Could Lucy Letby be innocent?

[ScotHill]

Not listened to the podcast, but this is probably a video excerpt of it:

[RB Will]

If this does all get overturned what do we think the outcomes will be?

Just the bare minimum oh our bad, here is a couple million quid and be on your way, no hard feelings.

Are heads going to roll? The police lead, Dewi and co, Jayaram, Breary, the judge.
Will they just be quietly pensioned off or full on public sacking / struck off / prosecuted.
Will any of the above feel any guilt or remorse and offer a public apology. Do worry that such a public fall from grace will lead to mental health issues, harassment etc. think the consultants have already binned off their social media and stopped doing media appearances. If the expert panel is right would you let them anywhere near your kid?

Will there be wider impacts to hospitals, the police, the courts?

[eldar]

I hope the initial response will be much increased scrutiny of expert testimony in complex cases like this and in general.

We've become far too accepting of dodgy claims and conspiracy theories like vaccines, weirdo diets and Tate like cults. Thank you social media.

[Gecko1978]

RB Will said:

If this does all get overturned what do we think the outcomes will be?

Just the bare minimum oh our bad, here is a couple million quid and be on your way, no hard feelings.

Are heads going to roll? The police lead, Dewi and co, Jayaram, Breary, the judge.
Will they just be quietly pensioned off or full on public sacking / struck off / prosecuted.
Will any of the above feel any guilt or remorse and offer a public apology. Do worry that such a public fall from grace will lead to mental health issues, harassment etc. think the consultants have already binned off their social media and stopped doing media appearances. If the expert panel is right would you let them anywhere near your kid?

Will there be wider impacts to hospitals, the police, the courts?

Because of time served let's say she gets out next year ahe likely won't get much off the state no an let's be honest isn't going back to the NHS ever. However Netflix money will be huge plus tv interviews a book deal, public speaking (if she is not a mental case by now).

[Greenmantle]

RB Will said:

If this does all get overturned what do we think the outcomes will be?

Just the bare minimum oh our bad, here is a couple million quid and be on your way, no hard feelings.

Are heads going to roll? The police lead, Dewi and co, Jayaram, Breary, the judge.
Will they just be quietly pensioned off or full on public sacking / struck off / prosecuted.
Will any of the above feel any guilt or remorse and offer a public apology. Do worry that such a public fall from grace will lead to mental health issues, harassment etc. think the consultants have already binned off their social media and stopped doing media appearances. If the expert panel is right would you let them anywhere near your kid?

Will there be wider impacts to hospitals, the police, the courts?

This is the problem with the current system. Individual experts parachuted in making decisions in isolation.
Someone mentioned that it should be more forensic / team based funded by the government. The analogy was the old US Civil Aeronautics Board remit.

At the end of the day the only goal is that the public is reassured that the truth for the deaths have been found and that NEW procedures and processes have been implemented to make sure it doesn't happen again. Currently with this case the public is not sure if LL is a multiple murderer or the NHS Trust in question is hiding its own serious (maybe criminal) failings.

[isaldiri]

eldar said:

I hope the initial response will be much increased scrutiny of expert testimony in complex cases like this and in general.

We've become far too accepting of dodgy claims and conspiracy theories like vaccines, weirdo diets and Tate like cults. Thank you social media.

I suppose part of the problem was that earlier in the trial, and indeed on this thread itself, it was considered to be a conspiracy theory to have any doubts about the expert testimony and trial verdict by rather a lot of people (including no less than the head of the public inquiry Thirlwall) who were very quick to brand anyone questioning that as a wingnut at minimum if not far worse......

[JagLover]

ScotHill said:

Not listened to the podcast, but this is probably a video excerpt of it:

Well worth a watch and like how the interviewer pinned him down to what he actually believed.

[VSKeith]

isaldiri said:

I suppose part of the problem was that earlier in the trial, and indeed on this thread itself, it was considered to be a conspiracy theory to have any doubts about the expert testimony and trial verdict by rather a lot of people (including no less than the head of the public inquiry Thirlwall) who were very quick to brand anyone questioning that as a wingnut at minimum if not far worse......

It's one of the myriad problems of our age of mis/disinformation. So many conspiracy theories mean that the outliers with actual merit can be easily dismissed. Potential lab origin of C-19 being another example

[Richard-D]

Greenmantle said:

This is the problem with the current system. Individual experts parachuted in making decisions in isolation.
Someone mentioned that it should be more forensic / team based funded by the government. The analogy was the old US Civil Aeronautics Board remit.

At the end of the day the only goal is that the public is reassured that the truth for the deaths have been found and that NEW procedures and processes have been implemented to make sure it doesn't happen again. Currently with this case the public is not sure if LL is a multiple murderer or the NHS Trust in question is hiding its own serious (maybe criminal) failings.

