14 hours ago, Liam S said:

Article in the New York Times about the guy whose work was used to convict Lucy Letby and has since gone on a mission to free her. A lot of people say the Jury sat through 9 months of evidence but the media did too. They heard the same evidence and the lead writer who was there every single day from The Guardian said he changed his mind on her guilt due to Shoo Lee.

https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/21/world/europe/lucy-letby-nurse-murder.html

I remain convinced that, based on the evidence they heard, the jury were right to convict Letby. Any reservations I have about the verdict are based on whether her defence team did their job adequately. For example, the defence didn't call any expert witnesses to counter those called by the prosecution. It wouldn't be a surprise of the jury concluded that there were no experts with a different point of view.

55 minutes ago, Suedehead2 said:

I remain convinced that, based on the evidence they heard, the jury were right to convict Letby. Any reservations I have about the verdict are based on whether her defence team did their job adequately. For example, the defence didn't call any expert witnesses to counter those called by the prosecution. It wouldn't be a surprise of the jury concluded that there were no experts with a different point of view.

Yeah they had a case that without hearing rebuttals sounded solid. It looked and sounded like she did it. You could do that with most cases though. If you hear just one side in a court you will likely be swayed heavily by that. You need to hear both sides. For some reason her defence was pretty bad. We’ve only really heard alternative explanations since the trial. That’s the problem with complex medical trials. The jury might not understand the info. Maybe her own defence team didn’t. Maybe he thought she did it too. No idea. But the resources were on the prosecutions side. Legal Aid doesn’t get you the experts you need, especially not for a 9 month trial. Maybe it just came down to finances.

I don’t want this to seem like propaganda. It’s genuinely just a non stop unravelling of the case.

Lucy Letby’s conviction and whole life sentence for attempting to murder the infant known as Baby L rests on a test on a single sample of his blood taken at 3.40pm on 9 April 2016, the second day of his life. A vulnerable twin who had failed to thrive in utero, he weighed just 3.2lb, and despite being put on a dextrose drip, he became dangerously hypoglycaemic. The reason, the prosecution claimed at nurse Letby’s trial, was a “deliberate act of sabotage”, for the blood test proved she had poisoned him with insulin.

Now, I can reveal, fresh evidence casts this claim in doubt. Unbeknown to the jury, the lab that tested Baby L’s blood underwent a routine assessment a few weeks later, which found it exaggerated the level of insulin in a quality control sample by almost 800%.

UnHerd

Were the blood tests in Lucy Letby's conviction flawed?

Lucy Letby’s conviction and whole life sentence for attempting to murder the infant known as Baby L rests on a test on a single sample of his blood taken at 3.40pm on 9 April 2016, the second day o...

Pretty extraordinary. If this was America they’d be pardoning by her by now.

Former Supreme Court Justice on why he believes she’s innocent but doesn’t trust the UK system to overturn it

https://archive.is/20250330091516/https://t.co/4YhvJkC9El

Edited March 30Mar 30 by Liam S

There is exactly zero evidence given in that article other than inadmissible hearsay. There’s no extract or quote from the report, there’s no link to its published findings

If you will blindly trust everything you read….

2 hours ago, Silas said:

There is exactly zero evidence given in that article other than inadmissible hearsay. There’s no extract or quote from the report, there’s no link to its published findings

If you will blindly trust everything you read….

The author is a very credible investigative reporter.

Did you read the Supreme Court justice piece in the times today?

Jonathan Sumption: Why I believe...

Jonathan Sumption: Why I believe Lucy Letby is probably i...

The former Supreme Court judge says the nurse was found guilty on circumstantial evidence, but fears our legal system means her conviction will never be overturned

Does it not seem astounding that top judges and lawyers and experts in their field all think this is a huge miscarriage of justice?

For me we are way past opinions. it’s objectively a miscarriage of justice it’s just whether the system makes it official. It’s a good litmus test on people’s judgment. This case will go down in history one way or another.

23 minutes ago, Liam S said:

The author is a very credible investigative reporter.

Did you read the Supreme Court justice piece in the times today?

Jonathan Sumption: Why I believe...

Jonathan Sumption: Why I believe Lucy Letby is probably i...

The former Supreme Court judge says the nurse was found guilty on circumstantial evidence, but fears our legal system means her conviction will never be overturned

Does it not seem astounding that top judges and lawyers and experts in their field all think this is a huge miscarriage of justice?

For me we are way past opinions. it’s objectively a miscarriage of justice it’s just whether the system makes it official. It’s a good litmus test on people’s judgment. This case will go down in history one way or another.

