Lucy Letby ch5 10pm

Watching it now
Another investigation that casts massive doubts on her being guilty
Cover up from the senior doctors
Vital evidence withheld from the jurors
Medical experts rubbishing the "evidence"

that heart expert cudnt wait to get out the grilling.

[   This image is no longer available.   ]

Scapegoat..to cover up for more senior doctors mistakes
Just been alleged
This investigation going further than the previous one
Surely a retrial after this?

still being looked at by the criminal cases review.

dont know the exact details of her trial but would still need damming evidence to convict her.

Meanwhile, she's been locked up now for 5 years?

Nobody like to admit they got it wrong, especially Police and Courts.
Look how long it took for the Post office victims.

The last bit about a doctor putting a needle into the wrong part of the chest of a baby who died...was not disclosed to the coroner...and he falsified the records to absolve himself

aye reg, all looking rather murky.

..... How did he explain this ..

Handwritten Post-it Notes: The police recovered numerous densely scribbled handwritten notes from her home. These included the widely reported green Post-it note containing phrases like "I AM EVIL I DID THIS" and "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough". The chaotic, heavily overlapping handwriting on these notes was a central visual fixture of the trial coverage.

As Rico says...
Being advised to express her feelings, after possibly being accused of things she never did, then using those words to convict her

as  said on the other thread in jan ...if the old bill think 100/% they have the right man/woman  it has  been known  in the past for possible  vital eveidence to be witheld from courts .

Yes Foyles....as in the Guilford 4

didn't seem to be any new evidence - the doctor they used had no experience with new-born babies

very selective documentary - a propaganda piece not an investigation of the whole case e.g. where was the mention of the dates she marked in her diary when babies died? or her changing medical records? etc,

thats theproblem with these rogrammes ,those who think she,s guilty could do a vdocu aired tonight,that would make everyone think she,s guilty

exactly the same as every McCann documentary..every one biased for their benefit. Never been one thats questioned their narrarite.If the sun journo believes her innocence then of course its gona be biased for Letby.Lets see what the CCRC decide.

exactly the same as every McCann documentary..every one biased for their benefit. Never been one thats questioned their narrative.If the sun journo believes her innocence then of course its gona be biased for Letby.Lets see what the CCRC decide.

for anyone interested the complete trial transcripts are here

https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/transcripts.html

ultimately it's going to come down to how persuasive are her new medical experts (not the guy in the programme who was just a retired random doctor) - not going to be easy when she already had a set of experts who she didn't use at the trial

for those reading the form ,that prickly,mysoginist  barrister now leading her defence ,read somewhere might even have been on here,this is the  23rd unsafe conviction/appeals case he,s took up and he,s lost the other 22, so he was either just as convinced the other 22 were as innocent as he says letby is,or thought they were guilty but i,ll take a swing at it anyway if someones daft enough to pay me enough

it will be us 'the taxpayer' payning her bill
via legal aid....!!

as an example dewi evans  interview with colin patterson  last night were  2 mins of clis,clipped together from a 90 min disdcussion/debate vthey had, dewi evans response to the docu/clipped edits ,can be found on x today,  THE SUN NEWSPAPER who,d have flunked it

as someone posted above as a sign of guilt
hE COULDNT WAIT TO GET OUT, he was getting out after 90 mins discussion

yeah there was a lot of selective editing and leaving things out. it's like the faked moon landing docs C5 used to show - if you watched them you'd think NASA never went to the moon

I think the most reasons given by those who want a new trial is not wether she is innocent or guilty but the fact that she was not given a fair trial and that evidence was suppressed by authorities that could have been used by her defence team which also showed a large degree of incompotence.

very strange why a young female professional would do such a thing tbh.

Sep 22, 2026 -- 3:30PM, CROPSICK wrote:

I think the most reasons given by those who want a new trial is not wether she is innocent or guilty but the fact that she was not given a fair trial and that evidence was suppressed by authorities that could have been used by her defence team which also showed a large degree of incompotence.

A new trial looks the best course of action IMO, whether or not the CCRC concur remains to seen,i'd have thought a decision can't be that far away given her legal team submitted it back in Feb 2025, yes it will cost a few quid but the tories didnt mind splashing out millions in the era of austerity to give thatcher a state funeral.

