I’m fine it’s the people clutching their pearls at the defence of an “evil baby killer!!” because The Sun told them so that I’m worried about :lol:

 

What a stupid thing to say. Even though I may not have agreed with your points, I could've at least respected them but you've undone any semblance of credibility you may have had with that.

What a stupid thing to say. Even though I may not have agreed with your points, I could've at least respected them but you've undone any semblance of credibility you may have had with that.

 

I mean, the very next post after that kind of proves my point:

 

That’s lovely, I’m more concerned about how the families of those poor babies are feeling.

 

Nobody can have a serious discussion about the fact that a woman’s life may have been ruined by a witch hunt based on flimsy evidence without breaking out the emotive language to shame anyone who questions it. She’s a pariah and it’s social suicide to be seen as ”defending” her so people aren’t willing to look at this from an unbiased perspective.

Erm how is that using emotive language to shame people? Whatever happens, whatever piece of evidence gets analysed or even overturned, those parents have still lost their babies. That's a fact.

I think this highlights why the media shouldn't be allowed to publish anything about a case until the defendant is found guilty. If they are using the "biased" headlines that could have (and probably did) influence the jury it shows that all prosecution cases should be private, especially for those who are innocent and are found innocent but still have their lives ruined.

 

I do want to state I don't believe for a moment she is innocent based on what I have seen and read of the case.

Juries are always told explicitly that they should not read about or research the case outside the courtroom.

Well actually my comment was to remind people about the real victims of this situation. I don’t really like seeing people seemingly getting excited about proving people wrong and stating that people are ‘stubborn’ and ‘unbelievably stupid’ because they disagree with you-within the same breath as saying people can’t handle a different opinion.

 

The fact is, whatever happened, these families have suffered and will continue to do so-more so if this is dragged out. Quite honestly, if the convictions ever were overturned, I’d honestly still believe her guilt. All that will have changed is that they wouldn’t be able to say for definite that she killed them-or didn’t kill them. Hospitals wouldn’t touch her. Not even her parents coming in for a meeting would get her back into the medical profession. It’s highly likely her life would not be worth living should she be released.

 

And we clearly don’t all just believe what the media tells us. Otherwise we’d all be supportive of these appeals right now.

On the jury thing there was a crazy story I don’t know if you guys saw it. Basically someone called to say a juror was in a shop and was overheard saying they made up their mind on her ages ago. The judge investigated and decided the shop owner had a grudge against the juror because their partner was assaulted by them or something like that. Just another bizarre thing about this - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...n-newborns.html

 

The new episode of the daily mail podcast on this is probably the fairest thing you’ll find about all the new information. The barrister they got on who’s attitude was ‘you haven’t read the appeals remarks and you’re all ignorant armchair detectives’ nevertheless was still pretty fair in what he said.

 

What’s interesting is finances are a big problem here. The state had unlimited funds almost while she relied on legal aid which often doesn’t pay enough for the best experts and given that in mind it might be why the defense never really called any. But that’s hard to really dig into. It’s all speculation. Even her new defense barrister seems amateur to me, his twitter is unimpressive to say the least. As per usual the justice system is more about finances than justice, I’m sure if she was rich she wouldn’t be in prison right now.

I'd guess that if she ever did get released she'd need a new identity as her life would be in danger from vigilantes who were convinced she was guilty. She'd have to go under an alias to another continent probably. I heard on good authority that Sion Jenkins refused a new identity when he was released, saying he'd done nothing wrong. Step-daughter Billie- Jo, 14 was bludgeoned to death. Still gets people shouting things at him in the street. Many do believe he still did it. Barry George moved to Ireland.

Juries are always told explicitly that they should not read about or research the case outside the courtroom.

 

I don’t believe for a second they don’t read them, and cases like that one how do you avoid it? Even my grandmother who doesn’t watch any news and read the papers called her the heartless baby killer, she knew of Lucy.

 

While I don’t think it’s the case here at all, she was never going to be able to live a normal life again after if found innocent after all that publicity. I truly think there should be no media coverage of crimes until after guilty verdicts.

Obviously this is not the full details of this specific baby. But she was convicted of murder for this baby. Now how do you read this and come to the conclusion it was murder? Even if you think it’s murder the level of doubt is huge.

 

https://archive.ph/20241112233137/https://w...spital-murders/

 

Basically a baby born prematurely had pneumonia. The symptoms and death mirrored pneumonia. The post mortem found clear evidence of pneumonia. No evidence was found at all of being injected with air embolism. Yet she was convicted of murder by air embolism. It seems extremely sketchy. I just don’t get how you get a murder conviction here.

 

When vulnerable people have an infection you need antibiotics to help the body fight the infection or it can lead to sepsis or the person can get worse or die but they didn’t do that. So clear failure of standards and an NHS fault. And while this is one case this is kind of the counter argument that the ward was understaffed and badly run leading to NHS negligence which increased deaths that year. But I recommend reading that article because I fail to see how anyone can read it and think it was more likely murder than not.

