| Letby 20:10 - Mar 19 with 1953 views | Zx1988 |
Given the very serious and well-founded concerns about the safety of the conviction, this seems very poorly-timed and tone-deaf from the BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-30341313-26f6-448a-ba92-b397a802fbb9
Disappointing (if not entirely unexpected) to see the BBC present the 'official' version of events, whilst ignoring all of the other evidence that has come to light since the trial (incidents when Letby wasn't on duty, for example) which points towards this being an incredibly unsafe conviction.
Almost as if someone is trying to re-take control of the narrative. [Post edited 19 Mar 20:15]
|  |
| |  |
| Letby on 20:43 - Mar 19 with 1832 views | redrickstuhaart |
Why would they do that? The opposite would be a bigger story.
At the moment it is a conspiracy theory rather than sound evidence in opposition. Its right to report it in those terms. | | | |
| Letby on 20:46 - Mar 19 with 1823 views | bournemouthblue |
| Letby on 20:43 - Mar 19 by redrickstuhaart |
Why would they do that? The opposite would be a bigger story.
At the moment it is a conspiracy theory rather than sound evidence in opposition. Its right to report it in those terms. |
wasn't the overall consensus that her conviction could have elements where it's unsafe which is rightly being challenged but is by no means proof she isn't still guilty by any means |  |
| |
| Letby on 21:01 - Mar 19 with 1776 views | vapour_trail |
| Letby on 20:46 - Mar 19 by bournemouthblue |
wasn't the overall consensus that her conviction could have elements where it's unsafe which is rightly being challenged but is by no means proof she isn't still guilty by any means |
With all due respect Bournemouth, can you outline how this overall consensus was reached? |  |
| |
| Letby on 21:07 - Mar 19 with 1753 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Letby on 21:01 - Mar 19 by vapour_trail |
With all due respect Bournemouth, can you outline how this overall consensus was reached? |
Court of appeal. | | | |
| Letby on 21:31 - Mar 19 with 1660 views | vapour_trail |
Straight up? | |
| |
| Letby on 21:32 - Mar 19 with 1656 views | redrickstuhaart |
Have you read it?
They actually address the Dr Lee arguments that appear to be at the root of what people are raising. | | | |
| Letby on 21:36 - Mar 19 with 1622 views | vapour_trail |
| Letby on 21:32 - Mar 19 by redrickstuhaart |
Have you read it?
They actually address the Dr Lee arguments that appear to be at the root of what people are raising. |
I’ll be honest, I made a conscious decision to zone out from news some time ago.
It’s irresponsible but I find it helpful.
So I’ve not read it, no. Has she a retrial then? | |
| |
| Letby on 21:43 - Mar 19 with 1576 views | Lord_Lucan |
| Letby on 21:36 - Mar 19 by vapour_trail |
I’ll be honest, I made a conscious decision to zone out from news some time ago.
It’s irresponsible but I find it helpful.
So I’ve not read it, no. Has she a retrial then? |
Snap, I've also zoned out. Well, compared to what I used to be like anyway, I would read every paper.
Problem is, I now don't believe hardly anything I read........
...........So what's the point baby! |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Letby on 22:48 - Mar 19 with 1454 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Letby on 21:36 - Mar 19 by vapour_trail |
I’ll be honest, I made a conscious decision to zone out from news some time ago.
It’s irresponsible but I find it helpful.
So I’ve not read it, no. Has she a retrial then? |
There was an appeal, during which the Dr Lee argument was put forward.
It was dealt with in some detail.
There may well be a bit more now, and the review commission have been asked to look.
But the starting point surely has to be the considered views of a jury and appeal court who saw and heard all the evidence. | | | |
| Letby on 22:59 - Mar 19 with 1426 views | Simonds92 |
I haven't delved too much in to the case but know the expert in the field, who literally wrote the paper which the conviction was based upon, said there was no evidence of murder and the expert witness had misinterpreted the paper.
I do remember thinking at the time, the same day she was found guilty, there was a pre-made documentary ready to go, almost immediately, describing her as a monster, and I found that a bit strange / concerning.