Sep 21, 2026 -- 11:08PM, Rico-Dangleflaps wrote:

still being looked at by the criminal cases review.

The criminal case review is not to determine her guilt or innocence, nor will have any power to order a retrial.

never 😆

Rico-Dangleflaps • September 22, 2026 9:15 AM BST
exactly the same as every McCann documentary..every one biased for their benefit. Never been one thats questioned their narrarite.If the sun journo believes her innocence then of course its gona be biased for Letby.Lets see what the CCRC decide.

Rico-Dangleflaps • September 22, 2026 9:16 AM BST
exactly the same as every McCann documentary..every one biased for their benefit. Never been one thats questioned their narrative.If the sun journo believes her innocence then of course its gona be biased for Letby.Lets see what the CCRC decide.

Got so excited saying the name posted it twice!

Seems like you had a lot removed from the other thread Ringo, touch a raw nerve hey?

Very odd fellow you.

118?

Yeah too right!

yeh but THE SUN REPORTER put the drop in number,s of deaths after letby was moved down to AT RISK BABIES/KIDS not been sent there so to prove his theory correct surely he sould have provided evidence of  an up tick in deaths in the hositals that at risk atiernts were sent to instead  ?

13 deaths on her unit in 2015 and 2016 - Letby on duty at the start of deterioration for 12. Chances she was just unlucky are more than a million to one.

i'd have thought a decision can't be that far away given her legal team submitted it back in Feb 2025

jeremy bamber's application went in 2021 and he's still waiting

Sorry 1tp looks like my post you responded to got binned - I'll shut up now.

Looking at some of the posts yesterday, the Sun has always been anti-Letby and set out with this lengthy investigation to confirm her guilt - as the reporter made clear at the start of the programme. The more you look into the deaths, say the experts and retired coppers, the more you're convinced they weren't murders.

Sep 23, 2026 -- 4:17PM, A_T wrote:

i'd have thought a decision can't be that far away given her legal team submitted it back in Feb 2025jeremy bamber's application went in 2021 and he's still waiting

Not entirely accurate, parts of that submission made by bambers legal team have been deemed not to meet threshold to go back to court of appeal/thrown out, yes other parts still to be determined.

the post-it notes are a perceived gotcha by people who don’t know anything about the case - on the exact same piece of paper she wrote she had done nothing wrong and that she was being victimised - as it turned out it was an unfiltered unloading of her feeling as advised to do by her work councillor - even now people don’t know this as it was so heavily pushed by the prosecution and the media - people are still going on chat shows thinking they’ve got this gotcha and completely embarrassing themselves

Almost as embarrassing as saying it was a million to one that she was there by coincidence - there was already a laid out set of guidelines of how the statistics should have been done including engaging with a qualified statistician all which were ignored and numbers made up like people do on the internet on various subjects that portray nothing other than their absolute ignorance of valid statistical maths

what was left out / edited this programme that makes the programme biased - was there any key prosecution ‘evidence’ which wasn’t addressed as I didn’t notice any

Facebook searches diary notes and handover sheets - unprofessional maybe lots of nurses have come forward and said they’ve done the same - a tiny proportion of these related to the babies under review - like if she only had stuff saved from the babies she murdered / attempted murder it might have looked a bit dodgy

Lots of people wrote notes retrospectively and made amendments - what changes did Letby make which fundamentally changed a situation eg something like what’s being suggested by breary who apparently amended the computer printouts with handwritten notes to show that the major collapse didn’t come after the needle incident which t the computer record suggested it did

she had one medical expert at the trial - his view was that there was no sign of any murders - he also fundamentally agrees with the new panel on their findings - not every fine detail but fundamentally

the reason he wasn’t put up at the trial the theory was that he was too reasonable a man - his notes set out what he believed were the key signs and his conclusion but he was not prepared to rule out completely even the most unlikely events - eg could a 55 rated handicapper win the arc -;he’d say very very unlikely but it’s not impossible - compared to the blowhard on the prosecution who just says everything no matter how ridiculous with complete conviction the defence guy could look weak - thats the theory so the lawyer decided to discredit the blow hard instead which he did but obviously not in the eyes of the jury under direction from the judge - a judge from a previous case had warned this trial that the prosecution blowhard had in one of his cases had provided a biased opinion and made statements way beyond the level of his expertise and guess what he did exactly the same here - unfortunately a large proportion of the population are seduced by the delivery rather than the content

watching the docu on the other hospital baby serial killer last night BEVERLY ALLET, an old repeat docu,but wasnt the detective in charge the same detective used by THE SUN in letby docu ?, to say no evidence of any crime been committed was produced , but in the ALLOT docu he says HOW CAN YOU WRITE OFF 7 UNEXPLAINED DEATHS IN  BABY WARD AS ONE OF THOSE THINGS,and it doesnt really matter if it was the ssame  DECTECTIVE saying it,the point stands

