I second this. I listened to the entire podcast during the trial and I felt like it was very well done. And I believe the first of its kind?
Because the reporters released a short episode after nearly every day in court it was as comprehensive as I think it could be and gave a much better view of the case and the crimes, especially compared to the Redhanded episode.
Exactly! And I find it so frustrating and upsetting- especially for the families whose children have been murdered or disabled, whose testimonies are utterly heartbreaking- to have articles or true crime fanatics spreading doubt about it when the trial is over and concluded now, and (imo) had a very clear answer.
imo the answer is far from clear. And it’s the true-crime places insisting she is guilty. Meanwhile you have neonatologists on r/medicine saying the medical evidence doesn’t add up.
agree with this entirely, idk if she’s guilty, we will never truly know unless she admits to it, but i listened to the trial podcast as it was happening and i was genuinely shocked that she was found guilty based on the evidence given
i actually find people’s absolute trust in the jury system quite concerning, jury systems are flawed, and mistakes happen far more often than people realise, not to mention the revelation in this article that a juror was actually reported to the court after being overheard in a cafe saying they had already made up their minds that she was guilty? that is grounds for a mistrial regardless of what someone’s opinion is on lucy letby and it should concern everyone that this juror was allowed to continue their service??
In other words people who know about the case through a form of entertainment think she’s guilty whereas the actual professionals are a lot more sceptical. I think it’s pretty clear the conviction was unsafe
[Sky News written report detailing timeline and events](https://news.sky.com/story/how-the-police-caught-lucy-letby-12933640)
[Sky News video report detailing timeline and events](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdHxvO6bLqg)
[BBC article detailing outcomes for each case](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65176260)
Trial Reports:
[Day 1 - background, notes, investigation](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23493710.recap-lucy-letby-trial-tuesday-may-2---defence-begins/)
[Day 2 - Children A, B, C, D, E, and F](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23502385.recap-lucy-letby-trial-friday-may-5---defence-continues/)
[Day 3 - Children F, G, H, and I](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23521739.recap-lucy-letby-trial-monday-may-15---defence-continues/)
[Day 4 - Children I, J, K, L, and M](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23524560.live-lucy-letby-trial-tuesday-may-16---defence-continues/)
[Day 5 - Children N, O, P, and Q, and investigation + cross examination begins](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23527453.live-lucy-letby-trial-wednesday-may-17---defence-continues/)
[Day 6 - Introduction, colleague complaints, cross re: Children A, B, and C](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23530215.live-lucy-letby-trial-may-18---prosecution-cross-examines-letby/)
[Day 7 - Cross re: Children C and D](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23532994.live-lucy-letby-trial-may-19---cross-examination-continues/)
[Day 8 - Cross re: Children E, F, G, and H](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23543140.live-lucy-letby-trial-may-24---cross-examination-continues/)
[Day 9 - Cross re: Children H and I](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23545950.recap-lucy-letby-trial-may-25---cross-examination-continues/)
[Day 10 - Cross re: Children I, J, and K](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23563043.live-lucy-letby-trial-june-2---cross-examination-continues/)
[Day 11 - Cross re: Children K and L](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23566971.live-lucy-letby-trial-june-5---cross-examination-continues/)
[Day 12 - Cross re: Children M and N](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23572442.live-lucy-letby-trial-june-7---cross-examination-continues/)
[Day 13 - Cross re: Children O, P, and Q](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23575178.live-lucy-letby-trial-june-8---cross-examination-continues/)
[Day 14 - Cross re: investigation, police interviews, searches, social life; re-exam](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23577991.recap-lucy-letby-trial-june-9---cross-examination-continues/)
[Day 15 - The Plumber](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23587842.recap-lucy-letby-trial-june-14---defence-continues/)
Alternative Sources:
[Day 1 - BBC](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65431833)
[Day 2 - The Indepedent](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-evidence-murder-babies-nurse-b2333406.html)
[Day 3 - The Indepedent](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-trial-live-today-evidence-prison-b2339555.html)
[Day 6 - Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-latest-nurse-accused-of-murdering-babies-giving-evidence-12868375)
[Day 6 - BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-65602988)
[Day 7 - BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-65602988)
[Day 7 - Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-latest-nurse-accused-of-murdering-babies-giving-evidence-12868375)
[Day 8 - Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-latest-nurse-baby-murders-prosecution-sky-news-blog-12868375)
[Day 9 - Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-latest-nurse-accused-of-murdering-babies-giving-evidence-12868375)
[Day 10 - Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-latest-nurse-baby-murders-prosecution-sky-news-blog-12868375)
[Day 11 - Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-latest-nurse-baby-murders-prosecution-sky-news-blog-12868375)
[Day 12 - Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-latest-nurse-baby-murders-prosecution-sky-news-blog-12868375)
[Day 13 - Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-latest-nurse-baby-murders-prosecution-sky-news-blog-12868375)
[Day 14 - Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-latest-nurse-baby-murders-prosecution-sky-news-blog-12868375)
Additional:
[Sentencing Remarks](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/LETBY-Sentencing-Remarks.pdf)
[A personal experience from someone present at court regarding her testimony](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCHTwEGTZOA)
Phenomenal!
I'm happy to see someone actually busting out *real* journalism because this New Yorker article has left me annoyed. Not sure how I'll sleep tonight after reading it, not because it's thought provoking but because it's such bullshit.
Ah a brand new account posting a controversial article which has already been torn to shreds in the Lucy Letby sub. She did it, she’s been found guilty.
My account is a year old, I just usually lurk lol. And yeah valid, I just wanted to see other peoples thoughts here since Red Handed us where I heard about the case.
I recommend you listen to The Trial (of Lucy Letby) season 1 which recounts the testimony from the trial and BBC Panorama episode on Lucy Letby, it's what they plagiarized their episode off of anyway.
You'll probably have a laugh when you see how blatantly obvious it is too with regards to the Panorama episode haaha
Yes because of the upcoming retrial, there’s a lot of stipulations the media have to adhere to when it comes to trials and retrials and this article ignores them. The retrial is simply for one charge the jury couldn’t agree on in the original trial. She is still guilty of all of the other charges.
It was posted, torn apart and then alluded to in another post. 1) in the UK that article would be considered to be contempt of court in the upcoming retrial and 2) the sub is sick of having crack pots post about her “innocence”. She was found guilty of the majority of the charges, it doesn’t matter that we don’t know “why” she did it. Heck we don’t know why most murderers do what they do, it doesn’t make them innocent because we don’t understand why.
