Lucy Letby - new thread (part 2)

[anonymousamy]

A thread for anyone who was on the last one and wanted to continue the discussion.

What I cannot wrap my head around is Letby’s seemingly completely normal upbringing. Usually serial killers have displayed some kind of markers by the time they start killing, but AFAIK she literally had none. 100% believe she is guilty BTW - just cannot begin to understand it.

"Are you seriously claiming that the Crown knew there was information in the pathologists' post mortem reports that would have helped the defence that the prosecution withheld from them?"

Are you claiming that it never happens, a quick google may disabuse you of that notion.

Of course I'm not claiming that the prosecuting services never withhold evidence. But when that has been found to happen, it has been evidence that no-one knew existed, for instance a witness statement that casts doubt on timing, or a piece of evidence that was found at the scene. If the defence don't know it exists, they can't make a fuss about the fact that it hasn't been produced.

In this case, of course the defence knew that PM reports existed. Therefore if they were not shown to them they could certainly have got a court order requiring them to be produced, and then put them in evidence. There is no report of any argument over that. It is virtually inevitable that the defence did see the reports, realised they did not help their case, and therefore did not ask for them to be put in.

It was reading this article that absolutely confirmed things in my mind. She was at best wholly incompetent or at worst someone who knowingly inflicted pain and suffering on very small babies.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12443109/We-trusted-Lucy-Letby-wanted-babys-godmother-think-tried-kill-him.html

I bet Ben Myers KC has read this thread, and done a face palm when he realised for the first time there will have been PMs that the prosecution never disclosed…

or maybe not 🙄

"But when that has been found to happen, it has been evidence that no-one knew existed"

How naive, defensive to the end.

I go back and forth with what I think of this case.

I had a period of a few hours yesterday where I felt quite convinced of her guilt so I was feeling much happier. Then I had doubts again.

It's not an easy case for me. Or many people judging by social media.

I agree. It's actually frightening how naive some of the arguments put forward as "evidence" of conspiracy are.

If the original post-mortem findings were in any way exculpatory, the defence would have used this. They could have brought in expert witnesses to discuss them and show how in each case it proves natural causes for the deaths. In fact they did consult medical experts, but they didn't call any for the defence in court. Why? Because those experts were not able to look at all the reports and information and say any were natural deaths.

Would you care to try to answer the point made rather than making these silly little digs? Are you actually arguing that none of Letby's lawyers realised there would be PM reports and they made no effort to read them or put them in evidence if they were helpful to her? If so, do tell us what your evidence for that is.

And, just to clarify, I mean it's evidence that no-one on the defence side knew existed. Obviously if the prosecution has withheld it they knew it existed. I didn't think that needed to be spelt out, but apparently I was being over-optimistic there.

"it has been evidence that no-one knew existed"
Your words not mine, I will leave it with you, as you are getting confused. Enjoy your day.

So your point is, there must be evidence that the defence doesn't know about that proves Letby's innocence?

Look, the only person this side of Heaven who knows definitely what happened is Lucy Letby. I assume you won't take her word for it, meaning you have, like the rest of us, put your faith in the trial process. Nothing you've said suggests a miscarriage of justice.

Why does it not surprise me that you don't want to answer the question about why, if the PM reports were helpful to Letby's case, the defence didn't ensure that they obtained them and put them in evidence?

I don't think they're the one getting confused! It's very reasonable to state that where evidence has been withheld its not something obvious that the defence would be well aware does exist somewhere. In this case BM would absolutely know and have access to the documents you're suggesting the prosecution may have withheld, he's a competent and clever professional after all.

Some things I picked up from the Mail podcast, the NHS doesn't come across well at all, lots of capacity issues and mistakes and understaffing.

The stuff with the notes and the taking a photo of the card seem like pretty weak evidence, and the searching of people on fb is something a lot of nosy people do.

A lot of the evidence from people's recollections at the time does sometimes come across as confirmation bias.

The medical evidence is the most damning and particularly the babies killed by insulin. Also the fact she was on duty every time and the weird patterns in the way the collapses happened e.g just as they were improving and at night and often just after the parents had visited.

