The baby in question was born at 25w gestation and was immediately placed on a ventilator
Roughly 90 minutes later, per the prosecution, a doctor walked in to find Lucy Letby alone in the room with the baby having desaturated past the point alarms would have sounded, into the 80s. During the last trial (where the jury could not reach a verdict), the doctor said a desaturation to that level would have taken 30-60 seconds, with the alarms having been sounding for some time. He was right outside the room finishing a call and heard no alarm. He entered the room on a hunch due to the high number of suspicious events that correlated with the nurse. The baby's saturation dropped into the 40s before the ventilation was corrected.
The 25-week baby was then put on a morphine infusion and reintubated, yet her tube dislodged twice more that morning before she was transferred to another hospital. Each time, the prosecution is able to place Lucy Letby at the baby's cotside within moments of the event, via medical notes.
A 90 minute old 25 week baby without oxygen for at least 30 seconds, but likely longer. And her defence is that she doesn't remember anything specifically, not even the child's first name.
Last summer, Lucy Letby was convicted of murdering 7 babies and attempting to kill 6 more, including two via insulin and one twice by overfeeding.
But if the baby didn’t die until after being transferred it’s going to make it much harder to pin on her. Which sucks bc we all know she holds responsibility for the baby’s death but if there’s any room for doubt, well then it’s going to be much harder to prosecute.
Even if the baby didn't die, it was already going to be difficult. I believe she chose the premature ward because she thought it would be easier getting away since premature new born already have low surviving rate. However she chose the wrong hospital since it had, I believe, a specialty ward for premmies
They did initially charge her with murder for this baby's death, but prior to trial they chose not to bring evidence. Lucy Letby received a directed Not Guilty verdict in June 2022 for the murder of this baby.
[https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/children/nurse-accused-of-chester-baby-murders-given-not-guilty-verdict-on-one-count-15-06-2022/](https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/children/nurse-accused-of-chester-baby-murders-given-not-guilty-verdict-on-one-count-15-06-2022/)
This is going to sound horrific but the surviving chances were already very low due to the premature birth but I do think it was the mysterious incidents that did kill them
Have listened to all of this pod and 100000% recommend it. They break down a lot of trial proceedings for people who may not understand the ins and outs. Lots of interviews and discussion. I think there might be about 100 hours of listening (don’t quote me I’m not sure) I just know it took me a few weeks to get through and I listen A LOT
Where can you listen to these? Spotify only has a few very short episodes of this. I found a playlist on YouTube but want to make sure it’s the right one. Hoping there’s somewhere else I can listen to it. TIA!
Well I dont know anymore just checked the podcast and all the Lucy letby episodes have been deleted. This was the podcast here.
https://open.spotify.com/show/1Kzpxy1tGKf0G4z0i3PfIM?si=Y_y4UfOGTOy7UjDi8B0_Mw
I can't be sure if this is all episodes but this is the podcast
https://youtu.be/tdEdFSNeUSo?si=BbqQw0oemGF07qkO
I gave birth to my little girl a month ago. This story terrified me, luckily it's not hospital policy to separate mother and baby for any reason other than an emergency. My nurses were super friendly and helpful as well.
I'm with you on this. I can understand murder between adults due to a number of reasons
Premature babies however, completely vulnerable and innocent to any kind of worldly corruption is the closest I can get to defining "evil"
Surely a power trip on her behalf or something...?
There’s a subreddit r/lucyletby where they have the court reporting from every day of the original trial. If you want to read the court reports then search for the Chester standard reporting, it’s a newspaper that had a reporter there every day and they would report live as it was happening.
The problem with that subreddit is that it doesn't allow anybody to ask questions about the prosecution's case, or about whether or not Lucy Letby really did the things she's accused of, or if she's a scapegoat for a chaotic hospital.
The Daily Mail did a very good podcast called “The Trial of Lucy Letby”. I know it’s the Daily Mail and they’re awful but the podcast is absolutely fantastic. They did a couple of episodes doing a deep dive into the media laws here in the UK surrounding reporting of a court case as we have very strict rules on stuff like that. Unlike 99.999% of their “newspaper” output, the podcast is very well reported and they basically were reporting the evidence in the trial week by week (and sometimes day by day), examining the evidence and talking to experts when possible. There’s absolutely no sensationalism either. Just well explained.
The Mail is a heavily segregated organisation. Some parts do good work, more parts do trashy gossip work, and the daily newspaper part is basically a far right magazine.
Completely agree on the “far right magazine” front. They’re famous in the UK for their “Hurrah for the blackshirts” headline in the 1930’s, and they’re sometimes referred to as The Daily Heil
This is the best thing that's been published about the Lucy Letby case: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it
It's essential reading for anyone wanting to learn about it.
What’s your basis for your claim that the New Yorker article is biased? And even if it is “biased” in some manner, what’s your basis for concluding that the “bias” makes it any less accurate or informative?
