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

[furbabies]

its not. its ensuring that this most recent batch of med opinions are sound then and only then does it become admissible as " new evidence". i think but not sure.

but why were the recent maybe not guilty , not found earlier.

 

[furbabies]

can anyone quote what the new docs said about baby E? i doubt they recognised just how out of place and unusual that entire case was.

its all circumstantial albeit alot of it....no direct link to her giving air and no insulin missing from hospital stocks.??

 

[Rohmer]

Just working my way through the press conference now ..legit or not imagine a parent
A) Hearing a Dr say "this death was preventable" in those circumstances
B) Two men laughing and joking about a phone going off ..saying "now that is an alarm"

I’m pretty sure they’ll be more concerned to hear the truth. I know as a parent I personally would be. If mistakes were made and deaths were ‘preventable’ any decent parent would want to know, no matter how hurtful.

 

[furbabies]

I’m pretty sure they’ll be more concerned to hear the truth. I know as a parent I personally would be. If mistakes were made and deaths were ‘preventable’ any decent parent would want to know, no matter how hurtful.

top medics yesterday 4th feb 25 says she did not do it...why only now has this come to light???

 

[Rohmer]

And let's not forget that Letby took the stand.

A jury of humans were given the opportunity, alongside all the evidence, to judge her demeanour and their perception of the honestly of her responses.

For me personally, as someone who followed the trial as close as it is possible to do online every day, it was when she took the stand that I started to feel very sure that she was guilty.

Deflecting, obfuscating, blaming others, weeping only about herself etc etc. iMO she gave a textbook Narc Psychopath Performance. MOO of course.

I'm curious if there is anyone on here who thinks she is innocent also followed the trial daily and closely, because I think that's why so many people in this thread are convinced she is guilty.

Genuine question, if you did follow it closely at the time, and you think she is innocent, what was your reaction to her time on the stand?

I genuinely don’t think anyone can make very safe judgements about her ‘demeanour’ on the stand. What would your demeanour be like on there *if* you were innocent? None of that stuff ever seems remotely convincing to be. I thought psychopaths were supposedly adept at faking how they appear etc. I cannot imagine how I’d be on the stand while being falsely accused of murdering babies. So I wouldn’t put much weight on someone’s performance under that level of pressure personally.

 

[greenwoodlad]

I genuinely don’t think anyone can make very safe judgements about her ‘demeanour’ on the stand. What would your demeanour be like on there *if* you were innocent? None of that stuff ever seems remotely convincing to be. I thought psychopaths were supposedly adept at faking how they appear etc. I cannot imagine how I’d be on the stand while being falsely accused of murdering babies. So I wouldn’t put much weight on someone’s performance under that level of pressure personally.

Completely agree with your post.

 

[furbabies]

Today 5th feb 25 her defense team are going to court for a equital, saying new evidence shows shes not responsible ? by top medic

why was this recent crucial evidence not submitted at the time of trial?

 

[Moonstrawbs]

I genuinely don’t think anyone can make very safe judgements about her ‘demeanour’ on the stand. What would your demeanour be like on there *if* you were innocent? None of that stuff ever seems remotely convincing to be. I thought psychopaths were supposedly adept at faking how they appear etc. I cannot imagine how I’d be on the stand while being falsely accused of murdering babies. So I wouldn’t put much weight on someone’s performance under that level of pressure personally.

Absolutely this. Obviously a different situation but it reminds me of how when someone goes missing, if their partner doesn't act and come across a certain way then they themselves are accused of all kinds without any evidence. I know in some instances there may be truth in that but sometimes not so much..Thankfully we don't convict on that alone, imagine it! Jmo.

 

[JosieJo]

I’m pretty sure they’ll be more concerned to hear the truth. I know as a parent I personally would be. If mistakes were made and deaths were ‘preventable’ any decent parent would want to know, no matter how hurtful.

I'm sure they do want the truth ...but the unprofessional manner was shocking

 

[SusanDonim]

It's an utter disgrace, to say something like that, imo! They should be ashamed.