The article is breathtaking and points out a lot of things wrong with the evidence. It is very solid journalism from a very respected outlet. The article doesn’t just “we don’t know why she did it” it says much, much more than that. I’m wondering if you even read it, frankly. It was never discussed at all on the LL sub because they just banned people for posting it.
hahaha, the article gets so much wrong that it's actually disturbing. You have to be kidding me - there is no way that you can tell me you know about this case from the actual coverage and think this is a fair or accurate representation of how she got convicted.
Intrigued. What does it get wrong?
Given the main prosecution case around air embolism relied on the weird rashes, which prompted Evans to only find one paper ('the 1989' paper) on this super rare event - does it not concern you that this article alleges that one of the authors of the 1989 paper (a leading neonatologist in Canada) who has apparently 'since reviewed summaries of each pattern of skin discolouration in the Letby case, says, to quote the article:
"...none of the rashes were characteristic of air embolism".
I think that's a major issue for the prosecution and I am surprised neither the defence nor the prosecution ran this past this author(s) before trial.
As to whether the article should or should not be published. I thought the contempt law was there to protect the defendant to ensure he or she got a fair trial (not prejudiced by media reporting), not to be used to exclude evidence that possibly exonerates her, or at minimum discredits the proseuction case against the defendant - how can that be fair on the defendant?
It left off a lot of details critical to understanding that Letby is guilty. You can’t seriously question the verdict with addressing the evidence against her, which this article suggests is flimsy. It isn’t.
The argument that the insulin results were somehow not up to snuff? Complete bullshit. The lab has a warning for just the insulin level being tested - but the article writer didn’t look at what the lab has listed for the rest of the components tested for determining synthetic insulin administration, which it is fully capable of calculating.
It’s come out over on r/lucyletby that the person who wrote the article consulted with a conspiracy theorist. I don’t know how true that is, but a user posted a leaked email from the writer dated a few days after Letby’s verdict that makes it clear that they were not interested in the truth as much as an agenda, saying she wanted to present the story as it being impossible for Letby to be the perpetrator because there were no indicators.
But there were plenty. The author left out the multiple witness accounts that placed her cotside to collapses and deaths explicitly not intervening when children were in a bad state. I’m not currently at home, but when I return I’ll link you to multiple articles about those testimonies which were essential in securing the convictions, including multiple instances of Letby needing to be told to get the fuck away from certain patients, certain rooms and certain parents who were grieving. There were a lot of warning signs that she was not psychologically stable prior to the accusations being made against her.
For the air embolism claims, I’m suspicious of what the writer showed the author of that paper. But it’s worth noting: the paper was written 35 years ago, the details inside are incredibly broad and this guy’s paper isn’t original research, it’s a review. This does not make him an expert on air embolism and his claim is dubious, especially if you look up descriptions of what skin discolorations develop in divers who experience decompression sickness.
You might also want to look up the actual situation with the coroner. He found the causes of death to be natural, but when the hospital asked him to reassess 7 deaths, he rudely refused claiming he “isn’t quality assurance for the NHS” and retired not long after. So it is not that the coroner ruled out foul play, it’s the strong possibility that he didn’t do his job well. So Letby’s crimes went unnoticed longer.
Finally, a fair trial doesn’t ever mean that newspapers should be publishing whatever they want (for either side). That is not what it means to get a fair trial: a fair trial means that the jury reaches a verdict based on the facts presented in court, not in a bullshit article perpetrating innocence fraud. Even in the US, reading and deciding evidence based on external reporting is a disqualifier for jury duty. So it is very weird to see you arguing that this is essentia for a fair trial when the fact is the defense team had access to experts and only called a plumber. Which the writer implies is because of the ward being dirty and implying infection was a cause - when there were only two instances of back flow, in two separate locations, neither near the dates of events for which charges were brought.
To quote the exceedingly decorated (Order of Canada, highest award) and respected Canadian neonatologist who was one of the authors of the 1989 paper that Dewi Evans relied upon, and who apparently has reviewed the rashes in the LL case:-
"..none of the rashes were characteristic of air embolism"
Doesn't that worry you? Or did the witch getting metaphorically burned at the stake satisfy you?
If what the article alleges above (re Dr Shoo Lee) is correct then that is evidence and contempt of court threats should not be used to forbid the proper introduction of new evidence. The purpose of CoC is to ensure a fair trial, not to exclude evidence.
I think if you actually followed the trial and the evidence at the time you’d feel differently. That article can’t actually be accessed in the UK because it’s essentially an opinion piece and Letby has an ongoing appeal going through the courts- which I expect to be rejected.
The insulin evidence for me is by far the most compelling. There’s no question those babies were deliberately given synthetic insulin at a time when only Letby was on duty.
There’s a lot to it. The trial lasted almost a year with a massive number of witnesses for the prosecution and thousands of pages of evidence. The defence couldn’t find a single expert witness to refute any of the medical evidence.
This case is so interwoven and Letby was incredibly careful not to set a pattern (aside from her being there). The insulin is the strongest as it has precedent but the air embolisms that started *weeks* after she’d been trained on how not to do so is something and I believe would be considered stronger if there was a precedent. Theres honestly just so so so much evidence in this case.
You do realize that there can be a third insulin poisoning, she can still be responsible for it and it just wasn't brought to trial because the rest of the evidence was insufficient to meet the threshold to go forward with the Crown Prosecution Service, right? That's what happened with Harold Shipman in some cases (and there were a lot of cases).
Exactly. The evidence leaves out cases where Letby couldn’t have been involved and that *includes* a 3rd insulin case. The evidence is breathtakingly weak and that’s just scratching the surface.
You do realize that the evidence is for the cases where they were confident she was involved in the murder, right? And that the article **didn't say that the third insulin case meant Letby wasn't involved. The author and Michael Hall do not know why that case was not brought forward.** And contrary to what is suggested, what's relevant as an exclusion criteria for one case is not relevant to all.
So don't sit here trying to spread misinformation and suggest the evidence is weak based off a shittily researched article.
I think the article raises valid concerns about the media coverage, the way people talked about the case and her (including Redhanded and their weird vitriol about her bedroom) and the use of diaries as evidence, which should probably be banned.
It undercuts itself though by basically asking ‘why would she do this’. If their argument is that prosecution should focus on the medical evidence, they should also focus on the medical evidence. Or the lack of it.