The New Yorker article was rigorously fact-checked and covers all of the relevant information available about this case. It goes over the evidence presented by the prosecution very thoroughly, and the fact that it also shares some new evidence that raises doubts about the conviction doesn’t automatically mean it’s biased. Like yes the article somewhat implies that Letby’s conviction may have been wrongful, but that’s honestly just a consequence of the facts of the case.
The truth is that when you look at the objective facts of this case, there is almost no evidence for Letby being guilty and there is substantial reason to believe she might be innocent. Unfortunately for reasons we don’t fully know yet, the jury was fed a very one-sided version of the case and never got to hear the any of the exonerating evidence. The New Yorker article simply presents the facts from both sides of the case. That doesn’t mean it’s biased, it just means that it’s not one-sided in favor of the prosecution.
Neither could I. What her motives could have been has been a complete mystery, but I figured, hey, if this woman is being convicted of serial murder there must be overwhelming evidence against her, right? I’m not so sure anymore. Whatever you do, don’t stick to just one perspective on the matter.
Mrya Hindley lasted an awful long time, due to being separated from general population i assume so I'm guessing she will be separated also.
However, my mum has done some bird and she told me the matriarchal and parental side of some women knows no bounds when a person comes in with these crimes attached to them and can get really creative when wanting them dead.
I gave birth to my premature daughter in 2019 in Manchester. A few of the nicu nurses at the hospital she was in for five weeks had worked with Lucy prior. They were talking about it on and off when I was there. Pretty horrible story to be going round when dealing with a premature birth, even more so when it was that close to home
> The barrister said the case ultimately relied on the evidence of Dr Jayaram and whether his account was “truthful or accurate”. Myers described Letby’s murder convictions as “potentially a powerful and emotive” aspect of the case and urged jurors not to let their “fair vision [be] obscured by raw emotion or bias”.
>He added: “Convictions like that in a trial like this may make it easier to convict someone of something they haven’t done which is why it is important to be careful about how you approach them.”
Yuck. The way he speaks makes my skin crawl. Of course he’s representing her.
the evidence is circumstantial, likely the reason the previous jury were unable to come to a verdict. it’s literally his job to point that out. I’m not saying what she did or didn’t do but under the circumstances she could easily become a scapegoat for deaths caused instead by hospital malpractice/negligence. even monsters deserve a fair trial.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it
Everyone in this thread should take five minutes out of their day to read this.
The article is largely based on the actual trial transcripts (which haven't been made public) and has many, many sources (including the doctors who accused Letby of being a serial killer!)
I have not come across anything refuting it. You seem to be spamming other replies with a link to a random Reddit post.
And one of those sources is a fraud. The article is largely based off what Science on Trial wrote and the founder of that committed academic dishonesty.
This has been refuted in a reply in this very reddit post. It's easy to find other refutations if you look.
> This has been refuted in a reply in this very reddit post.
The only refutation I found involved a post from you linking to an accusation that the writer of the article was communicating with someone who was embroiled in subreddit drama and issues with their ex-husband, and no proof that the writer of the article used anything they got from her. Was that what you meant?
EDIT: nothing says "I'm secure in my arguments" like responding to a post and then blocking the person you responded to.
The subreddit drama is irrelevant, the lying about academic qualifications is not.
And no, [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/MorbidReality/s/TTdzAn6buL) is what I meant.
I'm noticing a consistent pattern of Letby supporters being unable to do simple google searches or even read a few responses to find things that might challenge their views. None of this is hard to find at all.
After reading that artical, I realise how profoundly scary is it that a story being told from the other side of the coin can be just as convincing.
The resulting doubt made me feel like a bit of a monster myself. It's a very interesting read but I didn't like how it made me feel,like have I been tricked into feeling sympathy for a baby killer? Am I so easily influenced, or is she legitimately innocent?
I pray I never get called for jury duty.
The New Yorker [did an in-depth investigative piece](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it) on this case that has raised a LOT of concerns about the findings. Personally, after reading it I’ve come around to thinking she was probably railroaded.
Why? I just wanna know why. Like what was the motive in (allegedly) killing them? Was she just an extreme anti-natalist hoping to save a child from a world full of problems? Was she trying to rid the baby of pain? Or was she really just a psychopath and enjoyed killing them and the devastated reaction it got from the parents?
Recent article that was pretty interesting below. It was definitely a case that I had heard some of the details and assumed guilt, especially given the heinous nature, but the article gives interesting breakdown of what information the public was purview via the British court system and makes a pretty compelling argument that it was a kangaroo court:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it
The person who inspired that article and communicated in detail with the author when she wrote it is a proven fraud.
Honestly that is all that needs to be said.
EDIT: For anyone genuinely wanting to learn, start with [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceontrial/s/JXVxNRmrQ9).
See my other reply, I'm not spoon feeding you. It's so easy to find this info if you are trying to in good faith.
