Lucy Letby (2)

Yes and their curiosity is actually illegal and a criminal offense, Lucy Letby’s Facebook curiosity is not illegal.

More and more evidence is being exposed which proves this was an unsafe conviction, it’s a disgrace how long it is taking to review the new evidence.

That’s so risky as well, they know their access can be seen, or they should know. Do we assume they’re all psychologically unhealthy that their compulsion was so strong they were willing to risk their jobs and prosecution? Or were they inquisitive and thoughtless?

Those cases were very interesting, in a worrying way. NHS clinicians must know full well what the consequences can be and yet they still did it in work, on work time and computers. It seems quite common for people not to be able to help themselves, even when it's genuinely against the rules and the people concerned would've had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Neither of which applies to public social media profiles that people can access outside of their working lives.

Yes, thank you @kkloo awful to manipulate evidence in that way.

Agree that overdoing it on Facebook is a. very common and b. not indicative of someone being a murderer.

The huge numbers of healthcare professionals searching the nhs records of Preston Davy, Nicola Bulley and the victims of the Southport murders are far worse since they are strictly prohibited from accessing health data of people who aren’t their patients but I doubt they’re murderers either.

Thanks for posting the archived version.

That is *very^ true re tattle

I agree completely. It’s so hypocritical of the posters who come from Tattle and r/LucyLetby to criticise someone for being weird, odd, ‘iffy’ etc. when you consider the degree of online stalking that Tattle is infamous for and the extreme personal crusade driving the sub. I mean talk about pot/kettle.

I’m not even really on board with the idea she shouldn’t have been looking. It’s always been a free choice about how much personal information to put online and I think it’s human nature to have a look if something or someone pops into your mind. I never go on facebook any more but last week my daughter asked me to post something on instagram, which then asked me if I wanted to share to FB. I shared it, someone I worked with years ago liked it, I looked at her page and from there wondered about what had happened to a few other people and away we go…half an hour down a rabbit hole. It’s literally designed to draw you in and be addictive. I don’t believe all the po faced high and mighty MN posters who wouldn’t dream of having a look.

The Telegraph have picked up the Jayaram story.

https://archive.ph/jHVWN

Agree about the faux outrage, especially from someone coming from Tattle where many have a special interest in prolific stalking.

I looked on there extremely rarely just to get a glimpse of what they were saying and how they were twisting the news stories coming out, and they knew everyones details, they were even stalking Dr U's wife. Also they do such much stalking on there that they seemed to have solved the mystery of why Lucy Letby looked up baby K so long after she died, God only knows who else they were looking up in all of the threads.

Sorry, haven’t got used to how to quote on here yet but want to post my support for the posts by IonianNerveGrip and Frequency above

This.

Letby should not have searched patients' families; I think we all agree on that, but your faux outrage is OTT @Firefly1987. Unless someone has a 3rd party add-on installed on their FB, which I'm not even sure exists, how would anyone know that their nurse has browsed their FB?

Also, no one, not even FB, forces you to post to the wider public. If you don't want strangers/ramdom nurses/the bloke behind the till at Starbucks to see what you're posting on FB, then don't make public posts.

Can't see anything remotely funny in the past couple pages but glad something's giving you a laugh

It's possible to object to a behaviour and also accept that it's common. The one doesn't preclude the other.

People are nosy. [[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmpz1mxzd9o?app-referrer=deep-link www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmpz1mxzd9o?app-referrer=deep-link is another example of behaviour that is inappropriate but a long way from murder, and the fact that it’s multiple people is suggestive that it isn’t uncommon.

@Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain these were her patients families! It's an abuse of trust. I mean more power to ya if during your worst time losing a family member you wouldn't mind some "nosy" nurse who was there when they died facebook stalking you to see "how you're doing".

I'm not sure how people can just declare she's almost certainly normal (despite all the evidence to the contrary) when I didn't think it was supposed to matter what she was like anyway. Chris Morris's entire reason for writing his book appears to be "she doesn't fit the serial killer profile"-oh well case closed then! This is a case of gullible people being taken in by a manipulative narcissist who masked as normal whilst committing the most heinous crimes imaginable.

@Firefly1987 still making me lol.

Who’s not a Facebook addict? When I was bored I used to look up clients (legal sec) especially the ones buying huge houses or said they worked in glam jobs, I was nosey! Lots of people hoard things like paper too.

It’s almost like the police or papers are saying despite the cuddly toys, pet cats, funny loving cards and trinkets, that she couldn’t have been nice at all, evil hidden deep Inside her, looking for hidden meanings when in reality she wasn’t that interesting, a bit boring even, hard working, had hobbies and friends but certainly didn’t have serial killers books or a devil worshiping shrine (they’d have reported on that!).

Jo Mcpartland has since revised their stance on that.

The COA didn't say it was 99.99% air embolism.

It said

It was therefore consistent with, but not diagnostic of, air having been administered to Baby A and that Dr Marnerides identified the presence of an air bubble at post-mortem histology of the brain and lungs. He said that the presence of the air bubbles was highly suggestive of air embolus, although not conclusive.

This is why Shoo Lee's theories will never stand up to scrutiny.

When alternative explanations can be provided by experts and the evidence in court was not conclusive then there's a very real chance that this may be considered an unsafe verdict.
Shoo Lee and the panel don't actually need to prove it, they just need to shed enough doubt on the expert evidence that convicted her.

He does talk timings though-40 mins later, an hour later-this must be in conflict with when the mum said she first saw a bleed.

I don't expect him to be talking about anything happening around 9p.m if Letby didn't notify anyone until over an hour later (which is what was alleged in court)

I'm not saying he did but if there's no evidence for it I'm going to go with the court ruling and say it was 99.99% air embolism. You can't just wave it away because the mother had a condition. This is why Shoo Lee's theories will never stand up to scrutiny.

.

I think the police failed to come up with anything that didn’t look entirely normal, hence having to rely on her being crap at getting rid of old paperwork and being a Facebook addict.

Seeing her bedroom and belongings, she seems like a normal albeit even slightly immature young woman. Even her going out photos show a “normal” young woman. That’s not to say she doesn’t have hidden depths.

Only as some kind of dig at us of course (as usual 😅) instead of addressing that this is instead more proof that the evidence put forward at the trials was deeply problematic!!