Ask yourself would you want her looking after your child as a nurse or in any capacity?
I think behind bars is the best place for her.

he also fundamentally agrees with the new panel on their findings - not every fine detail but fundamentally

If you're talking about Michael Hall he most definitely not agree with the new panel

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

Not entirely accurate, parts of that submission made by bambers legal team have been deemed not to meet threshold to go back to court of appeal/thrown out, yes other parts still to be determined.

to be precise they were provisionally rejected - Bamber then hired a KC to make arguments to the CCRC - outcome not yet known

the unit Letby was in was under resourced and under skilled barely capable of looking after level 1 risk babies safely - they had some arguable level 3 babies - moving these babies to properly functioning level 3 trained units would mean there was no necessity for these babies to die therefore no need for their to be a spike in these hospitals

Not just Dr Hall why weren't all the other experts Letbty had called to give evidence?

The Letby is innocent arguments are a crock

I’ve already given my opinion on why I think he wasn’t called on this thread but no one knows for sure in the public domain

I’ve already given my opinion on why I think he wasn’t called on this thread but no one knows for sure in the public domain

that's OK the KC she had will be explaining to the CCRC and if necessary the Court of Appeal why numerous experts were hired by the defence but none of them were called

If 3 of the babies died that wouldn’t have been an outlier from previous years so sad as it was no different from various other years when there was no serial killer - the other point clearly missed is that if staff are rushing around trying to give treatment to babies they are not qualified for they can’t help but neglect the ones they are capable of looking after

mike hall was the lead witness if anyone was being called it would have been him - there’s not one piece of evidence against letby which can’t be easily countered by something more plausible I’ve just done it about 4 times already in this thread - soon it will degenerate down to she’s been found guilty. In a court of law like there’s never been a miscarriage of justice before

mike hall was the lead witness if anyone was being called it would have been him

Hall wasn't called because for a number of cases, most notably the insulin poisonings, he could not challenge the prosecution case. Letby had experts equivalent to the prosecution's -  in pathology, endocrinology, radiology - none of them were called.

So we are now down to Mike hall not being called that’s the best evidence of Letby being innocent is a crock and of course found guilty in a court of law like there’s never been a verdict over turned

the notes the numbers of babies dying before and after the reason for no spike when babies transferred to more appropriate units the insulin results the impact on less ill babies from staff strugggling to deal with babies beyond their skill set all have much more plausible explanations than Dewis albeit delivered with authority work of fiction - took him 10 minutes over a coffee and freely admitted on talk tv that he came up with his theories because frankly he couldn’t think of anything else - child has liver damage oh she must have punched him in the liver the sort of thing a primary school kid would come out with

Mike hall may not have had the knowledge to contest the insulin results the same as the prosecution didn’t either

the prosecution had specialists in insulin who were called - Letby did too but didn't call them - don't need to be an Einstein to figure out why

So we are now down to Mike hall not being called that’s the best evidence of Letby being innocent

you're the one who brought Dr Hall into the discussion

AT re your earlier post about the change in the unit's role - the building was razed to 5he ground last week so I should think they're limited as to what they can do.

Letbys barrister and none of the panel are being paid in respect of this work  - if they’re are just lying about it then I’m sure it would have been uncovered by now

As it stands basic knowledge of the case they are not being paid

Not being paid is not necessarily a good thing. Suggests they have other motives forgetting involved. We do know that Shoo Lee's panel is his friends from medical academia who responded to a email shot asking for help to free Letby.

