Lucy Letby - new thread

[anonymousamy]

No idea why the last one was taken down, but for anyone who wants to continue the discussion on Letby, I’m starting a new thread here.

I’m 100% sure she’s guilty, but I’m still massively struggling to comprehend why on earth she did it.

Nobody can say anything to identify the jury members. So their gender may be reported but nothing else. I think one member was discharged some time ago due to other commitments (I'm guessing health, caring responsibilities or similar) so the deliberations were done by the remaining 11.

When you are selected for a jury where the trial is likely to last a long time you have to tell the court if there are any reasons you may not be able to be on that jury - so your circumstances will he taken into account if necessary. Some of the jury could have been retired, or stay at home parents or unemployed. Some may have jobs but as jury duty is a statutory responsibility most employers would have to release you. If they don't pay you you can claim for loss of earnings back from the court.

The problem with those websites (one problem) is that they're not based on first-hand access to all the data involved in the investigation.

Comparisons with Lucia de Berk are faulty because there was a different methodology to this entire investigation. They didn't choose incidents where Letby was present and then decide those were the suspicious ones, they had experts look at each and every adverse incident on the ward without knowing who was present or any shift data, and those experts found that there were clearly incidents where there was no adequate explanation for a baby's sudden collapse. Every single one was when Lucy Letby was present. And bearing in mind that medical killings like this can if fact be almost impossible to identify, it's probably also relevant that she was present for every single death during the period. Not just the ones where they could see clear evidence of foul play.

In de Berk's case, they worked backwards from the assumption she was guilty and made everything seem to fit that. This investigation was extremely careful not to do the same, which is why beyond a cursory glance, they are not in fact similar cases.

Richard Gill has also tried to argue that people like Beverley Allitt and Victorino Chua are innocent.

Utterly, utterly bizarre. Frightening beyond belief actually that someone could be locked away forever on the basis of this.

Why, when people pose questions to convictions do people double down?

It's like there's a real defensiveness and aggression, that anyone who challenges any aspect of the conviction must be supporting a murderer, naive, derailing the issue, looking for conspiracies.

We all KNOW that misjustices DO happen. To make sure that the justice system that we all rely on is as just and reliable as possible, we need to accept that it has flaws and allow people to challenge it, whether they're right or wrong.

To ignore and disregard people's concerns about the conviction is the same as the hospital managers who ignored the suspicions about LL. It's ignorance with dangerous consequences.

Why can't people just be open to all considerations and discuss things openly?

The Lucia case DOES have a LOT of similarities to the LL case. That doesn't mean LL isn't guilty and of course whilst there are similarities there will also be differences, but it does pose some issues that probably need to be worked through by real experts. Not lawyers, but objective mathematicians and medical experts.

Allow everyone the space to talk openly.

Thankfully, this case is very high profile. All parties involved are lucky that there has been a lot of exposure, and as such, a lot of experts will be examining the evidence and posing views.

I hope they conclude that LL was guilty; I hope justice has been done. For all involved.

But I also have no doubt that if there are credible challenges, these will be made by experts who have a voice.

It's the smaller, low profile cases, that no one really hears about that are less likely to have the same scrutiny. I suspect there's a fair amount of innocent prisoners in prison, just as there's lots of guilty people who evade the law.

Scrutiny is good. It ensure good decisions are made and processes to achieve that are in place and followed.

@WhisperingHi Well said.

No one is doubling down, but you're at least the third poster making comparisons to Lucia case and not even bothering to say what the similarities are.

Just telling people 'google Lucia de Berk' is not putting forth considerations. It's lazy and pointless.

Cheshire Police released an account of the investigation behind Operation Hummingbird yesterday.

It’s worth a look

Agree, but it doesn’t fit the narrative, right? The thought that some folks on here genuinely seem to think that the families and jury got it wrong, as well as Lucy herself and her defense team , after ten long months, and they have the knowledge to challenge and know better is bewilderingly distasteful to me. Oh and they can discuss it on an online forum

these people aren’t even bothering to take the time to understand what actually occurred, one of them didn’t even know how the babies died, just rushing to conspiracy sites and trying to find anything that says she might not be guilty

ignoring the fact there are murdered babies, families grieving, their own victim statements, potentially dozens of other children murdered by this woman. But oh no, their focus is on, is she innocent, we know better.

yes not taking the time to understand, yes quoting dodgey fan sites, yes trying to argue this woman who murdered these children is innocent against every bit of evidence is abhorrent.

I wasn't following this at all because I was so busy.
Can anyone explain what the background is please?

I saw on tiktok a video of a timeline - X number of babies died and X number of babies collapsed.

What does collapsed mean?
Would it be that babies were in a stable condition and they deteriorated? I don't know what that means.