They are not legal experts; they are not criminal investigators; very few - if any of them - will have followed the trial in any detail what-so-ever.

She was not convicted because of medical evidence!

She was not convicted because of statistical evidence!

She was not convicted because of her incessant searching of the families of dead babies!

She was not convicted because of the 257 hand-over sheets she was in possession of!

She was not convicted because a group of consultants had grave concerns as to the fact that these things always seemed to happen around her!

She was not convicted because when she came home from holidays all hell would break loose and babies would start collapsing and dying with startling regularity!

I could go on and on as we here could.

She was convicted because of the weight of all of these factors along with many, many more all coming together to form a very solid and robust case against her. When you actually read the history of the entiere ten month case the conclusion really is inescapable. She's guilty.

Spot on. As with others, I followed the trial here in detail. She was rightly found guilty.
<modsnip>

 

[PoirotPink]

Skimmed the thread and there's already a lot of sentiment about the conviction being unsafe.

However, if the evidence is genuinely exculpatory, it would have been most appropriate for this to go through the proper process in law. The case is high profile enough for it not to have been brushed under the carpet. Letby's legal counsel was even on the panel (!!!) so it's not like this group of experts were acting independently of the legal process or her legal team. What they've essentially done is presented a one-sided argument as if it were fact. Had Dr Lee made the same assertions in court, his assertions would be capable of being tested, and any weaknesses, misbeliefs or assumptions probed.

Instead, we have been given the impression that these are the best experts in the universe, the (self-proclaimed) dream team, so their verdict cannot be challenged. Most members of the public will have little understanding or knowledge of the medical evidence and will take the assessment of their expertise at face value. (Noting that even Isaac Newton got things wrong some of the time.) Another weird one for me is the politics between various professionals, with someone mentioning that one of them had reported the expert witness to the GMC(?). It all seems so unprofessional and has the appearance of underlying motives that don't simply stop and end with the justice system in this case. I would also be interested to know whether they received any financial re-imbursement from Letby's team for their time and effort.

Finally, we have Dr Lee saying "there were no murders" which translated directly into multiple click-bait headlines. Irresponsible in a world where many delve no deeper than the headline. Interesting that he suggested some of the deaths were bad care (which might in fact amount to gross negligence manslaughter).

 

[PoirotPink]

Eileen Chubb, who founded Compassion in Care in 2003 and was one of the ‘Bupa7’, the first group to use whistleblowing law in the UK, said: “There were a number of red flags.
“We’d never come across a whistleblower who, if backed into a corner by an employer or the NHS, hadn’t dialled 999 when people’s lives had been at risk.
“That’s what we found staggering. It stood out like a sore thumb, especially in a case where there were such serious concerns. I’ve never seen a whistleblower who thought babies were being harmed who left it for more than a week. But in this case, they left it for a number of years.
“And you find that when there is a group of whistleblowers, the wrongdoing gets reported even quicker.”

This was never a simple case of "witnessed" wrongdoing. Would early suspicions have been enough for police to act upon? What would they even say if they had called the police? And when the discovery was eventually made, it would be expected that people would start to connect the dots and look back at suspicious incidents with more clarity and certainty.

Charity refused to engage with Letby whistleblowers over ‘red flags’ in testimony

A major whistleblowing charity refused to engage with the doctors who blamed Lucy Letby for a spike in baby deaths because of “red flags” over their conduct, it has emerged.

www.yahoo.com

 

[su5ie]

What do they feel they are achieving by a press conference? Why if they are confident of their findings are they not just quietly following procedure? A genuine question...what are they up to

Drum up support in the court of public opinion. Plant seeds of doubt and watch them grow . Next step imo is signatures to call for a retrial or acquittal. No other reason for going public with a press conference.

Imo there is always going to be sides taken in a hugely emotive trial like this . Personally I believe she is guilty . My thoughts are with the families of those beautiful babies whom never stood a chance .

If gross negligence on behalf of the hospital or NHS was in any way to blame ,it was allowing Lucy's killing spree to continue after grave concerns were raised .I always thought a charge of corporate manslaughter should have been in the equation alongside Lucy's charge of murder .