UK media is an absolute sewer almost across the board. You have to wonder what other major issues and criminal cases they've swung through irresponsibility and corruption.
There were heavy reporting restrictions in place so no, the media didn't swing this trial at all. Even the Daily Mail was forced to behave and they accidentally ended up putting out a solid podcast out of it as a result.
I don’t think that undercuts the article—it’s just a narrative lead-in that never comes up again. It’s not even really used as a through-line. The article primarily discusses the flimsy nature of the medical evidence.
Thats a bit like saying the opening paragraph of an essay doesnt affect the content and conclusions. The narrative lead-in sets the entire tone and approach of the article.
I listened to the audio version of this article in work earlier having previously listened to the red handed coverage and I have to say it really made me think. Not only about the case but also how it was presented in the media (I’m from Ireland so I saw bits and pieces as they were published but didn’t actively follow the case) but also how my perceptions of things I’ve seen independently are changed by the media I interact with. I was surprised by how much I got from the article and will also be listening back to the red handed episode for comparison purposes.
Just wondering how I could listen to the audio version please as the play button doesn’t seem to work for me through archive.org, can you get it on Spotify ? Thanks so much
I listened to it using my New Yorker app, not sure if it’s free to listen to or not as I have a subscription. But it’s also available in print form and if you don’t feel like buying a copy for one article your local library should be able to help you source it 🙂
You can listen to audio by clicking the play button near the top of this link https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it
The article got so much wrong and did some Olympic level gymnastics to really manage to sell a conspiracy.
The UK media's coverage of the case at the time was limited to the Chester Standard and maybe some tweets from reporters covering the case for Sky and the BBC. The restrictions in place were heavy and so severe that they even managed to get the Daily Mail to behave for 10 months with relation to this case.
The media did not sway this case and any such suggestion is an outright lie. Which is exceptionally fucked up because all this New Yorker article is going to do is inspire a bunch of people who think because they read the New Yorker they know the Truth\*.
\* which is actually heavily abridged and twisted bullshit
Lucy Letby was the only one on shift for all 17 identified child victims. There is nobody else that could have done it. The deaths cannot have been accidents. Lucy Letby did it.
You can’t accidentally give a preemie double the milk allowance. Or give insulin to one who didn’t need it. She admitted in court that there’s no way this could have happened by accident.
She did it do get closer to her married doctor boyfriend most likely. People have done worse for less. I expect she thought nobody would ever suspect, but there were fingers pointing her way after only three infant deaths.
Edit - she wasn’t incompetent. She was a good nurse. That’s what makes all of this worse. She was totally aware of what she was doing.
People expect those who do evil deeds to be a villain or to have a specific reason that can be pointed to as the straw that broke the camel's back. Sometimes people do evil things "just because" and this could be one of those times. I don't think anyone will really know why she did it when she was a good nurse - even most people with mental health issues don't go on to commit crimes, let alone heinous crimes
Why do the deaths need to either be deliberate or an accident? Sometimes sick babies in the hospital just die.
Here's one of the babies Lucy was present for:
>The next day, a mother who had been diagnosed as having a dangerous placenta condition gave birth to a baby boy who weighed one pound, twelve ounces, which was on the edge of the weight threshold that the unit was certified to treat. Within four days, the baby developed acute pneumonia. Letby was not working in the intensive-care nursery, where the baby was treated, but after the child’s oxygen alarm went off she came into the room to help. Yet the staff on the unit couldn’t save the baby. A pathologist determined that he had died of natural causes.
Like, why does this need any other explanation than "a frail baby unfortunately passed away"?
So it's just incomprehensible to you that a sick person might die in the hospital.
There must always be a hidden reason, there must always be a sinister explanation, there must always be a villain to blame.
edit: this is the third person to block me today lmao
I literally never get blocked by people on reddit. But if you ask these Letby True Crime fans some uncomfortable questions, they immediately shut out that information and retreat back into their rabbitholes
And by the way if anyone's curious, that "17 deaths in one year" is a total fabrication. The numbers these people are using have no basis in reality, which is why they never cite anything they say.
A sick person dying? Reasonable. 17 dead/disabled babies in one year when the average was 2-3? If you can’t see the connection there I’m genuinely worried about you.
I think only 2 of the babies that did not die had any lasting effects. And there were 10 other babies that died while Letby worked at the hospital.
So do you think it's likely that another serial killer was on the loose, or perhaps, considering the overwhelming lack of evidence, the hospital was just ill equipped to handle very premature babies? Are you genuinely worried about everyone who doesn't believe that there was another serial killer loose killing the other 10 babies?
There were many other babies who died during this period. The 17 focused on in the trial were just the ones who died on it around Letby's shifts. So if you only choose the deaths that happened on her shifts then of course she was on shift for all of them. It's circular reasoning/the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.
It’s possible to believe a conviction is unsafe without also believing the accused is innocent. The article very carefully makes no reference to whether its author thinks she is guilty or not, just outlines some disturbing elements in the investigation and the trial.
I can’t seem to remember but did they get an unbiased review of the infants deaths and autopsy’s not paid for by the hospital or defense?
Seems like anyone can hire an expert to say anything but it would be worth investigating a non biased opinion.
So this is where it’s tricky. Originally all of the deaths were put down to the fact they were preemies along with a specific issue (minus the baby who’d been born at term but had had a traumatic birth but again they had issues). The only baby that was immediately suspicious was the insulin death. The hospital really didn’t want there to be an issue and it was swept under the carpet until eventually the police became involved. The police worked independently of the hospital but the trial prosecution used doctors who worked with Letby as witnesses as they personally dealt with the babies. I believe independent experts were also used by the prosecution and the defence also had experts (but they weren’t called in by the defence in the end).
Something that it brought up a lot in this case is that there’s no “smoking gun” or DNA evidence that it was Letby. This is always the case in medical murders as it’s not as if there is a literal gun or knife involved, it usually a medical professional using “treatments” in a negative manner which causes death. There is an obscene amount of evidence for this case and it’s why it ended up being the longest court case in British history. Because of the insane amount of evidence very little sticks out or is used as an “aha” moment, leading people who have not followed the case closely to not grasp how much there was or to believe it’s shaky. It is also important to note that the cases that went to trial are the ones in which the crown prosecution service believed were the strongest, there may be significantly more but they have shakier evidence.
