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 #38

[marynnu]

The link was in the comment you replied to

It's not.

 

[WaneLyrical]

It was absolutely abnormal. The baby projectile vomited. Please don't try to tell people that followed the full trial, that what happened to this baby was not abnormal. Go and have a look back through the witness testimony. There was nothing normal whatsoever about the vomit.

“The people that followed the whole trial”

I am one of them. I followed it here. Multiple posts about Child G while the trial was happening. They’re still there under a different handle. So please do not patronise me.

Again, the projectile vomits that happened when Letby was on shift were attempted murder, yet the projectile vomit that happened when Letby wasn’t there was not suspicious. Why?

 

[May72031]

Some people appear to be so desperate for this to be a case of serial killings

Nope. Vast majority of people here agree with the jury that it is a case of serial killings. The evidence supports this view, and it opposes the dozens of other alternative "explanations" put forth by various people.

that they ignore the fact that many respected people have put their reputations on the line to speak out against the medical evidence put before the jury.

Nobody has ignored that. Most of us have pointed out how flawed their arguments are, or pointed out that their opinions do not challenge the evidence heard in court.

 

[May72031]

How are any of those things minute errors?

If we are talking about major errors, then look at Shoo Lee's first press circus, where a doctor made an absurd claim about a doctor killing a baby with a needle, only to completely change their mind at the second press circus, when they blamed a "traumatic birth". Defenders of Shoo Lee like to ignore this event.

Another thing I've noticed is that Letby supporters get angry when people question why she hasn't waived her privilege.

 

[Ruthbullock]

The press conferences say a great deal, imo. Press conferences in relation to legal cases almost never happen other than ones after a trial has concluded. I can't think of any cases where either side has held a presser before the fact. It's completely alien to the British judicial system and, imo, completely incompatible with British legal values. And, yes I'm aware that there was one yesterday in relation to the Liverpool incident but that was essentially an investigation update and the police and CPS won't be saying anything more - and, for what it's worth, I don't think the words used by the police are entirely compatible with the "don't publish stuff that may endanger the case" as those themselves may do so. Not just my opinion, btw, also held by a University law lecturer mate I was speaking with last night.

Anyway, back to the point; the press conferences were nothing more than publicity stunts and ego boosters because they have no practical value in the sense of fighting her case. The CCRC nor any appellate court is going to be swayed by them one little bit. We don't do justice by public opinion in this country so what was the point of them?

And, yes, as you say, Dr Lee simply has no clue what he's talking about as he put forward a theory at the conference that had already been put to bed at trial with even the defence accepting that it didn't happen.

Do you have the same opinion about Cheshire police and the fact they arranged and held a press conference when the defence closing arguments were held? You only need to look at Chester Standards reporting- from everyday of the trial, it’s the only day not reported minute by minute live and that’s because journalists were invited to a press conference by the police that day- it would appear both sides have been guilty of inappropriately timed press conferences to push an agenda, and the tit for tat wasn’t started by the defence in this case.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Another thing I've noticed is that Letby supporters get angry when people question why she hasn't waived her privilege.

I take it by Letby supporters you are referring to those who believe she is guilty? Even the law gazette did an article back in February and stated she shouldn’t be advised to waive privilege - the only people who go on about it are those who proactively declare she is guilty and do not wish to discuss it further, apart from pronouncing if she was innocent she would have waived privilege (against most lawyers and the Law Society’s opinions).

“We will never know why Letby’s defence team called no expert witnesses unless she waives professional privilege. I cannot see why she would be advised to do so.”

From the Law Society’s article

Lucy Letby: another ‘appalling vista’?

I had originally been sceptical about Letby's denials. Who else could have harmed so many babies? But the new experts say that nobody tried to kill them.

www.lawgazette.co.uk

 

[Marantz4250b]

Do you have the same opinion about Cheshire police and the fact they arranged and held a press conference when the defence closing arguments were held? You only need to look at Chester Standards reporting- from everyday of the trial, it’s the only day not reported minute by minute live and that’s because journalists were invited to a press conference by the police that day- it would appear both sides have been guilty of inappropriately timed press conferences to push an agenda, and the tit for tat wasn’t started by the defence in this case.

I have no idea whether they did or not, tbh. It's completely unrelated to my point, though. Right at the start of my post I said:

I can't think of any cases where either side has held a presser before the fact.​

If a press conference was held after evidence had finished being given then that's a completely different matter because it's not intended to influence the outcome - or, in the current case - whether another legal process even takes place! By definition they cannot have been pushing an agenda because there was noting to influence.

Can you post a link to reports of this press conference, please? I honestly don't remember one taking place.

A brief search suggests that the Judge's summing up took up multiple days.

 

[Ruthbullock]

“Dr. Dewi Evans’ statement to 60 Minutes Australia, describing Lucy Letby as “stalking these babies,” raises significant concerns about his impartiality as an expert witness in any future legal proceedings involving her.”

