Nurse Lucy Letby found guilty of murdering seven babies

That was over a year ago !

You don't quote the actual post you mention . I looked it up and it is agreeing with the verdict at the time based on the investigation and jury trial .

I never said I had " done a lot of research " .I think I said I had since" read a bit " more about it at that time but that was mainly the articles presented here .I avoided it otherwise .

I didn't conclude she was guilty .

No ,I am not medical ,..nursing background.

But I am posting here same as as anyone else with knowledge based on the mostly tabloid UK press except for the Panorama episode and trying to correlate it with my very enjoyable and excellent experience working in the NHS years ago in that field of work .

The Panorama episode ... did not go into her defence in court much.

After reading the NYT article I have many questions and think this may be an unsafe conviction , based on her poor defence .

Not sure if I could or anyone could say she is innocent , but it should go to appeal at least .

Originally .. felt it strange that the doctors who would normally be responsible / accountable for these babies' health were blaming a nurse without much proof except a very subjective sense that "something was not right ".

Fair enough if they felt she was a bad neonatal nurse, who did not react quickly enough to her babies' determination, I agree then with removing her from the area .

I didn't read anything that pointed to anything more than that .

Then thought there must have been something more that the police arrested her and charged her.

Would usually be on the nurse's side anyway . .no surprise there !

But it was very highly charged and emotive in here with parents of babies' undergoing similar , and I didn't want to say anything to contribute to that

Tuned out until I read that article above and it reinforced my earlier feelings about this .

I was a bit horrified to see what the actual evidence was in the end presented at trial against her Appears to be in the main her demeanour , .circumstantial ..and a note ..and an investigating witness / doctor who was allowed change his testimony and not be cross examined ?

Very poor for so many convictions .Although I am sure the parents and families of those poor babies are relieved to have some closure.

But what if was not her and just poor care generally by the hospital the doctors and the unit as a whole

But if it's not reexamined we will never know for sure .

Still just gut feeling though .I don"t know enough about it still to be definitive .

And another thought- proving murder in a medical setting must be one of the hardest things for a barrister to achieve - but the prosecution were very successful - just what sort of defence did she have? Did they make the decision that no way would a jury convict on the evidence and just sit back? Where were the counter arguments backed up by an alternative set of medical “experts”?
Im not a lawyer but I have been a jury member - this is basic defence 101- even if the argument's or evidence put forward by the defence are ultimately dismissed in favour of the prosecution there has to be a level of effort put in on behalf of the defence- one would have thought they would have had counter arguments all the way through especially for things like the roster contrasted with serious medical events taking place when she was on duty - Shirley an alternative reality could have been created there that greatly reduced that evidential impact or even negated it

Another interesting one from The Telegraph, they've posted several spin offs of that in the past few days.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-letby-serial-killer-or-miscarriage-justice-victim/

The defence seemed atrocious.

However there is a barrister in the UK, Mark McDonald who just did an interview on this, it's on youtube, where he describes how difficult it is to get expert witnesses for child abuse cases.

There's also going to be a 'private eye' article next week that's going to discuss "The way expert witnesses are used - or not used - in criminal trials with complex and uncertain science is simply not fit for purpose, and risks miscarriages of justice."

https://x.com/drphilhammond/status/1810630891649073506

Here's the New Yorker article

It's long, but well worth a read.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it

For a cluster of normal deaths to occur like that would be an extraordinary coincidence on its own, but these deaths were anything but normal

Basing his initial thoughts on the daily mail podcast in his first article and his follow up on the appeals court judgement, surely you can see that that's going to be incredibly biased seeing as she got refused 🧐