The Lucy Letby Inquiry

[Paninistickers]

4 hours ago, Robo61 said:

not sufficiently tested by the defence.

For me, that's the interesting part. I don't think you can appeal or demand a retrial on the basis her defence team were nigh on useless. 

 

It stinks of her parents....decent, quiet, timid people unable to challenge 'thier betters' and being unaware (or afraid to say)  how weak the defence counsel was. Im conjuring images of that stuttering public defender in the my cousin Vinny film. 

 

Or did the defence subconsciously put in a poor performance thinking she was guilty? (Highly unlikely) 

[Trav Le Bleu]

On 14/09/2024 at 11:49, Paninistickers said:

For me, that's the interesting part. I don't think you can appeal or demand a retrial on the basis her defence team were nigh on useless. 

 

It stinks of her parents....decent, quiet, timid people unable to challenge 'thier betters' and being unaware (or afraid to say)  how weak the defence counsel was. Im conjuring images of that stuttering public defender in the my cousin Vinny film. 

 

Or did the defence subconsciously put in a poor performance thinking she was guilty? (Highly unlikely) 

I think she waived her right to defence counsel.

[Mike Oxlong]

2 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

I think she waived her right to defence counsel.

I don't think so 

 

Was represented by 

 

https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/people/benjamin-myers-kc/

[Paninistickers]

3 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

I don't think so 

 

Was represented by 

 

https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/people/benjamin-myers-kc/

Thanks. Good to know to avoid him if I'm ever up before the beak

[Paninistickers]

New defence team claiming expert witness has changed ages his mind..

 

This is a story never going away..

 

I wonder if there will eventually be some kind of quiet compromise and she ends up doing 15-20 years and then being released on appeal. The legal system almost hedging its bets. I don't think anyone can ever confidently work out what's gone on here. 

[Super_horns]

Sadly probably not the end for the relatives of her victims .

[when_you're_smiling]

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

New defence team claiming expert witness has changed ages his mind..

 

This is a story never going away..

 

I wonder if there will eventually be some kind of quiet compromise and she ends up doing 15-20 years and then being released on appeal. The legal system almost hedging its bets. I don't think anyone can ever confidently work out what's gone on here. 

Well no, she’s either guilty or not. If she believes she’s innocent then she’s not going to just do time for the sake of it.

 

The appeal will be whether she is a killer or whether she’s been a scapegoat of a badly run and understaffed department.

 

Whatever that is, it’s incredibly hard for the families involved. 

[Wymsey]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6l0dynz7zo

 

[Fox1970]

23 hours ago, when_you're_smiling said:

Well no, she’s either guilty or not. If she believes she’s innocent then she’s not going to just do time for the sake of it.

 

The appeal will be whether she is a killer or whether she’s been a scapegoat of a badly run and understaffed department.

 

Whatever that is, it’s incredibly hard for the families involved. 

It's not a question of belief. She knows if she is or not guilty.  And the amassed circumstantial evidence very strongly suggests she is. 

[Paninistickers]

16 minutes ago, Fox1970 said:

amassed circumstantial evidence

Agree. Which a competent barrister would've chipped away at with doubt. Counter experts etc. plausible explanations. 

 

But, reading reports, she appears to have blocked some of that defence work. Guilty conscience? Depression? Self harm? 

[Wymsey]

Interesting..

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62ddkde7y5o

 

[Tommy G]

9 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Interesting..

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62ddkde7y5o

 

He said gross negligence manslaughter was a separate offence and "focuses on the grossly negligent action or inaction of individuals".

 

It's more the response of the SLT rather than anything Lucy Letby did or didn't do, so kind of separate to the case. 

[bovril]

Wymsey redemption arc 

[Paninistickers]

Just watching the ITV doc on YouTube. 

 

Just reinforces the opinion that she had the worst defence team ever known in UK law. 

 

Whether she did this or not is up for debate. But in no way was she properly defended 

[Parafox]

58 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Just watching the ITV doc on YouTube. 

 

Just reinforces the opinion that she had the worst defence team ever known in UK law. 

 

Whether she did this or not is up for debate. But in no way was she properly defended 

 

It is up for debate though. And I'm not sure what your last paragraph means.

 

Her defence team was weak, I agree, They didn't seem to challenge hard enough or go to great lengths to refute the prosecution.

 

Having watched the latest programme on TV, it's pretty damning that the evidence put forward by one "expert" that he then changed his mind about after the guilty verdict and further investigation by the new defence lawyer, exposed a number of discrepancies in the prosecution evidence.

 

Also the contrary evidence that injecting air through the nasogastric tube wouldn't necessarily cause death, (there's no substantiating evidence that this actually happened. The post mortem results suggested it was a possible cause). Also subsequent expert opinion explaining that neonates can produce excessive amounts of insulin naturally which then gets reabsorbed naturally over time.

