Lucy Letby

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

I didn't follow the case closely, beyond the general allegations reported in the news but it seems to me that she did a good job of covering her tracks to the point that it was difficult to pin anything specific on her, but that there were too many coincidences to put down to random chance. Either she's the unluckiest person in the world, or she's a cold and calculating individual killing babies for some warped reason. Her personal notes found during the search also point to something dark going on. But it's all circumstantial I think. So long as she pleads her innocence, there'll be those who champion her case. But she'd need to find some kind of gamechanger for her sentence to be quashed, like more baby deaths somewhere else linked to someone who had previously been at the Countess of Chester. It's a messy case with tragic consequences.

[Clorox Bleachman 2,410]

37 minutes ago, Toast said:

I didn't follow the Letby trial, and I have no opinion on whether she is guilty or not.

But with so many charges presented by the prosecution over so many months I can't see how the jury could possibly have kept track of it.

Aside from cross-examinations, the defence had to wait months for an opportunity to respond to any of the charges. How can that be fair?

It would have been fairer if each charge had been treated separately, with prosecution and defence setting out their case for each, before moving on to the next.

(I don't mean that the verdicts should have been given case by case, just the arguments.)

 

Had they focussed on individual cases, there could have been restrictions placed on discussing other cases. Looking at one incident, it's easy to assume it could have been an unfortunate coincidence. When you see this chart of nurses who were on shift during collapses, it would have to be quite the coincidence for her to have no involvement. In the best case scenario she was woefully negligent a dozen times.

 

[En Passant 3,741]

 

5 minutes ago, Clorox Bleachman said:

When you see this chart of nurses who were on shift during collapses

 

This is the problem with statistics.

 

It is now my understanding that they only picked the babies that she was being prosecuted for in this chart. However apparently there were other deaths during this period where she was not on duty and these were excluded from that chart and subsequently the trial. I'm no David Spiegelhalter (look him up if you like ) but the argument being put forward on the other hand is that this data was cherry picked to prove the case. It is only a subset of all that was availaible.

 

As merely a member of the general public who likes to believe in our justice system I tend to assume by default that they got it right - after all they know a great deal more and are probably much smarter than I am - But they don't always get it right do they?

 

It's a tricky path to negotiate at times.

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

8 hours ago, En Passant said:

 

Isn't this true in general though? By which I mean 'everyone' is largely guided by what is reported by the media and the guilty decision in the court. Until we have some reason to doubt a verdict and the post verdict increase in information we simply don't have access to the data to make even a vaguely informed decision?

 

I had no reason to doubt Letby's guilt until I was pointed to an article published by an American source, and even then I had to use a vpn to access it (because due to the second trial it was banned by the court this side of the pond I believe).

 

Sure, as is turning out in the Southport (and now other areas) riots, more recently there's social media but that's proving somewhat unreliable at best (and the riots probably increased in veracity by folks who wanna riot for any reason to push their agenda, even though they know it's false).

 

 

Not really, without dragging the whole Birmingham Six thing in and going down a rabbit hole there were experts at the start who thought it wrong largely because six people on one train looked nothing like the IRA who - those in the security services knew - tended to work in small cells and even those on an operation were unknown to each other, so the bomb maker often didn't meet or know the guy who placed it and neither of them needed to meet the person making the phone call. The problem in that case was strong forensics that, superficially, looked conclusive and that aspect finally fell apart when it was proven that handling playing cards with a plastic coating could produce the same results from swabbed fingers as handling the favoured explosives of the IRA. By which point the six had been in jail for years and seen previous appeals fail. Can't say I have a clue where Letby is concerned, just keep noticing a few journalists who aren't obvious fools getting on board. That roster looks conclusive, but then so did the forensics on the Birmingham Six.

[En Passant 3,741]

Maybe I'm just dumb, but I honestly can't see a difference here from a satellite overview. The facts in each case are completely different but they share in common experts on one side determining one outcome, and other experts not being called because they held an opposing view.

 

Years ago I attended a labour party conference (as the IT support guy for Journalists covering it) and was pulled by an 'explosives detector' for what was probably handling something similar to those coated playing cards, so I'm not surprised by that. I was allowed in after a while anyway, just as well for me no bomb ever went off I suppose.

