Lucy Letby infant murders trial

[AliBobbyJ]

Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence

Exclusive: Doubts raised over safety of convictions of nurse found guilty of murdering babies

www.theguardian.com

I'd read a long article in The New Yorker magazine a few weeks ago that raised doubts about her guilt but for some reason couldn't be published in Britain. Must be the one that was read to the H. of Commons under Parliamentary privilege. It seems harsh that some evidence was ruled inadmissible by the Court of Appeals on legal technicalities, as they appear to a layman. The parents of the babies that died will understandably never want to hear her name again but I hope the people fighting for her don't give up. Not much left by way of appeals now, is there only the House of Lords?

 

[Betterdeedthan red]

I'd read a long article in The New Yorker magazine a few weeks ago that raised doubts about her guilt but for some reason couldn't be published in Britain. Must be the one that was read to the H. of Commons under Parliamentary privilege. It seems harsh that some evidence was ruled inadmissible by the Court of Appeals on legal technicalities, as they appear to a layman. The parents of the babies that died will understandably never want to hear her name again but I hope the people fighting for her don't give up. Not much left by way of appeals now, is there only the House of Lords?

Are you saying she's not guilty ?

 

[LangleyBlue1970]

The loonies on X have created a cult following that is about this piece of shit **** being guilty and victim of the NHS and its culling of society. When you put it to them that if sooner believe the law and the legal process to Damian on X, it’s met with all kinds of abuse.

I hate social media at times.

 

[AliBobbyJ]

I'm far away and didn't follow the trial at the time. I'm saying that based on the long article I read in The New Yorker, which is not known for sensationalism, I have a reasonable doubt. On some things, like Donald Trump being a ****, my mind is made up, but not on this one.

 

[LangleyBlue1970]

I'm far away and didn't follow the trial at the time. I'm saying that based on the long article I read in The New Yorker, which is not known for sensationalism, I have a reasonable doubt. On some things, like Donald Trump being a ****, my mind is made up, but not on this one.

The green note gave it away for me. ‘I am evil. I did this. I killed them on purpose’

 

[AliBobbyJ]

The green note gave it away for me. ‘I am evil. I did this. I killed them on purpose’

Powerful evidence but not utterly convincing. Other distressed scribblings she made include "I didn't do anything wrong." It's the medical evidence I think needs most looking at, but I'm even less able to understand that than I am the rules of the Appeals Court.

Anyway I will stick with my "reasonable doubt" for now.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I'd read a long article in The New Yorker magazine a few weeks ago that raised doubts about her guilt but for some reason couldn't be published in Britain. Must be the one that was read to the H. of Commons under Parliamentary privilege. It seems harsh that some evidence was ruled inadmissible by the Court of Appeals on legal technicalities, as they appear to a layman. The parents of the babies that died will understandably never want to hear her name again but I hope the people fighting for her don't give up. Not much left by way of appeals now, is there only the House of Lords?

There was an ongoing trial at the time that the article was published, meaning it couldn’t be published in the U.K. then.

She was found guilty at that trial too.

 

[LangleyBlue1970]

Powerful evidence but not utterly convincing. Other distressed scribblings she made include "I didn't do anything wrong." It's the medical evidence I think needs most looking at, but I'm even less able to understand that than I am the rules of the Appeals Court.

Anyway I will stick with my "reasonable doubt" for now.

If I go out and murder someone now and come home write it on my whiteboard, I’d say that’s a home run for the prosecution.

 

[Blue Mist]

Powerful evidence but not utterly convincing. Other distressed scribblings she made include "I didn't do anything wrong." It's the medical evidence I think needs most looking at, but I'm even less able to understand that than I am the rules of the Appeals Court.

Anyway I will stick with my "reasonable doubt" for now.

A jury of '12 good men and true' who sat through months of very painful, harrowing evidence, presented by an extremely clever barrister, but equally he was tested by a similar barrister, then ultimately presided over by a judge doesn't convince you of her guilt but a newspaper article written by a person with no legal background makes you doubt the conviction ! Each to his own I suppose.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

If I go out and murder someone now and come home write it on my whiteboard, I’d say that’s a home run for the prosecution.

Maybe not.
According to Wiki 250 people confessed to the 1932 kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby which received headlines around the world. Approximately 500 people confessed to the murder of Elizabeth Short in 1947 which also received enormous media attention—some of those who confessed were not even born when she died.

 

[dronefromsector7G]

I shot JFK

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I shot JFK

But you didn’t shoot the deputy.

 

[LangleyBlue1970]

Maybe not.
According to Wiki 250 people confessed to the 1932 kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby which received headlines around the world. Approximately 500 people confessed to the murder of Elizabeth Short in 1947 which also received enormous media attention—some of those who confessed were not even born when she died.

No it would be. If they found the body of murdered that would be that along with the evidence of my crime.