AT re your earlier post about the change in the unit's role - the building was razed to 5he ground last week so I should think they're limited as to what they can do.


yeah the building was demolished - a new unit was opened last year

yeah not being paid can be turned against them - same as letby having a flawless background turned against her - basically the claim was made that shen had duped everyone from her long term friends (and she had long term friends) her collesgues and obviousky her parents all instead of the much more plausible explanantion that she actually just had a flawless background (within the reasonablenness of being a normal human being)

now people working for nil payment potentially have a sinister motive for doing so - shoo lee had his paper mis-used and his knowledge on his own paper was effectively dismissed - as far as im aware that was his initial motivation - he then started to realise there were massive holes in some of the other cases nina modi already knew it was a pile of garbage so she would be easy to get on board - the statisticians were angry that their profession had just been dismissed like any guy on the internet or in the courtroom could oroduce complex valid statistics i assume the rest were persuaded by the thought of a miscarriage of justice - cant see it being a good move for their career reputatiom or legacy to align with a prolific baby killer unless theyre sure

letby having a flawless background

If she was such a good nurse how come babies kept dying on her watch?

She failed her final student placement because of personality issues. She called no good character witnesses at her trial.

but did deaths increase when she was on duty?

the deaths have no significant statistical correlation with letby people are either so out their depth they dont understand it or they just keep repeating what the media said at the time (many who have now shifted their opinion)

she had nurses who spoke out on her behalf she had nurses who were advised not to stand up for her as it could affect their career

No good character evidence presented in court. "advised not to stand up for" - that sounds like perverting the course of justice which can carry a prison sentence. Any evidence this happened? Of course not.

the deaths have no significant statistical correlation with letby

13 deaths in 2015/16. Letby on duty for 10 when death was pronounced - shift officially ended less than an hour before for 2 others. Chances she was just unlucky more than a million to one.

my post about the stats appear to have gone awol - jane hutton peter elson richard gill john oquigkey all staisticians or working in statistical roles say the stats on the case were garbage

there were laid out guideliness introduced in 2011 to stop all this nonsense but of course once again ignored

done properly ie inckuding all deaths and collapses inckuding extra shifts inckuding risk of babies being looked after letbys attendance is not statistical significant

its just the same old misinformation that has already been discreditted

Why do posts get flipped off ? Maysoon lost one of his and my harmless one earlier disappeared.

Watched last Night , I wonder if AT and the guilty gang have watched it, Whisky Dewi seems a very confused man

C5's offering about as credible as their faked moon landings offerings - same types came away from that convinced

Sep 28, 2026 -- 9:41AM, A_T wrote:

C5's offering about as credible as their faked moon landings offerings - same types came away from that convinced

LOL i'd say its a nailed on  guilty verdict whoever it is if you're on  jury service! - even taking the viewpoint that the CH 5  program was on the biased side, there are too many things highlighted which indicate that the conviction on the evidence presented is dubious - i'd much rather see a re trial with all factors included then let the jury decide.

C5 programme was codswallop - a cardiac surgeon who'd never dealt with newborns treated like an expert - would never be allowed near a courtroom to give his opinion. Babies got ill and some died when Letby wasn't on duty - no sht.

I ain't convinced either way AT , Scribblings on a bit of paper don't do it for me TBH , Quite possible Letby had a nervous breakdown  ..

that's what her defence said at the trial. you don't keep getting new trials until you find a jury that will find you not guilty

the usual generic statements - how about pointing out why the ‘new’ defence is codswallop

the insulin tests - are they fully reliable ? even if they did get reasonable results on this occasion are they conclusive that insulin was added for neonates - studies show nenoates arent just little people they can react differently - is this codswallop

is dewis theories the most plausible explanation when theres alternative explanations eg punching a liver overfeeding with milk using primary 1 arithmetic and ignoring the  babiys clinical signs which says the opposite to the primary 1 arithmetic - injecting air into a baby in a small room where 3 other professionals were in the room and right underneath a window and no one saw a thing - really is this the most plausible explanation

ravi claiming he caught her almost red handed when his email at the time said she called him for help - it also said the baby died from natural causes