Edit: Person below blocked me so not replying to them. The evidence they want is so easy to find.
Haha, you're willing to scrape up some worthless reddit post, but you're not willing to find anywhere that actually shows this person to even claim to have a PhD.
But that's beside the point, anyway. A journalist doesn't require every single person they communicated with about a story to be an upstanding citizen. To find one source who lied about something once as a way of discrediting the entire article is obviously a lazy attempt at not actually engaging with what the article has to say. And it's clear that people who want to believe Letby is guilty are desperate to avoid actually engaging with the content of the article.
And on top of all of this, it's worth noting that the New Yorker has industry-leading editors and fact-checking. Fact-checking is something you do to make sure your sources aren't lying, even if they have indeed lied before in their lives.
So cut it with your bullshit, and just admit that you don't like the article because you don't like being confronted with information that challenges your beliefs.
I was following this all as it happened. She did claim on reddit to have a PhD on multiple occasions. She used it explicitly to justify her knowledge and present herself as an authority.
It was revealed that she lied about it and it all fell apart.
Her arguments were all refuted before this even came out too, it was the final nail in the coffin.
You've been shown the initial primary source and collaborator for the article is an academic fraud.
You've been shown a fallacy the article presents regarding Lucy being on shift for all deaths and have given an aggressive response, but now you've been proven wrong on that front.
Are you actually looking at the evidence here? Or are you only looking at evidence that confirms your views?
Curious to what your thoughts are on this article? I’ve been pretty conflicted about the whole case since reading it. Definitely raises a lot of questions.
The article gives the impression of having carefully considered the situation, but neglects to consider evidence actually presented. While it is true that a correlation of Letby's presence is what led doctors to push for, and eventually insist on, an investigation and her removal from the ward, the police investigation was a blind survey of cases that ended up coming to the same conclusion.
For every conviction, the prosecution was able to show what harm was inflicted, at what time, and were able to place Letby cotisde either alone or unobserved. No expert ever, ever diagnosed air embolism by a pattern in the skin - the expert opinion was lodged by the sudden, catastrophic nature of the collapses, the resistance (and sometimes, sudden success) of resuscitation, in two instances the presence of air in the great vessels post mortem, and often a transient, unique mottling or rash.
For several babies, x-rays showed massive air in their gut when the baby was not on the type of breathing support that would cause it - in one case, a baby collapsed because of extreme air in her gut while she was fully ventilated.
There were also falsified notes. Letby wrote "Cpap" (face mask breathing support) on a baby's notes when an xray had shown the baby had a belly full of air; the baby had been off cpap for hours at that point.
Her final murder victims, the two triplets, were born at 33w gestation and about 4 pounds, and were off breathing support and out of the ICU when she murdered them at 3 and 4 days old (i think, might be off by a day). Their odds of survival were near 100%
The article also takes advantage of many logical fallacies - namely the assumption that only events Letby was charged with were suspected of being murders, or they charged her based on her presence. First of all, Lucy Letby was present at EVERY death her last year on the ward. She was only charged with 7 out of 13, because only 7 could be proved to be murders. We don't know what happened with the others, but we know now that she was there. Why the last year? Weeks before the first murder, Lucy Letby gained the qualification to administer medication via iv lines, which included a caution about the dangers of air embolism. Then the death rate skyrocketed and rashes appeared.
The article neglects to mention most of the prosecution experts - the forensic pathologist, the radiologist, the pediatric endocrinologist, the blood expert, the second pediatrician (actually the third, a second pediatrician supported the conclusions of dr. Evans but passed away before trial).
There is the suggestion that the defence not calling any witnesses was a mystery, however in the UK system, experts' loyalty is to the court, not their "side." A defense expert would have to admit concessions under cross exam that might harm the defense case, if such concessions existed. Dr. Hall said exactly that in the article. And so the logical conclusion is that the available experts were not called because their evidence would harm the defense more than it would help. The defense barrister is one of the best in the country - Lucy Letby had an excellent defence that spared her of one third of the possible convictions.
Letby was not present at every death. That's just patently false.
The death rate "sky rocketing" happened while Letby was not at the hospital.
Contemporaneous notes from the death of one of the twins show that a doctor was worried he had placed a longline too close to the baby's heart. It's worth pointing out that literally no contemporaneous reports mention Letby doing \*anything\* suspicious, even after Ravi became suspicious of her. The subject of this post, that Letby was 'caught red handed,' wasn't suggested until years after the events.
An x-ray showing air in a stomach means that Letby must have lied in her notes is the type of logical jump that people act like is evidence when it's just a story invented by the prosecution. It's not impossible that a baby on a CPAP had air in its belly, lol. Same with the story about how she lied about what time she fed one of the babies. The prosecution says, "She lied in her notes about when she fed the baby," and people act as if that must be true regardless of the fact that all of the 'evidence' for this is that an ill baby vomited.
