Letby didn't murder babies new experts claim.

nanna8

An awful lot of coincidences. Or someone was lying.

Have you watched the report Nanna8?

GrannyGravy13

I assume this is regarding the press conference held by the new legal team of Lucy Letby.

It was just that a press conference with new neonatal experts giving their views.

Have you watched it GrannyGravy13? It's very informative (educational?) and it's very reasonable to think those carrying it out know a great deal more on this subject than we do.

PoliticsNerd

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.

The title apology quoted dates back to early February and l don't see why it's being raised again now.
Let's keep it relevant, enough people are deflecting without added pedancy.

Maybe I could be accused of being cynical, but in many murder cases there are people who see the verdict as an opportunity to raise their own professional profiles by querying the verdict. That is not to say that there are not terrible injustices which have come to light - the latest one being that of Peter Sullivan.

But jurors sat for, what must have been an arduous and distressing, 145 days listening to the evidence of 246 witnesses. That evidence included several hand-written notes of Letby, which aided her conviction.

Eloethan 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Eloethan

Maybe I could be accused of being cynical, but in many murder cases there are people who see the verdict as an opportunity to raise their own professional profiles by querying the verdict. That is not to say that there are not terrible injustices which have come to light - the latest one being that of Peter Sullivan.

But jurors sat for, what must have been an arduous and distressing, 145 days listening to the evidence of 246 witnesses. That evidence included several hand-written notes of Letby, which aided her conviction.

theconversation.com/lucy-letby-case-the-problems-with-expert-evidence-249309

nanna8

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.

That neonatal unit was so short of Drs and consultants it was bordering on illegal to function.

I would be angrier as a jury member at not having been given the whole picture by the prosecutors or a full defence by the defence team.
Sounds like the whole hospital and unit were badly run and problem filled.

Elothan 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

So are you saying that she might as well be guilty because the poor jury has had a long time in court? Did you hear what the real experts had to say about the case?

Aveline No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the jury had access to much more peripheral information than the experts who are questioning the verdict.
I don't think our legal system is perfect. If experts are commissioned on one "side" or other, there may be a concern that, maybe subconsciously, they look particularly at the information which supports the side they are employed by. I am no expert but I believe the French system operates differently, in a more fact-finding, rather than adversarial, way.

Eloethan

Aveline No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the jury had access to much more peripheral information than the experts who are questioning the verdict.
I don't think our legal system is perfect. If experts are commissioned on one "side" or other, there may be a concern that, maybe subconsciously, they look particularly at the information which supports the side they are employed by. I am no expert but I believe the French system operates differently, in a more fact-finding, rather than adversarial, way.

The experts do not believe any of the babies were murdered. In every case they have identified an alternative cause of death. You seem to think this is to "raise their own professional profiles" which seems a very bizarre opinion, especially as you don't appear to have read their findings based on their many years of expertise.

Little prem babies here have one on one care from the nursing staff. They need it because they frequently have breathing and heart issues. Our grandchild is a 27 weeker who weighed 1 kg at birth. She had to be revived many,many times. She is now a very bright uni student,thanks to the wonderful care she received the . 24/7 . I think they need to come up with the goods there if babies are losing their lives because of lack of staff. It is not good enough. Lucy Letby might just have been a scapegoat, I don’t know.

The unit was understaffed when Ms Letby arrived. The unprecedented peak in infant deaths occurred soon after her appointment.

@Chocolatelovinggran, the evidence is still circumstantial. At this point, there many extremely premature, critically ill babies in the unit. Sadly, it is inevitable that many of these poor little babies will not survive in these circumstances even with the very best care. In a situation like this, where there was significant understaffing, the outcome was, tragically, inevitable. The hospital has since been downgraded so that it is now unable to take such cases. Whatever the truth behind it all, the hospital was seriously and dangerously at fault in far too many areas and heads should have rolled at the top.

Hmm. Until the 4 years before Letby joined the unit there had been between 1 and 3 deaths per year. In the 18months that she worked in the unit there were 18 deaths.

No other significant changes in the unit were identified in that period. And no other staff were consistently on duty when the babies collapsed other than Letby.

The conflicting medical evidence of experts is only one factor the jury would have had to take into account.

I am in favour of an appeal.

Because evidence is circumstantial doesn’t mean it is invalid. It has to be weighed along with other evidence.

So there were 18 deaths in 18 months surely someone higher than Letby must have noticed the number was going up hugely None of this makes sense to me I ve no idea really whether she did or didn’t have any hand in these babies deaths I can only think how awful if she didn’t
A man has just come out after 28 years for a crime he didn’t commit but to think now no one would ever believe she isn’t guilty now even if she isn’t
It’s never felt very safe to me !
If she did kill those babies then she was left on her own and to her own devices far too much and if she didn’t (which I tend to feel more) then it’s a horrendous situation for her, her family, and the babies families

What came out at the trial was his very difficult it was to get any of the higher ups to acknowledge that something untoward was happening in the unit..

Doctors were made to apologise to her for raising concerns. A number of collapses happened when the other member of staff on duty left for a break. Two members of staff obviously isn’t enough to cover breaks. That was down to the high ups too.

I know from my own experience how hard it is to get those higher up to take responsibility for their poor decisions and how they will do almost anything rather than face the consequences of decisions they have made.

Obviously things weren’t right in the management of the unit but that doesn’t negate other evidence.

Sensible post Lathyrus3

Lathyrus3

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 agree. Why would any sane person write this sort of thing.

The poor girl was out of her mind with stress and guilt. If you haven't already I urge you to look at the new evidence out together by the absolute experts in the field and who have no axe to grind.

Skydancer

Lathyrus3

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 agree. Why would any sane person write this sort of thing.

This may help you understand.

uk.news.yahoo.com/lucy-letby-hadwritten-notes-conviction-092658288.html

Surely the defence had a psyche evaluation in the original trial?

It's time to take the focus off her and look at all the other things that were going on in that department and the new evidence on babies' conditions.
Any normal person would be extremely stressed and distressed under Letby's circumstances.