Criminals plead their innocence all the time and defence barrister's will continue to be bankrolled by the very nature of our justice and court systems set up to support the criminal . When multiple life sentences are given .it is no skin of the nose of the prisoners to appeal or ask for a retrial, the fee is not coming out of their pocket it's funded by the taxpayers . It is no mark of innocence, so I'm not shocked or surprised and there is certainly no empathy from the defence lawyers for any victims whom may have to relive the horror all over again . As if they are not going through enough without having wounds ripped open and dug a little deeper moo

 

[ColourPurple]

.

I really cannot understand why still the Defence did not put forward medical experts. Her team was senior and highly regarded so why not ?

The defence had medical experts but had they used them (or any other medical experts) they would have been cross examined by the prosecution and from what we know of at least one of them (Hall) although he had some alternative explanations he couldn’t rule out some of what the prosecution were alleging. So LL and the defence would then have been faced with deciding whether to risk putting an expert forward who might help her case on some charges but have the opposite effect on others. Even one guilty verdict would have meant a potential life sentence. Ultimately they made the decision not to use any medical experts. LL has not used that decision in any of her appeal requests which indicates she understands why they weren’t used.

That doesn’t mean that Johnson didn’t use any of the medical experts’ arguments himself though. He put forward alternatives and in some cases maybe the jury agreed with them, we’ll never know their thought processes for each charge. We do know that there was far more evidence than just the medical evidence. The jury got to hear from nurses, doctors, the babies’ parents, even LL herself, from her police interviews and time on the stand. They were made aware of text conversations, the notes and documents that she had at home, the Facebook searches she made. Plus because she took the stand, they even got to hear her explain everything in her own words, including why she wrote the notes, what they meant and why she’d taken home hospital documents and made Facebook searches. All of those things presented a much fuller picture than just seeing medical notes and based on all of the evidence the jury decided that she was guilty of the majority of charges, and I agree! The Thirlwall Inquiry has produced further information that cements my view.

I have no problems with her defence team applying to the CCRC and if they and the Court of Appeal decide that there is new evidence and a retrial is needed then so be it! However, I do object to McDonald and his extended team’s approach when it comes to their media tactics. I object to them using press conferences to present new opinion as proven fact, to make serious allegations about other hospital employees and to try to influence public opinion, when there’s a real possibility LL is about to face more charges soon. I think it’s unnecessary when they could just have submitted the CCRC application, is in very bad taste and as confirmed by one of the parents today, the manner in which these press conferences have been carried out with chuckling, in jokes and lighthearted references to it being a show is incredibly disrespectful and offensive to the families of the victims.

I realise that many will see the headlines and wrongly assume that the opinions given in the press conference somehow override the guilty verdicts and that this thread may see an influx of posters with such views. But the truth is they don’t override anything. They are untested opinions that haven’t been subject to the same level of scrutiny. I haven’t been convinced by the experts summary issued at the press conference but it lacks details so maybe the full report will have something more convincing. In the meantime I’ll unfollow the thread until there’s either news from the CCRC or further charges are announced.

 

[Bluebear15]

Spot on. As with others, I followed the trial here in detail. She was rightly found guilty.

<modsnip>

You followed the media reporting of the trial. Just like everyone else here. The medical experts have actually seen the evidence, unlike anyone on here.

 

[marynnu]

its all circumstantial albeit alot of it....no direct link to her giving air and no insulin missing from hospital stocks.??

Of course it's circumstantial, what else would it be? And hou wouldn't notice missing insulin.

 

[furbabies]

You followed the media reporting of the trial. Just like everyone else here. The medical experts have actually seen the evidence, unlike anyone on here.

top medics have said yesterday 4th feb 25 theres no evidence she did it, so how come this was not brought forward earlier???

 

[Dotta]

This was never a simple case of "witnessed" wrongdoing. Would early suspicions have been enough for police to act upon? What would they even say if they had called the police? And when the discovery was eventually made, it would be expected that people would start to connect the dots and look back at suspicious incidents with more clarity and certainty.

