Page 1 of 2
Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 2:56 pm
by Anonymous Claret
Interesting developments in this case. I mean it is not as though people in power have any form for stitching up a patsy to cover up their own negligence or incompetence etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... s-arrested
Hopefully Lucy Letby will at least receive a retrial if not a pardon sometime in the near future.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 3:03 pm
by Leisure
Think that you're barking up the wrong tree!
“This focuses on senior leadership and their decision-making to determine whether any criminality has taken place concerning the response to the increased levels of fatalities.
“It is important to note that this does not impact on the convictions of Lucy Letby for multiple offences of murder and attempted murder.”
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 3:09 pm
by Anonymous Claret
Leisure wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 3:03 pm
Think that you're barking up the wrong tree!
“This focuses on senior leadership and their decision-making to determine whether any criminality has taken place concerning the response to the increased levels of fatalities.
“It is important to note that this does not impact on the convictions of Lucy Letby for multiple offences of murder and attempted murder.”
Yes I did get that Leisure. In the article the police are quick to point out that the arrests have nothing to do with the conviction of Lucy Letby.
However, I think the jury were not aware of a lot of stuff that has since come out at the original trial which is mentioned later by her barrister who is now defending her.
Maybe I should have been more clear in the OP when referencing the article?
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 3:12 pm
by Quickenthetempo
There will always be corruption in this country as we treat whistle blowers like crap.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 3:37 pm
by yTib
conspiracy theorists will always value the conspiracy more than the truth.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 3:39 pm
by mdd2
Apparently her barrister is doing her appeals and getting material together Pro bono
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 3:45 pm
by dsr
mdd2 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 3:39 pm
Apparently her barrister is doing her appeals and getting material together Pro bono
Presumably a different barrister.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 3:49 pm
by spamalittle
yTib wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 3:37 pm
conspiracy theorists will always value the conspiracy more than the truth.
Luckily conspiracy theorists never uncover any truth and the state doesn't protect the system at all costs.
I don't pretend to know the innocence or guilt in this case, but one sure way to control any debate is call any alternative a conspiracy theory.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 4:23 pm
by Claret Toni
Dewi Evans, neonatolgist, the lead prosecution expert, has had his "expertise" questioned post trial by current neonatal practioners and has changed his views on, at least, some of his evidence and it is felt in some quarters that the Letby convictions are, at best, unsafe.
Whether or not Letby is truly guilty, what cannot be denied is that there were, statistically, far too many baby deaths in the neonatal department, even allowing for the fact the department by its very nature was dealing with very ill babies. Of course Letby may be a murderer, perhaps a convenient scapegoat, but surely senior management should have been forensically examining why so many babies died under their watch. That they should now be charged with gross negligence manslaughter, should be no surprise. But it is.
For the parents of the children who died, sadly the nightmare continues.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 4:48 pm
by Herts Clarets
mdd2 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 3:39 pm
Apparently her barrister is doing her appeals and getting material together Pro bono
Whilst not their biggest fan i don't mind some U2 stuff
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 4:50 pm
by Falcon
We don't want another Lucia de Berk situation so if there is any doubt in the evidence then it needs looking at.
We've all seen enough miscarriages of justice over the years to know that sometimes the system gets it wrong.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 4:53 pm
by Bordeauxclaret
Claret Toni wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 4:23 pm
Dewi Evans, neonatolgist, the lead prosecution expert, has had his "expertise" questioned post trial by current neonatal practioners and has changed his views on, at least, some of his evidence and it is felt in some quarters that the Letby convictions are, at best, unsafe.
When was this? He denied it in December
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6l0dynz7zo.amp
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 5:17 pm
by yTib
spamalittle wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 3:49 pm
I don't pretend to know the innocence or guilt in this case, but one sure way to control any debate is call any alternative a conspiracy theory.
you would of course be correct if we were discussing a debate.
this is a criminal case. she was found guilty by a jury based on tangible evidence.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 5:21 pm
by dsr
Or Sally Clark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Cla ... 20Clark%20(n%C3%A9e%20Lockyer%2C%2015,of%20her%20two%20infant%20sons.
She was convicted largely on the basis of bogus statistics, with an idiot prosecutor coming up with a false figure because he didn't know what he was talking about, and an even bigger idiot defender who didn't bother to check.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 5:39 pm
by dermotdermot
dsr wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 5:21 pm
Or Sally Clark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Cla ... 20Clark%20(n%C3%A9e%20Lockyer%2C%2015,of%20her%20two%20infant%20sons.