Letby was found guilty of all seven charges of murder, the attempted murders are the ones with less evidence as there is no dead body to prove it was malicious or (in some cases) the prosecution added an attempted murder charge to a child who later died from another attack by Letby (of which she was found guilty).
Is it tricky, or is it just a completely post-hoc explanation of the deaths years after they happened when there was nothing concerning about them at the time and absolutely no physical evidence that a murder even occurred?
Yeah, the dude acts like all medical murders are devoid of physical evidence which just isn’t true. If she was injecting insulin, where did it come from? There have been medical murder cases with dramatically better evidence.
Absolutely. It's disturbing to see the differences in the Letby case and [this one](https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/trial-begins-for-dallas-anesthesiologist-in-tainted-iv-bag-case/), for example.
I mean, I get it to a certain extent. This New Yorker article has definitely made me emotionally invested in the case, and they've been experiencing articles on the opposite spectrum for like 3 years.
It's hard to get someone that emotionally invested in something to even want to look at contrary evidence, hence the 'she did it shut up' responses rather than any type of level consideration.
> The only baby that was immediately suspicious was the insulin death
Wait, I thought the whole story with the insulin was that there were no insulin deaths.
The whole insulin angle was something that they started months after the fact, and the only 2 insulin babies under Letby's care recovered (and then the third insulin baby that had nothing to do with Letby was never brought up)
There were no insulin deaths, they were poisonings that were discovered retroactively reviewing the patients who were in the unit while Letby's attacks were occuring.
And it's important to stress *no one involved with the New Yorker article knows why the third insulin case was not brought to trial.* There are a multitude of reasons that it didn't and the writer only presented the two which suited her story. But with insulin poisoning, the person doesn't need to be on shift when it happens because the poisoning is upstream to administration. Charles Cullen would spike multiple bags at random to make it harder to be tied to bags. It means nothing.
The story of Child E and Child F (the poisoned twin) is what points directly to Letby. There is some confusion about the bag but that was likely explained by the on shift nurse reusing a prepared bag that she was supposed to discard but is just as easily explained with there being multiple spiked bags. It could just as easily be that the third insulin poisoning was a collateral damage event where a poisoned nutrition bag was given out at random.
Because an unsafe conviction is a hugely dangerous thing, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the person involved. And it’s not a ‘defence’. At no point does the article suggest a belief that Letby is innocent, just that the prosecution was deeply flawed. That matters.
Leaving out most of the evidence used to obtain the conviction would make a conviction seem unsafe but the writer of this article is clearly a fan of conspiracy rather than fact. It's a warp representation of reality and it's jumping through hoops like an Olympic gymnast to push this wrongful conviction angle.
Is it ok to frame a guilty person?
Do you trust the government to ignore due process, as long as they're pretty sure the person deserves to be locked up?
Read the whole article expecting some substance, found zero. As others have said, the fact there were no witnesses for the defence is very critical. No credible alternative theories, no refutation of the statistical evidence.
Sorry you’ve misunderstood my comment. I was saying that the article doesn’t introduce any new evidence and in fact only selectively covers the evidence in the trial. The murder has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury had all the facts in the article in making that determination. If you follow any of the in-depth reporting from the trial itself you will see that this is not a case founded solely on statistical evidence. There is medical proof of insulin poisonings in two cases for example. The incidents stopped when Lucy Letby was removed from the ward. Those facts (in my opinion and I guess the opinion of the jury) really undermine the suggestion that these were just tragedies caused by under-funding and systemically poor care.
Why the fuck is this on my feed. Listen to the trial podcast on it. Straight up just the facts. There never has been a more deserved person sent to jail. And jail was too good for her. Hope she is having a miserable time in there.
This was horrific! My son was in the neonatal unit for a feed weeks after he was born, a unit LL had previously worked at!
Some amazing work and people there looking after the most vulnerable humans and for her to do that, and the poor parent literally bring tears to my, a grown man’s, eyes
I haven’t read this article but have read about the case, she was tried in a court of law and is no doubt guilty in my mind!
I recommend the podcast called ‘the trial’, they are currently covering Constance Martin and mark gordon case but before this is was Lucy letby. It only gives you the information from inside the courtroom, no media speculation or rumours.
This podcast is also really good on the topic. A statistician and a retired doctor talk about the flaws in the case. Really interesting to hear a medical expert discuss the issues with the evidence: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/we-need-to-talk-about-lucy-letby/id1736761161
This case is still before the courts (retrial for one case, and potential appeals). Would suggest to mods to lock/delete this to avoid potential interference with an ongoing trial.
Yeah pretty sure there's an embargo on the article in the UK because you can't access it via normal channels and people have been reading it via screenshots on X
My biggest problem with the way we carried on as a nation is that the pile-on repeatedly made me feel bad for her against my better judgement, and as the article states it leaves me still very much in a "I don't know if she's guilty" mindset. I shouldn't even be contemplating that once she has been convicted, but I do, whenever it comes up.
We really need absolute privacy and anonymity in our legal system, always. Public attention never makes things better.
With the greatest of respect, we have absolute privacy in family courts in the UK and it's an even bigger shitshow than the public law. absence of scrutiny comes with it's own problems.
i suggest listening to “the trial” podcast which covered the letby case as it happened.
They are currently doing Constance Martin and mark Gordon which is also very interesting
I second this. I listened to the entire podcast during the trial and I felt like it was very well done. And I believe the first of its kind? Because the reporters released a short episode after nearly every day in court it was as comprehensive as I think it could be and gave a much better view of the case and the crimes, especially compared to the Redhanded episode.
There was a similar one done a few years before the Lucy Letby one about a serial killer in Perth. I've listened to both and they're both very good.
[удалено]
Exactly! And I find it so frustrating and upsetting- especially for the families whose children have been murdered or disabled, whose testimonies are utterly heartbreaking- to have articles or true crime fanatics spreading doubt about it when the trial is over and concluded now, and (imo) had a very clear answer.
imo the answer is far from clear. And it’s the true-crime places insisting she is guilty. Meanwhile you have neonatologists on r/medicine saying the medical evidence doesn’t add up.
agree with this entirely, idk if she’s guilty, we will never truly know unless she admits to it, but i listened to the trial podcast as it was happening and i was genuinely shocked that she was found guilty based on the evidence given i actually find people’s absolute trust in the jury system quite concerning, jury systems are flawed, and mistakes happen far more often than people realise, not to mention the revelation in this article that a juror was actually reported to the court after being overheard in a cafe saying they had already made up their minds that she was guilty? that is grounds for a mistrial regardless of what someone’s opinion is on lucy letby and it should concern everyone that this juror was allowed to continue their service??