Did doctors and consultants become concerned due to babies dying and deteriorating? It was the number of them.

Due to medical advancements and technologies and care, babies should have pulled through but they were dying instead and is that what concerned the doctors?
They suspected Lucy Letby because she was on duty for all of these.

It's so tragic that couples and families have been robbed of their babies.

@Pinkyandtheose If you are in the UK and can get BBC iPlayer the Panaroma program is a useful place to start.

but it does pose some issues that probably need to be worked through by real experts. Not lawyers, but objective mathematicians and medical experts.

Like the medical experts who put in hours of detailed work as part of the investigation and the expert witnesses who testified at the trial?

I don't need to be telling you. If you were interested, you'd be looking yourself, it would take 5 minutes to read the basics.

If you don't want to, fair enough. But it's also ok for people to be talking about Lucia without going into the details. Don't try to shut it down.

Eugh. Banging head against a brick wall here obviously.

Source: Richard Gill Statistics

Text cut off from screenshot above and below:

CLAIM: The deaths of the 7 babies in this case were initially considered "unexplained".

TRUTH: Autopsies were performed after death for 6 of the babies, and a specific cause of death was listed for 5 of them

CLAIM: Blood tests prove that synthetic insulin was given to the babies.

TRUTH: The presence of synthetic insulin cannot be established using the type of test that was performed. The testimony was
false.

You can look at his blog or some of the other sites people have been linking for the details - it really is all in the detail and too much to summarize.

I would never never dismiss anything as a conspiracy theory without reading about it. I have carefully read through claims and so called evidence presented by antivaxers and climate change deniers, then I’ve been able to conclude yes they are mental and/or corrupt.

The site people have been dismissing as conspiracy theory presents full scientific documentation for all of the claims made there. Yet clearly the details are not being read by posters who are dismissing it out of hand.

Please read if you are interested in the details which are causing some people to doubt justice has been done (it is all in the details):

https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/

https://www.chimpinvestor.com/post/the-travesty-of-the-lucy-letby-verdicts

https://gill1109.com/2023/05/24/the-lucy-letby-case/?amp=1

Where have I tried to shut it down? All I’ve said is if people want to make a point about it, make it, instead of saying ‘google Lucia de Berk’, which is what a few have done.

When I’ve made points, I’ve usually included quotes, dates and links to sources.

Why? Watch the Cheshire Constabulary film and look at the methodology that was used for the investigation, it genuinely couldn’t have been more objective. It’s a shining example of how an investigation should be carried out.

The families and jury are not experts in ANY of the evidence. Of course they'll believe the prosecution, who put forwards a better case. And in the families case, provided some validation and sense of what happened.

It's dangerous to not have any critical thinking, to just accept the majority opinion.

I'm not saying she's not guilty, I'm saying there are concerns over aspects of her case that deserve to be looked into (and will be). There HAVE been misjustices when most people believed the original conviction. If you deny that then you're ignorant (or lying).

@blossomtoes says who? What qualifications do you have to be saying that?

Again though, I haven't challenged the LL case, all I've done is acknowledge that there have been very similar miscarriages of justice. I'm open to discussing those. Some people clearly have no intention of listening or discussing with people who have different opinions.

Why don’t you just watch the film @WhisperingHi? There are two links to it in this thread. It explains exactly how the investigation was carried out.

It may very well. But unless you're an expert in medical investigations, you won't know the alternative methodologies, the pros and cons to each and which is appropriate in different circumstances.

You are just chosing to believe one theory with no regard for anyone else's views. And then shutting down other people's rights to raise challenges.

No one has said she's innocent, not that I've seen. But people have serious questions about aspects of the trial and they are entitled to talk about these when they want without people minimising or shutting them down. People don't have to agree of course.

As I said in my post, let's be OPEN to discuss things. Not shut people down.

The jury and families are more expert than you are. Give over, and it’s dangerous to not accept the jury;s decision, take no time to actually understand the case and post nonsense from macabre serial killer fan sites.

no one is asking your opinion on if she is guilty. You were not invited to the trial, or on the jury, from what we know. You are not some legal or medical expert invited to give their opinion. You are just some randomer with non existent information spamming the internet with conspiracy theories.

that’s what’s damaging.

No one has said she's innocent, not that I've seen.

They have implied it. There have been several mentions of miscarriages of justice, appeals, mistrials and retrials.

You've totally misunderstood or misinterpreted my posts. It's pointless.

Go ahead, believe every single conviction. And believe every single case that gets not guilty. Obviously the court always get things right!?

They aren't the same thing. Questioning the evidence isn't the same as calling someone innocent or guilty. You're conflating two completely different things!