1 hour ago, Duck Egg said:

Much of his opinion is based on his medical knowledge and the medical evidence that was presented in court, some of it so complex that experts can't agree and it's not unreasonable to think much of it went over a Jury's head. 

I agree on the medical stuff being too complex for a jury to understand, posted the same earlier in this thread. 
My point is that he has not studied all the evidence only bits of it and he is basing his opinion on that. Same with the other experts. Betby has  changed her legal team recently but she had full and highly qualified representation at the trial and her subsequent request to appeal was rejected.

Her plan seems to be request the right to appeal again, if that is successful it adds weight to the case that the trial was not conclusive. But lots of people are getting involved based on conspiracy type theories spread on the internet. One guy claims he is the real expert on this and offered to speak in her defence, but was not called. So the obvious question is why would such an expert not be called by the defence ? Unless he is exaggerating his actual knowledge and/or evidence. 

Channel 5 tonight at 9 has a programme about the calls for a retrial 

Difficulty is going to be finding a jury that isn't influenced by what has already happened.

We're sat here in shock at the amount of counter arguments it's brought up, some pretty prominent experts 

2 hours ago, only1swanny said:

We're sat here in shock at the amount of counter arguments it's brought up, some pretty prominent experts 

From what I've listened to (albeit I've not watched the programme) the medical argument is full of holes. It's nowhere near as cut and dry as it was made out to be.

Understand @Ani being rightly concerned about conspiracy theories - and usually I'd be inclined to agree. But I think there's a great deal here that needs to be unpicked. This isn't a Sandy Hook type scenario. 

 

Are we talking a Shawshank Redemption here?

is she like, for real innocent?

52 minutes ago, Spider said:

Are we talking a Shawshank Redemption here?

is she like, for real innocent?

There's a lot that says she is, lots of really qualified medical experts picking holes, and stating that any professional that stands up for her is at risk of having their lives ruined (such as the doctor that was in the shaken baby court case). 

Even things such as the clock in card evidence being debunked and accepted that it wasn't reliable,  but still used, that she wouldn't have known these techniques to kill a baby. Watch the documentary,  there's a lot there..

Not a conspiracy theorist and I'd normally say a jury all agreed that she was guilty... but they didn't, they just took the majority vote..

If she's not, she's either taken the fall for institutional cockups, or fully wrong place wrong time. The formers worrying as those mistakes might not be rectified. 

50 minutes ago, Spider said:

Are we talking a Shawshank Redemption here?

is she like, for real innocent?

Much of the case against her was based on circumstantial evidence and statistics. There isn't and there never has been any 'smoking gun'. No eye witnesses, or DNA evidence or toxicology reports. 

A lot of the testimony from expert witnesses has been called into question by people who are eminent in their respective fields. 

And there's never really been a motive established - other than LL suddenly wanted to start killing babies. 

It's never really sat well with me this trial, so there's probably a bit of confirmation bias on my part. But I think there's enough there from what I've heard to cast a lot of doubt on the verdict if we're aiming for 'beyond reasonable doubt'. 

Again though, I've not seen the programme first hand. 

3 minutes ago, only1swanny said:

She's either taken the fall for institutional cockups, or fully wrong place wrong time

Both of those things could be true. Faulty equipment, understaffing, lack of the right skill mix on the ward. There's lots of things that can and do go wrong unfortunately. 

The fact that one of the experts claimed that it was an injection on air into the babies stomach after looking at an x-ray (but LL hadn't even been at work for a couple of days when it was taken) is particularly damning. 

He has subsequently changed his mind and now reckons that it wasn't this which killed the baby - but he still reckons LL did it by some means or other. 

It just doesn't sit right with me. 

If only she’d been given the death penalty and executed after the guilty verdict, there’d be no need to be even talking about this.

1 hour ago, kent_white said:

From what I've listened to (albeit I've not watched the programme) the medical argument is full of holes. It's nowhere near as cut and dry as it was made out to be.

Understand @Ani being rightly concerned about conspiracy theories - and usually I'd be inclined to agree. But I think there's a great deal here that needs to be unpicked. This isn't a Sandy Hook type scenario. 

 

All I have pointed out is that the experts questioning the other experts have only seen snippets of the evidence. 
The jury who heard months of evidence found her guilty, the people giving opinions on the internet are choosing which snippets they use. 
 

I have no idea if she is guilty or not. 