Cameras!
I think they should be put in wards with vulnerable patients.

There is this case in the US
of a nurse charged with breaking babies' legs.
Hospital put in cameras and found out who the culprit was very quickly.

There is even WS thread.

Court documents reveal nurse Erin Strotman's abuse caught on camera

Shocking court documents alleged NICU nurse Erin Strotman, 26, was caught on the hospital's secret 'angel cameras' applying pressure to break a premature baby's thigh bone.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Post in thread 'VA - Woman arrested after multiple babies suffer fractures at same hospital, Henrico County - 2023, 2024'

Jan 8, 2025

Court documents reveal nurse Erin Strotman's abuse caught on camera

Shocking court documents alleged NICU nurse Erin Strotman, 26, was caught on the hospital's secret 'angel cameras' applying pressure to break a premature baby's thigh bone.

www.dailymail.co.uk

.....


The nurse from Midlothian, Virginia, was caught on video breaking the thigh bone of one five-month-old boy in the neonatal intensive care unit of Henrico Doctors' Hospital in Richmond.

The child was also found to have a fractured right tibia and several broken ribs, the report noted.
Strotman, 26, took the boy – identified only as Y.H. – by the legs and then applied pressure to them, wrote Detective Megan Lynch.

'Ms. Strotman was observed to...

• LadyL

• 
• 
• 

 

[JosieJo]

.


The defence had medical experts but had they used them (or any other medical experts) they would have been cross examined by the prosecution and from what we know of at least one of them (Hall) although he had some alternative explanations he couldn’t rule out some of what the prosecution were alleging. So LL and the defence would then have been faced with deciding whether to risk putting an expert forward who might help her case on some charges but have the opposite effect on others. Even one guilty verdict would have meant a potential life sentence. Ultimately they made the decision not to use any medical experts. LL has not used that decision in any of her appeal requests which indicates she understands why they weren’t used.

That doesn’t mean that Johnson didn’t use any of the medical experts’ arguments himself though. He put forward alternatives and in some cases maybe the jury agreed with them, we’ll never know their thought processes for each charge. We do know that there was far more evidence than just the medical evidence. The jury got to hear from nurses, doctors, the babies’ parents, even LL herself, from her police interviews and time on the stand. They were made aware of text conversations, the notes and documents that she had at home, the Facebook searches she made. Plus because she took the stand, they even got to hear her explain everything in her own words, including why she wrote the notes, what they meant and why she’d taken home hospital documents and made Facebook searches. All of those things presented a much fuller picture than just seeing medical notes and based on all of the evidence the jury decided that she was guilty of the majority of charges, and I agree! The Thirlwall Inquiry has produced further information that cements my view.

I have no problems with her defence team applying to the CCRC and if they and the Court of Appeal decide that there is new evidence and a retrial is needed then so be it! However, I do object to McDonald and his extended team’s approach when it comes to their media tactics. I object to them using press conferences to present new opinion as proven fact, to make serious allegations about other hospital employees and to try to influence public opinion, when there’s a real possibility LL is about to face more charges soon. I think it’s unnecessary when they could just have submitted the CCRC application, is in very bad taste and as confirmed by one of the parents today, the manner in which these press conferences have been carried out with chuckling, in jokes and lighthearted references to it being a show is incredibly disrespectful and offensive to the families of the victims.

I realise that many will see the headlines and wrongly assume that the opinions given in the press conference somehow override the guilty verdicts and that this thread may see an influx of posters with such views. But the truth is they don’t override anything. They are untested opinions that haven’t been subject to the same level of scrutiny. I haven’t been convinced by the experts summary issued at the press conference but it lacks details so maybe the full report will have something more convincing. In the meantime I’ll unfollow the thread until there’s either news from the CCRC or further charges are announced.

Absolutely this

 

[JosieJo]

You followed the media reporting of the trial. Just like everyone else here. The medical experts have actually seen the evidence, unlike anyone on here.

Have they not just seen the patient notes and staff witness statements? As in not the whole trial transcripts?