Letby didn't murder babies new experts claim.

It's difficult to assess why such frail babies die, so I'm not surprised that expers differ.
However, expert testimony was only part of the case.
The jury had also to consider
Her diary entries
Evidence of Ms Letby being in certain places at certain times
The unprecedented peak in infant deaths that occurred around her time at the hospital
Etc
I was not in court, so would not be able offer an opinion on her guilt, but experts were only part of her case.

I think without doubt she is guilty, no doubt a clever lawyer will explore loopholes.

I'm not sure what all took place and I'm no lawyer, but if Ms Letby is innocent, what really happened and why did those babies die? My own understanding is Ms Letby was the common factor in the deaths. If it is discovered it's not her, then this throws up a lot more questions. Like others, it's the bereaved families I feel for.

Thank god we don’t have the death penalty.

I’ve no idea about Letby’s guilt, but if in subsequent years she is found to be innocent, - if there had been a death penalty, she surely would have been put to death.

Just wondering .Magenta how you feel in this case about diary entries such as “I killed them. I did it on purpose.” and ‘I am evil. I don’t deserve to live” amongst other comments that co-incided with babies’ deaths.

I think these would have been crucial to a jury decision. Not all of her diary comments have been released. It must have been harrowing for the jury to have to read through them.

Even if some medical evidence is in question as to whether she did murder those babies, she thought and wrote about planning and causing the deaths of babies many times. And then babies died.

I am in favour of a re-trial with all the evidence made public, including the full diary entries, in order to call a halt to this constant publicity.

I wonder who is funding all this, and why.

What I found was this

"Mark McDonald of Furnival Chambers, revealed yesterday that he is representing Letby, who is serving a whole life sentence after being convicted of seven counts of murder and the attempted murder of seven others.

McDonald posted on Twitter that he is providing his services for free on the matter and is working with veteran MP David Davis, who has voiced scepticism about the safety of Letby’s convictions.

I couldn't understand why her father had to intervene on numerous occasions.

Why on earth are you saying that as a title for the OP? You don’t know that she didn’t murder babies and a jury felt that on the basis of all the evidence that she did exactly that.

It would not be the first time the jury has reached the wrong conclusion . Look at the man who has just been proven not guilty of a murder over 38 years ago. Then there were the women found guilty of killing their offspring when it was a genetic flaw when the babies died.

Looks psychopathic to me.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-65176260

Just read the new and full detail from the top experts.

2 days ago - a lot has changed in 2 years

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/14/the-convictions-of-lucy-letby-should-they-be-overturned

Do you discount the diary entries Aveline?

Like many here I thought she was guilty, then I listened to File on 4 and changed my mind.

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0023vnp

Lathyrus3

Do you discount the diary entries Aveline?

There were no diary entries. There were various scribbled notes she may, or may not, have been been spurted out after having been encouraged to write after therapeutic counselling.

OldFrill

Lathyrus3

Do you discount the diary entries Aveline?

There were no diary entries. There were various scribbled notes she may, or may not, have been been spurted out after having been encouraged to write after therapeutic counselling.

And the notes she kept about the dead babies under her bed?

The days of their death marked in her diaries with their initials.

You don’t think there’s something adrift?

I'm sure she was deeply distressed by the deaths and tortured herself wondering if they had been her fault. Writing what she did is entirely explicable in those terms.
The findings of those top professionals should absolutely be considered and the cases reopened.

I don't see anything odd about noting the death of children you have looked after. If the notes gave details of how they died that would be an issue but not the death itself

Yes she may have been a common factor but that does not mean she was guilty. Remember that years ago, many experts looked for the cause of cancer and a common factor was the use of tarmacadam on the roads. How many people now blame tarmac? Paediatricians from around the world have different views about the "evidence " which was used to convict Letby.

Lathyrus3

OldFrill

Lathyrus3

Do you discount the diary entries Aveline?

There were no diary entries. There were various scribbled notes she may, or may not, have been been spurted out after having been encouraged to write after therapeutic counselling.

And the notes she kept about the dead babies under her bed?

The days of their death marked in her diaries with their initials.

You don’t think there’s something adrift?

The interpretation of abbreviations in her notes was speculative. I've kept notes with initials on that meant something at the time but l couldn't tell you now what they meant. They would be open to any incorrect speculative interpretation by others. The media used the notes to great affect to persuade the public she was guilty. Many, many experts are now adamant, not only that Letby did not murder the babies, but that the babies were not murdered
In the case of Peter Sullivan he confessed to the murder, more than once, but he was actually innocent. His confession sealed his fate. Don't be too readily fooled by speculative interpretation of "notes". Fitting supposed evidence to match a crime is not detection, it's deception.

orly

It makes you wonder what good the justice system is. Every verdict and sentence is appealed and often reversed. Still it keeps all those legal boffins off the street and gainfully employed I suppose.

Yes indeed.

Personally I think it’s important that an appeal can be held and the evidence re-examined.

As well as those found innocent, reexamination, as in the Henratty case, brought an end to to the constant torment of the victim by those who doubted his guilt.

Constant questioning of the Letby verdict needs to be brought to an end, one way or another.

Can I ask if those who believe in her innocence would accept a second guilty verdict or would they carry on questioning?

I think she is innocent but if a jury decided she was guilty after a second trial with new evidence then, yes, I would accept it.

As has been said earlier,if in fact she is innocent an awful lot of questions about the standard of care and other hospital staff needs to be looked at.

Skydancer

orly

It makes you wonder what good the justice system is. Every verdict and sentence is appealed and often reversed. Still it keeps all those legal boffins off the street and gainfully employed I suppose.

Yes indeed.

Some stats please for "every verdict and sentence is ...... often reversed"

It took 38 years in prison before Peter Simpson was proven innocent (although l don't think the actual verdict has been technically reversed yet).

Babs03

I apologise if I didn’t include the whole title, was trying to be brief.
I hope the whole thread isn’t just going to be about the title.
I suspect I should have included a question mark.

Babs please don't take this to heart.

Yes, if you are quoting a title (or anything else) it should be in full or it should show in a way, generally accepted by everyone (not just a GN few), that you have elected to omit something. It should also be attributed.

However, I have seen far, far worse. Some are simply an attempt at manipulation of those reading. This was far from that. It's not an easy topic but people will want to try and understand what has happened.