 

Do I think Letby is innocent? Probably not. Did I question that guilt at all until I read The New Yorker report? - Which legally I probably shouldn't have done - No.

Did I believe the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four were guilty? Sure, until they weren't.

 

I also know that the police are generally only concerned with collecting evidence that supports their case so that they can present it to the CPS, this doesn't mean they'll 'hide' opposing evidence they are given, but they'll spend less time working to get it (or none).

It's also why people on a charge respond with 'no comment' even though it appears damning at first glance it's for the same reason, police are searching for prosecution statements not defence ones. That's their job.

 

There are plenty of miscarriages of justice, sub post masters the latest and in some ways greatest. I'm not saying Letby is one but I'm no longer as certain of cast iron guilt in any case as I once was.

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

On 04/08/2024 at 13:56, Clorox Bleachman said:

 

Had they focussed on individual cases, there could have been restrictions placed on discussing other cases. Looking at one incident, it's easy to assume it could have been an unfortunate coincidence. When you see this chart of nurses who were on shift during collapses, it would have to be quite the coincidence for her to have no involvement. In the best case scenario she was woefully negligent a dozen times.

 

 

 

So that chart is part of what was picked over last night on Channel 5, an alternative view pointing out it doesn't cover the totality of serious incidents involving neo natal care at that hospital or the totality of deaths in such incidents. It's also limited to nurses, not recording doctors. Nobody's suggesting doctors murdered their charges (no sign of a Shipman!) but people are suggesting care was so stretched a doctor's register would show the lack of highly qualified staff at any given time and the tonnage of hours when juniors were effectively doing senior jobs. Other claims that may keep coming back include the fact the police found no evidence she'd searched means of killing vulnerable kids (significant in that the alternative is that she guessed right repeatedly), there's also the matter of this happening in a busy unit. They might suspect her, there's no eyewitness testimony catching her in the act and given the way the unit operated there was always the chance someone would walk in and see that if it happened. Shipman, by contrast had prescribing powers and the chance to be alone with his victims, most of whom were expected to die before too long. There's also the matter of the way medical experts are reluctant to testify for the defence in such cases because they fear for their careers if they do. 

 

Oh aye, and...there's the whole business of whether the death cluster was within statistical probabilities and whether taking Letby off the unit coincided with the unit also reducing the amount of highly critical cases it admitted. 

 

Oh aye, aye, and...there's even some statisticians who were supporting Letby during the trial now moaning the documentary makers cancelled them:  https://www.normanfenton.com/post/why-were-we-edited-out-of-channel-5-s-lucy-letby-documentary-were-we-cancelled-due-to-our-political

 

All I can usefull conclude as far as this thread goes is...GAME ON!!

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

2 hours ago, maryportfuncity said:

So that chart is part of what was picked over last night on Channel 5, an alternative view pointing out it doesn't cover the totality of serious incidents involving neo natal care at that hospital or the totality of deaths in such incidents. It's also limited to nurses, not recording doctors. Nobody's suggesting doctors murdered their charges (no sign of a Shipman!) but people are suggesting care was so stretched a doctor's register would show the lack of highly qualified staff at any given time and the tonnage of hours when juniors were effectively doing senior jobs. Other claims that may keep coming back include the fact the police found no evidence she'd searched means of killing vulnerable kids (significant in that the alternative is that she guessed right repeatedly), there's also the matter of this happening in a busy unit. They might suspect her, there's no eyewitness testimony catching her in the act and given the way the unit operated there was always the chance someone would walk in and see that if it happened. Shipman, by contrast had prescribing powers and the chance to be alone with his victims, most of whom were expected to die before too long. There's also the matter of the way medical experts are reluctant to testify for the defence in such cases because they fear for their careers if they do. 

 

Just to comment on these two points (and, again, just being devil's advocate here):

 

1. There are ways people can search for information that don't leave a mark, plus surely there's information she'd have received during her nursing training about safe practice and the issues that could be caused by doing things like injecting air into bloodstreams?