I’ll give it a go, check on Facebook, and let everybody know the truth

 

you’re welcome 

10 hours ago, Ani said:

All I have pointed out is that the experts questioning the other experts have only seen snippets of the evidence. 
The jury who heard months of evidence found her guilty, the people giving opinions on the internet are choosing which snippets they use. 
 

I have no idea if she is guilty or not. 

True - but I imagine the jury were heavily swayed but the medical experts who were brought in to give evidence. If there's reasonable doubt about that evidence then it needs peer review and comment. 

And if the result of that is that there is still reasonable doubt - then it warrants a retrial. In my armchair role as a member of the judiciary of course! 😁

15 minutes ago, kent_white said:

True - but I imagine the jury were heavily swayed but the medical experts who were brought in to give evidence. If there's reasonable doubt about that evidence then it needs peer review and comment. 

And if the result of that is that there is still reasonable doubt - then it warrants a retrial. In my armchair role as a member of the judiciary of course! 😁

And that is/was the job of the defence team. They can call expert witnesses to refute the prosecution experts. 
 

We have trials to decide guilt or otherwise and that system is in favour of the accused as  the onus is ' proved beyond reasonable doubt'. My point is that after this process she has been found guilty, so that is what she is. If we go through a similar process and she is found not guilty I would accept that , but what I am not doing is declaring her not guilty based on internet rumours. 
 

Of course juries sometimes make mistakes but each 'expert' is only commenting on one area, their area of expertise and saying it might not be as conclusive as it first seemed, as far as I have seen none of them are claiming to have proved her innocence. 
 

Her prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, but that is not just 1 thing, it is a series of circumstances all of which could have been challenged or alternative interpretations offered at trial. 

21 minutes ago, Ani said:

And that is/was the job of the defence team. They can call expert witnesses to refute the prosecution experts. 
 

We have trials to decide guilt or otherwise and that system is in favour of the accused as  the onus is ' proved beyond reasonable doubt'. My point is that after this process she has been found guilty, so that is what she is. If we go through a similar process and she is found not guilty I would accept that , but what I am not doing is declaring her not guilty based on internet rumours. 
 

Of course juries sometimes make mistakes but each 'expert' is only commenting on one area, their area of expertise and saying it might not be as conclusive as it first seemed, as far as I have seen none of them are claiming to have proved her innocence. 
 

Her prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, but that is not just 1 thing, it is a series of circumstances all of which could have been challenged or alternative interpretations offered at trial. 

Fair enough. I can see why that is your interpretation.

From experience, I've seen how easily members of the public are swayed by medical professionals. And I've also seen how frequently some medical professionals see their opinions as infallible - and how frequently their interpretation is incorrect. 

So if the prosecution were able to argue that there's some (shonky in my opinion) circumstantial evidence - along with a medical expert telling you that it's their opinion that LL killed those children, then I can completely understand why the jury of lay people might have come to the conclusion that they did.

I also don't think her defense team have covered themselves in glory in this instance. But that's not her fault.

My personal opinions aside - I think that if the evidence presented by those casting doubt on the expert opinion is peer reviewed and deemed to be reasonable - then this case should be retried. And if after these conflicting viewpoints have been examined - the jury comes to the same conclusion, then so be it. 

The difficulty is - these are such complicated medical histories (and being viewed in hindsight) that an appeal on medical grounds might take a long, long time. 

I've no particular axe to grind one way or the other. But doubts are going to remain about the verdict unless these claims are properly examined and not just brushed under the carpet for conveniences sake. 

Nicely worded.

In short, she probably is guilty, but for the avoidance of doubt, if there are any technical or evidential errors that justify a retrial, then do it.

Let justice be served properly. 

6 hours ago, kent_white said:

Fair enough. I can see why that is your interpretation.

From experience, I've seen how easily members of the public are swayed by medical professionals. And I've also seen how frequently some medical professionals see their opinions as infallible - and how frequently their interpretation is incorrect. 
 

But are nt we seeing members of the public now being swayed by medical proffesionals arguing the other experts are not as expert as them ? The experts who presented in court could have been challenged in terms of their credentials, they were accepted. The ones claiming their is another view have not been through the same scrutiny 

So if the prosecution were able to argue that there's some (shonky in my opinion) circumstantial evidence - along with a medical expert telling you that it's their opinion that LL killed those children, then I can completely understand why the jury of lay people might have come to the conclusion that they did.