I read this article today, for a start he's got a few basic facts about the case wrong so it's a bit hard to take it seriously. Plus he's trotting out that tired "circumstantial evidence" line... 🙄

This is also somebody who was pushing insane conspiracy theories during the pandemic, so it's not like they're the most credible of individuals. He sounds like one of those cranks you often see on Facebook ranting about the case.

It's bordering on misinformation saying that it is objective truth when actually this has not been proven in a court of law. It doesn't matter how many tabloid media articles you post and how much you want it to be true, it's still all speculation.

13 hours ago, Chez Wombat said:

It's bordering on misinformation saying that it is objective truth when actually this has not been proven in a court of law. It doesn't matter how many tabloid media articles you post and how much you want it to be true, it's still all speculation.

It’s a very bizarre take to say things like this. It’s objectively a miscarriage of justice that’s pretty much established fact at this point. Whether she is guilty or innocent is still left to opinions even though it’s increasing looking a little sketchy to hold the guilty opinion.

I don’t understand how you think at all. If a court convicts me of shooting someone in the head and I didn’t do it it’s a miscarriage of justice if I’m locked up for that whether the court says so or not. If it’s provable that a prosecution case was presented in a misleading way and jurors were misled and ultimately it wasn’t a fair trial this is a miscarriage of justice. This is irrespective of what happens in a court.

There’s no reason to want something to be true for me. I’m interested in the truth and once it’s established what that is then it’s important you get a fair justice system but I’m not reliant on a bad system to tell me what is or isn’t true. That’s a very odd way to think

This is not tabloid speculation. It’s reporting on substantial evidence by leading experts in the world it’s literally the opposite of speculation.

Edited March 31Mar 31 by Liam S

13 hours ago, Jessie Where said:

I read this article today, for a start he's got a few basic facts about the case wrong so it's a bit hard to take it seriously. Plus he's trotting out that tired "circumstantial evidence" line... 🙄

This is also somebody who was pushing insane conspiracy theories during the pandemic, so it's not like they're the most credible of individuals. He sounds like one of those cranks you often see on Facebook ranting about the case.

I’m not aware of the Covid stuff but a lot of conspiracies were true about Covid not least the originating from the lab thing.

It is all circumstantial and while that can be good evidence ultimately a lot of miscarriages of justice had similar issues.

The famous Central Park 5 case was very much overwhelming clear they did it on first look. They were in the vicinity, there were confessions, they’d be involved in multiple crimes, they all blamed each other, the victim thought it was them etc etc. Only years later once the actual perpetrator came forward and you saw his history of crimes did an alternative explanation make more sense. This is very similar. Only once you see everything properly does the prosecution case truly get exposed l, before that it looks solid. The victim still can’t wrap her head around it not being them. Famous Dr Phil episode where a rape victim still can’t believe the guy who was locked up for it was proven not to have done it. It’s very common to be unable to see the light so to speak.

Ultimately the insulin was the smoking gun and once that has fallen apart then the rest becomes easier to grasp alternative explanations for everything else.

To say it’s speculation is madness. The whole point is the prosecution case was essentially speculation presented as the only possibility and we’ve since been aware of more possibilities by various world leading experts and these possibilities make far more sense.

I don’t know if it’s normalcy bias or some people are slower than others to grasp things but to suggest it’s tabloid speculation is pretty wide of the mark. Has there ever been a case in the last 50 years that has new experts or credible people or new evidence on a daily/weekly basis undermining the conviction? I’ve never once seen such a case.

You believe it to be a miscarriage of justice based on what you're reading, it doesn't mean it is factually is. None of this evidence has been proven in court or deemed sufficient enough to reopen her trial as of yet. It is ultimately just a point of media speculation based on people that weren't involved in the cases. This is clearly a complex case and you can't call it in a black and white way, it has not been proven she is not guilty of the crimes convicted therefore you cannot objectively state this is a miscarriage of justice.

So today they’ll finally be handing in the full evidence to the CCRC

BBC News

Lucy Letby barrister to submit 'fresh evidence' to review...

Letby's barrister Mark McDonald says he will hand over detailed medical reports to the CCRC.

You can see the PR war going on. The lead detective decided to release a statement last night to put pressure the other way as well as recent pressure from the KC representing the families who also was the prosecuting KC so two people with a lot to lose if it goes against them. Which is interesting. A lot of stuff seems more like personalities and egos than any real care for fairness or the truth.

So they are submitting two separate things.

A 698 report by various professionals covering every case.

An 86 page report covering the insulin cases.

Ideally they just look at the insulin cases and grant an appeal from there it’d save a lot of time. If they actually have to analyse the 700 page report we could be waiting years.

