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

Oh, she’s guilty as sin. Aside from the evidence presented at the trial, I always thought her behaviour in the dock absolutely confirmed it. If I was being tried for a crime I didn’t commit (particularly one as heinous as this) I’d be shouting my innocence from the rooftops. Not acting cold, detached, cocky and trying to outsmart the lawyer.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66104004

Was her defence during court proceedings as poor as I recall reading?
Not the point of the thread I know, but I can’t see how a lay jury could understand the medical technicalities. There might be an argument for a knowledgeable jury for cases like these?

Incompetence? A rush to shoehorn in as much "bad" as could be found? Who knows. But it certainly doesn't inspire confidence in their competence or methodology given the gravity of the case, does it?

You have no idea how you'd behave actually. Until you're in such a situation you have no idea. Also, you do and behave as your legal team tells you.

And BTW, that piece of alleged journalism reads like a penny dreadful.

Alot of people made mistakes including the consultants that didn't do the job that they were paid to do yet this seems to have been overlooked.
Whether letby is guilty or not the enquiry has massive holes in it, in that it lets certain groups off without so much as a slap on the wrist even when they were caught lying.

If you mean by the poll, then maybe you should wait until the time limit is up. As it currently shows differently to what you claim, and may change again.

You claim others have a closed mind yet you are the one that is not open to different views and are quite happy to call others names.
And you haven't argued for letby's guilt for a long time. you have just repeated that you think that she is guilty.

To the people asking about LL behaviour in previous workplaces. A quick google brings up articles and news items which detail how she had failed placements and details questions around her suitability for the job as she was deemed to lack warmth.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvj64wk38d72o

I found this article really interesting (sorry if been posted before). It details lies LL told and her involvement with deceased babies when she was told to work with another child.

To answer the question of the OP. Yes it has changed my mind and pushed me towards finding her guilty. The details above alongside the inappropriate communications with the Dr who is now deceased.

I couldn’t quite figure out a motive. But then read that it was put forward that she enjoyed the attention and causing this dr to run to the scene etc. Does LL have a gaping black hole inside her, an emptiness which she feeds through the attention and sympathy of being on scene during these deaths? What caused that I don’t know but some people’s brains are just damaged or missing something.

But if you don't even know who the other experts on insulin are, how on earth do you know enough about their work to dismiss their contributions? Their identity isn't a secret and they have several relevant publications. You are making it very obvious you're coming to this question from a place of prejudice.

If you read the transcripts, there's not actually that much agreement even between the prosecution experts. Often they are arguing different things. But they have a strong push toward agreement because they misinterpreted Shoo Lee's work the same way - not clear whether they all read it or they all relied on Evans's reading of it

Incompetence

She was presumably told not to shout her innocence in court. Have you read coverage of people who do so, like Constance Martens for example? It's really very unfavourable.

You're reading Judith Moritz's subjective description of Lucy Letby in court there. I've read a lot of her cross examination. I don't see what Moritz is seeing. But I don't think it's a sensible basis to judge people on anyway - how they come across, heavily medicated, in a nightmarish situation like that.

Thanks, but the placement she failed, and passed on repeat, was at Chester. The point I have been making is that we have no evidence whatsoever that anyone at her only other workplace, Liverpool, found her odd or alarming.

The doctor the prosecution described as her "boyfriend" only arrived at the hospital after the first five of seven deaths and was only present for two of the fifteen incidents for which she was convicted over all. If you read the prosecution cross-examination, they basically threw everything plus the kitchen sink at her. They're allowed to do that - they don't need evidence to ask questions or make accusations at that point. And tabloids often pick it up as fact.

They did and were threatened and made to apologise to Letby.

In a way I hope she is guilty, because can you even begin to imagine the dystopian horror of being in her situation while innocent?

One thing I’ll add (NHS myself) is that cot cams is a really silly idea that will seriously fuck nurses off. Luckily the NHS will never be able to afford them anyway. It’s appalling to treat nurses as potential baby murderers because of ONE case. There were no ‘GP cams’ after Harold Shipman!

The grievance - which I don't necessarily think was well handled - came fifteen months after the first death, and involved accusations of bullying. The response to it didn't in any way prevent the consultants from raising concerns to the coroner or police in the many months before.