It is not just 'some shonky' circumstantial evidence, there was an overwhelming weight of circumstantial evidence. The medical experts testified how the kids died none of them said LL did it The circumstantial is that LL was the only one who had the opportunity for all the investigated cases. The relevance of the stats used have been challenged and that is always open to interpretation (IE is Bolton's most succesful manager you know 😀). Stats are never black and white. The chance of a nurse serial killer is incredibly small, so statistically more likely to be issues in the Trust, but it does not prove anything. 

I also don't think her defense team have covered themselves in glory in this instance. But that's not her fault. 
 

There has been a massive switch in terms of her defence from 'she did not do it' to add in 'it never actually happened' ( ie was not murder just really shit circumstances) . That is a massive change. What has not been challenged is  why did the defence not call these experts to refute the prosecution ? Incompetence or are the new experts not credible or any other reason ? 

My personal opinions aside - I think that if the evidence presented by those casting doubt on the expert opinion is peer reviewed and deemed to be reasonable - then this case should be retried. And if after these conflicting viewpoints have been examined - the jury comes to the same conclusion, then so be it. 
 

There have been 2 trials and then a request to appeal which was rejected, the first things that needs to happen is that court of appeal have to be convinced there are grounds for an appeal and then either an unsafe conviction where she could be found innocent (very unlikely I think) or a re trial. You normally need hard evidence like DNA to overturn a verdict. 

The difficulty is - these are such complicated medical histories (and being viewed in hindsight) that an appeal on medical grounds might take a long, long time. 

I've no particular axe to grind one way or the other. But doubts are going to remain about the verdict unless these claims are properly examined and not just brushed under the carpet for conveniences sake. 

I have replied above so it follows your thoughts. It is interesting , as you I have no axe to grind. The current investigation into the Trust might reveal more as there has to be chance that LL has been made a scapegoat for a series of fuck ups.  The reality is even is she found guilty or innocent at a future trial we will never 100% know. People will have their own opinions but she can never unless there is some  totally new evidence rather than interpretation of existing evidence be proven innocent in the eyes of some. 

14 hours ago, Ani said:

I have replied above so it follows your thoughts. It is interesting , as you I have no axe to grind. The current investigation into the Trust might reveal more as there has to be chance that LL has been made a scapegoat for a series of fuck ups.  The reality is even is she found guilty or innocent at a future trial we will never 100% know. People will have their own opinions but she can never unless there is some  totally new evidence rather than interpretation of existing evidence be proven innocent in the eyes of some. 

Very true. Even if there were a retrial and she was exonerated her life and reputation is shattered. 

These might not even be institutional fuck ups either. The horrible truth is, some babies do die. And sometimes even on the course of one shift. I've had horrible runs on HDU where a patients I was nursing died on consecutive days for almost a week. It happens sometime. The other nurses at the time used to take the piss during the morning handover saying 'oh my God - whoever you put Ian with is doomed' or 'you better get the Priest in for whoever he's looking after' - just dark humour. But another piece of evidence that convicted LL was that other nurses called her 'Nurse Death'. But I'm almost 100% certain this was dark humour - and none of those nurses truly believed she was harming children. If they did - they wouldn't let her anywhere near any kids. Believe me I know what nurses are like. Extremely protective over their patients. 

And that's what I think has happend here. LL had a REALLY bad run with her patients. Statistically significant - but that's going to happen sometimes. Rarely, but it will happen, it's an inevitability. 

And I think it cracked LL up. Hence why she had that mad steam of consciousness through guilt where she was writing in her diary that she was a bad person and a killer. And also why she was looking on Facebook for the kids families. My personal opinion is that she was punishing herself through guilt, and probably needed to be taken off shift for a while and given some counselling - but that's never going to happen in reality. She would have been back on shift the next day - with extremely poorly children, probably with nerves that are shattered so nursing below par. Which might have led to further problems.

I totally understand that this is conjecture and opinion Ani. And maybe I'm projecting a bit. But this version of events seems far more logical to me. And LL is still pleading her innocence - Presumably she could have pled guilty for a more lenient sentence? 

I think it would be brilliant to have a jury made up of nurses to see what they make of it. 

This whole case has frightened some nurses. There by the grace of god and hoping that they don't get similarly called up to account for people that have died unexpectedly on a shift. 

And LL has been convicted on opinion rather than fact. There is no DNA evidence, or toxicology evidence, or eye witnesses. It's all conjecture and circumstances, and a narrative constructed by the prosecution. 

Personally - I think my narrative makes more sense and fits the evidence better. 

Either way - if she does get a retrial - I'd pay good money for tickets 😁

3 hours ago, kent_white said:

Very true. Even if there were a retrial and she was exonerated her life and reputation is shattered. 