 

2. Nobody caught her in the act, but didn't people walk into rooms while she was there acting weirdly? Alarms going off and she was doing nothing about them? Visiting babies who'd just survived near-death experiences?

 

It's like I said, so long as she maintains she's innocent, she'll find someone to fight her case. And there's enough doubt and circumstantial evidence to keep plenty of lawyers and bookwriters busy for the next 50 years. Assuming irrefutable proof she did it, or incontrovertible evidence that she didn't doesn't come out in the meantime. And I entirely understand the doubt: she's a beautiful, young neonatal nurse, who on earth would think she would be killing babies?

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

3 hours ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

Just to comment on these two points (and, again, just being devil's advocate here):

 

1. There are ways people can search for information that don't leave a mark, plus surely there's information she'd have received during her nursing training about safe practice and the issues that could be caused by doing things like injecting air into bloodstreams?

 

2. Nobody caught her in the act, but didn't people walk into rooms while she was there acting weirdly? Alarms going off and she was doing nothing about them? Visiting babies who'd just survived near-death experiences?

 

It's like I said, so long as she maintains she's innocent, she'll find someone to fight her case. And there's enough doubt and circumstantial evidence to keep plenty of lawyers and bookwriters busy for the next 50 years. Assuming irrefutable proof she did it, or incontrovertible evidence that she didn't doesn't come out in the meantime. And I entirely understand the doubt: she's a beautiful, young neonatal nurse, who on earth would think she would be killing babies?

 

 

Aye, understood but what sets this apart for me is the supporters she's finding, doctors, statisticians who know their shit and a high profile lawyer last night speaking on camera who specialises in miscarriages of justice. We're beyond the internet silos that'd see any criminal psycho labelled a misunderstood genius and - at least - into the specialist territory where those I've just mentioned start talking about reasonable doubt. 

 

Seriously, I dunno, I took an interest because the original case looked so nailed on to me so when some of those who think she may be innocent showed up I was wondering what the hell brought them into the case, I don't see them arguing injustice where - say - Levi Bellfield is concerned.

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

4 minutes ago, maryportfuncity said:

Aye, understood but what sets this apart for me is the supporters she's finding, doctors, statisticians who know their shit and a high profile lawyer last night speaking on camera who specialises in miscarriages of justice. We're beyond the internet silos that'd see any criminal psycho labelled a misunderstood genius and - at least - into the specialist territory where those I've just mentioned start talking about reasonable doubt. 

 

Seriously, I dunno, I took an interest because the original case looked so nailed on to me so when some of those who think she may be innocent showed up I was wondering what the hell brought them into the case, I don't see them arguing injustice where - say - Levi Bellfield is concerned.

 

But in order to argue injustice, you need an ambiguous case, and Levi Bellfield clearly did it, we have evidence to support that. Obviously evidence can be unsound, as seen in the Andy Malkinson case (now if you want a miscarriage of justice, there's a fucking whopper, the number of people who should be jailed for that cover-up is looong). Are they saying she's innocent or are we saying there's reasonable doubt? And I know in the eyes of the law they're pretty much the same thing, but I don't know quite how they work for launching an appeal. Surely they'd need to find an absolutely massive concern to push for an unsafe conviction, not lots of little concerns? If she's innocent, it will be horrendous for absolutely everyone concerned and would completely undermine trust in the police, the courts and the NHS in one fail swoop. What are we saying? These babies all died because of poor levels of care in the Countess of Chester?

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

7 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

But in order to argue injustice, you need an ambiguous case, and Levi Bellfield clearly did it, we have evidence to support that. Obviously evidence can be unsound, as seen in the Andy Malkinson case (now if you want a miscarriage of justice, there's a fucking whopper, the number of people who should be jailed for that cover-up is looong). Are they saying she's innocent or are we saying there's reasonable doubt? And I know in the eyes of the law they're pretty much the same thing, but I don't know quite how they work for launching an appeal. Surely they'd need to find an absolutely massive concern to push for an unsafe conviction, not lots of little concerns? If she's innocent, it will be horrendous for absolutely everyone concerned and would completely undermine trust in the police, the courts and the NHS in one fail swoop. What are we saying? These babies all died because of poor levels of care in the Countess of Chester?