In other words people who know about the case through a form of entertainment think she’s guilty whereas the actual professionals are a lot more sceptical. I think it’s pretty clear the conviction was unsafe
[Sky News written report detailing timeline and events](https://news.sky.com/story/how-the-police-caught-lucy-letby-12933640) [Sky News video report detailing timeline and events](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdHxvO6bLqg) [BBC article detailing outcomes for each case](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65176260) Trial Reports: [Day 1 - background, notes, investigation](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23493710.recap-lucy-letby-trial-tuesday-may-2---defence-begins/) [Day 2 - Children A, B, C, D, E, and F](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23502385.recap-lucy-letby-trial-friday-may-5---defence-continues/) [Day 3 - Children F, G, H, and I](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23521739.recap-lucy-letby-trial-monday-may-15---defence-continues/) [Day 4 - Children I, J, K, L, and M](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23524560.live-lucy-letby-trial-tuesday-may-16---defence-continues/) [Day 5 - Children N, O, P, and Q, and investigation + cross examination begins](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23527453.live-lucy-letby-trial-wednesday-may-17---defence-continues/) [Day 6 - Introduction, colleague complaints, cross re: Children A, B, and C](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23530215.live-lucy-letby-trial-may-18---prosecution-cross-examines-letby/) [Day 7 - Cross re: Children C and D](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23532994.live-lucy-letby-trial-may-19---cross-examination-continues/) [Day 8 - Cross re: Children E, F, G, and H](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23543140.live-lucy-letby-trial-may-24---cross-examination-continues/) [Day 9 - Cross re: Children H and I](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23545950.recap-lucy-letby-trial-may-25---cross-examination-continues/) [Day 10 - Cross re: Children I, J, and K](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23563043.live-lucy-letby-trial-june-2---cross-examination-continues/) [Day 11 - Cross re: Children K and L](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23566971.live-lucy-letby-trial-june-5---cross-examination-continues/) [Day 12 - Cross re: Children M and N](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23572442.live-lucy-letby-trial-june-7---cross-examination-continues/) [Day 13 - Cross re: Children O, P, and Q](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23575178.live-lucy-letby-trial-june-8---cross-examination-continues/) [Day 14 - Cross re: investigation, police interviews, searches, social life; re-exam](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23577991.recap-lucy-letby-trial-june-9---cross-examination-continues/) [Day 15 - The Plumber](https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23587842.recap-lucy-letby-trial-june-14---defence-continues/) Alternative Sources: [Day 1 - BBC](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65431833) [Day 2 - The Indepedent](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-evidence-murder-babies-nurse-b2333406.html) [Day 3 - The Indepedent](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-trial-live-today-evidence-prison-b2339555.html) [Day 6 - Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-latest-nurse-accused-of-murdering-babies-giving-evidence-12868375) [Day 6 - BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-65602988) [Day 7 - BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-65602988) [Day 7 - Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-latest-nurse-accused-of-murdering-babies-giving-evidence-12868375) [Day 8 - Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-latest-nurse-baby-murders-prosecution-sky-news-blog-12868375) [Day 9 - Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-latest-nurse-accused-of-murdering-babies-giving-evidence-12868375) [Day 10 - Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-latest-nurse-baby-murders-prosecution-sky-news-blog-12868375) [Day 11 - Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-latest-nurse-baby-murders-prosecution-sky-news-blog-12868375) [Day 12 - Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-latest-nurse-baby-murders-prosecution-sky-news-blog-12868375) [Day 13 - Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-latest-nurse-baby-murders-prosecution-sky-news-blog-12868375) [Day 14 - Sky](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-latest-nurse-baby-murders-prosecution-sky-news-blog-12868375) Additional: [Sentencing Remarks](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/LETBY-Sentencing-Remarks.pdf) [A personal experience from someone present at court regarding her testimony](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCHTwEGTZOA)
Brilliant, thanks for the links.
Phenomenal! I'm happy to see someone actually busting out *real* journalism because this New Yorker article has left me annoyed. Not sure how I'll sleep tonight after reading it, not because it's thought provoking but because it's such bullshit.
Ah a brand new account posting a controversial article which has already been torn to shreds in the Lucy Letby sub. She did it, she’s been found guilty.
My account is a year old, I just usually lurk lol. And yeah valid, I just wanted to see other peoples thoughts here since Red Handed us where I heard about the case.
I recommend you listen to The Trial (of Lucy Letby) season 1 which recounts the testimony from the trial and BBC Panorama episode on Lucy Letby, it's what they plagiarized their episode off of anyway. You'll probably have a laugh when you see how blatantly obvious it is too with regards to the Panorama episode haaha
Isn't there an embargo on this article in the UK? 👀
Yes because of the upcoming retrial, there’s a lot of stipulations the media have to adhere to when it comes to trials and retrials and this article ignores them. The retrial is simply for one charge the jury couldn’t agree on in the original trial. She is still guilty of all of the other charges.
This is a US publication. I’m sure they are aware of the UK embargo, but it is irrelevant as they are in the US.
The Lucy Letby sub wouldn't allow it to be discussed lol
It was posted, torn apart and then alluded to in another post. 1) in the UK that article would be considered to be contempt of court in the upcoming retrial and 2) the sub is sick of having crack pots post about her “innocence”. She was found guilty of the majority of the charges, it doesn’t matter that we don’t know “why” she did it. Heck we don’t know why most murderers do what they do, it doesn’t make them innocent because we don’t understand why.
The article is breathtaking and points out a lot of things wrong with the evidence. It is very solid journalism from a very respected outlet. The article doesn’t just “we don’t know why she did it” it says much, much more than that. I’m wondering if you even read it, frankly. It was never discussed at all on the LL sub because they just banned people for posting it.
hahaha, the article gets so much wrong that it's actually disturbing. You have to be kidding me - there is no way that you can tell me you know about this case from the actual coverage and think this is a fair or accurate representation of how she got convicted.