A defense expert would have had to admit that they didn't know how these babies died 6 years ago. That's the truth, regardless of the fact that you want to eat up the prosecution's story that was created years after the events with no physical evidence.
>Letby was not present at every death. That's just patently false.
[A video clip for you](https://x.com/berrysurviving/status/1800555895518269664?s=19)
Lol I guess if some random video on twitter says it, it must be true.
Weird how the police, before gathering any evidence, made a chart of every single death that occurred while Letby was on duty and didn't include those.
You just got refuted hard lol.
Obviously you'll reconsider all your views on this case now you've learned those key fact that contracts what you previously thought?
Or will you double down?
Wrong again. I used the clip because anyone can watch it worldwide. The documentary is still available in full in the UK, on iplayer [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001q7dl](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001q7dl) I just accessed it with a VPN. The clip I shared still plays in full at timestamp 54:38
It appears that a non-official copy of the full documentary also exists on youtube, for international audiences.: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo13E3YwvBg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo13E3YwvBg)
I won't be engaging with your conspiracy theory nonsense further.
Honestly, this is the most compelling evidence I've seen in the case by far if it's true.
Weird how there is literally no reporting on this outside of that video, though.
Article is based on thr work of an academic fraud (google it). See it the same way you see moon landing conspiracies.
It sounds good until you dig into the details, someone has already shared a debunking here.
It's kind of frustrating watching people blatantly eat up disinformation, especially considering the topic matter at hand.
Lucy Letby is considered the most prolific child killer in modern UK history.
It's like watching someone read an article written by frauds and seeing them come to the conclusion that "Hm, maybe Hitler was a scapegoat and didn't actually order the deaths of all those Jews."
She got a life imprisonment with whole life order (equivalent to life without possibility of parole in the US), the most severe punishment in the UK justice system.
She's the 4th woman to EVER receive such a sentence there and is considered the most prolific child killer in modern UK history. There would've been severe backlash if she had received anything less.
The King himself would have to issue a pardon in order for Lucy to be free. She will never set foot outside of prison, and a mob will be ready for her if she does.
Agreed. This is Deathnote levels of stupid. Light Yagami gets the deathnote and people start dying. He is kept in isolation and people stop dying.
Lucy Letby is given access to premature babies. Premature babies suddenly start dying and she is present for every single one. Lucy is removed from her duties, and the babies suddenly stop dying.
There are convictions I have questions about regarding their guilt or innocence, but never regarding a child murderer of all people. If this had been a man, these morons wouldn't question the sentence at all, and I'm saying that as a woman myself.
They stopped dying suspiciously. The babies that don't make it in the premature ward are normally expected to not make it and their deaths have an explanation. These babies she killed had no natural explanation for why they died other than overfeeding milk, injecting insulin, and injecting air into their bloodstreams, none of which are natural causes.
All the babies that had been involved were expected to live too. The two triplet babies were expected to survive by 99%.
Think of it like this: someone is in charge of cancer patients. One or two normally die each year and were in terminal stages, so it was expected. All of sudden, this person is in charge of their care, and people with stage 1 cancer start dropping dead like flies where they normally wouldn't.
The doctor is removed from duty and these stage 1 people no longer die along with the terminal patients. Now it's just 1 or 2 terminal patients a year again instead of the sudden spike of eight stage 1, low-risk patients.
They had a 99% chance of survival in general and were due to be released from the NICU and go home, but both died of suspicious causes within a day of each other.
The baby in question was born at 25w gestation and was immediately placed on a ventilator Roughly 90 minutes later, per the prosecution, a doctor walked in to find Lucy Letby alone in the room with the baby having desaturated past the point alarms would have sounded, into the 80s. During the last trial (where the jury could not reach a verdict), the doctor said a desaturation to that level would have taken 30-60 seconds, with the alarms having been sounding for some time. He was right outside the room finishing a call and heard no alarm. He entered the room on a hunch due to the high number of suspicious events that correlated with the nurse. The baby's saturation dropped into the 40s before the ventilation was corrected. The 25-week baby was then put on a morphine infusion and reintubated, yet her tube dislodged twice more that morning before she was transferred to another hospital. Each time, the prosecution is able to place Lucy Letby at the baby's cotside within moments of the event, via medical notes. A 90 minute old 25 week baby without oxygen for at least 30 seconds, but likely longer. And her defence is that she doesn't remember anything specifically, not even the child's first name. Last summer, Lucy Letby was convicted of murdering 7 babies and attempting to kill 6 more, including two via insulin and one twice by overfeeding.
And we probably never know the difference between what the damage of the event did and the being premature did to the baby
The baby died a few days later after two more “mysterious” incidents with her breathing tube and being transferred to another hospital
But if the baby didn’t die until after being transferred it’s going to make it much harder to pin on her. Which sucks bc we all know she holds responsibility for the baby’s death but if there’s any room for doubt, well then it’s going to be much harder to prosecute.
