UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #36

Status
Not open for further replies.
Utterly flawed case.There definitely needs to be a re-trial as I don't see how on the basis of the new evidence and that which was withheld there can be a safe guilty verdict.

And if she is innocent... yet ANOTHER gross miscarriage of justice.
She has had numerous appeals and the initial trial lasted ten months.

It is false to sate that any evidence was "withheld". It was not. Her defence team had more than ample opportunity to put forward whatever evidence or facts they wanted to. No evidence or opportunity was denied or withheld from them.
 
Yes from memory a spreadsheet was done with all the member of staffs duty rosters and when the babies died and it was a case of LL was on duty for all I think ....so the evidence against her it seems was inconclusive but overwhelming.
There was a lot more evidence than that one chart. It was actually barely mentioned over the whole ten month trial. Twice it was brought up, I think. That chart was far from what got her convicted.
 
"We did not find any murders. In all cases, death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care."

"Lucy was charged with seven murders and seven attempted murders", he said.

"In our opinion, the medical opinion, the medical evidence doesn't support murder in any of these babies.

"Our full report will go to Lucy's barrister later this month, and then it'll be up to him and the courts to decide what next to do."
 
"We did not find any murders. In all cases, death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care."

"Lucy was charged with seven murders and seven attempted murders", he said.

"In our opinion, the medical opinion, the medical evidence doesn't support murder in any of these babies.

"Our full report will go to Lucy's barrister later this month, and then it'll be up to him and the courts to decide what next to do."
Says a person who is isn't a professional investigator of murders.
 
In newly published research, Lee has found no evidence of any skin discoloration in babies who have been accidentally injected with air into the veins

 
Yes. But the NZ specialist says they were wrong to accept that.
Her defence had free reign to call whomever they chose on her behalf. They didn't call this guy or anyone else in the world who could have said the same thing.

If this man is the sole human to possess this information then he may well have a point. I very much doubt he is, though.
 
Langdale said: “The police were not contacted until May 2017. In that time, Letby worked without formal restriction on her registration from her regulator, the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

"Whilst she was eventually removed from a patient-facing role, whether and if so how she was able to obtain any placement elsewhere or to visit the neonatal unit at the hospital will be explored in oral evidence."

“I’ve never known anything like it,” he said. “I mean it’s a grand statement to make – but never before have we had such an experienced credible body of experts come together across the world and say something has gone wrong.”
 
Last edited:
Funny how the large number of deaths stopped when she was removed from the unit.

That tells me either she is guilty or someone else was doing it to frame her.
you think they put those handover sheets in her house whilst she was at work and thats why she didnt remember taking them ? or maybe it was doc chocs plan all along and he had free access to that bed.
 
doctor evans based his evidence on dr lees work so if Doctor Lee says that evdence is flawed i think it must be
To be fair, that isn't an unreasonable position to take.

I don't think it was Evans who mentioned Lee's study, though. Wasn't it Ravi Jayram who said that he read the article by Lee?

Again, though, this could easily have been addressed at the initial trial. There is no reason that Lee couldn't have been called. LL had literally one of the best defence KC's currently practising so if this evidence was this easy to dismiss then why didn't he call him or at the very least get an opinion to counter it?
 
its actually interesting but I don't think Dr lee input on the skin colour med evidence is actually relevant. i at no point remember hearing any clear descriptive witness testimony on any of the skin colour issues, did any of them actually agree on what they saw regarding that? my take away was that it was supplementary evidence that further pushes towards AE with the strongest points being the acute decline and difficulty in resus which are agreed upon symptoms and used to diagnose AE, the skin issue isn't broadly known i dont think.
 
To be fair, that isn't an unreasonable position to take.

I don't think it was Evans who mentioned Lee's study, though. Wasn't it Ravi Jayram who said that he read the article by Lee?

Again, though, this could easily have been addressed at the initial trial. There is no reason that Lee couldn't have been called. LL had literally one of the best defence KC's currently practising so if this evidence was this easy to dismiss then why didn't he call him or at the very least get an opinion to counter it?
was dr ravi after "alighting" on dr lee's paper. Dr Evans as far as i know only used the acute decline and difficulty in resus symptoms to diagnose, probs never heard of Dr Lee's paper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IDK
"We did not find any murders. In all cases, death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care."

"Lucy was charged with seven murders and seven attempted murders", he said.

"In our opinion, the medical opinion, the medical evidence doesn't support murder in any of these babies.

"Our full report will go to Lucy's barrister later this month, and then it'll be up to him and the courts to decide what next to do."

They are giving their opinions that the medical evidence doesn't support murder, but there is so much more to these cases.

(Some examples: witnesses describing things Lucy said and did, the note she wrote, the medical records she brought home and what she did with them, her searches of the victims' social media at specific times, the systematic ways in which the causes of death kept mysteriously changing, the evidence regarding how she altered victims' medical records, etc...)

IMO/JMO.
 
doctor evans based his evidence on dr lees work so if Doctor Lee says that evdence is flawed i think it must be
This shouldn't be playing out in the media like this. Dr Lee might take objection to his work having been used to make various assertions, however, he's viewing that in isolation. He was not there. He was not working on the ward where colleagues developed concerns over a significant period of time and which eventually led to the police being called in.

You could dissect and refute any argument with a counter argument and find "evidence" to support that view. Someone of high intelligence who was sufficiently motivated to do so could no doubt exonerate Harold Shipman in the same way.

Dr Lee, with his credentials, is giving Letby the sheen of being innocent, which is going to stick, regardless of the truth of the matter.
 
Says a person who is isn't a professional investigator of murders.
Yes, this demonstrates quite a lot of bias and overstepping the bounds of his expertise (unless he's also trained in forensic pathology). He can comment on the evidence, but he can't announce that no murders were committed.

Imagine if birds were flying through an area where noxious gases / pollution killed them. If a vet examined each bird individually, they might conclude respiratory or cardiac failure without acknowledging any external causes. The people finding the birds dropping to the ground, however, would have quite a different perspective about what might have caused it.
 
Yet none of them were called by her defence initially!

The defence even had a doctor prepped to go as an expert witness but they chose not to use him. There's a reason they did that and it's glaringly obvious, lets face it.
There is a whole debate about expert witnesses in the UK, it’s not simple to even use an expert witness. There’s lots of information on the CPS page. For example the published paper that was used would be accepted, however the person who writes the paper may be excluded from being an expert witness as they don’t meet the UK qualifications list. It’s an area in the UK that hasn’t been fully explored as it’s rare expert witnesses are used.
 
We all have differing options on this thread but looking at the most recent information and the original case and evidence - Letby should quite possibly not be incarcerated and her conviction is not strong - Time will tell but I believe in due course her conviction will be overthrown and this will go down as the biggest miscarriage of justice of our time IMO JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Keep Websleuths Free

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
64
Guests online
4,526
Total visitors
4,590

Forum statistics

Threads
618,680
Messages
18,387,652
Members
238,148
Latest member
camelabam
Back
Top