 

I'm pretty sure at some point in the future the guilty verdict will be judged to be unsound.

Edited 5 August 2025 by Parafox

[Wymsey]

Imagine if all of her convictions were reversed..

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj0y9673rjno

 

[VLC86]

On 05/08/2025 at 19:02, Paninistickers said:

Just watching the ITV doc on YouTube. 

 

Just reinforces the opinion that she had the worst defence team ever known in UK law. 

 

Whether she did this or not is up for debate. But in no way was she properly defended 

Watched this and it’s an absolute farce. Surely even the prosecution would want to be adequately tested to make sure they are coming to the right conclusion.

 

The whole situation is harrowing.

[Trav Le Bleu]

On 05/08/2025 at 19:54, Parafox said:

 

It is up for debate though. And I'm not sure what your last paragraph means.

 

Her defence team was weak, I agree, They didn't seem to challenge hard enough or go to great lengths to refute the prosecution.

 

Having watched the latest programme on TV, it's pretty damning that the evidence put forward by one "expert" that he then changed his mind about after the guilty verdict and further investigation by the new defence lawyer, exposed a number of discrepancies in the prosecution evidence.

 

Also the contrary evidence that injecting air through the nasogastric tube wouldn't necessarily cause death, (there's no substantiating evidence that this actually happened. The post mortem results suggested it was a possible cause). Also subsequent expert opinion explaining that neonates can produce excessive amounts of insulin naturally which then gets reabsorbed naturally over time.

 

I'm pretty sure at some point in the future the guilty verdict will be judged to be unsound.

I do wonder if she was a patsy for a hospital with poor practice and that actually, people higher up the food chain are far more culpable, so they threw her under the bus.

 

[leicsmac]

I really hope, for the sake of the UK justice system as a whole, that this doesn't turn into the clusterfvck that it looks like it might. 

 

It could be catastrophic for a system that has to have the confidence of at least the vast majority, and at most all, of the population. 

[Paninistickers]

44 minutes ago, VLC86 said:

Watched this and it’s an absolute farce. Surely even the prosecution would want to be adequately tested to make sure they are coming to the right conclusion.

 

The whole situation is harrowing.

Based on nothing more than a hunch, I have a sneaky suspicion she may have sabotaged her own defence and vetoed all sorts of angles, rebuttals and positions her defence suggested. 

 

I've heard of cases before where a client has offered no defence. Quite what the difference is to pleading guilty, I'm not sure. 

 

Either way, as you say, the prosecution's case was not challenged nor tested. For a case of this magnitude, it's not really good enough 

[VLC86]

5 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Based on nothing more than a hunch, I have a sneaky suspicion she may have sabotaged her own defence and vetoed all sorts of angles, rebuttals and positions her defence suggested. 

 

I've heard of cases before where a client has offered no defence. Quite what the difference is to pleading guilty, I'm not sure. 

 

Either way, as you say, the prosecution's case was not challenged nor tested. For a case of this magnitude, it's not really good enough 

That might have happened, but she still denies it doesn’t she? Strange approach.

[Bordersfox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I really hope, for the sake of the UK justice system as a whole, that this doesn't turn into the clusterfvck that it looks like it might. 

 

It could be catastrophic for a system that has to have the confidence of at least the vast majority, and at most all, of the population. 

Having followed the detailed coverage in Private Eye I am afraid this does look like a massive clusterfvck on almost every level.

 

I am now almost completely convinced, if not of her innocence, then at the very least that there was nowhere near enough credible evidence presented to convict Letby.  And whatever else the neonatal unit at Countess of Chester hospital was utterly unfit for purpose.  

[Paninistickers]

The other thing I've not heard mentioned is that she's a serial killer. I'd be interested to hear a profiler's thoughts on serial killers who use a different MO for each death. 

 

The layman's impression is that they tend to stick to the tried and tested method. Letby - according to tonight's panorama - is accused of murder by insulin poisoning. Murder by air embolism in stomach. Another embolism via blood. Overfeeding. Removal of breathing tube. Trauma. 

 

 

[VLC86]

The BBC episode on this earlier was interesting, the evidence from the other hospital at the end is difficult. Basically says she worked elsewhere and the rate at which breathing tubes fell out was 40/100 where as the historic rate was 1/100.

[Trav Le Bleu]

8 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

The other thing I've not heard mentioned is that she's a serial killer. I'd be interested to hear a profiler's thoughts on serial killers who use a different MO for each death. 

 

The layman's impression is that they tend to stick to the tried and tested method. Letby - according to tonight's panorama - is accused of murder by insulin poisoning. Murder by air embolism in stomach. Another embolism via blood. Overfeeding. Removal of breathing tube. Trauma. 

 

 

My feeling is that she could just have been incompetent, along with others in that department. Which at worst is manslaughter.