I am curious what will be said in this documentary, although it won’t be anything new, it will be the most recent summary of everything we have seen publicised recently.

Will this interview be new or a rehash of dr Enans previous interviews?

If he does undermine his own ability to be unbiased and impartial- how much of an impact will this have if there is a retrial and he is dismissed as an expert witness- do the prosecution have someone in the wings as an alternative, willing to declare and back up his original medical opinions from the previous trials?

 

[Marantz4250b]

I take it by Letby supporters you are referring to those who believe she is guilty? Even the law gazette did an article back in February and stated she shouldn’t be advised to waive privilege - the only people who go on about it are those who proactively declare she is guilty and do not wish to discuss it further, apart from pronouncing if she was innocent she would have waived privilege (against most lawyers and the Law Society’s opinions).

“We will never know why Letby’s defence team called no expert witnesses unless she waives professional privilege. I cannot see why she would be advised to do so.”

From the Law Society’s article

Lucy Letby: another ‘appalling vista’?

I had originally been sceptical about Letby's denials. Who else could have harmed so many babies? But the new experts say that nobody tried to kill them.

www.lawgazette.co.uk

Okay, couple of points; that is an opinion piece which means it's the personal opinion of the writer. Your post says it's the opinion of the publication - it's not, necessarily.

Secondly; as much of a highly respected legal expert and commentator Mr Rozenberg is, it is the case yet again that this is someone who is commenting without seemingly knowing very much at all about the case and its facts. He even says in the article that he didn't hear most of what was said in the press conference that he personally attended and simply asked the hack next to him what had been said!

Why is it that time and time again in this case we get comment after comment, statements of such certainty and voracity, constantly streaming from the mouths and keyboards of those who have barely skimmed the surface of deep, deep well of court-aired and examined facts??? It's staggering that so many people think they have the right to call into question things they don't have a full picture of.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I have no idea whether they did or not, tbh. It's completely unrelated to my point, though. Right at the start of my post I said:

I can't think of any cases where either side has held a presser before the fact.​

If a press conference was held after evidence had finished being given then that's a completely different matter because it's not intended to influence the outcome - or, in the current case - whether another legal process even takes place! By definition they cannot have been pushing an agenda because there was noting to influence.

Can you post a link to reports of this press conference, please? I honestly don't remember one taking place.

A brief search suggests that the Judge's summing up took up multiple days.

“In support of the IOPC complaint, evidence has also been submitted showing that Cheshire Constabulary failed to respond to a series of media queries submitted by Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens. In an article published on 12th May 2025, Hitchens revealed that the force had blanked him after he sought details about a mid-trial press conference held on 30th June 2023 at Manchester Hall.

The event, attended by two of the lead officers in the Letby case, Detective Chief Inspector Nicola Evans and Detective Superintendent Paul Hughes, took place before the jury had retired to consider verdicts and while Lucy Letby’s barrister was delivering his closing speech. According to the Press Association, the event was described as a press conference and embargoed until a guilty verdict was returned.”

Hopefully the link will be permitted as until it’s been investigated it won’t appear on the IOPC (Independent Office of Police Conduct) page, and may not appear at its conclusion - but this is part of what has been submitted as a complaint by a journalist about Cheshire Police and the rest is in the link below.

Cheshire Constabulary faces police conduct complaints over Lucy Letby FOIA refusal

Just four days after refusing a freedom of information request concerning its media strategy during the Lucy Letby investigation, Cheshire Constabulary now faces a formal complaint over alleged bre…

neilwilby.com

 

[Ruthbullock]

Okay, couple of points; that is an opinion piece which means it's the personal opinion of the writer. Your post says it's the opinion of the publication - it's not, necessarily.

Secondly; as much of a highly respected legal expert and commentator Mr Rozenberg is, it is the case yet again that this is someone who is commenting without seemingly knowing very much at all about the case and its facts. He even says in the article that he didn't hear most of what was said in the press conference that he personally attended and simply asked the hack next to him what had been said!

Why is it that time and time again in this case we get comment after comment, statements of such certainty and voracity, constantly streaming from the mouths and keyboards of those who have barely skimmed the surface of deep, deep well of court-aired and examined facts??? It's staggering that so many people think they have the right to call into question things they don't have a full picture of.

You can also float around all the legal eagle bloggers and they say the same, I can’t post them as it’s not permitted on here. Can you share someone confirming she does need to waive legal privilege as it harms her not to, as that would be useful?

 

[May72031]

So I pose legitimate questions about glaring errors or inconsistencies in the sacrosanct trial and your response to that is what about shoo lee? Are the questions hard to answer?

You posed questions, including one about milk in a babies stomach. You made some unsupported statements about the volume of stomach contents, but then admitted you're not a doctor. I don't see why your own personal incredulity outweighs an actual expert who gave evidence in a court of law.

As for diverting to Shoo Lee, you did say, did you not: "I really don’t care about what was said in the trial." If that is the case, then perhaps you can talk about what was said in the two Shoo Lee press circuses, because the abrupt u-turn from a doctor killing a baby via a needle wound to the liver, to suffering from liver damage via a "traumatic birth", is a considerable inconsistency.