These might not even be institutional fuck ups either. The horrible truth is, some babies do die. And sometimes even on the course of one shift. I've had horrible runs on HDU where a patients I was nursing died on consecutive days for almost a week. It happens sometime. The other nurses at the time used to take the piss during the morning handover saying 'oh my God - whoever you put Ian with is doomed' or 'you better get the Priest in for whoever he's looking after' - just dark humour. But another piece of evidence that convicted LL was that other nurses called her 'Nurse Death'. But I'm almost 100% certain this was dark humour - and none of those nurses truly believed she was harming children. If they did - they wouldn't let her anywhere near any kids. Believe me I know what nurses are like. Extremely protective over their patients. 
 

Part of the arguement for a retrial is that there have institutional fuck ups , based on stafffing levels, ability to report concerns etc. The unit was operating at a higher level than it was historically so taking in more severe cases without being ready in terms of staff numbers and training.

And that's what I think has happend here. LL had a REALLY bad run with her patients. Statistically significant - but that's going to happen sometimes. Rarely, but it will happen, it's an inevitability. 

And I think it cracked LL up. Hence why she had that mad steam of consciousness through guilt where she was writing in her diary that she was a bad person and a killer. And also why she was looking on Facebook for the kids families. My personal opinion is that she was punishing herself through guilt, and probably needed to be taken off shift for a while and given some counselling - but that's never going to happen in reality. She would have been back on shift the next day - with extremely poorly children, probably with nerves that are shattered so nursing below par. Which might have led to further problems.

Pretty sure she was told to write down her thoughts by some type of counseller and this was not properly explained to the jury, which if true is imo one of the most worrying aspects of the guilty verdict. 

I totally understand that this is conjecture and opinion Ani. And maybe I'm projecting a bit. But this version of events seems far more logical to me. And LL is still pleading her innocence - Presumably she could have pled guilty for a more lenient sentence? 
 

Guilty would be a shorter sentence but killing a load of babies, however you plea you ain't ever getting out if guilty 

I think it would be brilliant to have a jury made up of nurses to see what they make of it. 
 

Thought they were all too busy striking ? 😆

This whole case has frightened some nurses. There by the grace of god and hoping that they don't get similarly called up to account for people that have died unexpectedly on a shift. 

And LL has been convicted on opinion rather than fact. There is no DNA evidence, or toxicology evidence, or eye witnesses. It's all conjecture and circumstances, and a narrative constructed by the prosecution. 
 

Despite DNA most convictions are based on circumstantial evidence. She had a legal team with a top Barrister representing her who would have tried to set their own narrative. The defence you are making is that there was no murder , this is the path the new team are taking, whereas previously it was 'she did not do it.' Which is why the statistical evidence is so prominent and the medical opinion is being challenged. 

Personally - I think my narrative makes more sense and fits the evidence better. Your version is more comfortable for people and I daresay the medical community in general, the idea that there is another Beverly Allit who people suspected is lot more scarey than a statistical blip. However there is also the fact that the inquiry started by looking at a larger sample and it was only the ones when death was least expected were examined. In your case whilst it must have been awful how many were 'not unusual' ? Clunky wording but think you will get my drift ?

Either way - if she does get a retrial - I'd pay good money for tickets 😁

3 hours ago, kent_white said:

Very true. Even if there were a retrial and she was exonerated her life and reputation is shattered. 

These might not even be institutional fuck ups either. The horrible truth is, some babies do die. And sometimes even on the course of one shift. I've had horrible runs on HDU where a patients I was nursing died on consecutive days for almost a week. It happens sometime. The other nurses at the time used to take the piss during the morning handover saying 'oh my God - whoever you put Ian with is doomed' or 'you better get the Priest in for whoever he's looking after' - just dark humour. But another piece of evidence that convicted LL was that other nurses called her 'Nurse Death'. But I'm almost 100% certain this was dark humour - and none of those nurses truly believed she was harming children. If they did - they wouldn't let her anywhere near any kids. Believe me I know what nurses are like. Extremely protective over their patients. 

And that's what I think has happend here. LL had a REALLY bad run with her patients. Statistically significant - but that's going to happen sometimes. Rarely, but it will happen, it's an inevitability. 

And I think it cracked LL up. Hence why she had that mad steam of consciousness through guilt where she was writing in her diary that she was a bad person and a killer. And also why she was looking on Facebook for the kids families. My personal opinion is that she was punishing herself through guilt, and probably needed to be taken off shift for a while and given some counselling - but that's never going to happen in reality. She would have been back on shift the next day - with extremely poorly children, probably with nerves that are shattered so nursing below par. Which might have led to further problems.