Except there have been reports on unusual circumstances at Liverpool Women’s hospital. There is evidence here to say that these occurrences were odd.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2g20rpr78o

How do defenders of LL explain her behaviour around the deaths of babies and the fact she would lie and exaggerate facts? That also tends to point toward enjoying the attention around the deaths. Regardless of who it was from!

I agree with pp that her behaviour and demeanour is ‘off’

No everyone agrees the consultants should've gone to the police earlier (including themselves) they're just far less to blame than the managers who were the only people who could remove her.

You claim others have a closed mind yet you are the one that is not open to different views and are quite happy to call others names.

Your different view means defending the worst child serial killer in modern British history. Do you see why some people might have a problem with that?

Four tubes were dislodged while she was at Liverpool. Babies dislodge tubes themselves, or nurses, doctors or family members can do so when tending to them. It's not usual to assume a crime has been committed when a tube has been dislodged, and the CPS has refused to press charges relating to Liverpool because of lack of evidence.

Just to be clear, and apologies for repeating myself: I was asking a poster who said people found Lucy Letby odd or unnerving at Liverpool where that information came from. Thirlwall was told that there were no concerns about her at the time. Counting up dislodgements while she was on shift came years later so it wasn't that, thanks

The Thirwall enquiry didn't address any of my concerns around the evidence used to convict Letby, so it hasn't done anything to ease my concerns around the quality of the evidence used to convict Letby.

Overfeeding - Dewi himself has retracted this one.
Air down the NG tube - see above
Air embolism - diagnosed after Evans misinterpreted Lee and Tanswell's paper.
Insulin via feeding bags - an untested theory.
Firing an expert statistician.

I'm also deeply uncomfortable with this idea that someone's demeanour can be taken as evidence to sentence them to a whole-life term.

In a way I hope she is guilty, because can you even begin to imagine the dystopian horror of being in her situation while innocent?
Same.

I'm in the relatively small group that thinks (a) she very likely committed the crimes of which she was convicted, but (b) her conviction was probably unsafe.

Or, to put it another way - I think she should be in prison but I also don't think she should be in prison 😅

With reguard to the consultants.
They are a group of people that didn't fo their job correctly, and at least one has been caught lying about this case.
They have a lot to try and defend.

With reguard to letby, as I have posted many times, I don't know if she is guilty or innocent, but the evidence that put her away is weak and I believe resulted in an unsafe conviction.
The actions of the police from the start to the finish of the case is highly suspect in that they ran an investigation that was counter to their own regulations and then hired dewi "this is my type of case" evans, who approached them, and even a previous judge took the very unusual act of writting to the judge in this case to say that he had a reputation for making the evidence fit the crime.
A man that only put forward theories, that have no backing, and changed his mind not only in court but when interviewed afterwards.
To the test results that have been taken as gospel yet shouldn't be used as forensic evidence as they are not fit for that purpose.
Consultants that were so convinced of foul play that they never mentioned it to the coroner.
the stats thay make no sense, to the extent that they fired their own specialist for pointing this out.
And the door entry data that they not only got the wrong way round but was just wrong. Including a second door that was never monitored.
And there is even more than that.
So there is a lot wrong with this case.

Edited
Including the reporting of the case by two police paid for journalists, and at least one documentary that had to put in a correction about stats for intubation tubes and another that relied heavily on cgi footage implying that it was real.

I just don’t think they’ve proved beyond reasonable doubt . Part of he thinks they won’t exonerate her because of the loss of public confidence in the justice system

The list sounds relevant to an unsafe conviction and yes to that last line. There’s women whose demeanour has been judged, Lindy Chamberlain didn’t behave the right way.

The issue is if you’re guilty you might not, but if you’re innocent and know what you’re facing you’d be a bit off the usual too. Plus just generally judgements shouldn’t be based on demeanour.

I don’t know but she needs a retrial. Every day is another day her life has been taken from her

the NHS is a shit show

I don't think we will ever know whether she committed those murders.
I believe she will eventually win an appeal as the scientific evidence used to convict her is so shaky. The main factors of insulin poisoning and 'She was always there' can't prove her guilt.
The poor running of the unit muddies the waters.

Every day is another day that the babies she murdered didn’t get to live, that the parents of those babies will never get to see them again, that the babies she harmed will suffer from the effects of her actions.
Do you feel the same way about other mass murderers, or is it just the young pretty female ones you feel sorry for?