 

This could be an interesting one to keep an eye on - Cheshire police have been confirmed that she's recently been interviewed in prison under caution about other suspicious baby deaths, both at the Countess of Chester and Liverpool Women's Hospital where she did her training.

 

Further charges could potentially be brought in the new year.

 

 

The appeal is based on experts changing their mind & other evidence such as a baby’s death being due to another doctors error that was not reported at the time.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyv3jlzme90o.amp

 

A bombshell has just been relayed by consultant neonatologist Richard Taylor: Baby O's death, per the medical report commissioned by the defence, was caused by a medical error that led to a perforation of the liver.

 

"I have to say, from personal point of view, if this had happened to me, I would not be able to sleep at night," Taylor said, "knowing that what I had done, had led to the death of a baby, and now there is a nurse, in jail, convicted of murder."

 

The panel has declined to name the doctor who allegedly caused the liver perforation, but pointed out that it is NOT any of the doctors granted anonymity by the courts.

 

No idea if it’ll be successful but a retrial or appeal seems logical given the huge doubts

Edited December 16, 2024Dec 16 by Liam sota

And said expert has now come out and said that he didn’t say he’d changed his mind about anything.

And said expert has now come out and said that he didn’t say he’d changed his mind about anything.

 

I’m sure he has to. Maybe he can defend his words but if you look at Reddit and stuff this was discussed months ago. Here are a few extracts.

 

This is from 76 days ago

 

 

If you email Dewi Evans, as I have at length, he now admits that he got it wrong over air injection by the NG tube in all three cases, that the court of appeal document is factually incorrect and that he changed his mind over the causes of death, and now thinks it has nothing to do with air down the NG tube, but rather air injected into the veins, which he somehow failed to spot first time around. So he changed his mind halfway through the trial and nobody spotted it. Is that even allowed?

This is also from 76 days ago

 

I mentioned in my account that he changed his view during cross-examination in court, as discussed here.

 

[Evans] told the jury that this "trauma" had "no" innocent explanation and suggested it could have been caused by a medical tool called an introducer.

 

Dr Evans said: "There are number of bits equipment that are relatively rigid.

 

"There are plastic tubes used for suction, there could have been interference with that.

 

"Or there's the introducer, a thin wire surrounded by plastic, it's more than sufficient to cause trauma if it was used inappropriately.

 

"I can't be certain about what caused trauma, but it was some kind of relatively stiff thing, sufficient to cause extraordinary bleeding."

 

He added: "There is no evidence at all that this was a natural phenomenon, it's not something I have ever seen in my decades in neonatology."

 

Then he basically backpedalled on that, and attributed the case to an air embolism instead:

 

Ben Myers KC, defending, put it to Dr Evans that he was "looking for possible items just to support the allegation, than simply looking at all the available facts".

 

The expert went on to tell the court that a "more significant factor" in Child E's death was the injection of air into his bloodstream.

 

He said the "very peculiar" patches noted on Child E by medics in the hours before his death were a result of air embolism.

 

He said: "I have only seen [the patches] in literature presentations, other than in this series of cases.

 

"Having seen them I thought [Child E] had been subjected to an air embolism."

 

Yeah, it's definitely on form for him, it's more that it's easier to see now that it isn't being buried in a morass of idiotic, irrelevant texts etc. I think one difference now is that he's really hanging his fellow experts out to dry with Baby C. They were all about death by air in the stomach, now he's saying nah, that was wrong, never mind.

 

 

Making no judgment on her guilt or not this guy basically was just looking for anything. It’s possible she murdered those babies and he has the wrong cause of death on some. There are many possibilities. He does seem less than credible so it’ll be interesting how this appeal goes.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgl5yyg1x6o

 

Even if you think she’s guilty the amount of experts passing doubt on this case is extraordinarily large. That in itself is very unusual.

In summary of these new evidence.

 

After comprehensively going every case they found their to be another reason the baby died. Either natural causes or an error from somebody else.

 

The guy behind the air embolism paper used by the prosecution to convict her totally disputes the claim and categorically states he doesn’t think she injected the babies via air embolism

 

Now this part is key for me. One of the babies she was convicted of killing it is now thought after various experts going over the case that the baby died due to a specific doctors error. That same doctor was one of the main people initially pushing the idea Lucy was behind these deaths.

 

I’ve gone from thinking she’s guilty to just not being sure either way but now I think it’s very possible she didn’t kill any of these babies at least not intentionally.

This is how you know British justice is a sham https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/fe...y-get-a-retrial

 

There is overwhelming clear evidence that makes it highly probable the first trial was based off faulty conclusions and bad evidence. Instead of swiftly assessing the new information they will take YEARS to review if it meets the criteria of ‘new evidence’ if it does then they might have a retrial in 3+ years and the CPS will refuse bail while all this is happening at every stage because ‘two juries’ found her guilty.