But medical evidence has been disproved before 🤷🏼‍♀️

Such an odd case.

Again, no babies were killed by insulin.

The two insulin cases are Baby F and Baby L. Both are still alive.

You're right, these were two attempted murders of which Letby has been convicted. Incredibly clear evidence, and one of the children has been left with life-long disabilities.

I agree some of the evidence isn't overly convincing, but writing a sympathy card which included a child that hadn't died, searching the families on key dates such as Christmas, anniversaries etc does seem strange to me. On the one hand she was painted as a competent, contentious nurse yet on the other had no issue with inappropriately searching families (which everyone knows is a no no) and taking home confidential information on patients. Not sure on the confirmation bias of witnesses as the parents were questioned by BM and things like the phone records do tally with the timings the parents said, it's also not unusual for NICU mums to absolutely know the time of feeds etc. I'm not saying I agree it's all damning but there's a lot more to it that does border from unprofessional to beyond that. LL herself also tied herself in notes during her testimony and proved some of her accounts were lies.

It is part of the human condition to want to find a reason for someone to deliberately harm and murder babies, particularly a person in a position of trust who abused that trust to do so.

I have no doubt that justice has been served. All of these posts about no witnesses of the actual attacks and that the evidence is circumstantial fail to appreciate that this trial was 10 months long and not one of us posting sat as a juror and saw or heard the evidence. The closest we can get, other than requesting court transcripts, are the excellent podcasts, after hearing those and that the defence failed to present counter medical evidence I have no doubt that the correct verdict was reached and that Letby is a psychopath.

The case has shone a light on broader failures in the NHS which need to be acted on, there were understaffing issues and whistleblowers were not listened to, which enabled her actions. They are not at fault for them though.

We have to be able to trust nurses, this entire case has proven that there are wicked people in the world who abuse their positions of trust, Couzens is another example.

I feel sorry for the families of the murdered children and those whose children have had their lives destroyed and damaged by the other disabling attacks.

As for Letby, well a whole life tariff if the right outcome. She's a disgusting human being.

It was proved that LL did lie in police interviews and on oath re timings of things so it looked like she wasn’t present as a baby suffered a medical emergency. Witness statements by nurses, Drs and parents proved she was lying. In one case, phone records of the parent proved she was lying.

Why would she lie about when she was/ wasn’t in the room/next to a baby who was suffering a medical emergency?

It’s striking that I have yet to read an article by a professional psychiatrist or psychologist explaining the why of this, and yet we have posters on here who know it all. A few snippets of information about her upbringing and relationship with her parents are enough it seems for those posters to know without doubt that those are the explanatory factors here.

Narratives, attachment, persona - all commented upon authoritatively but without real insight.

The mugshot that shows us ‘the real Letby’ (goodness only knows what they’d make of my passport photo).

Half-baked would be putting it kindly.

I actually think those trying to indicate she maybe innocent, are well meaning, but misguided and ill informed. It’s been shown time and time again many haven’t fully informed themselves as much as possible on the details, often just copying what others said, or reading or believing poor websites have credible data and asking the same question repeatedly even though it’s been answered or saying things like it’s circumstantial.

it’s very clear if you spend the time learning about the trial, Letby is guilty and the jury did a tremendous job, as did her legal team given the context of this case. These babies were murdered and no credible medical expert could dispute it. And factually even Letby agreed.

not only did the jury do a tremendous job, they also were very cautious, she was not found guilty on multiple charges where they didn’t believe it was beyond all reasonable doubt. But looking at those cases it’s overwhelmingly likely she was guilty of those too.

I will be saddened, but won’t be surprised if , like shipman, we find out for sure, she’s been murdering for years and many many more babies were killed at her hand.

hats off to the police, the doctors, the judge, the jury, the latter of which gave up nearly a year of their lives, putting this murderer away for life, not just punishing her for what she’s done. But protecting countless other babies she’d have undoubtedly went on to murder had any other verdict or sentence been given.

Response from Shaun Lintern re the LL fan club

How can post-mortem findings that determine deaths to be of natural causes NOT be exculpatory in a murder case?

And a case where the person who made those post-mortem findings was not called to give evidence, raises some very troubling questions. To say the least.