Name: Is Lucy Letby innocent? #lucyletby
Uploaded: 2023-08-22T15:46:22+00:00
Duration: 39 min 3 s
Description: Is Lucy Letby innocent? #lucyletby In this I question if Lucy Letby innocent or guilty. I am not saying Lucy Letby is innocent, but question if there was sufficient evidence to say she was. Indeed it

8 months ago

565

Is Lucy Letby innocent? #lucyletby

In this I question if Lucy Letby innocent or guilty. I am not saying Lucy Letby is innocent, but question if there was sufficient evidence to say she was. Indeed it is suggested that most, if not all the evidence was circumstantial. A case of adding one plus one and getting ten.

The evidence from my understanding seems circumstantial. By this the evidence in most of the case seems to be no more than the view of a person rather than evidence such as a autopsy that shows if or if not a body had been tampred with in such a way to course death unatrealy, or if the death was a nateral death.

Lucy Letby was a nurse on a neonatal unit . This is a unit for babies with health problems and who may have been born too soon. It is a ward where deaths of babies does happen.

Letby was found guilty of murdering seven infants and attempting to murder six others during the twelve-month period. Letby's methods included injecting her victims with air or insulin, overfeeding them and physically assaulting them. However one wonders if there was evidence for any of these offenses, as my understanding no autopsy was done on any of the babies.

The notes saying she made where she talks about killing seems to have been used to suggest she has admitted to murder. Yet one suspects anyone who commits murder would make a note about it and not destroy such notes when being investigated. Her explanation that she wrote them stressed because she was being investigated and was questioning herself if she had done wrong seems to make far more sense.

The guilt seems to be based on the fact that under her care there appears to have been an increase in deaths. This could be unfortunately coincidence.

My understanding is the evidence given about the deaths of the babies is what people believed to have happened with presumption being the evidence rather than any evidence. I may be wrong about this, but my understanding is that the evidence seems to be hearsay rather than based on an autopsy.

It seems strange to me that such evidence is presented as evidence, rather than dismissed as hearsay.

From what I gather no evidence shows she had a controlling nature.

Indeed it is stated she looked up parents of the dead children, however it seems that she looked up all the parents of all the children she looked after on Facebook. This to me seems natural if you wanted to see how families were getting on. Indeed my understanding is in years gone by doctors would keep in contact with children they had delivered.

Now I am not saying she is innocent, the problem I have is the evidence to say she is guilty seems to be no more than circumstantial.