Shes guilty as fuck. It’s done and dusted based on that same evidence and confession.

 

[supercity88]

If I go out and murder someone now and come home write it on my whiteboard, I’d say that’s a home run for the prosecution.

The arguments from those who feel this wasn't a fair trial are that the evidence wasn't properly challenged and that statistics weren't appropriately assessed to determine guilt.

What if you had been with someone who died and then went home and wrote that you killed them. You'd be innocent but would sure as hell look guilty.

If that occured several times when you were on the scene it's even more compelling, but could just be a coincidence.

In this case there's a belief that it could have been coincidence, the evidence didn't support the fact that all of the babies were murdered and they were dealing with a substantial number of high risk babies.

That pressure and the number of deaths could take its toll on the mental health of someone and lead them to blame themselves, even if innocent.

I personally can't take a newspaper article as serious evidence because the majority of sources don't know the facts or evidence in this case. It's very easy to flag potential issues and for a reader to believe them, but fundamentally you would expect the court and court of appeal to be qualified enough to determine if the evidence was acceptable or if there had been a fair trial.

 

[Stephen230]

It’s a highly unusual, possibly unique case.

I didn’t follow the trials closely but I understand from what I have read that there were:

*No witnesses to any actual wrong doing.
* No physical evidence.
* No murder weapon.
* No real motive.
* No confession.

Under those circumstances it would normally be virtually impossible to get a conviction. In fact, to even get it to trial.

I’m not saying for one moment that I think she’s innocent.

But with those factors, they’ll always be people prepared to believe the conviction was unsafe. As shallow as it is, the fact she’s a reasonably attractive young female, will make that view even more popular.

For those reasons, I don’t think this case will quietly slip out of the news for long as the years tick away.

 

[MCFC Wirral]

There’s lots of things that happened during that court case that the media could not report on. I’ve no idea what they were but that’s how it works.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I remain somewhat uneasy about these convictions. As others have said, I don’t think it’s going away, in terms of campaigns etc. There will be plenty of crackpots among those who have doubts, but I’ve spoken to a couple of very sensible and suitably qualified people about this recently, including a retired senior neonatal professional, who have grave misgivings.

You’ve got to respect what two juries concluded but they can only deliberate on the evidence before them and based on what I’ve read I do wonder how well her case was run by those who legally represented her. And how fair the judge was when it came to ruling on the admissibility of evidence. Realise the Court of Appeal will have looked at the latter, but the finding of an unsafe conviction, especially such a high profile one, is a very high hurdle to clear - and rightly so.

Don’t believe she’s innocent but I’m not completely convinced of her guilt either. Understand why others will feel differently, but to me something feels off with this conviction based on what I’ve read.

 

[AliBobbyJ]

I remain somewhat uneasy about these convictions. As others have said, I don’t think it’s going away, in terms of campaigns etc. There will be plenty of crackpots among those who have doubts, but I’ve spoken to a couple of very sensible and suitably qualified people about this recently, including a retired senior neonatal professional, who have grave misgivings.

You’ve got to respect what two juries concluded but they can only deliberate on the evidence before them and based on what I’ve read I do wonder how well her case was run by those who legally represented her. And how fair the judge was when it came to ruling on the admissibility of evidence. Realise the Court of Appeal will have looked at the latter, but the finding of an unsafe conviction, especially such a high profile one, is a very high hurdle to clear - and rightly so.

Don’t believe she’s innocent but I’m not completely convinced of her guilt either. Understand why others will feel differently, but to me something feels off with this conviction based on what I’ve read.

There are enough things over on this side of the ocean that trouble me without getting upset by stuff from (what I still call) home, and i've been out of touch with a lot of U.K. news for a long time. But, yes, this case nags at me and I think you're onto something here.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

There are enough things over on this side of the ocean that trouble me without getting upset by stuff from (what I still call) home, and i've been out of touch with a lot of U.K. news for a long time. But, yes, this case nags at me and I think you're onto something here.

Wherever the truth lies, those poor parents have to live with the certainty that their child was murdered. If there has been a miscarriage of justice, the impact that will have had on them, and their sense of loss, should not be forgotten. What a thing to have to endure, in terms of their grief.

I say this because the only plausible alternative explanation is that those babies weren’t murdered at all. It’s completely inconceivable anyone else did it.

And I also realise that people like me questioning things doesn’t help with that, but, like you, I can’t simply ignore the nagging doubts I have.

 

[Nethermoor]

I'd love to see all the evidence.

It's the medical evidence and timings that will have sealed it, and the new yorker folk won't have heard that as I think that's the evidence that can't be reported. If I remember correct they know the babies were injected with Insulin on purpose and one of them at least only Letby was in the room. Which is the smoking gun?

I may be incorrect here and remembering it wrong.