 

The fact is her original trial lasted 8 months. One Juror left after 7 months and another found her not guilty on most charges except the ones with insulin which has since been hotly disputed. So she was found guilty on most verdicts 10-1 not 12-0 which isn’t ideal and not even legal in some countries.

 

Meanwhile once she was found guilty a judge decided in new trials for the ones that reached no verdict the Jury can use the fact she was found guilty of murdering babies in another trial to help their decision. Effectively meaning she’ll 100% be found guilty by any new jury for these cases.

 

To make matters more problematic on these lines police are now trying to find any potentially or remotely suspect deaths in her history and presenting them as her murdering the baby, knowing that if it goes to trial a judge can again instruct the jury to take into account she was found guilty of murdering babies before and they’ll probably find her guilty again no matter how innocuous the evidence is.

 

So the police basically have a remit to pat themselves on the back as catching and uncovering an evil mass murderer and make their career accomplishments look real good.

 

Meanwhile the actual reality is in all likelihood these babies died due to understaffed and bad NHS care. I think this really sums up modern Britain honestly. Systems that lack all sense. People embellishing themselves instead of uncovering the truth. Everything taking forever and a day.

 

How can it be that you can be convicted of the most serious of crimes by sketchy theories that aren’t proven at all but to overturn this you need new concrete irrefutable proof that wasn’t available at the time the first trial happened(why should it even matter)

 

If someone is wrongfully convicted they shouldn’t have to wait 10 years for dinosaurs to admit they messed up. Crazy

 

 

Lucy Letby should be released immediately under house arrest until her case is reheard in the courts, the medical expert at the heart of her appeal has told The Telegraph.

 

Prof Shoo Lee, whose academic work was cited by the prosecution during her trial, said he was “pretty certain” she had not murdered or attempted to murder any babies.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/06...medical-review/

 

 

Edited February 6Feb 6 by Liam sota

The fact is her original trial lasted 8 months. One Juror left after 7 months and another found her not guilty on most charges except the ones with insulin which has since been hotly disputed. So she was found guilty on most verdicts 10-1 not 12-0 which isn’t ideal and not even legal in some countries.

 

I don't quite know where you've got this one from. For example, the count of Child O which was not insulin she was found guilty unanimously by all 11 jurors.

 

Also, this new "development" is 100% going to get thrown out by the CCRC. It doesn't contain any new evidence, they are rehashing previous defence talking points as if it's new and these people were not at the trial either. Dr Lee's part has already been ruled as irrelevant.

 

 

I don't quite know where you've got this one from. For example, the count of Child O which was not insulin she was found guilty unanimously by all 11 jurors.

 

Also, this new "development" is 100% going to get thrown out by the CCRC. It doesn't contain any new evidence, they are rehashing previous defence talking points as if it's new and these people were not at the trial either. Dr Lee's part has already been ruled as irrelevant.

 

Well I have no faith in the system to be sure what will happen but some very credible legal people think they’ll have to give it every consideration.

 

Child O 5 different experts have all given different conclusions to how the baby died. And that’s really the point, nobody knows. If you have American experts saying there is no way the prosecution evidence adds up, Canadian experts saying the hospital should have been shut down it was run so poorly it’s a terrible look to use very sketchy claims by a very sketchy person to maintain a false narrative.

 

I think Jeremy Vine did a good job making people aware Dewi is a very sketchy guy motivated probably by money.

 

@1887088353067090073

 

So you have the insulin as one unanimous verdict and the other was the one which essentially claims she assaulted the baby. This one another expert said the damage probably was caused by resuscitation, another by another’s doctor error, another by a birthing abnormality, and these are far more credible experts than Dewi.

 

To have a case of 30 parts and when one part is proven false deny an appeal based on the fact that were 29 other parts is ludicrous since nobody knows what was key and what wasn’t in a juries mind and most of the parts zeroed in on become flimsy.

 

So the appeal courts rejected that the author of a paper the prosecution used to allege air embolism said they misread his paper based on the fact that was a ‘small part’ but the other parts don’t add up either.

 

It’s a hot mess, we shall see where it goes but Dewi Evan’s seems to be the only evil person in all of this

 

Private Eye (who are invariably morally and factually right on almost everything) have a special online downloadable Letby link to evidence that suggests she should be allowed to appeal. The main thrust seems to be the part that statistics played in the conviction as opposed to actual provable medical evidence. Essentially Cluster numbers can happen naturally in statistics, even in suspicious-looking tragedies like this, where some of the ill babies had underlying conditions. Cross-referenced with who is on duty (and Letby wasn't on duty for the majority of the still-high numbers of deaths) at the very least throws a question over the validity of making assumptions based on "clusters" and a duty roster which may or may not mean anything.

 

I have no view either way, but I do believe in truth and evidence and have seen enough wrongful convictions in my life to realise that both prosecutors or defence can sometimes be lacking in thoroughness at their job. People are fallible, that's a fact.