Lucy Letby did not murder babies, claim medical experts

[pellinore]

Serial killer Lucy Letby did not murder any babies, the chairman of a panel of international medical experts has claimed while outlining "significant new evidence".

Letby, now 35, is serving 15 whole life prison sentences after being convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others.

The 14-strong panel attributed some of the deaths at the Countess of Chester's neonatal unit between June 2015 and June 2016 to natural causes, and alleged others were due to substandard care.

The study is now likely to form the heart of submissions to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) after Letby's lawyers applied for her case to be investigated as a potential miscarriage of justice.

Lucy Letby did not murder babies, claim medical experts - BBC News

Edited February 4 by pellinore

[Duke Wellington]

1 hour ago, pellinore said:

Serial killer Lucy Letby did not murder any babies, the chairman of a panel of international medical experts has claimed while outlining "significant new evidence".

Letby, now 35, is serving 15 whole life prison sentences after being convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others.

The 14-strong panel attributed some of the deaths at the Countess of Chester's neonatal unit between June 2015 and June 2016 to natural causes, and alleged others were due to substandard care.

The study is now likely to form the heart of submissions to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) after Letby's lawyers applied for her case to be investigated as a potential miscarriage of justice.

Lucy Letby did not murder babies, claim medical experts - BBC News

All the deaths not entered into evidence because she wasn`t on shift at the time, but which on their own also represent an unusually high death rate. No actual evidence of murder with any of the deaths cherry picked for her trial, only speculation as to what may have killed them.

There is no evidence at all, and the argument based on probabilities falls apart when the deaths not used in the trial are included.

With criminals they are different in the head, and she would have to be severally off her rocker to have done those crimes. Where`s the severally disordered personality? Or severe mental illness? Where`s the evidence of psychosis? There is nothing. The material taken from her diary is also out of context, when they show the highlighted phrases on TV, just look at the other words and phrases around them they make harder to see. Its even cherry picking parts of her diary to present a false narrative.

Biggest miscarriage of justice in modern times, and I would say something fishy is going on. Including with her defence team.

Edited February 4 by Duke Wellington

[TigerBright19]

5 hours ago, Duke Wellington said:

All the deaths not entered into evidence because she wasn`t on shift at the time, but which on their own also represent an unusually high death rate. No actual evidence of murder with any of the deaths cherry picked for her trial, only speculation as to what may have killed them.

There is no evidence at all, and the argument based on probabilities falls apart when the deaths not used in the trial are included.

With criminals they are different in the head, and she would have to be severally off her rocker to have done those crimes. Where`s the severally disordered personality? Or severe mental illness? Where`s the evidence of psychosis? There is nothing. The material taken from her diary is also out of context, when they show the highlighted phrases on TV, just look at the other words and phrases around them they make harder to see. Its even cherry picking parts of her diary to present a false narrative.

Biggest miscarriage of justice in modern times, and I would say something fishy is going on. Including with her defence team.

Most people will probably wait for ITV to make a TV drama series out of it (assuming one is not already in the works).

 

[Duke Wellington]

There is something wrong with our legal system when an incompetent defence team, is not grounds for a retrial.

The PM needs to get on this one, pull all the files, bring in three judges, bring in the arguments as to why she is actually innocent, and issue a ruling. If she is innocent after that, a full pardon, and I would suggest her legal team back then is disbarred.

If its beyond the power of a PM the King needs to get on it.

Edited February 7 by Duke Wellington

[stevewinn]

6 hours ago, Duke Wellington said:

There is something wrong with our legal system when an incompetent defence team, is not grounds for a retrial.

The PM needs to get on this one, pull all the files, bring in three judges, bring in the arguments as to why she is actually innocent, and issue a ruling. If she is innocent after that, a full pardon, and I would suggest her legal team back then is disbarred.

If its beyond the power of a PM the King needs to get on it.

shocking if she is innocent.

We are run by Lawyers in the UK, and this has been our problem for a good number of years, So, it depends who's who at the top of these cases. If it will tarnish a reputation of a good friend, cant be having that, leave the Girl in Jail and when those involved have died or rode off into the Sunset, then open the case and let the Girl if innocent free, with compensation. in a Lawyers eyes that's a result.

Dont expect Stramer to get involved. this is the same fella who when questioned about Jimmy Savile starmer replied the case didnt cross my desk.

who's he kidding, He was head of the crown prosecution service. if another colleague was dealing with the file, dont tell me with Savile's, superstar celebrity status, you wouldnt take that file to your boss and say look what’s just landed on my desk. 

Starmer as not long used the "never crossed my desk excuse" once more over Al Fayed.

Look at the atmosphere in Parliament when the question is asked.

 

[Still Waters]

Lucy Letby case: the problems with expert evidence

https://theconversation.com/lucy-letby-case-the-problems-with-expert-evidence-249309

Experts have challenged the medical case against Lucy Letby. What about the statistical evidence?

https://theconversation.com/experts-have-challenged-the-medical-case-against-lucy-letby-what-about-the-statistical-evidence-249221

[Duke Wellington]

2 hours ago, Still Waters said:

Lucy Letby case: the problems with expert evidence

https://theconversation.com/lucy-letby-case-the-problems-with-expert-evidence-249309

Experts have challenged the medical case against Lucy Letby. What about the statistical evidence?

https://theconversation.com/experts-have-challenged-the-medical-case-against-lucy-letby-what-about-the-statistical-evidence-249221

Lets say she is a murderer.

Then the first problem is the 6 deaths not included, and the second problem is with her statistics how does one filter out genuine deaths from murders? As the article also points out she may simply be incompetent, she may have been under heavy pressure, she may have been simply the one who got the mostly sickly babies. She may also have simply won a lottery no nurse wants to win.

Why is there no forensics evidence even suggesting that one of them was murdered?

[stevewinn]

Once again Britain’s problem, Lawyers, most Coroners are lawyers these days.

[Duke Wellington]

Apparently, the hospital was short staffed and Letby had been talking on lots of extra shifts.

Staff had been raised concerns with management that the department couldn`t cope. So, another possibility is instead of being a serial murderer, she did half a job on each baby lacking the time to care for them properly. But, once again, there isn`t the forensic evidence to show that even one of them was murdered.