 

Sort of thing, and that that level of need in a hospital lacking senior doctors on shift 24/7 may be the main cause, along with the kind of statistical spikes that appear from time to time anyway. In other words, tragic as it may seem there may be less to see in terms of criminal intent than most people think. Which makes it different, for example, to Shipman where the medical evidence fell right into place once people started digging. To be fair to the documentary makers they asked for and got replies from some of those who the work in to convict her, all of whom stand by their claims. Seriously, it's online on Channel 5, check it out and see what you reckon.

 

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

19 minutes ago, maryportfuncity said:

Sort of thing, and that that level of need in a hospital lacking senior doctors on shift 24/7 may be the main cause, along with the kind of statistical spikes that appear from time to time anyway. In other words, tragic as it may seem there may be less to see in terms of criminal intent than most people think. Which makes it different, for example, to Shipman where the medical evidence fell right into place once people started digging. To be fair to the documentary makers they asked for and got replies from some of those who the work in to convict her, all of whom stand by their claims. Seriously, it's online on Channel 5, check it out and see what you reckon.

 

Might do. I'm just not sure it's in anyone's best interests to pursue one girl for multiple infanticides rather than accept the department's level of care is unacceptable. And I know scapegoating is a thing, but if that's what's happened, then it is obscene. I prefer to think (until given evidence to the contrary) that all these doctors and nurses who had suspicions were right, rather than whatever hell the alternative is. I mean, it is worth noting their complaints were over several months (if not years?) and weren't originally taken seriously by senior leaders. This wasn't a sudden case built from thin air. Anyway, complicated and sad, in every sense.

[Paul Bearer 6,101]

Only saw the first half on Ch5 last night.  (I’ll watch the rest later tonight) From what I watched, there would have been enough doubt in my mind (if I was on the jury) to return a not guilty vote. Assuming this evidence was given at the time.  I’ll watch the rest later. 

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

54 minutes ago, Paul Bearer said:

Only saw the first half on Ch5 last night.  (I’ll watch the rest later tonight) From what I watched, there would have been enough doubt in my mind (if I was on the jury) to return a not guilty vote. Assuming this evidence was given at the time.  I’ll watch the rest later. 

 

 

Spoiler alert, some of the stuff in the documentary wasn't given at the time and the doc also explains the reluctance of medical experts to testify for defendents in such cases

[Paul Bearer 6,101]

10 hours ago, Paul Bearer said:

Only saw the first half on Ch5 last night.  (I’ll watch the rest later tonight) From what I watched, there would have been enough doubt in my mind (if I was on the jury) to return a not guilty vote. Assuming this evidence was given at the time.  I’ll watch the rest later. 

 

9 hours ago, maryportfuncity said:

 

 

Spoiler alert, some of the stuff in the documentary wasn't given at the time and the doc also explains the reluctance of medical experts to testify for defendents in such cases

well, I watched it and thought it was a serious miscarriage of justice.  Shitebag doctor’s afraid to give evidence that could have had such an impact on the final verdict. 

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

18 minutes ago, Paul Bearer said:

 

well, I watched it and thought it was a serious miscarriage of justice.  Shitebag doctor’s afraid to give evidence that could have had such an impact on the final verdict. 

 

 

Indeed, like I said, then - game on!!

[Toast 16,134]

I haven't watched the documentary, but here's David Davis expressing doubts about the trial.

Ignore the headline, it's not about visiting her.

 

 

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

Our Lucy's got another new bestie - Mad Nads: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13758789/Lucy-Letby-questions-Nadine-Dorries.html

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

22 hours ago, maryportfuncity said:

Our Lucy's got another new bestie - Mad Nads: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13758789/Lucy-Letby-questions-Nadine-Dorries.html

 

Oh well if Nadine Dorries supports her, I think that tells us everything we need to know about her innocence or guilt.  (I still haven't got round to the documentary as yet).

