Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Lucy Letby - new thread

1000 replies

anonymousamy · 21/08/2023 22:23

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
38
DahliaRedHead · 23/08/2023 20:04

CherryMaDeara · 23/08/2023 18:20

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

Who claimed they were unexplained?

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

What type of test should have been performed and what type of test was actually performed?

Are you saying the laboratory results from Royal Liverpool Hospital showing high levels of synthetic insulin in Child F’s blood were fake or falsified?

Show quote history

The prosecution said they were unexplained, that was the starting point for looking into foul play.

I can’t summarize the science behind the insulin accusation in a few sentences, if you are interested you will have to read about it. This chapter covers the problem with the insulin evidence and explains the issues:

https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/work_1/

https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/work_1/

DahliaRedHead · 23/08/2023 20:07

AcesBaseballbat · 23/08/2023 18:35

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

Well that's blatantly a total lie, considering even Letby testified in court that the babies had been deliberately drugged with insulin (she claimed that someone else on the ward had deliberately poisoned them, she didn't claim they died from natural causes).

Christ, are Letby Truthers going to be the new far right wing conspiracy theory polluting MN for the next few years?

LL is a nurse. An expert told her in court that this is what happened. If she thought she was innocent she would have to conclude that someone else must have done it. She doesn’t have the expert knowledge to challenge the assertion.

DahliaRedHead · 23/08/2023 20:10

@CherryMaDeara

If you read the information in the chapter about insulin, you would see that the mistake is about bad/mistaken handling of data and drawing the wrong conclusions, not deliberate falsification or lies.

WeetabixTowels · 23/08/2023 20:13

The Lucy Fan Club members turn my stomach.

The evidence is not in the least bit circumstantial.

BIossomtoes · 23/08/2023 20:16

The evidence is not in the least bit circumstantial.

Well, it is to be fair but there’s an overwhelming amount of it and it builds into a picture that couldn’t possibly be coincidence. The defence had nothing to counter it and no expert witnesses prepared to challenge it.

TomPinch · 23/08/2023 20:17

DahliaRedHead · 23/08/2023 20:04

The prosecution said they were unexplained, that was the starting point for looking into foul play.

I can’t summarize the science behind the insulin accusation in a few sentences, if you are interested you will have to read about it. This chapter covers the problem with the insulin evidence and explains the issues:

https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/work_1/

Show quote history

Letby's defence team would have known in advance what the prosecution witnesses were going to say. It would have been in their briefs of evidence. Meaning her her team had every opportunity to check this evidence with their own experts to see if it could be challenged.

The fact that they didn't challenge it means
a) they were negligent or
b) the conclusions you're quoting are wrong.

I'm pretty sure that English courts don't use the term 'testimony', unlike American courts. Once again, all a bit Trumpian.

Pinkyandtheose · 23/08/2023 20:18

Did anyone here go to school or college with her? Was there anything amiss with her? How can she go through the school and college system and just for all evil of this to happen? She must have been mentally ill? Did it show in any way during the years?

I googled and she graduated in 2010 or 2011. She was working from September of 2011.

With another vague report from about a baby collapsing in her care in 2013 - you would wonder if that was her sabotaging the baby? Were there other incidents?

It's horrific.
The babies were so vulnerable needing extra care and attention.

monsteramunch · 23/08/2023 20:19

@DahliaRedHead

I can’t summarize the science behind the insulin accusation in a few sentences, if you are interested you will have to read about it. This chapter covers the problem with the insulin evidence and explains the issues:

https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/work_1/

Do you have a medical background?

Do you genuinely understand 'the science behind the insulin accusation' and the chapter you shared a link to?

If you can't explain it in your own words, or at least give a summary, it does rather feel that you're simply regurgitating (or just linking to) someone else's opinion.

Without critical thinking or a real understanding of what they're saying, instead just accepting that what they say is correct.

DahliaRedHead · 23/08/2023 20:20

TomPinch · 23/08/2023 20:01

Well said. All this questioning of the verdict is just like Trump's fans claiming that the election was stolen in 2020. They also had their reasons. It's just that the reasons weren't any good and showed that they didn't really understand the process.

They believed so much that Trump won that they got all their reasoning back-to-front: any argument that he won, however weak, must be right and any argument against, however strong, must be wrong.

Just the same here.

Show quote history

No, people who are refusing to read any of the well researched criticisms of the way evidence and data was handled in this case are more like Trump - just dismissing evidence as conspiracy theory out of hand without even reading or engaging, is like the MAGA cry of Fake News! - a phrase which protects them from having to question their own beliefs.

DahliaRedHead · 23/08/2023 20:24

My background is in social sciences, so lots of interpreting data and statistics, but not medical training.

I understand the science in this chapter, and I might go to the trouble of trying to summarize it at some point over the next few days, but really you should read it yourself if you want to understand and make a judgement for yourself.

theDudesmummy · 23/08/2023 20:25

@Pinkyandtheose absolutely no evidence that she was mentally ill.

Hawkins009 · 23/08/2023 20:25

TomPinch · 23/08/2023 20:17

Letby's defence team would have known in advance what the prosecution witnesses were going to say. It would have been in their briefs of evidence. Meaning her her team had every opportunity to check this evidence with their own experts to see if it could be challenged.

The fact that they didn't challenge it means
a) they were negligent or
b) the conclusions you're quoting are wrong.

I'm pretty sure that English courts don't use the term 'testimony', unlike American courts. Once again, all a bit Trumpian.

Show quote history

"Does the prosecution have to share evidence with the defense UK?

Prosecutors must provide the defence with the schedules of all of the unused material and provide them with any material that undermines the case for the prosecution or assists the case for the accused."