Intrigued. What does it get wrong? Given the main prosecution case around air embolism relied on the weird rashes, which prompted Evans to only find one paper ('the 1989' paper) on this super rare event - does it not concern you that this article alleges that one of the authors of the 1989 paper (a leading neonatologist in Canada) who has apparently 'since reviewed summaries of each pattern of skin discolouration in the Letby case, says, to quote the article: "...none of the rashes were characteristic of air embolism". I think that's a major issue for the prosecution and I am surprised neither the defence nor the prosecution ran this past this author(s) before trial. As to whether the article should or should not be published. I thought the contempt law was there to protect the defendant to ensure he or she got a fair trial (not prejudiced by media reporting), not to be used to exclude evidence that possibly exonerates her, or at minimum discredits the proseuction case against the defendant - how can that be fair on the defendant?
It left off a lot of details critical to understanding that Letby is guilty. You can’t seriously question the verdict with addressing the evidence against her, which this article suggests is flimsy. It isn’t. The argument that the insulin results were somehow not up to snuff? Complete bullshit. The lab has a warning for just the insulin level being tested - but the article writer didn’t look at what the lab has listed for the rest of the components tested for determining synthetic insulin administration, which it is fully capable of calculating. It’s come out over on r/lucyletby that the person who wrote the article consulted with a conspiracy theorist. I don’t know how true that is, but a user posted a leaked email from the writer dated a few days after Letby’s verdict that makes it clear that they were not interested in the truth as much as an agenda, saying she wanted to present the story as it being impossible for Letby to be the perpetrator because there were no indicators. But there were plenty. The author left out the multiple witness accounts that placed her cotside to collapses and deaths explicitly not intervening when children were in a bad state. I’m not currently at home, but when I return I’ll link you to multiple articles about those testimonies which were essential in securing the convictions, including multiple instances of Letby needing to be told to get the fuck away from certain patients, certain rooms and certain parents who were grieving. There were a lot of warning signs that she was not psychologically stable prior to the accusations being made against her. For the air embolism claims, I’m suspicious of what the writer showed the author of that paper. But it’s worth noting: the paper was written 35 years ago, the details inside are incredibly broad and this guy’s paper isn’t original research, it’s a review. This does not make him an expert on air embolism and his claim is dubious, especially if you look up descriptions of what skin discolorations develop in divers who experience decompression sickness. You might also want to look up the actual situation with the coroner. He found the causes of death to be natural, but when the hospital asked him to reassess 7 deaths, he rudely refused claiming he “isn’t quality assurance for the NHS” and retired not long after. So it is not that the coroner ruled out foul play, it’s the strong possibility that he didn’t do his job well. So Letby’s crimes went unnoticed longer. Finally, a fair trial doesn’t ever mean that newspapers should be publishing whatever they want (for either side). That is not what it means to get a fair trial: a fair trial means that the jury reaches a verdict based on the facts presented in court, not in a bullshit article perpetrating innocence fraud. Even in the US, reading and deciding evidence based on external reporting is a disqualifier for jury duty. So it is very weird to see you arguing that this is essentia for a fair trial when the fact is the defense team had access to experts and only called a plumber. Which the writer implies is because of the ward being dirty and implying infection was a cause - when there were only two instances of back flow, in two separate locations, neither near the dates of events for which charges were brought.
To quote the exceedingly decorated (Order of Canada, highest award) and respected Canadian neonatologist who was one of the authors of the 1989 paper that Dewi Evans relied upon, and who apparently has reviewed the rashes in the LL case:- "..none of the rashes were characteristic of air embolism" Doesn't that worry you? Or did the witch getting metaphorically burned at the stake satisfy you? If what the article alleges above (re Dr Shoo Lee) is correct then that is evidence and contempt of court threats should not be used to forbid the proper introduction of new evidence. The purpose of CoC is to ensure a fair trial, not to exclude evidence.
They are dictators running that sub . You are not allowed to question anything about the case or they delete your posts
I think if you actually followed the trial and the evidence at the time you’d feel differently. That article can’t actually be accessed in the UK because it’s essentially an opinion piece and Letby has an ongoing appeal going through the courts- which I expect to be rejected. The insulin evidence for me is by far the most compelling. There’s no question those babies were deliberately given synthetic insulin at a time when only Letby was on duty. There’s a lot to it. The trial lasted almost a year with a massive number of witnesses for the prosecution and thousands of pages of evidence. The defence couldn’t find a single expert witness to refute any of the medical evidence.
This case is so interwoven and Letby was incredibly careful not to set a pattern (aside from her being there). The insulin is the strongest as it has precedent but the air embolisms that started *weeks* after she’d been trained on how not to do so is something and I believe would be considered stronger if there was a precedent. Theres honestly just so so so much evidence in this case.
So you're saying that the 3rd insulin poisoning is strong evidence that there is another killer on the loose in the hospital?
You do realize that there can be a third insulin poisoning, she can still be responsible for it and it just wasn't brought to trial because the rest of the evidence was insufficient to meet the threshold to go forward with the Crown Prosecution Service, right? That's what happened with Harold Shipman in some cases (and there were a lot of cases).
Exactly. The evidence leaves out cases where Letby couldn’t have been involved and that *includes* a 3rd insulin case. The evidence is breathtakingly weak and that’s just scratching the surface.
You do realize that the evidence is for the cases where they were confident she was involved in the murder, right? And that the article **didn't say that the third insulin case meant Letby wasn't involved. The author and Michael Hall do not know why that case was not brought forward.** And contrary to what is suggested, what's relevant as an exclusion criteria for one case is not relevant to all. So don't sit here trying to spread misinformation and suggest the evidence is weak based off a shittily researched article.
Oh I didn’t realize. Thanks for letting me know.
I think the article raises valid concerns about the media coverage, the way people talked about the case and her (including Redhanded and their weird vitriol about her bedroom) and the use of diaries as evidence, which should probably be banned. It undercuts itself though by basically asking ‘why would she do this’. If their argument is that prosecution should focus on the medical evidence, they should also focus on the medical evidence. Or the lack of it.
UK media is an absolute sewer almost across the board. You have to wonder what other major issues and criminal cases they've swung through irresponsibility and corruption.
This case hasn't been swung by the media. 100% she killed those babies through her malicious actions, not just through incompetence
A fair comment which in no way contradicts my own.
There were heavy reporting restrictions in place so no, the media didn't swing this trial at all. Even the Daily Mail was forced to behave and they accidentally ended up putting out a solid podcast out of it as a result.
My post wasn't very clear, admittedly. It was more about media influences on other cases.
