Could Lucy Letby be innocent?

[isaldiri]

Richard-D said:

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.

The issue which is why this has come about at all is how much of what was convincing in court actually was accurate and fair in the first place though. with the statistics and even timing of letby's presence now having been found to have been... let's just say not quite as certain as was claimed, that first bit becomes quite questionable tbh about the validity of conviction.

[RB Will]

Richard-D said:

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.

From what I have seen and heard of the court stuff the prosecution did a spectacular job of creating a very detailed narrative based loosely on the facts. The defence actually did quite a good job of pointing out all the issues with the prosecution claims but I think where he failed was not extensively hammering the points home to the jury and backing it up with evidence or experts.
For example the defence made a fair job of cross examine Dewi and making him look a bit daft, pointed out his evidence changed etc but just kinda left it as a bit of a gotcha and didn’t hammer the point home that if Dewi is basing x on y and y didn’t happen and Dewi is misreading documents etc then it means his evidence is false, based on a false premise and therefore Lucy can’t be guilty of what they are saying.

It’s partly why they have struggled with the appeal. Much of what has come out since the trial that we think is ridiculous like the insulin results, Lucy not being there when x Ray of how she killed a baby was taken , dodgy stats, door swipe data, confession notes etc was actually brought up by the defence in the trial but just not sold to the jury well enough, they were left to think for themselves where the prosecution told them exactly what to think.

So until this recent expert panel there has been no new evidence or new interpretation of evidence.

Personally I think they may as well just let her out as any trial is just going to be a waste of time and money. Any defence team can make enough doubt over all the circumstantial stuff and now there is the expert panel to call in to clearly spell out exactly what happened to each baby. No honest right minded juror could find her beyond reasonable doubt.

[RB Will]

Richard-D said:

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?

As has been said the expert panel stated there is no evidence of deliberate harm by anyone, the evidence shows the babies all died from natural causes or poor care. None of the modes of death put forward by the prosecution were evidenced.

Here is Lucy explaining her confession note to the police

[ScotHill]

RB Will said:

As has been said the expert panel stated there is no evidence of deliberate harm by anyone, the evidence shows the babies all died from natural causes or poor care. None of the modes of death put forward by the prosecution were evidenced.

Here is Lucy explaining her confession note to the police

I've not listened to it but worth pointing out that it's voiced by AI, presumably based on transcripts of the interviews.

[Richard-D]

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.

Presumably then, during the trial, the defence produced those that had advised LL to write that and they confirmed this?

[RB Will]

Speculation on my part here but I’m not sure she was seeing an actual counsellor. I think her boss has said she was attending weekly welfare meetings, whatever they are. Whether someone there suggested she write her feelings down or it is advice in a NHS pamphlet I dunno.

Wouldn’t be overly surprised if they couldn’t get anyone to testify it had been advised what with staff being urged not to support Letby and her boss saying her lawyers advised her to give false statements that supported the prosecution narrative (see links a page or so back).
If you look on the same YouTube channel as that video I just posted there is a 26 min vid of her first police interview with Lucy saying why she wrote the notes and what they mean.

[RB Will]

ScotHill said:

I've not listened to it but worth pointing out that it's voiced by AI, presumably based on transcripts of the interviews.

Yeah, it isn’t a recording straight from the police interview

[Richard-D]

RB Will said:

Speculation on my part here but I’m not sure she was seeing an actual counsellor. I think her boss has said she was attending weekly welfare meetings, whatever they are. Whether someone there suggested she write her feelings down or it is advice in a NHS pamphlet I dunno.

Wouldn’t be overly surprised if they couldn’t get anyone to testify it had been advised what with staff being urged not to support Letby and her boss saying her lawyers advised her to give false statements that supported the prosecution narrative (see links a page or so back).
If you look on the same YouTube channel as that video I just posted there is a 26 min vid of her first police interview with Lucy saying why she wrote the notes and what they mean.

That sounds feasible too. I could easily see it being very difficult to convince someone to testify to that if it was a colleague and they were being leaned on.

My comment was more in response to the posters above that claimed she never wrote an admission (which was referenced plenty of times so patently untrue) and another that stated she was instructed to write one by her councillor. If a councillor had instructed her to do so it should have been pretty easy to get them to state as much in court. So I suspect that is false too.

[Puzzles]

Wasn’t there also a spike in tubes dislodged on her shifts at her previous place of work?

[TheRainMaker]

Puzzles said:

Wasn’t there also a spike in tubes dislodged on her shifts at her previous place of work?

That was all covered in the latest report by the expert panel.

The consultants messed up.

[Puzzles]

TheRainMaker said:

That was all covered in the latest report by the expert panel.

The consultants messed up.

At the Liverpool women’s hospital?

[eldar]

Puzzles said:

Wasn’t there also a spike in tubes dislodged on her shifts at her previous place of work?

Was there?

[Sway]

Richard-D said:

RB Will said:

Speculation on my part here but I’m not sure she was seeing an actual counsellor. I think her boss has said she was attending weekly welfare meetings, whatever they are. Whether someone there suggested she write her feelings down or it is advice in a NHS pamphlet I dunno.

Wouldn’t be overly surprised if they couldn’t get anyone to testify it had been advised what with staff being urged not to support Letby and her boss saying her lawyers advised her to give false statements that supported the prosecution narrative (see links a page or so back).
If you look on the same YouTube channel as that video I just posted there is a 26 min vid of her first police interview with Lucy saying why she wrote the notes and what they mean.

That sounds feasible too. I could easily see it being very difficult to convince someone to testify to that if it was a colleague and they were being leaned on.