I totally understand that this is conjecture and opinion Ani. And maybe I'm projecting a bit. But this version of events seems far more logical to me. And LL is still pleading her innocence - Presumably she could have pled guilty for a more lenient sentence? 

I think it would be brilliant to have a jury made up of nurses to see what they make of it. 

This whole case has frightened some nurses. There by the grace of god and hoping that they don't get similarly called up to account for people that have died unexpectedly on a shift. 

And LL has been convicted on opinion rather than fact. There is no DNA evidence, or toxicology evidence, or eye witnesses. It's all conjecture and circumstances, and a narrative constructed by the prosecution. 

Personally - I think my narrative makes more sense and fits the evidence better. 

Either way - if she does get a retrial - I'd pay good money for tickets 😁

Probably the best piece I've seen written about the subject that paints the situation differently to what I've been led to believe.

Replied above, the original trial lasted 10 months , think only 1 journalist sat through the whole thing

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66104004.amp

I think one real question is how after 10 months and the amount of evidence submitted can a jury of normal people make a rational decision ? Things such as getting to 'like' one of the barristers will influence you as much as complex medical evidence. System that was designed to decide if you nicked something does not seem suitable for something so complex. 

1 hour ago, Ani said:

4 hours ago, kent_white said:

Very true. Even if there were a retrial and she was exonerated her life and reputation is shattered. 

These might not even be institutional fuck ups either. The horrible truth is, some babies do die. And sometimes even on the course of one shift. I've had horrible runs on HDU where a patients I was nursing died on consecutive days for almost a week. It happens sometime. The other nurses at the time used to take the piss during the morning handover saying 'oh my God - whoever you put Ian with is doomed' or 'you better get the Priest in for whoever he's looking after' - just dark humour. But another piece of evidence that convicted LL was that other nurses called her 'Nurse Death'. But I'm almost 100% certain this was dark humour - and none of those nurses truly believed she was harming children. If they did - they wouldn't let her anywhere near any kids. Believe me I know what nurses are like. Extremely protective over their patients. 
 

Part of the arguement for a retrial is that there have institutional fuck ups , based on stafffing levels, ability to report concerns etc. The unit was operating at a higher level than it was historically so taking in more severe cases without being ready in terms of staff numbers and training.

And that's what I think has happend here. LL had a REALLY bad run with her patients. Statistically significant - but that's going to happen sometimes. Rarely, but it will happen, it's an inevitability. 

And I think it cracked LL up. Hence why she had that mad steam of consciousness through guilt where she was writing in her diary that she was a bad person and a killer. And also why she was looking on Facebook for the kids families. My personal opinion is that she was punishing herself through guilt, and probably needed to be taken off shift for a while and given some counselling - but that's never going to happen in reality. She would have been back on shift the next day - with extremely poorly children, probably with nerves that are shattered so nursing below par. Which might have led to further problems.

Pretty sure she was told to write down her thoughts by some type of counseller and this was not properly explained to the jury, which if true is imo one of the most worrying aspects of the guilty verdict. 

I totally understand that this is conjecture and opinion Ani. And maybe I'm projecting a bit. But this version of events seems far more logical to me. And LL is still pleading her innocence - Presumably she could have pled guilty for a more lenient sentence? 
 

Guilty would be a shorter sentence but killing a load of babies, however you plea you ain't ever getting out if guilty 

I think it would be brilliant to have a jury made up of nurses to see what they make of it. 
 

Thought they were all too busy striking ? 😆

This whole case has frightened some nurses. There by the grace of god and hoping that they don't get similarly called up to account for people that have died unexpectedly on a shift. 

And LL has been convicted on opinion rather than fact. There is no DNA evidence, or toxicology evidence, or eye witnesses. It's all conjecture and circumstances, and a narrative constructed by the prosecution. 
 

Despite DNA most convictions are based on circumstantial evidence. She had a legal team with a top Barrister representing her who would have tried to set their own narrative. The defence you are making is that there was no murder , this is the path the new team are taking, whereas previously it was 'she did not do it.' Which is why the statistical evidence is so prominent and the medical opinion is being challenged. 