"Does the defense have to disclose evidence to prosecution UK?

Material must be disclosed if it "might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution or of assisting the case for the accused"."

Pinkyandtheose · 23/08/2023 20:25

Something like this can never ever be allowed to happen again. Anywhere. I know what I will write next will be controversial and it will be for another thread. The only solution to stop similar going forward is CCTV is wards and unit. I know it's not a nice idea because people are extremely vulnerable and to have CCTV on wards and hospital units seems wrong but what else can stop people doing the same in future?

BIossomtoes · 23/08/2023 20:29

DahliaRedHead · 23/08/2023 20:24

My background is in social sciences, so lots of interpreting data and statistics, but not medical training.

I understand the science in this chapter, and I might go to the trouble of trying to summarize it at some point over the next few days, but really you should read it yourself if you want to understand and make a judgement for yourself.

We don’t need to. Numerous medical experts who analysed and interpreted all the data and were questioned by some of the finest legal brains in the country have done it for us. Do you seriously think if this stuff was credible Letby’s vastly expensive, highly experienced KC wouldn’t have used it? Or found expert witnesses to posit it? Or discredit the prosecution’s experts?

monsteramunch · 23/08/2023 20:32

What @BIossomtoes said!

Someone with no medical background at all summarising a complex medical argument, in order to claim that the prosecution in a complex ten month long murder trial got said science 'wrong', is of no meaningful value to the discussion.

That's why I wanted to see if the poster had a medical background. They don't and are simply repeatedly sharing excerpts from someone else's website, confidently asserting the website as a credible source without having the medical knowledge or experience to make that call.

It's all a bit pointless really.

Hawkins009 · 23/08/2023 20:37

BIossomtoes · 23/08/2023 20:29

We don’t need to. Numerous medical experts who analysed and interpreted all the data and were questioned by some of the finest legal brains in the country have done it for us. Do you seriously think if this stuff was credible Letby’s vastly expensive, highly experienced KC wouldn’t have used it? Or found expert witnesses to posit it? Or discredit the prosecution’s experts?

Show quote history

they teach critical thinking at University so why just trust experts when we can analyse the material ourselves to better understand it?

Hawkins009 · 23/08/2023 20:40

BIossomtoes · 23/08/2023 20:29

We don’t need to. Numerous medical experts who analysed and interpreted all the data and were questioned by some of the finest legal brains in the country have done it for us. Do you seriously think if this stuff was credible Letby’s vastly expensive, highly experienced KC wouldn’t have used it? Or found expert witnesses to posit it? Or discredit the prosecution’s experts?

Show quote history

Plus "finest legal brains"
Says which experts, ?
What makes them the finest, how was the results and methods choosen etc?

Hawkins009 · 23/08/2023 20:43

monsteramunch · 23/08/2023 20:32

What @BIossomtoes said!

Someone with no medical background at all summarising a complex medical argument, in order to claim that the prosecution in a complex ten month long murder trial got said science 'wrong', is of no meaningful value to the discussion.

That's why I wanted to see if the poster had a medical background. They don't and are simply repeatedly sharing excerpts from someone else's website, confidently asserting the website as a credible source without having the medical knowledge or experience to make that call.

It's all a bit pointless really.

By your logic of "Someone with no medical background at all summarising a complex medical argument"

Then why have the jury if they are not qualified to understand the complex information ?

CherryMaDeara · 23/08/2023 20:46

DahliaRedHead · 23/08/2023 20:24

My background is in social sciences, so lots of interpreting data and statistics, but not medical training.

I understand the science in this chapter, and I might go to the trouble of trying to summarize it at some point over the next few days, but really you should read it yourself if you want to understand and make a judgement for yourself.

You’ve been promising to summarise the science since yesterday but still haven’t done so. Better be quick as the thread is filling up. Or is that what you’re counting on?

GreyGrid · 23/08/2023 20:49

Hawkins009 · 23/08/2023 20:43

By your logic of "Someone with no medical background at all summarising a complex medical argument"

Then why have the jury if they are not qualified to understand the complex information ?

Show quote history

The jury literally had it explained to them in detail by experts in the subjects. For ten months. They will have been able to request clarification. They deliberated it for weeks.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 23/08/2023 20:50

BIossomtoes · 23/08/2023 20:16

The evidence is not in the least bit circumstantial.

Well, it is to be fair but there’s an overwhelming amount of it and it builds into a picture that couldn’t possibly be coincidence. The defence had nothing to counter it and no expert witnesses prepared to challenge it.

Precisely, Blossom

If it was the case that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to convict her you might just think that her defence would have mentioned it, but no - apparently the armchair experts know better, even though most (all?) almost certainly weren't in court

GreyGrid · 23/08/2023 20:50

Hawkins009 · 23/08/2023 20:37

they teach critical thinking at University so why just trust experts when we can analyse the material ourselves to better understand it?

Show quote history

Jesus wept. I don't even know where to begin with this one.

monsteramunch · 23/08/2023 20:53

@Hawkins009

By your logic of "Someone with no medical background at all summarising a complex medical argument"
Then why have the jury if they are not qualified to understand the complex information ?

The jury spent ten months being presented with complex information and were able throughout the process to present questions to the judge for him to facilitate clarifications etc from witnesses. They are at no point required to summarise findings to others. They are required to respond, with a verdict, to the evidence presented to them by witnesses. With the opportunity to ask for clarification of medical terms and findings to allow them to understand them. The tens of thousands of pages worth of evidence. It is a hugely valuable exercise that is crucial to our legal system.

What has that got to do with a poster on a forum claiming they can summarise a complex medical argument, from a third party, when they don't themselves have the background to understand and present that argument?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In
This thread is not accepting new messages.