I think we'll be going round and round on this forever, unless someone else is found who *did* commit the crimes or LL herself confesses. LL, it appears, is never going to do that and if the babies died of natural causes and the number of deaths was all just a horrible coincidence, then there simply is no-one else to be found. In most events, it's almost impossible to prove a negative without a substitute positive.
No, it is not only the medical report testimony that the conviction is based upon.
It is also Letby's testimony, in which she was caught in many lies and inconsistencies. And there was also evidence that she falsified some of her m4dical notes which were made during those incidents.
Why would a nurse write down false information about which nursery she was in at specific times ? There are several examples of her distancing herself from certain babies, by giving faulty info about where she was, at the times those babies were collapsing.
She was also caught falsifying certain medical observations, in order to hide that a patient of hers was crying in pain and bleeding from the mouth, as early as 9 pm, but she wrote false info trying to deny those facts. Others testified against her claims during the trial. Her notes were falsified in order to cover up her actions.
These are the kinds of things that supported the jury's conviction. It was not based solely upon the medical reports.
If a baby might have died of natural causes or might have died from malice, then looking at the suspect's actions during that time help us figure out which scenario is most likely.
If the suspect falsified her notes to put her in another nursery to avoid being seen in the victim's nursery at the time of the collapse---that is very incriminating. Especially when there was a pattern of her doing so.
I think it is very suspicious that she would write false info at the exact same time as a baby is about to collapse, distancing herself from that baby. During the investigation there was evidence in other staff notes and in hospital data reports, like treatments given, and prescriptions picked up, etc, showing that she WAS actually caring for that child that had just collapsed. It is very incriminating that her notes did not match the actual factual events. IMO
It seems that the only choice worth discussing now is whether it is 'better' to have an innocent person behind bars, thus destroying their life and that of their family, or to have a guilty party released on no secure evidence, to do the same thing again and put many unknown persons at risk.
There is no need to narrow it down to just those two choices. There was plenty of solid evidence supporting her convictions.
Twenty Seven collapses----that is far too many to just write off as coincidental.
Because the only person who actually knows the facts is LL
Not really. The mother of Baby E KNOWS some very important facts. She walked in on Letby in the middle of murdering her twin. In fact Letby tried to murder the surviving twin just hours later, but he survived.
and her 'facts' are apparently not to be trusted. And round and round we go. The *only* thing we have here or *can* have here is opinion, we're all entitled to our own and there's no point in our getting into strife about it
.
That jury spent many months watching and hearing the trial testimony and weighing all of the evidence. It was an EDUCATED opinion when they all deliberated before finding her guilty of some of the charges. I trust them.
www.mirror.co.uk