Personally - I think my narrative makes more sense and fits the evidence better. Your version is more comfortable for people and I daresay the medical community in general, the idea that there is another Beverly Allit who people suspected is lot more scarey than a statistical blip. However there is also the fact that the inquiry started by looking at a larger sample and it was only the ones when death was least expected were examined. In your case whilst it must have been awful how many were 'not unusual' ? Clunky wording but think you will get my drift ?

Either way - if she does get a retrial - I'd pay good money for tickets 😁

Appreciate your post Ani. It's great to be able to have a chat with someone with a different point of view on here without the bickering and name calling.

But just to fit in - I think it's probably best to tell you that you are a twat and that you need to do your research and also that you smell and are cruel to animals intentionally 😁

 

1 hour ago, gonzo said:

Probably the best piece I've seen written about the subject that paints the situation differently to what I've been led to believe.

I wouldn't put too much stock in it Gonzo. I'm usually universally wrong about everything! 😂

1 hour ago, kent_white said:

Appreciate your post Ani. It's great to be able to have a chat with someone with a different point of view on here without the bickering and name calling.

But just to fit in - I think it's probably best to tell you that you are a twat and that you need to do your research and also that you smell and are cruel to animals intentionally 😁

 

As I mentioned I worked for a large medical indemnity business for 3-4 years and the potential of such case was bubbling around when I was there. Ian Paterson was the one people did talk about. 
So my experience is very much back end rather than at the coal face like you. No idea if they are representing her or maybe the medico legal expert. Although as the NHS deal with their own indemnity less likely for LL. 

It is incredibly complex and I was getting frustrated by someone people talking about her being innocent on the back of a few internet 'experts' and dismissing the  10 month trial, the subsequent guilty verdict on the undecided cases at another trial and then the subsequent rejection of her application to appeal. This is not a miscarriage of justice like the Birmingham 6 were evidence was  withheld or when advancements in DNA cases prove someone's innocence. Her legal team were not , as has been suggested on t'internet a bunch of conveyancing solicitors, she had a KC Ben Myers representing her.

Anyway always good if somewhat rare to have a polite civilised discussion. Sure you have some bed pans to clean between your breaks and Union meetings this afternoon before checking your public sector gold plated pension scheme 😅😂

 

11 hours ago, kent_white said:

Very true. Even if there were a retrial and she was exonerated her life and reputation is shattered. 

These might not even be institutional fuck ups either. The horrible truth is, some babies do die. And sometimes even on the course of one shift. I've had horrible runs on HDU where a patients I was nursing died on consecutive days for almost a week. It happens sometime. The other nurses at the time used to take the piss during the morning handover saying 'oh my God - whoever you put Ian with is doomed' or 'you better get the Priest in for whoever he's looking after' - just dark humour. But another piece of evidence that convicted LL was that other nurses called her 'Nurse Death'. But I'm almost 100% certain this was dark humour - and none of those nurses truly believed she was harming children. If they did - they wouldn't let her anywhere near any kids. Believe me I know what nurses are like. Extremely protective over their patients. 

And that's what I think has happend here. LL had a REALLY bad run with her patients. Statistically significant - but that's going to happen sometimes. Rarely, but it will happen, it's an inevitability. 

And I think it cracked LL up. Hence why she had that mad steam of consciousness through guilt where she was writing in her diary that she was a bad person and a killer. And also why she was looking on Facebook for the kids families. My personal opinion is that she was punishing herself through guilt, and probably needed to be taken off shift for a while and given some counselling - but that's never going to happen in reality. She would have been back on shift the next day - with extremely poorly children, probably with nerves that are shattered so nursing below par. Which might have led to further problems.

I totally understand that this is conjecture and opinion Ani. And maybe I'm projecting a bit. But this version of events seems far more logical to me. And LL is still pleading her innocence - Presumably she could have pled guilty for a more lenient sentence? 

I think it would be brilliant to have a jury made up of nurses to see what they make of it. 

This whole case has frightened some nurses. There by the grace of god and hoping that they don't get similarly called up to account for people that have died unexpectedly on a shift. 

And LL has been convicted on opinion rather than fact. There is no DNA evidence, or toxicology evidence, or eye witnesses. It's all conjecture and circumstances, and a narrative constructed by the prosecution. 

Personally - I think my narrative makes more sense and fits the evidence better. 

Either way - if she does get a retrial - I'd pay good money for tickets 😁

Good post this and genuinely got me thinking about it. Just noticed on the news that they are questioning if some of the post masters were actually guilty. Didn’t actually go into details about the proof but it’s the opposite scenario of what you’re saying about Letby. I don’t usually get into conspiracy stuff but both got me thinking. 🤔