6 out of 7 babies who had a post mortem declared natiural cause the other one unexplained (not an uncommon conckusion for a neonate) - the prosecution radialogists said anything he found was not diagnostic of air embolism - said he couldnt rule it out but not diagnostic

other than saying found guilty in a court of law like theres never been a miscarriage of justice before it shoukd be easy to crush the few points above if shes guilty

so did the insulin results say a follow up more accurate test should be done and was the this disclosed to the jury as an easy one for a starter

it's disputed medical opinion - even her own experts disagree amongst themselves and 2 recently withdrew from the case. Letby already had experts for her trial she didn't use - now she wants another go with some others specifically recruited for the purpose. Letby already tried to appeal the insulin - failed. No new medical evidence has been found - just new opinion on existing evidence.

even Letby's new expert Neena Modi says there were air embolisms

post-mortems - defence did not call pathologists for the trial - those called in the Thirlwall Inquiry said they'd not received the full picture

ravi claiming he caught her almost red handed when his email at the time said she called him for help

this was dealt with at her appeal - doesn't appear to be a current ground put forward by her defence

it's all just Letby wanting another go because the first juries found her guilty. Should she be allowed another go - maybe we can make it best of 3?

Is it disputed medical opinion that the tests say they need follow up tests ? as I say an easy one - it’s either printed on the associated test literature or not  - was this disclosed to the jury at the trial - again an easy one

Anyone who acknowledged air in the babies body be that Nina modi or Owen archers for the prosecution did not diagnose it as intended air embolism - there are other much more plausible explanations than Dewis fantastical theories

that’s why I’m asking about the insulin it’s either printed on the literature or not and it was either disclosed to the jury or not - no debate

yeah the needle in the liver wasn’t disclosed to the post mortems for one - what other info was missing

innocent people have needed more than 3 goes to eventually get released so Letby will be doing well to get out after two goes - like most recently Andrew malkinson and the posties

that’s why I’m asking about the insulin it’s either printed on the literature or not and it was either disclosed to the jury or not - no debate

can you provide evidence it was not? and show that it is now being used by Letby to challenge her convictions?

most recently Andrew malkinson and the posties

Malkinson new DNA testing showed it wasn't him - Postmasters it was found software was faulty - Government passed a law to clear them all. No similarities to Letby case.

Is she being thrown under the bus to protect the disaster that some NHS Trusts are or certain powerful people/politicians who have made decisions which have led to these deaths. I'm fairly certain she innocent..... The government, civil service , and many people in the Establishment class are corrupt and evil.

Anyone who acknowledged air in the babies body be that Nina modi or Owen archers for the prosecution did not diagnose it as intended air embolism

Shoo Lee's panel summaries denies there was any air embolism at all - square that with Modi's assertion that there was

Is she being thrown under the bus to protect the disaster that some NHS Trusts are or certain powerful people/politicians who have made decisions which have led to these deaths

trust and executives now being investigated for gross negligence manslaughter - the cover-up didn't go so well

no doubt police also involved in the cover up

Letby marked dates of baby deaths in her diary - why did she do that?

the insulin tests require a follow up test or people are just plain lying - assuming they are not it is black and white - the test were inappropriate and that. Wasn’t disclosed to the jury

there was air in some of the babies bodies again unless people are just lying - the prosecution radiologist couldn’t diagnose deliberate air embolism with his evidence and the defence have come up with much more plausible reasons

the notes the text messages the handover sheets - only a tiny proportion of any of them referred to the babies under review - at least the confession not has been so trashed it’s moved into other stuff easily countered

Andre malkinson and the posties - they are examples of innocent people who were behind bars - that’s a simple point - just showing the possibility of this happening for the slightly gullible who think a case ends with the first trial at all times

Letby marked dates of baby deaths in her diary - why did she do that?

and what about the sympathy message she drafted for all 3 triplets when she'd only killed 2? thanks goodness the third was moved after pleading from the parents and the baby was saved

Shoo Lee panel most babies only input from neonatologists - trial experts were radiologists, pathologists, haematologists, endocrinologists, paediatric surgeon

you are obviously unaware that air can occur naturally in babies after death - not diagnostic of deliberate sir embolism just dewis ridiculous theories - even owen arthurs rowed back from that

its all there - medical evedeince demolished insulin tests inappropriate stuff not disclosed to the jury - ravi changing his story stuff not disclosed to the coroner - half the prosecution medical experts have shadows hanging over them or have already disqyalified themselves without disclosing their positon when they should have

and the comback - what about  3% of the stuff she wrote in her diary - laughable really in what is definitely not a laughable core subject