She was convicted largely on the basis of bogus statistics, with an idiot prosecutor coming up with a false figure because he didn't know what he was talking about, and an even bigger idiot defender who didn't bother to check.
That was a truly horrendous case. I’ll never forget the haunted look she had on release. Especially in her eyes. The poor woman.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 5:47 pm
by spamalittle
yTib wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 5:17 pm
you would of course be correct if we were discussing a debate.
this is a criminal case. she was found guilty by a jury based on tangible evidence.
I don't disagree, Lucy Letby has been found guilty by a jury, which is why she is currently in prison.
However, previously trusted experts in criminal cases, statisticians, politicians, reporters have and are questioning the safety of this conviction. Both in terms of the defence provided in the case, the use of statistics and the main expert witness. I just don't see how some of the people questioning the conviction are conspiracy theorists.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 5:49 pm
by Claret Toni
Hi Bordeaux, my source is Private Eye and that publication has been running with the Letby case for quite a while. The latest iteration is Part 23, and I quote from the that issue. Please be assured this is but an example.
"Evans initially suggested babies had died from injected potassium chloride. He reported an accusation that someone had dislodged a baby's nasal prongs on its oxygen tube, but dropped it this when he found Letby wasn't there. He claimed air into the NG tube was a "clinically proven mechanism of death" when it wasn't; he now says it isn't a method of death at all.
Evans theorised that baby N had suffered an inflicted air embolism, which he thinks killed other babies very quickly, but this baby somehow recovered in seven minutes with oxygen. Evans final theory for baby N was very different - attempted murder by inflicted trauma to the throat.
Evens argued baby O underwent a "key clinical change" at 1am, which he linked to an alleged attack on the night shift, but Letby was not present, the timing of the alleged attack switched to the day shift. For baby I, Evans proposed that someone injected air down the NG tube until it emerged that the baby may not have even had an NG tube; Evans changed the allegation to smothering.
It's not unusual for experts to hypothesise, test the evidence and change their minds. What is unusual is for independent experts to present their findings with certainty, excluding more plausible causes".
I think it's fair to say that Private Eye aren't trying to say that Letby is innocent, but tend to the view that the convictions aren't safe.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 6:02 pm
by Bow
Looks like another case for DCI Karen Facebook
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 6:08 pm
by JohnMcGreal
Claret Toni wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 5:49 pm
Hi Bordeaux, my source is Private Eye and that publication has been running with the Letby case for quite a while. The latest iteration is Part 23, and I quote from the that issue. Please be assured this is but an example.
"Evans initially suggested babies had died from injected potassium chloride. He reported an accusation that someone had dislodged a baby's nasal prongs on its oxygen tube, but dropped it this when he found Letby wasn't there. He claimed air into the NG tube was a "clinically proven mechanism of death" when it wasn't; he now says it isn't a method of death at all.
Evans theorised that baby N had suffered an inflicted air embolism, which he thinks killed other babies very quickly, but this baby somehow recovered in seven minutes with oxygen. Evans final theory for baby N was very different - attempted murder by inflicted trauma to the throat.
Evens argued baby O underwent a "key clinical change" at 1am, which he linked to an alleged attack on the night shift, but Letby was not present, the timing of the alleged attack switched to the day shift. For baby I, Evans proposed that someone injected air down the NG tube until it emerged that the baby may not have even had an NG tube; Evans changed the allegation to smothering.
It's not unusual for experts to hypothesise, test the evidence and change their minds. What is unusual is for independent experts to present their findings with certainty, excluding more plausible causes".
I think it's fair to say that Private Eye aren't trying to say that Letby is innocent, but tend to the view that the convictions aren't safe.
Private Eye's 'MD' has been an excellent resource on this for some time. It's hard not to conclude that her conviction is unsafe and that an appeal / re-trial is more than justified at this stage.
