Last in-depth thing I listened to was this podcast from February 2025. Essentially, an independent body of experts was looking into it. No definite conclusions yet, but pretty damning about the whole ward rather than just her
this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
11 points (100.0% liked)
Ask UK
1517 readers
27 users here now
Community for asking and answering any question related to the life, the people or anything related to the UK.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hell yes the ward was a shit show, really bad. The whole hospital sounds awful
I was, but I thought it ended a few months ago? I know there's the press conference by her new lawyer to say they'll appeal to the CCRC. Has there been any updates since then?
Yes I think it's over but I got lost. She's already lost appeals, and if she had more evidence you'd think she'd have called more than just a plumber to give evidence in her defence!
That's one of the most puzzling things about this case, why the defence didn't put up a fight. They had a medical expert ready to dispute the the prosecution's assertions but never called them... The stats were being questioned externally as soon as the trial started, but they never touched on that. It's really bizarre.
I think the theory is it's because the experts would have had to agree with prosecution points as well. So yes they might disagree with children A-C, F and L but they agree with the others.
Only a little. I think she didn't do it, though I'm basing my hunch on a stat that there's this one doctor out there with a very high mortality rate of patients, which seems alarming but once you realise that he's the only doctor around in a very remote part of the UK full of primarily elderly people, it makes a bit more sense.
For Lucy, I think I mostly just don't want to believe that anyone could be so cruel. I don't believe it.
That's what I thought it's so horrible its unbearable. When you look into the evidence against her (not just what was reported in the press) it's overwhelming. Just reading the final few hours of the live feed on her cross examination tells you a lot
:The nurses advocating for her sound like they're doing it not just for Lucy but for themselves too, in the sense that they're terrified that they'd be next under prosecution
My understanding of the medical field is that responsibility propogates up, and many many people uo the chain of command would have to fail a patient, with the blame resting on the registrar, so it is either strange or really damning of her that they pinned this all on Lucy.
I can't make heads of it
I totally understand the fear, shit rolls downhill and high ups pin it on the most vulnerable person. There's a lot of bullying in the NHS so I'm sure people get mistreated.
Scary thing is the managers were covering for Lucy and the inquiry has shown just how much. She was in supportive text contact with one of the highest management! This quick read gives an overview
Oh no... okay, now I think she did do it.
Consultant paediatrician Ravi Jayaram enters the intensive care unit in the early hours of 17 February and finds Letby standing next to the incubator of a premature baby who is struggling to breathe. Letby is doing nothing to help.
I don't know what to say. This really has shaken me. I almost feel for the manager who tried to reassure Lucy that she wasn't at fault.
I know it's just awful. I remember he said he had a strong gut instinct he shouldn't leave her with the child, and he went down to reassure himself he was being ridiculous. But there she was 😲
I didn’t realize a panel of doctors concluded that she’s not at fault. Wow. So, is the general thinking that the courts got it wrong?
It's being slanted that way in the media to get clicks, but the evidence is massive but dry, boring and hard to follow. It's like:
Lucy's swipe card shows she was in at A time, she was updated computer records at BC and D times, and using her phone at EF and G times. Person H saw her doing I at J time, person K saw her etc etc. It all pinpoints her movements.
There's also many things like Lucy says she could see Child I was pale from 5 or 6 feet away in a darkened room in the below cot, which isn't credible:
And in cross examination about it she said she could see it because "I knew what I was looking for... I mean at".
So, is the general thinking that the courts got it wrong?
No, there is no "general thinking" here. It's a very complicated case and there's a lot of detail, and it's a shame that some people seem to be leaping on it as some salacious conspiracy theory.
The panel of doctors didn't "conclude that she's not at fault". They reviewed each individual incident, and determined that they didn't think there was sufficient evidence in each case that the baby died/was injured in the way that the prosecution alleges. If you take their evidence at face value, you could conclude that there isn't enough evidence to convict.
However the courts have generally been not enormously interested in that line of reasoning because it doesn't address all the other evidence against her, including a witness statement from a colleague who says they literally caught her in the act on one occasion, or the fact that she had a 40% incident rate for a type of fatal error (breathing tubes becoming dislodged) which generally only happens on less than 1% of shifts (i.e. it only ever seemed to happen when she was there).
So yeah, people need to chill and let the justice system grind this process out. Maybe her conviction will be overturned, maybe it won't. Not only is there no point in second guessing that, but when we're dealing with the depths of conflicting evidence and medical testimony even a nul conviction doesn't necessarily tell you much about whether she actually did it or not.
I see. Those details weren't in the brief scanning that I did of a couple of articles, or if they were they weren't emphasized in the parts that I read. Sounds like there's a lot more there than I was able to pick up quickly.