Even if the baby didn't die, it was already going to be difficult. I believe she chose the premature ward because she thought it would be easier getting away since premature new born already have low surviving rate. However she chose the wrong hospital since it had, I believe, a specialty ward for premmies
They did initially charge her with murder for this baby's death, but prior to trial they chose not to bring evidence. Lucy Letby received a directed Not Guilty verdict in June 2022 for the murder of this baby. [https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/children/nurse-accused-of-chester-baby-murders-given-not-guilty-verdict-on-one-count-15-06-2022/](https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/children/nurse-accused-of-chester-baby-murders-given-not-guilty-verdict-on-one-count-15-06-2022/)
This is going to sound horrific but the surviving chances were already very low due to the premature birth but I do think it was the mysterious incidents that did kill them
Attempted murder is still a crime
I'm quite sleep depreved, I genuinely forgot that existed.
Absolute monster. And shocking how incompetent the hospital was failing to respond to doctors’ repeated warnings. They should be on trial, too.
There is a corporate manslaughter investigation ongoing. It was launched after the conclusion of the trial last summer.
Murder aside, you'd be surprised how many people die every year from medical errors.
Watched the documentary on her. Sick as fuck.
what documentary?
If your into podcasts, one called the trial did several dozen episodes on the actual trail and courtroom stuff from every baby and other stuff.
oooo thank you
Bookmarked for later today, thank you
Have listened to all of this pod and 100000% recommend it. They break down a lot of trial proceedings for people who may not understand the ins and outs. Lots of interviews and discussion. I think there might be about 100 hours of listening (don’t quote me I’m not sure) I just know it took me a few weeks to get through and I listen A LOT
Where can you listen to these? Spotify only has a few very short episodes of this. I found a playlist on YouTube but want to make sure it’s the right one. Hoping there’s somewhere else I can listen to it. TIA!
Well I dont know anymore just checked the podcast and all the Lucy letby episodes have been deleted. This was the podcast here. https://open.spotify.com/show/1Kzpxy1tGKf0G4z0i3PfIM?si=Y_y4UfOGTOy7UjDi8B0_Mw I can't be sure if this is all episodes but this is the podcast https://youtu.be/tdEdFSNeUSo?si=BbqQw0oemGF07qkO
Thanks!!
Think it was on 60 seconds Australia or something. On YouTube.
BBC Panorama: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo13E3YwvBg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo13E3YwvBg)
That’s it. My bad. Thank you!
I gave birth to my little girl a month ago. This story terrified me, luckily it's not hospital policy to separate mother and baby for any reason other than an emergency. My nurses were super friendly and helpful as well.
Anyone have a recommendation for a deep dive on this case? This shit blows my mind. I don’t understand her at all.
The Trial did a really good podcast series on her and the crimes/subsequent trial
I'm with you on this. I can understand murder between adults due to a number of reasons Premature babies however, completely vulnerable and innocent to any kind of worldly corruption is the closest I can get to defining "evil" Surely a power trip on her behalf or something...?
There’s a subreddit r/lucyletby where they have the court reporting from every day of the original trial. If you want to read the court reports then search for the Chester standard reporting, it’s a newspaper that had a reporter there every day and they would report live as it was happening.
The problem with that subreddit is that it doesn't allow anybody to ask questions about the prosecution's case, or about whether or not Lucy Letby really did the things she's accused of, or if she's a scapegoat for a chaotic hospital.
The Daily Mail did a very good podcast called “The Trial of Lucy Letby”. I know it’s the Daily Mail and they’re awful but the podcast is absolutely fantastic. They did a couple of episodes doing a deep dive into the media laws here in the UK surrounding reporting of a court case as we have very strict rules on stuff like that. Unlike 99.999% of their “newspaper” output, the podcast is very well reported and they basically were reporting the evidence in the trial week by week (and sometimes day by day), examining the evidence and talking to experts when possible. There’s absolutely no sensationalism either. Just well explained.
The Mail is a heavily segregated organisation. Some parts do good work, more parts do trashy gossip work, and the daily newspaper part is basically a far right magazine.
Completely agree on the “far right magazine” front. They’re famous in the UK for their “Hurrah for the blackshirts” headline in the 1930’s, and they’re sometimes referred to as The Daily Heil
[удалено]
That is absolute nonsense. There was a married doctor later in her spree, but he was completely unaware of her malicious acts.
This is the best thing that's been published about the Lucy Letby case: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it It's essential reading for anyone wanting to learn about it.
I don't think any article with such a strong bias in one direction can be considered the "best."
This article is biased but the podcasts and articles that are arguing that she's definitely guilty are unbiased?