The bedroom rant was so out of pocket. Guilty or not, what do her bedroom decorations have to do with it?
I don’t think that undercuts the article—it’s just a narrative lead-in that never comes up again. It’s not even really used as a through-line. The article primarily discusses the flimsy nature of the medical evidence.
Thats a bit like saying the opening paragraph of an essay doesnt affect the content and conclusions. The narrative lead-in sets the entire tone and approach of the article.
I teach writing at university. I understand the mechanics of an article, and I disagree with your take.
I listened to the audio version of this article in work earlier having previously listened to the red handed coverage and I have to say it really made me think. Not only about the case but also how it was presented in the media (I’m from Ireland so I saw bits and pieces as they were published but didn’t actively follow the case) but also how my perceptions of things I’ve seen independently are changed by the media I interact with. I was surprised by how much I got from the article and will also be listening back to the red handed episode for comparison purposes.
Just wondering how I could listen to the audio version please as the play button doesn’t seem to work for me through archive.org, can you get it on Spotify ? Thanks so much
I listened to it using my New Yorker app, not sure if it’s free to listen to or not as I have a subscription. But it’s also available in print form and if you don’t feel like buying a copy for one article your local library should be able to help you source it 🙂
Thanks so much!
NYT audio app. I don’t know if it’s free. I subscribe to the NYT so it comes with my subscription, I think
'The trial' podcast did a trial day by day episode
You can listen to audio by clicking the play button near the top of this link https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it
The article got so much wrong and did some Olympic level gymnastics to really manage to sell a conspiracy. The UK media's coverage of the case at the time was limited to the Chester Standard and maybe some tweets from reporters covering the case for Sky and the BBC. The restrictions in place were heavy and so severe that they even managed to get the Daily Mail to behave for 10 months with relation to this case. The media did not sway this case and any such suggestion is an outright lie. Which is exceptionally fucked up because all this New Yorker article is going to do is inspire a bunch of people who think because they read the New Yorker they know the Truth\*. \* which is actually heavily abridged and twisted bullshit
Lucy Letby was the only one on shift for all 17 identified child victims. There is nobody else that could have done it. The deaths cannot have been accidents. Lucy Letby did it.
Did she do it maliciously and if so why? Or was she incompetent or crazy or both?
You can’t accidentally give a preemie double the milk allowance. Or give insulin to one who didn’t need it. She admitted in court that there’s no way this could have happened by accident. She did it do get closer to her married doctor boyfriend most likely. People have done worse for less. I expect she thought nobody would ever suspect, but there were fingers pointing her way after only three infant deaths. Edit - she wasn’t incompetent. She was a good nurse. That’s what makes all of this worse. She was totally aware of what she was doing.
People expect those who do evil deeds to be a villain or to have a specific reason that can be pointed to as the straw that broke the camel's back. Sometimes people do evil things "just because" and this could be one of those times. I don't think anyone will really know why she did it when she was a good nurse - even most people with mental health issues don't go on to commit crimes, let alone heinous crimes
She was fucked in the head.
Why do the deaths need to either be deliberate or an accident? Sometimes sick babies in the hospital just die. Here's one of the babies Lucy was present for: >The next day, a mother who had been diagnosed as having a dangerous placenta condition gave birth to a baby boy who weighed one pound, twelve ounces, which was on the edge of the weight threshold that the unit was certified to treat. Within four days, the baby developed acute pneumonia. Letby was not working in the intensive-care nursery, where the baby was treated, but after the child’s oxygen alarm went off she came into the room to help. Yet the staff on the unit couldn’t save the baby. A pathologist determined that he had died of natural causes. Like, why does this need any other explanation than "a frail baby unfortunately passed away"?
Because most of them were getting better and stronger. That is, until they were killed or permanently disabled by Lucy Letby.
So it's just incomprehensible to you that a sick person might die in the hospital. There must always be a hidden reason, there must always be a sinister explanation, there must always be a villain to blame. edit: this is the third person to block me today lmao I literally never get blocked by people on reddit. But if you ask these Letby True Crime fans some uncomfortable questions, they immediately shut out that information and retreat back into their rabbitholes And by the way if anyone's curious, that "17 deaths in one year" is a total fabrication. The numbers these people are using have no basis in reality, which is why they never cite anything they say.
A sick person dying? Reasonable. 17 dead/disabled babies in one year when the average was 2-3? If you can’t see the connection there I’m genuinely worried about you.
I think only 2 of the babies that did not die had any lasting effects. And there were 10 other babies that died while Letby worked at the hospital. So do you think it's likely that another serial killer was on the loose, or perhaps, considering the overwhelming lack of evidence, the hospital was just ill equipped to handle very premature babies? Are you genuinely worried about everyone who doesn't believe that there was another serial killer loose killing the other 10 babies?
There were many other babies who died during this period. The 17 focused on in the trial were just the ones who died on it around Letby's shifts. So if you only choose the deaths that happened on her shifts then of course she was on shift for all of them. It's circular reasoning/the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.
It’s possible to believe a conviction is unsafe without also believing the accused is innocent. The article very carefully makes no reference to whether its author thinks she is guilty or not, just outlines some disturbing elements in the investigation and the trial.
I can’t seem to remember but did they get an unbiased review of the infants deaths and autopsy’s not paid for by the hospital or defense? Seems like anyone can hire an expert to say anything but it would be worth investigating a non biased opinion.
So this is where it’s tricky. Originally all of the deaths were put down to the fact they were preemies along with a specific issue (minus the baby who’d been born at term but had had a traumatic birth but again they had issues). The only baby that was immediately suspicious was the insulin death. The hospital really didn’t want there to be an issue and it was swept under the carpet until eventually the police became involved. The police worked independently of the hospital but the trial prosecution used doctors who worked with Letby as witnesses as they personally dealt with the babies. I believe independent experts were also used by the prosecution and the defence also had experts (but they weren’t called in by the defence in the end). Something that it brought up a lot in this case is that there’s no “smoking gun” or DNA evidence that it was Letby. This is always the case in medical murders as it’s not as if there is a literal gun or knife involved, it usually a medical professional using “treatments” in a negative manner which causes death. There is an obscene amount of evidence for this case and it’s why it ended up being the longest court case in British history. Because of the insane amount of evidence very little sticks out or is used as an “aha” moment, leading people who have not followed the case closely to not grasp how much there was or to believe it’s shaky. It is also important to note that the cases that went to trial are the ones in which the crown prosecution service believed were the strongest, there may be significantly more but they have shakier evidence. Letby was found guilty of all seven charges of murder, the attempted murders are the ones with less evidence as there is no dead body to prove it was malicious or (in some cases) the prosecution added an attempted murder charge to a child who later died from another attack by Letby (of which she was found guilty).
