Lucy Letby

Obviously the right outcome.
We will never understand how anyone can commit certain crimes will we?

Right decision.

Oreo

Obviously the right outcome.
We will never understand how anyone can commit certain crimes will we?

The theory that she did it to attract the attention of a high ranking male Paediatrician chimes with me. This man would come rushing to her side when the alarms went off; sick, I know.

I'm relieved that her appeal has been refused.

Unless there was important evidence that has come to light since her trial then why was she allowed to appeal? Who has paid for this?

I do not think she should ever see the light of day but in a few years after she has "reformed" some do-gooder will want her released.

Sarnia, I agree . My understanding is that appeals are based either on new evidence/ factors not raised at trial, or due to potential irregularities of the trial process.
And yes, I wonder what the cost was, and to whom.

She hasn’t ‘lost her appeal’ - she’s been refused the right to appeal. So it hasn’t even gone as far as an appeal.

IMO Lucy Letby should be granted leave to appeal.

According to MD (Private Eye 1629 2-15 August 2024)*
"There have been sufficient serious concerns raised by credible experts in numerous fields as to whether the science and statistics were presented fairly and completely."

"The prosecution used six expert witnesses; the defence used none. Such a mismatch, although perfectly legal, poses a high risk of bias and false accusations."

I am not saying she is innocent or guilty of all charges, just that her trials were seriously mis-handled. So much for British justice.

I believe Channel 5 is airing a programme on the subject.

*Quotations from longer article by Phil Hammond MD

LizzieDrip

She hasn’t ‘lost her appeal’ - she’s been refused the right to appeal. So it hasn’t even gone as far as an appeal.

Good. No evidence or reason to appeal.

I did watch some of the programme.
My question is - has the unusually high number of neonatal deaths gone down since she was removed from post?
My understanding ( and I could be corrected, of course) is that the data has returned to " normal ". That's a significant point, surely?

Well neonatal deaths, we are talking small numbers here in any individual unit. And any statitician knows that the figures won't be "significant" with low numbers meaning that some random factor could have caused it. (very prem triplets admitted for example). So you can't infer her guilt on that, but I personally think she was guilty, some of the circumstantial evidence & findings were quite damning. I'm glad she's been refused appeal even though she may be convincing herself she didn't do it, it sounds as if tragically, she did.

I watched the programme on her crimes last night and it seemed very very obvious that the highly qualified people who have been looking at this case are VERY uncomfortable with her being found guilty They believe there are many reasons that she could be innocent If she is, what a terrible misjustice
I m not clever enough to make the judgements, they have but it wasn’t just one person declaring this
I don’t know what to think

If she is innocent, it's just the worst thing to be wrongly convicted for. Why didn't the people (on the programme) looking at it provide their reasoning to the appeal? Maybe the process needs to be looked at.

The evidence against her is great, only she was there when the babies died I really think shes convinced herself shes innocent, What about the diary she left,

I have always believed that she is innocent, and the Channel 5 programme solidified this belief.
I have heard that the BBC and ITV are planning similar programmes.
There has been doubt cast on her guilt by The Guardian and Private Eye, amongst others.

Her colleagues would have had a gut instinct. Isn’t this how the circumstantial evidence came about anyway? We can’t know anything more than the papers print.

What a terrible crime to be convicted for if you are in fact innocent. It isn’t impossible but I don’t know enough to judge. However, if there is any doubt surely a new investigation should be launched. Is possible that someone else did it and made sure Lucy took the blame, planting innuendos with other staff etc., and making sure Lucy was on duty whilst perpetrating terrible crimes. And when Lucy was arrested the perp could have moved on.
Is a strange world. Who knows?
But certainly if I were any of the grieving parents I would push for another investigation if doubts have been cast.

I watched this documentary this evening prepared to be scathing about the findings. I was shocked by the content.
Lucy Letby had no expert witnesses as part of her defence to query the evidence against her.
When she was moved off the Neo Natal ward and the death rate went down, this was because the unit had been downgraded and no longer accepted the sickest babies.
This is an uncomfortable programme to watch but before giving our opinion that she shouldn’t have an appeal it would be worth considering what theses experts have to say.

I have no idea whether she is guilty or innocent but it is clear to me that the statistical arguments (if one can dignity them by that term) about the incidence of unusual events were so flawed that a first year statistics student could take them down. The Royal Statistical Society has called for an enquiry. At the very least there should be a retrial. There was a similar case in Holland: the convicted person was later exonerated.

There was a comment in my paper this morning that (the late) Mike who drowned in Sicily recently, was planning to look into her case. He though5 there had been a miscarriage of justice. He thought the evidence was skewed. Who knows?
He had been under house arrest in the States for about 2 years following an arrest for fudging books when selling his business. He was acquitted and released recently. His boat trip was to celebrate this event…

Mike Lynch. (Sorry)

I'm still cautious. What did it for me was the texting and obsessive pre-occupation with the babies and their families, even after they had died. It was very strange behaviour although I accept it doesn't necessarily mean she was guilty of murder.
It is a very complex case indeed.

I take it you all did see the diaries that she kept, they were shown in the newspapers? To say they were dark is the understatement of the year.