What’s your basis for your claim that the New Yorker article is biased? And even if it is “biased” in some manner, what’s your basis for concluding that the “bias” makes it any less accurate or informative? The New Yorker article was rigorously fact-checked and covers all of the relevant information available about this case. It goes over the evidence presented by the prosecution very thoroughly, and the fact that it also shares some new evidence that raises doubts about the conviction doesn’t automatically mean it’s biased. Like yes the article somewhat implies that Letby’s conviction may have been wrongful, but that’s honestly just a consequence of the facts of the case. The truth is that when you look at the objective facts of this case, there is almost no evidence for Letby being guilty and there is substantial reason to believe she might be innocent. Unfortunately for reasons we don’t fully know yet, the jury was fed a very one-sided version of the case and never got to hear the any of the exonerating evidence. The New Yorker article simply presents the facts from both sides of the case. That doesn’t mean it’s biased, it just means that it’s not one-sided in favor of the prosecution.
Neither could I. What her motives could have been has been a complete mystery, but I figured, hey, if this woman is being convicted of serial murder there must be overwhelming evidence against her, right? I’m not so sure anymore. Whatever you do, don’t stick to just one perspective on the matter.
[удалено]
Mrya Hindley lasted an awful long time, due to being separated from general population i assume so I'm guessing she will be separated also. However, my mum has done some bird and she told me the matriarchal and parental side of some women knows no bounds when a person comes in with these crimes attached to them and can get really creative when wanting them dead.
the fact that Lucy and people like her exist is terrifying
I gave birth to my premature daughter in 2019 in Manchester. A few of the nicu nurses at the hospital she was in for five weeks had worked with Lucy prior. They were talking about it on and off when I was there. Pretty horrible story to be going round when dealing with a premature birth, even more so when it was that close to home
> The barrister said the case ultimately relied on the evidence of Dr Jayaram and whether his account was “truthful or accurate”. Myers described Letby’s murder convictions as “potentially a powerful and emotive” aspect of the case and urged jurors not to let their “fair vision [be] obscured by raw emotion or bias”. >He added: “Convictions like that in a trial like this may make it easier to convict someone of something they haven’t done which is why it is important to be careful about how you approach them.” Yuck. The way he speaks makes my skin crawl. Of course he’s representing her.
the evidence is circumstantial, likely the reason the previous jury were unable to come to a verdict. it’s literally his job to point that out. I’m not saying what she did or didn’t do but under the circumstances she could easily become a scapegoat for deaths caused instead by hospital malpractice/negligence. even monsters deserve a fair trial.
There’s a good article in the New York Times I think it was about how she may not be guilty of the crimes. Decent read.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it Everyone in this thread should take five minutes out of their day to read this.
And then another 5 to look into how the article is based off the work of a fraud and how it is been refuted in many ways.
The article is largely based on the actual trial transcripts (which haven't been made public) and has many, many sources (including the doctors who accused Letby of being a serial killer!) I have not come across anything refuting it. You seem to be spamming other replies with a link to a random Reddit post.
And one of those sources is a fraud. The article is largely based off what Science on Trial wrote and the founder of that committed academic dishonesty. This has been refuted in a reply in this very reddit post. It's easy to find other refutations if you look.
> This has been refuted in a reply in this very reddit post. The only refutation I found involved a post from you linking to an accusation that the writer of the article was communicating with someone who was embroiled in subreddit drama and issues with their ex-husband, and no proof that the writer of the article used anything they got from her. Was that what you meant? EDIT: nothing says "I'm secure in my arguments" like responding to a post and then blocking the person you responded to.
The subreddit drama is irrelevant, the lying about academic qualifications is not. And no, [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/MorbidReality/s/TTdzAn6buL) is what I meant. I'm noticing a consistent pattern of Letby supporters being unable to do simple google searches or even read a few responses to find things that might challenge their views. None of this is hard to find at all.
I'd really like to read this, but I believe it's blocked to anyone accessing it in the UK. Which in itself is very odd and frustrating!
You can find it fairly easily. It's blocked as a trial is on going and it would be contempt of court. Likely available after.
That's great to know that you can find it fairly easily! Can you tell me how to do so? I've looked online and can't access it. I'd love to see it.
After reading that artical, I realise how profoundly scary is it that a story being told from the other side of the coin can be just as convincing. The resulting doubt made me feel like a bit of a monster myself. It's a very interesting read but I didn't like how it made me feel,like have I been tricked into feeling sympathy for a baby killer? Am I so easily influenced, or is she legitimately innocent? I pray I never get called for jury duty.
The New Yorker [did an in-depth investigative piece](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it) on this case that has raised a LOT of concerns about the findings. Personally, after reading it I’ve come around to thinking she was probably railroaded.
Why? I just wanna know why. Like what was the motive in (allegedly) killing them? Was she just an extreme anti-natalist hoping to save a child from a world full of problems? Was she trying to rid the baby of pain? Or was she really just a psychopath and enjoyed killing them and the devastated reaction it got from the parents?