That's not to say she's guilty or not guilty, just that there are serious issues with the evidence and expert statements used to convict her in court.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 7:22 pm
by GodIsADeeJay81
Absolutely right that the senior management are investigated over this, and if required, are made to face a court of law
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 7:33 pm
by yTib
spamalittle wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 5:47 pm
However, previously trusted experts in criminal cases, statisticians, politicians, reporters have and are questioning the safety of this conviction. Both in terms of the defence provided in the case, the use of statistics and the main expert witness. I just don't see how some of the people questioning the conviction are conspiracy theorists.
media speculation based on a populist agenda is almost the definition of a conspiracy theory.
but as long as it sells sheets who really cares about those dead children?
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 8:12 pm
by NottsClaret
Bow wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 6:02 pm
Looks like another case for DCI Karen Facebook
Exactly it. Same as the Jay Slater saga.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 8:52 pm
by cblantfanclub
y Tib "who really cares about those dead children?"
I think people do care about the dead children. It is because people care they want to be sure of the reasons these children died to prevent others dying be it through sub optimal care or deliberate means.
I think you should acquaint yourself with all the facts – Private Eye being a good source along with File on 4 – before being so smug because if it isn’t investigated thoroughly and dis-passionately more children could die.
Jeremy Hunt – “ There are serious and credible questions about the evidence presented in court, the robustness of expert testimony and the interpretation of statistical evidence – if the babies did die from substandard care and error blaming Letby loses any chance of learning from error and Preventing Future Deaths”
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:10 pm
by Jakubclaret
cblantfanclub wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 8:52 pm
y Tib "who really cares about those dead children?"
I think people do care about the dead children. It is because people care they want to be sure of the reasons these children died to prevent others dying be it through sub optimal care or deliberate means.
I think you should acquaint yourself with all the facts – Private Eye being a good source along with File on 4 – before being so smug because if it isn’t investigated thoroughly and dis-passionately more children could die.
Jeremy Hunt – “ There are serious and credible questions about the evidence presented in court, the robustness of expert testimony and the interpretation of statistical evidence – if the babies did die from substandard care and error blaming Letby loses any chance of learning from error and Preventing Future Deaths”
The same poster only the other week was championing posts exposing the ghoulish posters on this forum ( Katie Boulter). After that I think he's done the job pretty well himself.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:21 pm
by Tobi Lark
Dear All
It’s a tad worrying that someone could be in prison for the rest of their lives with so much debate on
shether they are guilty or not?
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:23 pm
by yTib
jeremy hunt. i have about as much faith in him as i do in jakubclaret. both talk a lot and say nothing.
and i try never to be smug.
as i see it the evidence against letby is overwhelming.
thankfully we try suspects in courts of law and not those of popular opinion.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:37 pm
by cblantfanclub
I think you fail to differentiate between popular opinion and that of serious neo natal experts, respected academics and highly qualified statisticians.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:56 pm
by Tobi Lark
Dear cblantfanclub
Not differentiating all and the balance of probability is that she seems guilty.
Just seems amazing that it appears some neo natal experts, respected academics and highly qualified statisticians are casting doubt.
People have been found guilty on the back of expert opinion and subsequently found innocent, surely it deserves another look ??
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 10:00 pm
by clive40golf
I think the defence of LL are focusing on one small part of the evidence, as to create doubt in the rest of the evidence.
One fact you can’t deny is that after Letby ceased working on the wards of the three hospitals, the mortality rates have dropped to the average death rate, from being extremely and unnaturally high.
The arrests today are in relation to the management not acting on the evidence given to them by several senior doctors and medical professionals. If they did act like they should have, on the evidence given, many lives could have been saved. Hence the charges
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 10:11 pm
by Jakubclaret
yTib wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:23 pm
jeremy hunt. i have about as much faith in him as i do in jakubclaret. both talk a lot and say nothing.
and i try never to be smug.
as i see it the evidence against letby is overwhelming.
thankfully we try suspects in courts of law and not those of popular opinion.
Dead children are extremely important. Any parent losing a child will know that it's an extremely insensitive take.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 10:11 pm
by cblantfanclub
Tobi I thnk you have misunderstood I am in favour of another look.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 10:24 pm
by Tobi Lark
My apologies, first post, I’ll get better !,,,
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 11:03 pm
by yTib
Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 10:11 pm
Dead children are extremely important. Any parent losing a child will know that it's an extremely insensitive take.
you are as crass as you are stupid.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 11:07 pm
by Jakubclaret
yTib wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 11:03 pm
you are as crass as you are stupid.
