

Does this notion that she’s innocent not all stem from the widespread belief that NHS workers are angelic superheroes who are incredibly overworked?

She literally wrote in her diary that she did it.

 

[The_Renaissance]

To expand on my earlier comment that Letby looks like she's had a lobotomy. What I mean is she has an autistic glare. I've become actually quite good at guessing if someone "functioning" is on the spectrum- it's the eyes. Dead. Vacant. No expression of emotion. There was a kid who threw a small child off a roof a couple years back in London, just picked him up and threw him to kill him. As soon as I saw his image......autistic. which he is. He's apparently gone on to rape cell mates in prison. There seems to be a level of deviancy with people who are functioning autistic. Like boundaries don't exist as they should. I see the exact same gaze/eyes whenever I see a bearded boy in women's clothing or a frumpy, ugly girl with bumfluff facial hair trying to pass as a boy. All 0n the spectrum

My theory here is that they are "normal" enough to know something isn't right about them and that manifests in various dodgy ways as acts of revenge. Severely autistic people seem to be far more harmless. Likely because they don't know something is off about them.

In Letbys case, I am convinced she's mildly autistic and her crimes were targeting "normal" children who don't deserve to live because she doesn't feel normal and feels robbed.

 

[jimbob27]

Does this notion that she’s innocent not all stem from the widespread belief that NHS workers are angelic superheroes who are incredibly overworked?

She literally wrote in her diary that she did it.

It stems from previous NHS scandals + cover-ups which have been exposed. The first two in this list are really similar, involving the deaths of babies.

Bristol heart scandal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Furness General Hospital scandal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Contaminated blood scandal in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Personally I don't think this was the case with Letby, unless they've done an absolutely masterful job of scapegoating her.... but I've not read too much into the details of the case.

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

You're comparing apples and oranges with Clarke and Canning as those were convictions based on a misuse of statistics and the lack of knowledge around SIDS

The children in the Letby case had injuries, namely injection of air, insulin and the force feeding of milk. These injuries, or symptoms of injuries, were picked up on medical reports immediately prior to death, postmortem and toxicology.

You then start layering in the keepsakes she had at her home address of the dead children, which were their medical material and her "confession" notes. Regardless of why you think she wrote them, and what you think they refer to - it shows a deeply unhinged and seriously unwell person.

She also wasn't arrested immediately. The police were called in to investigate as the child deaths were excessive and they exhausted all reasonable explanations before looking for potential suspects. Letby was the common denominator in all cases. Following arrest they then found the medical paperwork of her victims and her notes. She wasn't named by anyone as responsible, she became the likely suspect following months of painstaking analysis and research.

Not apples and oranges at all. You mention statistics. You clearly have not read the latest findings and the article about David Davis the senior MP who has been contacted by the national office of statistics and has been told by them that the statistics do not add up. This is their profession and they are the ones questioning it. Yet you mention it as one of your points that are relevant in her convictions.

You then go on and talk about keepsakes and her supposed confession notes. Again, you make it obvious you have done zero reading on the recent points where it has been admitted that the hospital rep (health and wellbeing for staff) had told Letby to write down all of her thoughts and things she was worried about. And she wrote that. That is documented and officially known, so is it really any surprise that someone who was being chased and accused by the police over a prolonged period of time up to and over covid, that she would write some pretty nutty sounding ramblings? Surely someone in your line of work would know that this doesn't constitute 'proof' of anything, or even slightly fall into the category of evidence?
Keepsakes? Records of the people she was being accused of killing. Are you telling me that if you were her (and let's say you were innocent) and being accused of killing babies, that it would be surprising that you'd maybe take home notes and documents to try and find something that might point in another direction and away from you being a baby killer? Seriously you consider this damning evidence?
And the fact she by this point has become unhinged by the non stop pursuit by the police to pin the deaths of 7 or so babies on, you don't think it surprising that someone would have their mental wellbeing become slightly fucked up?

Holy shit man, with attitudes like yours I'm not surprised our justice system throws innocent people into prison if that is the best proof you can come up with and then consider it worthy to end someone's life.

Or do you have something worthy of being classed at actual evidence that would convince a jury BEYOND ALL DOUBT?

*Why don't you go read the recent articles rather than the case notes from back during the trial? They will answer pretty much every point you have brought up

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

To expand on my earlier comment that Letby looks like she's had a lobotomy. What I mean is she has an autistic glare. I've become actually quite good at guessing if someone "functioning" is on the spectrum- it's the eyes. Dead. Vacant. No expression of emotion. There was a kid who threw a small child off a roof a couple years back in London, just picked him up and threw him to kill him. As soon as I saw his image......autistic. which he is. He's apparently gone on to rape cell mates in prison. There seems to be a level of deviancy with people who are functioning autistic. Like boundaries don't exist as they should. I see the exact same gaze/eyes whenever I see a bearded boy in women's clothing or a frumpy, ugly girl with bumfluff facial hair trying to pass as a boy. All 0n the spectrum

My theory here is that they are "normal" enough to know something isn't right about them and that manifests in various dodgy ways as acts of revenge. Severely autistic people seem to be far more harmless. Likely because they don't know something is off about them.