Oh, and why are you referring to the trial as the "sacrosanct trial"? Are you opposed to trial by jury?

 

[WaneLyrical]

You posed questions, including one about milk in a babies stomach. You made some unsupported statements about the volume of stomach contents, but then admitted you're not a doctor. I don't see why your own personal incredulity outweighs an actual expert who gave evidence in a court of law.

As for diverting to Shoo Lee, you did say, did you not: "I really don’t care about what was said in the trial." If that is the case, then perhaps you can talk about what was said in the two Shoo Lee press circuses, because the abrupt u-turn from a doctor killing a baby via a needle wound to the liver, to suffering from liver damage via a "traumatic birth", is a considerable inconsistency.

Oh, and why are you referring to the trial as the "sacrosanct trial"? Are you opposed to trial by jury?

Well the original trial is what’s held up here to be the absolute truth, the one true expert’s word. That was the 10 month trial that none of our little brains can ever comprehend. Therefore I want to talk about the acidic ph testimony, the maybe-air-embolism xray, and why one instance of projectile vomit is attempted murder but the next one is not.

And I am absolutely opposed to a trial being conducted in the manner this one was, with new allegations being made on the spot by the expert witness, and key information being withheld from the jury.

 

[WaneLyrical]

You can also float around all the legal eagle bloggers and they say the same, I can’t post them as it’s not permitted on here. Can you share someone confirming she does need to waive legal privilege as it harms her not to, as that would be useful?

I would expect the natural time for her to waive privilege is when the CCRC asks her to. They need to know the advice that led to Hall not being called to give evidence.

 

[May72031]

Well the original trial is what’s held up here to be the absolute truth, the one true expert’s word.

Same with any other trial.

That was the 10 month trial that none of our little brains can ever comprehend.

Speak for yourself.

Therefore I want to talk about the acidic ph testimony, the maybe-air-embolism xray, and why one instance of projectile vomit is attempted murder but the next one is not.

But you admitted you're not a doctor.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Same with any other trial.

Speak for yourself.

But you admitted you're not a doctor.

Oh right, we need to be doctors now to discuss the evidence. Better let the jury know. Why is so hard to say you don’t know the answer.

 

[May72031]

Oh right, we need to be doctors now to discuss the evidence. Better let the jury know. Why is so hard to say you don’t know the answer.

I'm searching for any reason to take seriously your disputation of the evidence given in court. So far, no reason has been given. You admitted you don't care what was said in court, that you're not a doctor or any kind of medical expert, but are posting various arguments from personal incredulity about aspects of the medical evidence.

 

[Marantz4250b]

“In support of the IOPC complaint, evidence has also been submitted showing that Cheshire Constabulary failed to respond to a series of media queries submitted by Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens. In an article published on 12th May 2025, Hitchens revealed that the force had blanked him after he sought details about a mid-trial press conference held on 30th June 2023 at Manchester Hall.

The event, attended by two of the lead officers in the Letby case, Detective Chief Inspector Nicola Evans and Detective Superintendent Paul Hughes, took place before the jury had retired to consider verdicts and while Lucy Letby’s barrister was delivering his closing speech. According to the Press Association, the event was described as a press conference and embargoed until a guilty verdict was returned.”

Hopefully the link will be permitted as until it’s been investigated it won’t appear on the IOPC (Independent Office of Police Conduct) page, and may not appear at its conclusion - but this is part of what has been submitted as a complaint by a journalist about Cheshire Police and the rest is in the link below.

Cheshire Constabulary faces police conduct complaints over Lucy Letby FOIA refusal

Just four days after refusing a freedom of information request concerning its media strategy during the Lucy Letby investigation, Cheshire Constabulary now faces a formal complaint over alleged bre…

neilwilby.com

Once again, the point being is that any press conference held by the police at that time (regardless of how appropriate it was or wasn't) was embargoed until after the trial had concluded. Therefore, it was not designed to influence anything so is pretty much irrelevant in the great scheme of things.

The pressers arranged by Letby's team are most categorically designed to carry some influence, in the way of conditioning the public. There is absolutely no legal, or logical, reason what-so-ever to have a press event like this. It's completely pointless other than as an ego stretching exercise for the lawyers and other participants who think they can influence the public in some manner of other. There is no influence it can have over the legal process and there is no "public interest" necessity.

 

[Marantz4250b]

You can also float around all the legal eagle bloggers and they say the same, I can’t post them as it’s not permitted on here. Can you share someone confirming she does need to waive legal privilege as it harms her not to, as that would be useful?

Well, no, because anyone qualified to comment on such matters would/could never do so as it would be contrary to their professional ethics.

 

[Parker Knoll]

You only have to look upthread to read how Letby waiving legal privilege is crucial going forward as it’s been discussed and explained MANY times as to how it would shape any appeal … or Google maybe ?