Your words not mine. Some parents looking in would be horrified at them comments especially suffering a loss.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 11:20 pm
by dsr
clive40golf wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 10:00 pm
I think the defence of LL are focusing on one small part of the evidence, as to create doubt in the rest of the evidence.
One fact you can’t deny is that after Letby ceased working on the wards of the three hospitals, the mortality rates have dropped to the average death rate, from being extremely and unnaturally high.
The arrests today are in relation to the management not acting on the evidence given to them by several senior doctors and medical professionals. If they did act like they should have, on the evidence given, many lives could have been saved. Hence the charges
That is one of the major points in the request for a retrial. The prosecution did indeed point out, correctly, that death rates dropped after Letby ceased working on the wards. What they did not point out is that at about the same time, the unit ceased to be a high dependency unit and no longer treated babies in imminent danger of death.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 11:26 pm
by dsr
The problem with the statistics, for those that haven't been following them, is that the prosecution only looked for those statistics that support their case. They looked at the deaths of all babies that might be suspicious, and worked out which ones died when Letby was on duty. They categorised the ones when she was not on duty as being OK, and the ones when she was on duty as suspicious. Then they produced a roster of nurses and "discovered" that in all the suspicious cases, Letby was on duty.
A parallel case would be if we decided Ben Mee had been at fault for losing games for Burnley. So we could prove it by first of all listing all those games that Mee played in that we lost, and then seeing how many other players played in all those games. When we found out that Mee was the only man who played in all of those games, we would conclude that Mee was guilty.
When you add in the fact that the medical experts were told that the deaths were suspicious and had to find a credible theory for how the baby could have been murdered, and presumably the fact that it had to fit in with the fact that the autopsies found nothing suspicious, then the prosecution case really does start to stink.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:05 pm
by clive40golf
LL Is now facing further charges after an in-depth investigation. I’m sure the CPS would have been extra diligent before bringing these extra charges.
The other previous charges, in which she was found guilty of, were initially brought to the attention by medical staff who were working with her, nothing to do with statistics, they found her acting highly suspicious and one Doctor virtually caught her in the act.
As for the being on duty when the babies died:- you don’t have to be always be there to murder someone, an action you took several hours before could still kill somebody.
What do people think about these further charges? Bearing in mind that evidence provided to the CPS was said to be substantial and thoroughly investigated.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:07 pm
by clive40golf
I think one of the main reasons people doubt Lucy is a murderer is because she looks so nice and innocent,
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:20 pm
by Anonymous Claret
clive40golf wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:07 pm
I think one of the main reasons people doubt Lucy is a murderer is because she looks so nice and innocent,
I think that most people are unsure of her innocence or guilt because loads of information and evidence has come out after the trial that was either hidden or unknown at the time.
It can also be added that a lot of people think her initial defence team were poor and incompetent.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:24 pm
by clive40golf
dsr wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 11:20 pm
That is one of the major points in the request for a retrial. The prosecution did indeed point out, correctly, that death rates dropped after Letby ceased working on the wards. What they did not point out is that at about the same time, the unit ceased to be a high dependency unit and no longer treated babies in imminent danger of death.
Again the defence picked out only a certain point in the whole picture. Yes the unit stopped treating babies with certain criteria, that could be treated at another nearby hospital better, but only after some time. Plus the fact that over 70% of the babies that died were being treated for non life threatening conditions.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:29 pm
by iw1961
The first question is why? She was convicted and sentenced to whole life tariffs. Why would you bother? Frankly, charging her with more offences raises more questions. Is the CPS now beginning to question its own evidence? Are the doubts raised about the CPS expert witnesses starting to weaken the initial case? To be honest, I'm drawn to Disraeli "Lies, dammed, lies and statistics" view of statistical data. It's like climate change, you commission your study to give you the outcome you want, not necessarily the truth.
Still, at this moment, she was convicted by a jury, and that's good enough for me. Although this does seem to be a strange decision.
Though it is heartening to see charges brought against Trust managers. It is time that corporate Britain was made to account for some of their decisions, and if found guilty actually jailed. Hopefully Paula Vennels at the Post Office will start.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:33 pm
by cblantfanclub
Clive40 golf "found her acting highly suspicious and one Doctor virtually caught her in the act."
That will be Dr Ravi Jayram who totally changed his story - he has continually made contradictory statements I suggest you check up on his involvement.