My comment was more in response to the posters above that claimed she never wrote an admission (which was referenced plenty of times so patently untrue) and another that stated she was instructed to write one by her councillor. If a councillor had instructed her to do so it should have been pretty easy to get them to state as much in court. So I suspect that is false too.

She wrote directly opposing opinions in her diary. The focus has only ever been on the 'I am guilty' note, never the 'I am innocent'.

Feelings of guilt can be very wide ranging...

[RB Will]

Richard-D said:

My comment was more in response to the posters above that claimed she never wrote an admission (which was referenced plenty of times so patently untrue) and another that stated she was instructed to write one by her councillor. If a councillor had instructed her to do so it should have been pretty easy to get them to state as much in court. So I suspect that is false too.

Think that might be down you and them interpreting writing an admission differently. She didn’t write out a statement saying I’m guilty, I murdered these babies and assaulted the others or whatever you think it said.
The notes were pages full of scribbles of random thoughts, so along with the “admissions” of I did this, I killed them, were many more little thoughts describing her feelings like I’m so alone, why me, overwhelming fear, panic, slander, I haven’t done anything wrong, what will the future hold.
In discussing the notes with the police she explains exactly what she means by things like I killed them, I did this, it is in that 5 min video I posted if you just watch it. She says again and again she didn’t do anything intentionally bad but had the feeling she maybe did it or killed them through doing something wrong because her competency was being questioned and evaluated.

This is what the Guardian says about the notes, don’t know if the person was in court to give evidence and confirm in person or if there was a written statement to say the same but should be easy enough to confirm if it hasn’t already been

[Richard-D]

RB Will said:

Think that might be down you and them interpreting writing an admission differently. She didn’t write out a statement saying I’m guilty, I murdered these babies and assaulted the others or whatever you think it said.

Think about that for a minute. You say she didn't write "whatever I think it said".

You've decided you disagree with an opinion without knowing what that opinion is. Can you see how ridiculous that is?

[Richard-D]

Sway said:

Richard-D said:

RB Will said:

Speculation on my part here but I’m not sure she was seeing an actual counsellor. I think her boss has said she was attending weekly welfare meetings, whatever they are. Whether someone there suggested she write her feelings down or it is advice in a NHS pamphlet I dunno.

Wouldn’t be overly surprised if they couldn’t get anyone to testify it had been advised what with staff being urged not to support Letby and her boss saying her lawyers advised her to give false statements that supported the prosecution narrative (see links a page or so back).
If you look on the same YouTube channel as that video I just posted there is a 26 min vid of her first police interview with Lucy saying why she wrote the notes and what they mean.

That sounds feasible too. I could easily see it being very difficult to convince someone to testify to that if it was a colleague and they were being leaned on.

My comment was more in response to the posters above that claimed she never wrote an admission (which was referenced plenty of times so patently untrue) and another that stated she was instructed to write one by her councillor. If a councillor had instructed her to do so it should have been pretty easy to get them to state as much in court. So I suspect that is false too.

She wrote directly opposing opinions in her diary. The focus has only ever been on the 'I am guilty' note, never the 'I am innocent'.

Feelings of guilt can be very wide ranging...

Yes I appreciate that. Contradicting something you've previously said doesn't mean you didn't say the first thing though. So to say that she didn't make an admission of guilt is blatantly false. You could make a good argument to say that it is meaningless but you can't claim that it wasn't stated.

As I've already said though, I'm not convinced either way.

[RB Will]

Richard-D said:

Think about that for a minute. You say she didn't write "whatever I think it said".

You've decided you disagree with an opinion without knowing what that opinion is. Can you see how ridiculous that is?

Your opinion seems fairly clear. It seems based on snippets you have heard, which are not necessarily based on fact, and you running with your own logic from there.
What seems ridiculous is you completely ignoring all the facts of the case im giving you, as far as we know them and you replying with comments like the above rather than engaging with that content.
It makes for a very difficult and unproductive conversation.
Failing that then inform us, what do you think she wrote? What do you think it meant? Why do you think she wrote it? Why if she was some sort of intelligent serial killer would she write down something she sees as a confession but then not get rid of it when she knows she is being investigated and plead innocent to this day?
Give me some thoughts on the actual info I’m presenting to you.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Puzzles said:

Wasn’t there also a spike in tubes dislodged on her shifts at her previous place of work?

We're told she had a reputation for doing things by the book. Maybe she was the only one who bothered to make a note when a tube was dislodged.

Also she was a permy in a world of temps. So it was inevitable the tougher jobs would come her way and far more likely that she would know the procedure for noting down a dislodged tube.

....and that assumes the numbers of tube dislodgements are correct. Seems just as likely it's a statistical mistake given all the other errors with statistics.

Which isn't to say she's innocent. I'm not sure how we'd ever tell for sure.

[RB Will]

Article about the tube dislodgements and doubts.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/16/eviden...

I guess thinking logically regarding knowing her guilt. If it can be shown incontrovertibly that the expert panel is correct in their findings then the babies collapsed and died due to things Letby could not have done to them so she must be innocent.

[Gecko1978]

RB Will said:

Article about the tube dislodgements and doubts.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/16/eviden...

I guess thinking logically regarding knowing her guilt. If it can be shown incontrovertibly that the expert panel is correct in their findings then the babies collapsed and died due to things Letby could not have done to them so she must be innocent.

Truth is we don't need to know she was innocent (seems likely now), we need to know there is doubt an that does appear to be the case that poor nhs care led to some deaths an others were due to sadly babies just dying. Either way her conviction seems unsafe she should be released.