I’m a very common sense sense person so the jury were told explicitly there was only one possibility with the insulin results and that was that the baby was poisoned. As it turns out there were various possibilities and insulin experts worldwide disputed the prosecution claim since the trial. To me that is a simple obvious case of misleading the jury and an unsafe conviction and an appeal should be granted. Procedure and nonsense about new evidence and whether it was known at the time and whether a bad defense is good enough reason for an appeal seems to take precedent in this country so nobody knows what will happen.

We shall just have to wait and see.

I don't know if you know this, but Letby HERSELF conceded during her cross-examination that the babies had indeed been deliberately poisoned with insulin but "not by her" apparently (yeah right)

In an unusual step the telegraph is calling on the CCRC to refer the case back to the court of appeal suggesting there is clear evidence of a miscarriage of justice

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2025/04/05/justice-delayed-is-justice-denied-ccrc-leader/

The case keeps unravelling

Mail Online

Lucy Letby could be freed after email casts doubt on cour...

The memo, revealed yesterday, is a significant boost to the nurse's legal fight to overturn her convictions.

Basically if you take this case and reset it. So you look at babies dying under a scope of poor care, viruses going around etc. Spikes occasionally happening in the NHS all over the place. It’s pretty plausible. Then if you look at cases of nurses being wrongly convicted you’d be very reluctant to even attempt to seriously think that’s a strong possibility without anything to go on….except other staff raised concerns.

That’s where it all started after all.

Now I was always a little skeptical of this guy purely because he’s a TV doctor. What are the odds a TV doctor just happens to be on the unit of a serial killer but it’s possible.

However. There was a problem. After the prosecution researched Air Embolism and found a paper that spoke of colour changes on the skin this TV doctor put in his statement and testified in court almost an identical finding on the baby in question as stated in the paper on air embolism. Almost matching completely. The problem? In his statement to the police 10 months earlier he never mentioned this at all. Another problem? In the doctors notes from the time it took place he also never mentioned it whatsoever. A very odd thing to leave out.

Now the only time anyone ever came close to seeing Lucy harm a baby was when this same doctor said he walked in on her just standing there doing nothing as a baby deteriorated. This story has slightly changed various times but overall he claimed to have heard things going off and walked in on her not doing anything with a tube dislodged.

The email found shows an email in which it states Lucy called this doctor in to help. So he didn’t walk in on her and catch her in the act at all, she called him in.

Never seen a case like this before.

The main prosecutor assigned the case Dewi Evans had a judge say this about him previously

in December 2022, a judge declared his report in a case involving parents' access to their children made 'no effort to provide a balanced opinion'.

Describing his evidence as 'worthless', Court of Appeal judge Lord Justice Jackson said: 'He either knows what his professional colleagues have concluded and disregards it or he has not taken steps to inform himself of their views.

'Either approach amounts to a breach of proper professional conduct. No attempt has been made to engage with the full range of medical information or the powerful contradictory indicators. Instead the report has the hallmarks of an exercise in 'working out an explanation' that exculpates the applicants.

'It ends with tendentious and partisan expressions of opinion that are outside Dr Evans' professional competence and have no place in a reputable expert report.'

The second expert called to essentially confirm Dewi’s theories and medical assertions was Dr Sandy Bohin and it was revealed by MP David Davis that numerous families are complaining about her

During his speech to parliament, he said: ‘Questions have also been raised about the second expert witness for the prosecution, Dr Sandie Bohin.

‘Eight families are currently filing formal complaints against her over their children’s care, which are being considered by the General Medical Council.’

One member of the families’ group confirmed that eight local families submitted a complaint to the GMC in June 2024.

‘As of December 2024, that matter was still being considered by the GMC due to its complex nature,’ they added.

And the main witness Dr Jayaram who’s suspicions started this whole investigation has now been caught completely contradicting himself on a huge issue that is hard to fathom how you get to what he said in court given what he put in the email at the time

The court of appeal which denied Letby an appeal was pretty scathing about Jayaram and said this

“Legitimate criticism can be made of his evidence… although he believed that Letby had deliberately dislodged the endotracheal tube, he said nothing about it at the time, nor for many months thereafter. There was an inconsistency between his evidence and the contemporaneous records.”

Meanwhile in contrast world leading experts around in the world and here in the UK in their respective fields have all looked at things such as the insulin claims and concluded these assertions made by the prosecution cannot possibly be known and the conclusions they made are wholly unsafe. They’ve done this without any benefit to them. No financial benefit. Nothing to gain. The current best insulin experts out there all have come forward. In terms of credibility I would be on the side of the latter by a long way. It’s night and day at this point.

Edited April 14Apr 14 by Liam S

Locking this thread for now until such time as something substantial (e.g. BBC breaking news alert) comes out about the case, nothing more to be gained from going over tabloid articles about it.