In an email seen by UnHerd, Jayaram initially suggested that, in fact, Letby had called him for help, and this was why he went to see Baby K. This was exculpatory evidence that could have helped Letby’s defence team, yet her lawyers were not told of its existence before either trial. It was not disclosed to them until late September last year.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:35 pm
by clive40golf
dsr wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 11:26 pm
A parallel case would be if we decided Ben Mee had been at fault for losing games for Burnley. So we could prove it by first of all listing all those games that Mee played in that we lost, and then seeing how many other players played in all those games. When we found out that Mee was the only man who played in all of those games, we would conclude that Mee was guilty.
A more parallel case would be if his own teammates were concerned about the fact that there was a lot of own goals being scored when none of the opposing players were in the Burnley half and in fact the goals were being scored by Ben. And then Bens teammates had gone to the manager and after being given the facts did absolutely nothing about it, several more own goals were scored and Burnley were relegated. We now have Ben and the management staff responsible ( that’s exactly where we are now today, with the management facing manslaughter charges an LL facing further charges as well)
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:39 pm
by Dazzler
iw1961 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:29 pm
she was convicted by a jury, and that's good enough for me.
As were Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley, Stefan Klitschko, Andrew Malkinson, The Guildford Four, The Birmingham Six........
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:40 pm
by cblantfanclub
Clive 40 "I think one of the main reasons people doubt Lucy is a murderer is because she looks so nice and innocent,"
I see you're attracted to the Dr Evans explanation of new evidence - main prosecution witness
"Dr Evans responded to the expert, who has critiqued the case against Letby on the triedbystats.com website, by claiming that his interest in the case was sexual. He said: 'You seem very intense, and it's not unusual for men to have the hots for pretty young blonde females. A nursing uniform is a turn-on for some by all accounts.
'I would suggest you need to get out more, find yourself an available pretty young blonde female, with/without nursing credentials. But one who doesn't go to work intent on murdering her patients."
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:44 pm
by dsr
Dazzler wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:39 pm
As were Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley, Stefan Klitschko, Andrew Malkinson, The Guildford Four, The Birmingham Six........
I'd leave Derek Bentley off the list. He may have been pardoned for his part in the armed robbery that lead to murder, but he was undoubtedly involved. The law may have been at fault, but not the jury.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:54 pm
by Dazzler
dsr wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:44 pm
I'd leave Derek Bentley off the list. He may have been pardoned for his part in the armed robbery that lead to murder, but he was undoubtedly involved. The law may have been at fault, but not the jury.
His murder conviction was quashed in 1998.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 1:06 pm
by lakedistrictclaret
The main reason for Bentley’s original conviction was the biased summing up of Lord Justice Goddard, who virtually told the jury to convict him.
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 1:25 pm
by Dazzler
The main reason for Bentley’s original conviction was the biased summing up of Lord Justice Goddard, who virtually told the jury to convict him.
Because they couldn't hang Craig
Re: Lucy Letby
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 1:57 pm
by clive40golf
cblantfanclub wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:40 pm
Clive 40 "I think one of the main reasons people doubt Lucy is a murderer is because she looks so nice and innocent,"
I see you're attracted to the Dr Evans explanation of new evidence - main prosecution witness
"Dr Evans responded to the expert, who has critiqued the case against Letby on the triedbystats.com website, by claiming that his interest in the case was sexual. He said: 'You seem very intense, and it's not unusual for men to have the hots for pretty young blonde females. A nursing uniform is a turn-on for some by all accounts.
'I would suggest you need to get out more, find yourself an available pretty young blonde female, with/without nursing credentials. But one who doesn't go to work intent on murdering her patients."
I already have a sexy wife, who works in main theatres at a Hospital, the only murder she’s guilty of is sometimes murdering our Tea lol.
I just mentioned about her looking nice and innocent, not sexy! If she looked Rough as and was full of scars I think less people would think her innocent.
I know my opinions will fall on the other side of some peoples opinions and no matter what is said they won’t change their opinion nor will I. So when the CPS have looked at her career footpath and found higher death rates at her previous hospitals and when she left they returned to a normality, I’m sure some will find statistics to support their opinion of her guilt or innocence.
I think that during this discussion I may have forgotten about the things that really matter, numerous babies have died tragically. And for that reason I won’t be contributing to this thread anymore. Apologies.