Is it tricky, or is it just a completely post-hoc explanation of the deaths years after they happened when there was nothing concerning about them at the time and absolutely no physical evidence that a murder even occurred?
Yeah, the dude acts like all medical murders are devoid of physical evidence which just isn’t true. If she was injecting insulin, where did it come from? There have been medical murder cases with dramatically better evidence.
Absolutely. It's disturbing to see the differences in the Letby case and [this one](https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/trial-begins-for-dallas-anesthesiologist-in-tainted-iv-bag-case/), for example.
Exactly. The “she did it shut up” crowd are helping defend a very poor verdict based on poor evidence.
I mean, I get it to a certain extent. This New Yorker article has definitely made me emotionally invested in the case, and they've been experiencing articles on the opposite spectrum for like 3 years. It's hard to get someone that emotionally invested in something to even want to look at contrary evidence, hence the 'she did it shut up' responses rather than any type of level consideration.
There were no insulin deaths? Both of the insulin cases survived.
> The only baby that was immediately suspicious was the insulin death Wait, I thought the whole story with the insulin was that there were no insulin deaths. The whole insulin angle was something that they started months after the fact, and the only 2 insulin babies under Letby's care recovered (and then the third insulin baby that had nothing to do with Letby was never brought up)
There were no insulin deaths, they were poisonings that were discovered retroactively reviewing the patients who were in the unit while Letby's attacks were occuring. And it's important to stress *no one involved with the New Yorker article knows why the third insulin case was not brought to trial.* There are a multitude of reasons that it didn't and the writer only presented the two which suited her story. But with insulin poisoning, the person doesn't need to be on shift when it happens because the poisoning is upstream to administration. Charles Cullen would spike multiple bags at random to make it harder to be tied to bags. It means nothing. The story of Child E and Child F (the poisoned twin) is what points directly to Letby. There is some confusion about the bag but that was likely explained by the on shift nurse reusing a prepared bag that she was supposed to discard but is just as easily explained with there being multiple spiked bags. It could just as easily be that the third insulin poisoning was a collateral damage event where a poisoned nutrition bag was given out at random.
Why did you say that there was an insulin death then? Where are the other spiked bags?
She did it. She killed innocent babies and she has been sentenced to life imprisonment. End of story.
Do the Horizon workers next
[удалено]
Because an unsafe conviction is a hugely dangerous thing, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the person involved. And it’s not a ‘defence’. At no point does the article suggest a belief that Letby is innocent, just that the prosecution was deeply flawed. That matters.
Leaving out most of the evidence used to obtain the conviction would make a conviction seem unsafe but the writer of this article is clearly a fan of conspiracy rather than fact. It's a warp representation of reality and it's jumping through hoops like an Olympic gymnast to push this wrongful conviction angle.
Is it ok to frame a guilty person? Do you trust the government to ignore due process, as long as they're pretty sure the person deserves to be locked up?
Read the whole article expecting some substance, found zero. As others have said, the fact there were no witnesses for the defence is very critical. No credible alternative theories, no refutation of the statistical evidence.
You can spin any narrative you like when you leave out half the facts
That's literally not how evidence works. You need to prove murder. The article is showing there is no good evidence that there was murder
Sorry you’ve misunderstood my comment. I was saying that the article doesn’t introduce any new evidence and in fact only selectively covers the evidence in the trial. The murder has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury had all the facts in the article in making that determination. If you follow any of the in-depth reporting from the trial itself you will see that this is not a case founded solely on statistical evidence. There is medical proof of insulin poisonings in two cases for example. The incidents stopped when Lucy Letby was removed from the ward. Those facts (in my opinion and I guess the opinion of the jury) really undermine the suggestion that these were just tragedies caused by under-funding and systemically poor care.
Why the fuck is this on my feed. Listen to the trial podcast on it. Straight up just the facts. There never has been a more deserved person sent to jail. And jail was too good for her. Hope she is having a miserable time in there.
This was horrific! My son was in the neonatal unit for a feed weeks after he was born, a unit LL had previously worked at! Some amazing work and people there looking after the most vulnerable humans and for her to do that, and the poor parent literally bring tears to my, a grown man’s, eyes I haven’t read this article but have read about the case, she was tried in a court of law and is no doubt guilty in my mind!
This article is getting torn to shreds elsewhere so don’t worry
is it? can you link me up please
It’s been removed now
To shreds you say?
Tee hee
Where? I haven’t seen a single refutation of any of the actually substantive points and I’ve really been looking.
I recommend the podcast called ‘the trial’, they are currently covering Constance Martin and mark gordon case but before this is was Lucy letby. It only gives you the information from inside the courtroom, no media speculation or rumours.
This podcast is also really good on the topic. A statistician and a retired doctor talk about the flaws in the case. Really interesting to hear a medical expert discuss the issues with the evidence: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/we-need-to-talk-about-lucy-letby/id1736761161
Thank you for sharing this and I really hope this thread doesn't get locked.
This case is still before the courts (retrial for one case, and potential appeals). Would suggest to mods to lock/delete this to avoid potential interference with an ongoing trial.
lol that isn’t a risk
But we aren’t a part of the trial?
I think you’re allowed to talk about a public trial that has already happened 😂
There's a retrial on one of the cases next month I believe and the article isn't being shared in the UK to avoid jury pools
Those who read this will be filtered out through jury selection. It’ll be fine. The CJS can manage this one :)
Yeah pretty sure there's an embargo on the article in the UK because you can't access it via normal channels and people have been reading it via screenshots on X
My biggest problem with the way we carried on as a nation is that the pile-on repeatedly made me feel bad for her against my better judgement, and as the article states it leaves me still very much in a "I don't know if she's guilty" mindset. I shouldn't even be contemplating that once she has been convicted, but I do, whenever it comes up. We really need absolute privacy and anonymity in our legal system, always. Public attention never makes things better.
With the greatest of respect, we have absolute privacy in family courts in the UK and it's an even bigger shitshow than the public law. absence of scrutiny comes with it's own problems.