Lots of very forensic type prompting later:
I'm unsure. (Details shared on request)
1. There is something suspicious
The clustering of collapses on her shifts is still unusual, even factoring in her full-time ICU role.
Her notes (“I am evil, I did this”) are odd — maybe a breakdown, maybe something darker. (See previous post)
Several senior doctors genuinely believed she was linked to the incidents, even at risk to their careers.
2. The case built around her is unstable
The independent expert panel has ripped apart the prosecution’s medical evidence in multiple deaths, showing alternative, natural explanations.
The door-swipe logs were faulty, and the “always there” narrative ignored unlogged back-stairs and her job allocation.
The hospital itself was chaotic — sepsis missed, antibiotics delayed, toxic management — making a natural spike in deaths plausible.
3. Both extremes (total guilt vs. total innocence) feel unlikely
There’s still enough odd (her notes, clustering, doctors’ suspicions) to make outright innocence hard to accept.
But the scale of the original convictions — and the way evidence was presented — feels too shaky to hold without major review.
So what does that mean?
Most probable path:
The Thirlwall Inquiry will validate the panel’s doubts, criticise the hospital, and create pressure for the CCRC to refer multiple convictions back to appeal.
By 2026, she could face reduced convictions, partial retrials, or a different sentence — but probably not a full exoneration.
The public story will shift to “Letby may have done something, but the hospital and Crown built a deeply flawed case.”
Updates eventually. *It does seem to me that the authorities have enough information to hurry up though, the need for clarification in retrials has to be the only way to establish what really happened - and to get a possibly innocent person out of jail. The big thing for me is *she had no history of cruelty*
Liz Lucy Robillard
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.