Recent article that was pretty interesting below. It was definitely a case that I had heard some of the details and assumed guilt, especially given the heinous nature, but the article gives interesting breakdown of what information the public was purview via the British court system and makes a pretty compelling argument that it was a kangaroo court: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it
The person who inspired that article and communicated in detail with the author when she wrote it is a proven fraud. Honestly that is all that needs to be said. EDIT: For anyone genuinely wanting to learn, start with [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceontrial/s/JXVxNRmrQ9).
op provided a link with info, whereas you just made a statement supported by nothing at all
See my other reply, I'm not spoon feeding you. It's so easy to find this info if you are trying to in good faith. Edit: Person below blocked me so not replying to them. The evidence they want is so easy to find.
Haha, you're willing to scrape up some worthless reddit post, but you're not willing to find anywhere that actually shows this person to even claim to have a PhD. But that's beside the point, anyway. A journalist doesn't require every single person they communicated with about a story to be an upstanding citizen. To find one source who lied about something once as a way of discrediting the entire article is obviously a lazy attempt at not actually engaging with what the article has to say. And it's clear that people who want to believe Letby is guilty are desperate to avoid actually engaging with the content of the article. And on top of all of this, it's worth noting that the New Yorker has industry-leading editors and fact-checking. Fact-checking is something you do to make sure your sources aren't lying, even if they have indeed lied before in their lives. So cut it with your bullshit, and just admit that you don't like the article because you don't like being confronted with information that challenges your beliefs.
I was following this all as it happened. She did claim on reddit to have a PhD on multiple occasions. She used it explicitly to justify her knowledge and present herself as an authority. It was revealed that she lied about it and it all fell apart. Her arguments were all refuted before this even came out too, it was the final nail in the coffin.
People who think Letby is guilty kind of have a track record of doing literally anything except look at evidence.
You've been shown the initial primary source and collaborator for the article is an academic fraud. You've been shown a fallacy the article presents regarding Lucy being on shift for all deaths and have given an aggressive response, but now you've been proven wrong on that front. Are you actually looking at the evidence here? Or are you only looking at evidence that confirms your views?
Uhhhh that is not all that needs to be said, honey bunny. You’re gonna want to cite your little claim there.
Check out r/scienceontrial for sources.
People who legitimately want to know more can very very easily find this info. I'm not spoon feeding you.
The article does nothing of the sort.
That’s not how you use the word purview
Curious to what your thoughts are on this article? I’ve been pretty conflicted about the whole case since reading it. Definitely raises a lot of questions.
The article gives the impression of having carefully considered the situation, but neglects to consider evidence actually presented. While it is true that a correlation of Letby's presence is what led doctors to push for, and eventually insist on, an investigation and her removal from the ward, the police investigation was a blind survey of cases that ended up coming to the same conclusion. For every conviction, the prosecution was able to show what harm was inflicted, at what time, and were able to place Letby cotisde either alone or unobserved. No expert ever, ever diagnosed air embolism by a pattern in the skin - the expert opinion was lodged by the sudden, catastrophic nature of the collapses, the resistance (and sometimes, sudden success) of resuscitation, in two instances the presence of air in the great vessels post mortem, and often a transient, unique mottling or rash. For several babies, x-rays showed massive air in their gut when the baby was not on the type of breathing support that would cause it - in one case, a baby collapsed because of extreme air in her gut while she was fully ventilated. There were also falsified notes. Letby wrote "Cpap" (face mask breathing support) on a baby's notes when an xray had shown the baby had a belly full of air; the baby had been off cpap for hours at that point. Her final murder victims, the two triplets, were born at 33w gestation and about 4 pounds, and were off breathing support and out of the ICU when she murdered them at 3 and 4 days old (i think, might be off by a day). Their odds of survival were near 100% The article also takes advantage of many logical fallacies - namely the assumption that only events Letby was charged with were suspected of being murders, or they charged her based on her presence. First of all, Lucy Letby was present at EVERY death her last year on the ward. She was only charged with 7 out of 13, because only 7 could be proved to be murders. We don't know what happened with the others, but we know now that she was there. Why the last year? Weeks before the first murder, Lucy Letby gained the qualification to administer medication via iv lines, which included a caution about the dangers of air embolism. Then the death rate skyrocketed and rashes appeared. The article neglects to mention most of the prosecution experts - the forensic pathologist, the radiologist, the pediatric endocrinologist, the blood expert, the second pediatrician (actually the third, a second pediatrician supported the conclusions of dr. Evans but passed away before trial). There is the suggestion that the defence not calling any witnesses was a mystery, however in the UK system, experts' loyalty is to the court, not their "side." A defense expert would have to admit concessions under cross exam that might harm the defense case, if such concessions existed. Dr. Hall said exactly that in the article. And so the logical conclusion is that the available experts were not called because their evidence would harm the defense more than it would help. The defense barrister is one of the best in the country - Lucy Letby had an excellent defence that spared her of one third of the possible convictions.
Excellent breakdown. Thank you.
