I think the problem is that the prosecution, in presenting their analysis, ignored the deaths that occurred when she wasn't on shift. No idea whether she did it or not but I think there's a need for analysis by an independent bayesian statistical expert.
It's starting to look like her defence were negligent. However, to provide one strand of mitigation, getting real experts to provide their expertise as a defence witness is, as I understand it, hugely difficult because it can and has been shown to ruin careers. Seems the medical profession don't like people talking. Once this is investigated, properly, I think that, rather than a retrial, it is just as likely that there won't be a trial at all because the prosecution will withdraw the charges or the judge will rule no case to answer.
I think the publicity following the guilty verdict has prompted further investigation by experts who might not have looked at the case before it went to trial. If you do eliminate some of the suspected cases it becomes less of a pattern and much more circumstantial.
Hard to know where to start with this. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...tions-of-lucy-letby-should-they-be-overturned
It is alarming reading that. I've said b4 after watching the programme. Some witnesses were either scared to give evidence fearing their own careers may be on the line or not. used. (A fekk up by the defence.) As Skryptic says on the previous post. Circumstantial evidence looks weaker as time passes.
I think the medical side of the case on some of the babies is open to alternative interpretation but equally if you are saying Letby is innocent there’s a lot of coincidences where she is on shift looking after those children .The diary and the social media evidence is damning , add the two together and most juries would convict her
I don't think anyone is saying she is innocent. But have misgivings about some of the evidence. Lots of stuff was left out of the enquiry. One of the days she was on duty but not the same shift. Another alarming article. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/14/doctor-on-shift-at-time-of-many-baby-deaths-letby/ (I managed to read the full article without signing up. But not the 2nd attempt.) And the doctors name was removed from the File. Leaving only nurses. One nurse saying a same doctor present on the same day at seven of the incidents. In fact 2 doctors were removed from the File. Surely its worth a new investigation. Nothing should have been covered up. A strong defence should have been given. But they were negligent in their duty.
It is the Countess of Chester Hospital that is the chief culprit. Lucy Letby was a convenient scapegoat. Read Private Eye.
What do you mean by 'open to interpretation? By whom? In the words of world leading neo natal experts, Article goes on,
I mean this is now known to be categoricay untrue. I said originally I had no idea if she was guilty or innocent, but that you shouldn't convict on dodgy statistics. Turns out it wasn't just the statistics that didn't add up, but according to people outside the case originally, zero evidence she killed any baby. I'm still happy to change my mind again, if there's evidence to the contrary, but at present it would appear she's been a victim of a severe miscarriage of justice.
I get the impression from some if we are seen to question the evidence. We are in denial of the original outcome. Far from it. We all wish the evidence that was withheld is looked into and experts opinions taken into consideration. From both sides of an inquiry. I reckon it will happen. The appeals can't keep being ignored.
I think it looks quite irrefutable at the moment that this is the case, and I can't understand what is taking so long in accepting that the case needs to be reviewed and sent back to court. Our justice system really is in tatters these days. The idea that, on the basis of all of these new submissions, anyone can say that her guilt is proved "beyond reasonable doubt" is honestly one for the fairies.
It's got to happen. The longer it is ignored, the more it stains our justice system. How do the people making this decision think it is going to go away.
It's well-established that circumstantial evidence can amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeal judgement is worth reading, and very strongly upholds the safety of the original convictions.
She worked there. If people died where I worked there'd be a strong correlation between me being there and people dying. As there would for anyone with a full time job. There were also babies that died when she wasn't there, but the jury weren't told about those. From the evidence presented in court it seemed like babies only died when she was there, but that wasn't the case at all.
I've had several long conversations about this with my mate who's a GP. Another thing people seem to forget is that the babies on that ward were the very sickest babies you could possibly imagine. Their chances of dying were very high, so it's not unexpected that a lot of them did. It's not as if a string of healthy children inexplicably died. So the "too much of a coincidence" theory holds no water whatsoever. Sadly, seriously ill babies not surviving is to be expected.