She may well be guilty Im not sure, but either way, she has got to be one of the most psychologically damaged people on the planet. | | | |
| Letby on 23:23 - Mar 19 with 1375 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Letby on 22:59 - Mar 19 by Simonds92 |
I haven't delved too much in to the case but know the expert in the field, who literally wrote the paper which the conviction was based upon, said there was no evidence of murder and the expert witness had misinterpreted the paper.
I do remember thinking at the time, the same day she was found guilty, there was a pre-made documentary ready to go, almost immediately, describing her as a monster, and I found that a bit strange / concerning.
She may well be guilty Im not sure, but either way, she has got to be one of the most psychologically damaged people on the planet. |
Was this Dr Lee? It was addressed during the appeal... | | | |
| Letby on 23:54 - Mar 19 with 1338 views | BlueBadger |
Deleted pending thoughts.
Thoughts when I can REALLY go to town on this and put my thoughts together properly and think about it. [Post edited 20 Mar 0:07]
|  |
| |
| Letby on 23:58 - Mar 19 with 1326 views | BlueBadger |
| Letby on 22:59 - Mar 19 by Simonds92 |
I haven't delved too much in to the case but know the expert in the field, who literally wrote the paper which the conviction was based upon, said there was no evidence of murder and the expert witness had misinterpreted the paper.
I do remember thinking at the time, the same day she was found guilty, there was a pre-made documentary ready to go, almost immediately, describing her as a monster, and I found that a bit strange / concerning.
She may well be guilty Im not sure, but either way, she has got to be one of the most psychologically damaged people on the planet. |
deleted pending sensible thoughts [Post edited 20 Mar 0:06]
| |
| |
| Letby on 00:31 - Mar 20 with 1250 views | rkc123 |
It is really strange, I saw that on the BBC news website and assumed it was a piece about the concerns around the safety of the conviction, and the rejection of a retrial, but then found it to be just presenting as fact many of the things that are now being widely questioned.
I have no idea whether she is guilty or not, but it seems more and more like it needs to be looked at again given the questions raised about the original trial.
I don't think it is some sort of conspiracy or anything like that, but from some of what I have read it does seem as though it was a neonatal unit that was struggling, and perhaps thinking one person was responsible for all that was going wrong on the unit was more palatable than more widespread issues with the quality of care. I think I read that a letter put forward by 14 experts who reviewed the medical evidence concluded that there is no medical evidence she murdered or harmed any of the babies, and that the newborns suffered from poor medical care or natural causes. Also some of the methods used by the prosecution seemed really questionable, I believe they presented a graph which they stated showed all the deaths/incidents on the unit over the time in question, and how they all lined up with Letby's shifts, however it turned out they had only plotted the deaths/incidents when she was on shift, and had omitted a number of others that didn't fit their argument. [Post edited 20 Mar 0:37]
| | | |
| Letby on 00:44 - Mar 20 with 1217 views | Ryorry |
That link is of just one small part of the BBC's daily coverage of the ongoing public inquiry into the possible inadequacies of the Countess of Chester Hospital though; which in itself is also only one part of their overall coverage of the whole Letby case. The public inquiry remit is *not* to investigate Letby's guilt or innocence. The BBC have covered the entire matter from numerous other perspectives, eg -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0d397nndzo
"17 March 2025
The case of Lucy Letby is at an unusual stage.
Officially, nothing has changed since August 2023 when the neonatal nurse became the most prolific child serial killer in British legal history.
But doubts over her guilt have been gaining traction thanks to her new legal team and high-profile supporters, including the Tory MP Sir David Davis."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cvp59396q42t
(24 reports re either the inquiry or Letby on the first page alone )
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8e72kx7k1lo
"Kate Blackwell KC is representing the Countess of Chester Hospital's former chief executive Tony Chambers, former medical director Ian Harvey, former director of nursing Alison Kelly and former HR director Sue Hodkinson.
Private notes and emails reveal inside story of hospital struggle to stop Lucy Letby
In her closing submission to the inquiry on Tuesday, Ms Blackwell said there was a "real possibility" that Letby's convictions may be overturned.
On that basis, she warned that continuing the inquiry would be unfair to her clients.
The former senior managers also made a similar request to Health Secretary Wes Streeting." [Post edited 20 Mar 1:09]
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