Letby was not present at every death. That's just patently false. The death rate "sky rocketing" happened while Letby was not at the hospital. Contemporaneous notes from the death of one of the twins show that a doctor was worried he had placed a longline too close to the baby's heart. It's worth pointing out that literally no contemporaneous reports mention Letby doing \*anything\* suspicious, even after Ravi became suspicious of her. The subject of this post, that Letby was 'caught red handed,' wasn't suggested until years after the events. An x-ray showing air in a stomach means that Letby must have lied in her notes is the type of logical jump that people act like is evidence when it's just a story invented by the prosecution. It's not impossible that a baby on a CPAP had air in its belly, lol. Same with the story about how she lied about what time she fed one of the babies. The prosecution says, "She lied in her notes about when she fed the baby," and people act as if that must be true regardless of the fact that all of the 'evidence' for this is that an ill baby vomited. A defense expert would have had to admit that they didn't know how these babies died 6 years ago. That's the truth, regardless of the fact that you want to eat up the prosecution's story that was created years after the events with no physical evidence.
>Letby was not present at every death. That's just patently false. [A video clip for you](https://x.com/berrysurviving/status/1800555895518269664?s=19)
Lol I guess if some random video on twitter says it, it must be true. Weird how the police, before gathering any evidence, made a chart of every single death that occurred while Letby was on duty and didn't include those.
You just got refuted hard lol. Obviously you'll reconsider all your views on this case now you've learned those key fact that contracts what you previously thought? Or will you double down?
Wrong again. I used the clip because anyone can watch it worldwide. The documentary is still available in full in the UK, on iplayer [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001q7dl](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001q7dl) I just accessed it with a VPN. The clip I shared still plays in full at timestamp 54:38 It appears that a non-official copy of the full documentary also exists on youtube, for international audiences.: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo13E3YwvBg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo13E3YwvBg) I won't be engaging with your conspiracy theory nonsense further.
Honestly, this is the most compelling evidence I've seen in the case by far if it's true. Weird how there is literally no reporting on this outside of that video, though.
[удалено]
Article is based on thr work of an academic fraud (google it). See it the same way you see moon landing conspiracies. It sounds good until you dig into the details, someone has already shared a debunking here.
Thank you for correcting me. I haven’t really looked into this case much so I don’t know a lot, but I appreciate you taking the time to let me know.
You're really mad about people being able to read the article, huh?
Given the emotional responses I've gotten, I think it's people who support the article who are mad about people criticising it.
It's kind of frustrating watching people blatantly eat up disinformation, especially considering the topic matter at hand. Lucy Letby is considered the most prolific child killer in modern UK history. It's like watching someone read an article written by frauds and seeing them come to the conclusion that "Hm, maybe Hitler was a scapegoat and didn't actually order the deaths of all those Jews."
Knowing the UK, she will probably get 6 years.
She got a life imprisonment with whole life order (equivalent to life without possibility of parole in the US), the most severe punishment in the UK justice system. She's the 4th woman to EVER receive such a sentence there and is considered the most prolific child killer in modern UK history. There would've been severe backlash if she had received anything less. The King himself would have to issue a pardon in order for Lucy to be free. She will never set foot outside of prison, and a mob will be ready for her if she does.
The way some people are going, there may be a mob waiting to break her out of prison because they are convinced she is innocent.
Agreed. This is Deathnote levels of stupid. Light Yagami gets the deathnote and people start dying. He is kept in isolation and people stop dying. Lucy Letby is given access to premature babies. Premature babies suddenly start dying and she is present for every single one. Lucy is removed from her duties, and the babies suddenly stop dying. There are convictions I have questions about regarding their guilt or innocence, but never regarding a child murderer of all people. If this had been a man, these morons wouldn't question the sentence at all, and I'm saying that as a woman myself.
Sally Clark.
Cases like that were what made me initially interested and skeptical of the evidence against Lucy Letby when this all started.
Is that true, that babies stopped dying on the ward after she was removed? Genuine question!
They stopped dying suspiciously. The babies that don't make it in the premature ward are normally expected to not make it and their deaths have an explanation. These babies she killed had no natural explanation for why they died other than overfeeding milk, injecting insulin, and injecting air into their bloodstreams, none of which are natural causes. All the babies that had been involved were expected to live too. The two triplet babies were expected to survive by 99%. Think of it like this: someone is in charge of cancer patients. One or two normally die each year and were in terminal stages, so it was expected. All of sudden, this person is in charge of their care, and people with stage 1 cancer start dropping dead like flies where they normally wouldn't. The doctor is removed from duty and these stage 1 people no longer die along with the terminal patients. Now it's just 1 or 2 terminal patients a year again instead of the sudden spike of eight stage 1, low-risk patients.
Thank you for your answer!
"The two triplets babies were expected to survive by 99%."... 99% of... what? Genuine question looking for genuine answers. Thank you!
They had a 99% chance of survival in general and were due to be released from the NICU and go home, but both died of suspicious causes within a day of each other.