Lucy Letby

The judgement of the Court of Appeal is well worth a read. See the link at post #11 above.

 

Starting to get the impression she wasn't represented very well. I would still say she is guilty but these continuing revelations must be very unsettling for the families.

 

In terms of the swipe card data, didn't I recently see a news article where it was shown that the data was invalid as the trial heard evidence that the data showed another nurse leaving at a particular time, meaning Letby was on her own when upon review, it actually showed that this was the time the other nurse entered, not left

 

I'm sure it's all just coincidence. Child A to (checks notes) Child Q would have died anyway.

 

I'm starting to think she deserves a full retrial. There is more and more coming out showing that the one she had was not fair and some evidence used against her should never have been admissable.

A great deal of the case against her was essentially: "This many deaths in her presence can't be a coincidence." That is despite the fact that some statisticians have suggested that it does not pass standard statistical tests for significance. It genuinely could be coincidence.

Bear in mind there is no witnesses or clear evidence that she interfered with any of the babies.

I'm not saying she is innocent. Just that everyone deserves a fair trial and it appears she really didn't get one. If there is even the tiniest chance she is innocent, it raises the possibility that there is someone else involved who did this.

 

The coincidences seem to have stopped since she was taken out of the hospital, so probably best not to let her back in.

 

The Countess of Chester Hospital stopped admitting critically ill babies to its neonatal unit amid growing concerns over unexplained infant deaths. This decision was made shortly after Lucy Letby was reassigned to a non-clinical role.

 

Still need someone to explain to me why an innocent woman would falsify medical records.

See the case with Child D for information, and Child E, and Child H, and Child I, and Child N, and Child O.

 

She has been accused of falsifying said records but has always maintained her innocence. I don't think intent was ever proven over human error/incompetence.

It's crazy that in 2024 there was no forensic evidence found of her committing these crimes.

 

As per this piece.......

Interesting piece.

 

No conclusive proof she's guilty but there's no conclusive proof she's innocent either. What a case for the judicial system.

On one hand a murderer could be rightly behind bars but on the other it could be a gross miscarriage of justice. What do you do?

 

You follow the approach to retrials/appeals which we have developed over centuries.

 

If you're Lee Anderson, that angel of logic and commonsense from Reform UK you simply hang everybody because no-one who has been hung has ever committed any crime later. I'm paraphrasing but yes he did say that. Like listening to Aristotle.

 

Thank you.

 

Roughly 10% of those sentenced to death in American since the 1970s have later been exonerated. Some of them posthumously.

 

As I understand it, some if not all of the sick babies that died when she was there would still have been admitted.

 

I wonder if she'd have so many supporters if instead of being seen as a pretty young nurse, she looked like Rose West.

 

I would say pretty is a stretch... maybe I just have high standards

 

To be clear, I've no idea if she's guilty or innocent, nor do I find her attractive, unlike yourself, obviously.

 

Not particularly. Nor do I think she's ugly. She's just not got the "look" about her that the other three females with whole life terms have. I am going off what the mainstream media have portrayed her as like The Guardian calling her "sweet faced"

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ul/07/lucy-letby-smiling-nurse-female-killers