If you were previously on the fence about Lucy Letby’s guilt, have the Thirlwall findings swayed you either way?

Firefly1987

It's a bit concerning that this report was entirely about how Letby could've been stopped sooner

Why are you surprised when this was the basis for the entire enquiry?

and you've still got a majority of people claiming she's an innocent scapegoat.

Can you prove this, or are you just making the same assumptions as always?

You can really see how people get stuck in their views and are unwilling to look at things objectively.

Pot, Kettle.

The Thirlwall Inquiry shouldn't change anyone's mind about Letby's guilt or innocence as that was never its intention.

The outcome was always intended to understand why the staff acted as they did.

The main question is always why didn't anyone raise a safeguarding issue when it was clear there were a number of unexpected neonatal deaths?

It's Dewi Evans (Dewi is Welsh for David).

There weren't 13 deaths in one year.

2011: 3 deaths (out of 514 admissions)

2012: 3 deaths (out of 556 admissions)

2013: 2 deaths (out of 460 admissions)

2014: 3 deaths (out of 557 admissions)

2015: 8 deaths on the unit (plus 2 babies born at the Countess who died after being transferred to other hospitals)

2016: 5 deaths on the unit in the first six months alone (plus 4 total transfer deaths across 2015–2016)

2017–2018: Following the unit's downgrade in July 2016 (stopping intensive care and care for babies under 32 weeks gestation), on-unit mortality dropped significantly, with no ongoing cluster of unexplained deaths during the remainder of that period.

That’s good. I’m not sure either way but I’m glad she has a team.

I think she is guilty. But I can see why folk who think she is innocent don't see the point of that enquiry. But in spite of all the protests and experts it doesn't seem to me that she is anywhere near being released or even being granted a retrial.

I read enough about the trial to have doubts about the process before I knew what she looked like.

Not everyone is that superficial, and skin/hair colour is not generally admissible in court.

I think she looks rather chilly & gormless, but that means nothing at all in terms of evidence for or against her having done what she was charged with.

This is what I always think when people say ‘people only think she’s innocent because she’s white and pretty’. Obviously beauty is subjective but I always think ‘pretty?’

What concerns about her previous post?

She might be white, she might not be overweight, but she’s definitely not pretty @FreshJalapenos. I take your point re poc or obese people and it’s not fair that people are judged in this way, but come on! Pretty she’s not.

I find it much easier to believe that the hospital’s incompetence and dysfunction allowed a crime to happen repeatedly without intervention, than I do believing that there was an increase in baby deaths in a pattern with Letby’s shifts purely due to a load of background factors NOT involving Letby. The concerns about her at her previous post feed I to that, too.

Tbh I was surprised the crime prosecution service was even going forward with the trial when I saw her pictures in the paper as I thought she would get off. I didn’t believe the jury would see a young pretty white blonde blue eyed nurse as a murderer.I was really shocked that the jury found her guilty and thought they must’ve been really convinced to make that call.

Back in 2002 I had a lecturer talking about a similar, an intensive care nurse who was on duty when people died. Lecturer went though how statistically it was probable that pattern was seen. And we are still having the same conversation. Why has this piece of understanding been dropped?

I have no opinion on the case, I haven't reviewed the evidence.

She is unusually fortunate in that at least 20 experts plus her lawyer are volunteering their time free because of their concerns about the case. They are listed - along with others who have taken a public position on the case, at https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php/Lucy_Letby:_those_experts_in_full

For many prisoners, there is no legal representation when they are applying to the CCRC and they have to put the application together themselves.

People are vile for accepting the verdict of the court, as opposed to only accepting it when it confirms their own (largely misinformed) views? Interesting take.

None of what you have said here is correct.

There was no therapist; she was supported by the Trust’s Head of Occ Health and Wellbeing who was asked by trust management to support her (Letby didn’t approach them); it wasn’t about her feeling terrible about the deaths but related to the process that was going on (ie her removal from the ward etc); and there is zero evidence that anyone had ever suggested to her that she should write down the worst thing she was thinking (or anything about her thoughts). Letby said herself when asked about it that it was just something she had always done.

What evidence are you basing this on?

Well, two things can be true at once: the hospital was sub par AND Letby is a murderer. It's not either/or

The report hasn't changed my mind at all. She was innocent to begin with. The fact is, the consultants were made to apologize to her, and how this must have rankled. A consultant made to apologize to a mere nurse ! I think they wanted their revenge, although I doubt that they had any idea of the consequences that would come to pass.

If you're accused of murder in the UK and you don't have the means to fund your defence yourself, then you are entitled to legal aid. Lucy Letby has to date received around £1.8 million in legal aid. Her trial barrister: Benjamin Myers KC, is an incredibly experienced silk who has acted on some of the most high profile murder trials in history. She is now represented by Mark McDonald, a veteran human rights and criminal appeals barrister with extensive experience handling miscarriage of justice cases and long-term prisoners.

It would never be the role of the accused person to speak to witnesses, gather evidence etc. Doing so would be highly irregular and inappropriate. It is/ was the job of her legal team to do this.

So you have some personal knowledge of the case that hasn’t been recorded in any evidence? I guess that changes things somewhat.

nope, still believe she’s guilty as sin.

I’ve always been on the fence on this one and would have hated to have had to serve as a juror on this case.

But I wonder what legal help people in Lucy Letby’s situation are entitled to? After all, she’s unable to work (except on prison duties for pocket money), so she can’t earn money to pay her legal team. Her ability to speak to people and gather evidence in her own defence is also very restricted.

If you are saying people had concerns which they haven't made public, and you have private knowledge of this, that's interesting but obviously far far beyond the realms of verification. It contradicts the statements made at the Thirlwall Inquiry (which was perfectly comfortable publishing people's accounts of vague discomforts and fears).

It would be better to state upfront if you are speaking from private personal knowledge, because it's not possible to agree to disagree on whether this is in the Thirlwall evidence. It just isn't.

I believe she is guilty (subject to any further evidence or information that may come to light from the CCRC), but the Review didn't really impact on my views because it proceeded on the basis that her conviction was sound. I think the recommendations arising from it are sensible ones regardless of Letby's conviction - there's no downside to making vulnerable babies safer in hospitals.