In Letbys case, I am convinced she's mildly autistic and her crimes were targeting "normal" children who don't deserve to live because she doesn't feel normal and feels robbed.

Are you basing this diagnosis on the mugshots or the normal photos of her? Because it's amazing how you can draw that conclusion about her from a few photos whereas every one of her personal friends and her family, are absolutely convinced she's innocent. Strange that they haven't got this 6th sense of yours.

 

[Croo67]

Are you basing this diagnosis on the mugshots or the normal photos of her? Because it's amazing how you can draw that conclusion about her from a few photos whereas every one of her personal friends and her family, are absolutely convinced she's innocent. Strange that they haven't got this 6th sense of yours.

Have you seen the video of her arrest? Her bedroom is like an 8-year-old’s - cuddly toys everywhere.

I don’t know a lot about autism, but I wouldn’t say it looked like she lived like a normal 30 something year old.

 

[The Big Yin]

Not apples and oranges at all. You mention statistics. You clearly have not read the latest findings and the article about David Davis the senior MP who has been contacted by the national office of statistics and has been told by them that the statistics do not add up. This is their profession and they are the ones questioning it. Yet you mention it as one of your points that are relevant in her convictions.

You then go on and talk about keepsakes and her supposed confession notes. Again, you make it obvious you have done zero reading on the recent points where it has been admitted that the hospital rep (health and wellbeing for staff) had told Letby to write down all of her thoughts and things she was worried about. And she wrote that. That is documented and officially known, so is it really any surprise that someone who was being chased and accused by the police over a prolonged period of time up to and over covid, that she would write some pretty nutty sounding ramblings? Surely someone in your line of work would know that this doesn't constitute 'proof' of anything, or even slightly fall into the category of evidence?
Keepsakes? Records of the people she was being accused of killing. Are you telling me that if you were her (and let's say you were innocent) and being accused of killing babies, that it would be surprising that you'd maybe take home notes and documents to try and find something that might point in another direction and away from you being a baby killer? Seriously you consider this damning evidence?
And the fact she by this point has become unhinged by the non stop pursuit by the police to pin the deaths of 7 or so babies on, you don't think it surprising that someone would have their mental wellbeing become slightly fucked up?

Holy shit man, with attitudes like yours I'm not surprised our justice system throws innocent people into prison if that is the best proof you can come up with and then consider it worthy to end someone's life.

Or do you have something worthy of being classed at actual evidence that would convince a jury BEYOND ALL DOUBT?

*Why don't you go read the recent articles rather than the case notes from back during the trial? They will answer pretty much every point you have brought up

I think you need to put the bottle down. I've literally given you an insight into the criminal justice system and you respond with a rant like that.

I haven't read to into the case and to be honest I don't give a shit about it. Like I said, armchair solicitors and Columbos will be arguing the toss with about 5% of the case file available to them.

 

[The_Renaissance]

Have you seen the video of her arrest? Her bedroom is like an 8-year-old’s - cuddly toys everywhere.

I don’t know a lot about autism, but I wouldn’t say it looked like she lived like a normal 30 something year old.

EXACTLY. She's head fucked. Clearly guilty. Again I have never heard her speak she seemed to vacantly accept it.

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

I think you need to put the bottle down. I've literally given you an insight into the criminal justice system and you respond with a rant like that.

I haven't read to into the case and to be honest I don't give a shit about it. Like I said, armchair solicitors and Columbos will be arguing the toss with about 5% of the case file available to them.

But I'm talking about the recent findings and you give me a basic outlay of what the original court case would have consisted of.
I'm talking about a possible miscarriage of justice and you (being a legal professional) come on here to talk about her conviction alone, followed by a "I don't give a shit about the case" statement, even though I'm specifically talking about what has happened since she got jailed for a whole life term.


Why even bother commenting? Your insight could have been useful yet you have done the typical brain-dead sherdogger thing.

 

[The Big Yin]

But I'm talking about the recent findings and you give me a basic outlay of what the original court case would have consisted of.
I'm talking about a possible miscarriage of justice and you (being a legal professional) come on here to talk about her conviction alone, followed by a "I don't give a shit about the case" statement, even though I'm specifically talking about what has happened since she got jailed for a whole life term.


Why even bother commenting? Your insight could have been useful yet you have done the typical brain-dead sherdogger thing.

Come back to me when she's exonerated.....try not to get to wound up in the meantime