Lucy Letby

The three senior management on bail fir negligence and manslaughter are the ones who defended Letby and tried to prevent any investigation into concerns expressed by other medical staff.

It doesn’t speak for her innocence. Rather an indictment of how easily she was able to continue even when concerns had been raised early on,

Needs an urgent retrial

I haven’t watched the documentary- who was it directed by? Are they impartial or is it with bias?

I think we struggle to accept women can commit crimes likes this, especially nice looking women with ‘caring’ careers

I think she's guilty of some but innocent of others.

But what puzzles me is that she's chumming up and being besties with a few women in the prison, KNOWING that those particular women are there for being proven 100% guilty of murdering babies/kids, some are paedo's or other child predators, yet she's willingly hanging around with them.

Apparently, she's also been a pain in the bum to the prison staff and also to some of the prisoners by making demands and strutting around like she owns the place!

If I were sent down for what she's been, I'd ignore the child predators as much as possible and keep a very low profile, so I'm convinced she's guilty of at least some of the baby deaths/injuries!

I do not know. If she is innocent I hope due process is followed and the truth comes out. I think we cannot be sure unless we have the right skills and knowedge and review all the evidence.
The risk in cases we read about is that we are drawn by feelings to a swift view rather than evidence.

Guilty!

I was flipping back and forth on this one. But having listened to many podcasts, watched documentaries, and what I have read I am increasingly inclined to Guilty.
Although I have not watched the particular programme that you mentioned, so now I should watch and see if I flip again! Maybe “Reasonable doubt” should be in play here.
I am a retired Senior Nurse.

How on earth would people know how she's behaving in prison?

From reading the court transcripts, I agree with the jury who sat through all the evidence. She will only get an appeal if there is new evidence. I did find it strange that the defence case was very limited, was that because they could not find evidence against her guilt?

Nansypansy

I agree with you.
.

Some of the evidence I heard was not sound, imho, guilty or not, it isn't trustworthy beyond reasonable doubt. Many experts, who weren't able to testify at her trial, say statistical and other evidence was flawed. She wasn't well served by her legal representation at all. However, I've not heard all the evidence and it's impossible to tell much from her behaviour as all you see are photos and brief recordings on TV. People can do all sorts of weird behaviours under duress. I met someone who was responsible for evacuating elderly people due to a serious fire, she carried out the task perfectly but was so anxious she laughed and giggled the whole time. I think Lucy's likely to have her case reheard or whatever they do.

Hazelwood

I think that you're correct.

.

How would you have managed if you'd been call up for jury service?
.

Cardonald

Just pray that you aren't called up for jury service for a trial that is outside of your comfort zone!!
.

It was on the news a few weeks ago regarding Jury service often being detrimental to the Jurors mental health afterwards.

I can't imagine how all the parents of the babies feel every time this is rehashed in the media/on the news/on tv.

Applegran

I do not know. If she is innocent I hope due process is followed and the truth comes out. I think we cannot be sure unless we have the right skills and knowedge and review all the evidence.
The risk in cases we read about is that we are drawn by feelings to a swift view rather than evidence.

That’s the crux of the case. Unless you were a medical professional most of the evidence would go over your head.
Because the charges were so emotive emotions got in the way of facts.

Barbadosbelle

Cardonald

Just pray that you aren't called up for jury service for a trial that is outside of your comfort zone!!
.

Who on earth is Cardonald?🤔

there isn't a hazelwood posting either, AI?

Thewierdoagain60

Oh what it must be like to have information from the inside!
Or to just be gullible, and read or listen to trash!
.

I watched the documentary beyond reasonable doubt. It did a good job of presenting some of the main issues in such a way that could be understood by the general population. No doubt because of lack of time there was no mention of all the information that was withheld from the jury.
I became interested in the case by following MD (Dr Phil Hammond) in Private Eye. He has been doing an excellent job for the last year of exposing all the weaknesses and inconsistencies involved in bringing the case to trial together with the complete inadequacy of Dewi Evan the so-called expert witness who presented himself to Cheshire police saying “ it was his type of case” and he had “ only ever lost one case”. It became obvious to me very quickly that there had not been a fair trial. The trial judge was even warned about the inadequacy of Dewi Evans by a judge who had encountered him in another trial.
Once Sir David Davis MP became involved he convened the international panel of 14 world experts who worked pro bono. The press conference they gave in February was a master class in scientific rigour. They concluded that there had been no murders.
Since then more and more facts have come to light (including perjury by one of the consultants who accused her) both about how the case was put together and how the trial was conducted. Fundamentally, there is no evidence against her and it is my firm belief that she is innocent.

You would Petra, if you were innocent!
Hopefully I will never be asked.

Indeed.

Hazelw and Casdon.
.

I don't know whether she's guilty or not, but assuming those taking part in that documentary aren't lying - and why would they - there should at least be an in depth look at 1. Why there was no expert medical defence and 2. Those charts purporting to show she was on duty for each incident. According to one of the participants, the charts only covered a select few of the babies.
The only reservation I have is why on earth the NHS would want her to be blamed if the blame wasn't hers. It's a heck of a leap to think that they would want one of their own to die in jail to cover up their failings, which is what is implied in some quarters.

By the evidence we were provided at the last trial I would have been on the side of Guilty. However, although I haven't seen the new documentary, if new evidence shows that there is the slightest chance that she is not guilty, then surely she is entitled to a retrial. To many people have been imprisoned or executed that were subsequently found to be innocent.

Not sure. Originally thought she was as guilty as hell but have changed my mind after reading all the latest. I think a retrial should be called to avoid a miscarriage of justice.