Although I'm sure the intent is good, that sounds like a recipe for politically motivated outcomes.

I agree with your summary, I'm far from convinced of LL's guilt or innocence. My gut feel is that she probably did it but nobody could prove it so evidence was made up.

[RB Will]

Out of interest what makes you still think she probably did it even now after effectively the best team of neonatal experts in the world have reviewed it and flat out said there is no crime there?

[gregs656]

I listened to the Private Eye podcast yesterday, pleased to see it being discussed as I think the commentary from the Eye has been excellent.

[Richard-D]

RB Will said:

Out of interest what makes you still think she probably did it even now after effectively the best team of neonatal experts in the world have reviewed it and flat out said there is no crime there?

Fair question, I remember there being what amounted to a confession in her diary.

Did the experts say that there was no crime or that the evidence wasn't sufficient to determine that there was a crime?

[TheRainMaker]

Richard-D said:

Did the experts say that there was no crime or that the evidence wasn't sufficient to determine that there was a crime?

No evidence of murder, just incompetence on the part of the consultants/ hospital.

[Lotobear]

Richard-D said:

Greenmantle said:

This is the problem with the current system. Individual experts parachuted in making decisions in isolation.
Someone mentioned that it should be more forensic / team based funded by the government. The analogy was the old US Civil Aeronautics Board remit.

At the end of the day the only goal is that the public is reassured that the truth for the deaths have been found and that NEW procedures and processes have been implemented to make sure it doesn't happen again. Currently with this case the public is not sure if LL is a multiple murderer or the NHS Trust in question is hiding its own serious (maybe criminal) failings.

Although I'm sure the intent is good, that sounds like a recipe for politically motivated outcomes.

I agree with your summary, I'm far from convinced of LL's guilt or innocence. My gut feel is that she probably did it but nobody could prove it so evidence was made up.

...ah yes, of course, the eyes too close together test

[ScotHill]

Richard-D said:

Fair question, I remember there being what amounted to a confession in her diary.

Then you remembered something that didn't happen. Case dismissed!!!

[Gecko1978]

Richard-D said:

RB Will said:

Out of interest what makes you still think she probably did it even now after effectively the best team of neonatal experts in the world have reviewed it and flat out said there is no crime there?

Fair question, I remember there being what amounted to a confession in her diary.

Did the experts say that there was no crime or that the evidence wasn't sufficient to determine that there was a crime?

Iirc they found post it notes with "it's all my fault" and "I killed them".

Now on one had she could be an evil psychopath writing that stuff down. Or she is writing down what's in her head to cope with stress as advised by a councillor. I kind of think option 2 is more likely however at trial based on the statistics shown I felt she was guilty. Turns out the statistics were shown correctly. That for me os a huge issue. Mistral right there.

[Richard-D]

ScotHill said:

Richard-D said:

Fair question, I remember there being what amounted to a confession in her diary.

Then you remembered something that didn't happen. Case dismissed!!!

Strange response, the papers were pretty clear about her diary having admissions of guilt.

[JagLover]

Richard-D said:

ScotHill said:

Richard-D said:

Fair question, I remember there being what amounted to a confession in her diary.

Then you remembered something that didn't happen. Case dismissed!!!

Strange response, the papers were pretty clear about her diary having admissions of guilt.

Misleading media reporting?, whatever next.

They were notes she was advised to write as part of the counselling she was receiving to set out her feelings on paper. They were not an admission of guilt.

[ScotHill]

JagLover said:

Richard-D said:

ScotHill said:

Richard-D said:

Fair question, I remember there being what amounted to a confession in her diary.

Then you remembered something that didn't happen. Case dismissed!!!

Strange response, the papers were pretty clear about her diary having admissions of guilt.

Misleading media reporting?, whatever next.

They were notes she was advised to write as part of the counselling she was receiving to set out her feelings on paper. They were not an admission of guilt.

They also said 'I'm innocent' - which Lucy should we believe!

[Richard-D]

Gecko1978 said:

Iirc they found post it notes with "it's all my fault" and "I killed them".

Now on one had she could be an evil psychopath writing that stuff down. Or she is writing down what's in her head to cope with stress as advised by a councillor. I kind of think option 2 is more likely however at trial based on the statistics shown I felt she was guilty. Turns out the statistics were shown correctly. That for me os a huge issue. Mistral right there.

That is where I end up too from what I've seen. I'd like to have been on the jury to know what was said in court. Maybe they were shown something really convincing and there's a good reason that hasn't been made public. That feels like wishful thinking though.