[The Old Crem 3,583]

On 06/08/2024 at 18:48, RoverAndOut said:

 

But in order to argue injustice, you need an ambiguous case, and Levi Bellfield clearly did it, we have evidence to support that. Obviously evidence can be unsound, as seen in the Andy Malkinson case (now if you want a miscarriage of justice, there's a fucking whopper, the number of people who should be jailed for that cover-up is looong). Are they saying she's innocent or are we saying there's reasonable doubt? And I know in the eyes of the law they're pretty much the same thing, but I don't know quite how they work for launching an appeal. Surely they'd need to find an absolutely massive concern to push for an unsafe conviction, not lots of little concerns? If she's innocent, it will be horrendous for absolutely everyone concerned and would completely undermine trust in the police, the courts and the NHS in one fail swoop. What are we saying? These babies all died because of poor levels of care in the Countess of Chester?

I think it would end the NHS and I suspect that is main reason why the Telegraph etc are now her biggest backers. 

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

Ok, hate to mention it again (still haven't seen the doc) but, for completeness, 24 neonatal experts have asked for the Inquiry into the deaths at Countess of Chester to either be delayed or modified as there is a concern that by focusing solely on Letby as a serial killer, other mistakes and negligent behaviour may be missed. Specific reference made to this chart showing she was on duty for each of the deaths she's accused of, mentioning a further 6 babies died during this period that was not mentioned at the trial. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgdxq2l7kvo

 

On we go... 

[friedbutty 41]

On 29/08/2023 at 08:20, Ulitzer95 said:

There’s a very good article from a former female inmate online. She says she’ll get treated like royalty there by the other inmates, so depends who you ask I suppose. 

 

As for when she dies, there’s a good chance she could outlive every single user on this forum.

 

Delete thread and merge with Life in Prison I’d say.

 

I hope not. The child killing bitch is 10 years older than me.

 

Though her friend wasn't so lucky - Mike Lynch 'questioned Lucy Letby's murder convictions' before dying in yacht tragedy - Mirror Online

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

4 hours ago, RoverAndOut said:

Ok, hate to mention it again (still haven't seen the doc) but, for completeness, 24 neonatal experts have asked for the Inquiry into the deaths at Countess of Chester to either be delayed or modified as there is a concern that by focusing solely on Letby as a serial killer, other mistakes and negligent behaviour may be missed. Specific reference made to this chart showing she was on duty for each of the deaths she's accused of, mentioning a further 6 babies died during this period that was not mentioned at the trial. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgdxq2l7kvo

 

On we go... 

 

Dunno about on we go...this questioning also considers other deaths in the same unit when LL wasn't on shift. It's also conspicuous that it's experts in the area raising this. The first people to smell trouble where the Birmingham Six were concerned included experts on terrorism who knew the blasts were IRA, and also knew six people in one place blatantly fleeing the scene wasn't remotely in the IRA's operational patterns. I'm thinking this has legs on it. 

 

[Bentrovato 1,087]

Out within the month and it was the butler after all. Marvellous. Just get her a job as Jimmy Carter's nurse is all I ask. 

[En Passant 3,741]

6 minutes ago, Bentrovato said:

Out within the month and it was the butler after all. Marvellous. Just get her a job as Jimmy Carter's nurse is all I ask. 

 

He's 99 years and 10 months too old for her to be remotely interested in the gig.

 

 

 

too soon?

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

For those interested in a broad overview, the BBC have given a very good account of the reasons she was convicted and the arguments for and against conviction. I still trust the process, one thing that is emphasised is that a case is built on a body of evidence and one questionable piece doesn't undermine all the rest of the case. Two interesting things stood out on first reading: the defence called no expert witnesses during the trial, which is odd. And the expert witness who analysed the deaths in the Countess of Chester during this period did eliminate certain deaths and incidents from the investigation because he did not consider the cases to be suspicious given the circumstances and the medical notes (which are never mentioned during the 'inaccurate chart' row). It was only once that work was completed that it was cross-referenced and realised that Letby was on duty for all the questionable incidents, which is what's shown in the supposedly dodgy chart.

 

Most currently suggesting there's questions about the safety of the conviction, rather than that Letby is innocent. I do suspect that even with her supporters, it will be very difficult to reach the high bar to challenge the verdict and get a re-trial, or get her conviction quashed.

 

Here's the BBC'S unbiased overview: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39k44n8j1mo