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.

Agree. I think the fact that LL could have been told endlessly about the circs of her birth (let’s assume their was ‘damage’ to the mother) must have in some way made her the way she is. Is it not too much of a coincidence that babies/birth etc is likely the cause of her disturbed mind? The need to be a neonatal nurse. The hatred of small babies. I think that can’t be ruled out. I don’t feel a bit sorry for the parents

There are some articles by psychiatrists attempting to conclude why she did it, but realistically no one knows, perhaps even she doesn't know herself what compelled her.

It would be interesting to hear from people who believe it's been a miscarriage of justice, but only interesting if they've actually followed the trial and aren't bringing up points that have been addressed already.

Thing is though the only mention of a birth that didn't go well is what LL told her childhood friend, it might not have even been the case.

True about only the jurors being present for all evidence. But Lucy Letby was only unanimously convicted in 3 of 22 cases. Others were majority or not guilty or no verdict.

So in the vast majority of the cases, there was at least one jury member who had sat through 10 months of evidence who did not support conviction.

And juries can only go on the evidence provided and this was an extremely complex case based almost entirely on medical evidence. Evidence that lay people can not be expected to fully understand or analyse.

The jury had to be given a list of medical terms and their meaning at the start of the trial. They're not medical experts, nor are the Police or the judge.

This is why there are so many potentials in this case.

Highly complex medical evidence is not always conclusive, the best medical opinion at one stage can be proven to not be the best medical evidence years later.

See Louise Woodward and Sally Clark accused of killing infants where the medical experts who testified and led to their convictions have subsequently admitted they were wrong but testified based on their opinion on medical evidence, research and theories at the time.

Or Dr Wakefield who had a paper actually published linking Autism and the MMR vaccine. Who was later struck off as it was proven he actually faked results. He had 12 highly qualifed medical colleagues also co-authored on that paper.

Or Dr Lesne whose studies had been at the forefront of Alzheimers disease for almost 20 years and all of his studies have been pulled from academic journals as there is significant evidence under investigation that he didn't just fake results but actually doctored brain scan images.

I don't know that Lucy Letby is innocent.i would be much happier if I could conclude that she is.

I go back and forth. But I can also see things in the investigation and evidence that cause me discomfort. And based on history, I don't have the exteme confidence in expert medical evidence. Medical theories change.

And that doesn't mean I think there was a conspiracy against her by Drs. I don't think that at all.

this feels like trying to down play what happened, it’s such a disturbing post. It was either 10-1 or unanimous in all cases she was found guilty.

Totally agree, the fact that a jury is not unanimous doesn't mean that the conviction was unsafe.

She WAS unanimously convicted of three murders!

For goodness sake what more do people want? Why are people so desperate to believe she is innocent, that after even 3 unanimous guilty verdicts it is not enough? That is the most interesting question about all of these threads.

See my post upthread for one very obvious real-life example. If the murderer in that case had sought to argue that the first set of post mortem findings exculpated him because she couldn't have been shot, he'd have been laughed out of court.

It cannot have been any secret to anyone in court that, in the cases where there were post mortems, the original findings were not that there had been homicide. If the defence wanted to produce the reports, they could have. If they wanted to call the pathologist/s concerned, they could have. Why is it so impossible to believe that they didn't because they knew the evidence wouldn't help Letby? If they had been called, it's likely that their evidence would have been like that of doctors who were originally involved and hadn't raised any alarms. They basically accepted that they had been mistaken and apologised for it. It is hardly surprising that most medics' minds won't instantly leap to homicide, particularly with premature babies who are quite fragile anyway.

Completely agree

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.

If that person could have given evidence on behalf of the defence they would have been called. There are no troubling questions.

@SisterwifesofAUB
”I don't know that Lucy Letby is innocent.i would be much happier if I could conclude that she is.”
why would you be happier? Wouldn’t that suggest there’s still a serial killer at large? And that our justice system doesn’t work?

I really can't see how the activities of Drs Wakefield and Lesne have any relevance to this case. They weren't giving evidence under oath in serious criminal trials.

I think it's also misleading to suggest that this entire case hung on complex medical evidence. There was extensive further evidence around things like Letby being the only person present for every death/attempted killing, to the extent of them following her when she moved shifts and stopping when she was off on holiday; also things like her Facebook searches, all the notes found at her home, her lies about where she was at highly relevant times, etc etc. That is the sort of thing that juries are eminently well-fitted to assess.

The fact that she was on the ward so much more than she needed to be does in itself seem a little odd. Neonatal nursing is really tiring, and when you have to deal with a child who suddenly becomes extremely seriously ill and, sometimes, dies, it's absolutely emotionally exhausting as well. If you believe her to be innocent, that means she had to cope with way more than her fair share of really traumatic cases, yet kept coming back for more of the same when no-one would have blamed her for taking time out.

Or it could be that she wanted to be there a lot because she wanted to increase her access to really vulnerable babies, especially when there were twins and triplets on the ward. At the very least, that piece of evidence goes both ways.

"See my post upthread for one very obvious real-life example. If the murderer in that case had sought to argue that the first set of post mortem findings exculpated him because she couldn't have been shot, he'd have been laughed out of court"

The difference is that your post bears no comparison, there are 5 reported natural causes for those resultant deaths and one inconclusive, in the Letby case.

Perhaps like Tom, you think that people who were nowhere near the PM table for the babies PM's, just came to a different and better conclusion, than the obviously incompetent original pathologists, who got it wrong 6 times.

That's a major source of doubt for me.

That the psychiatrists and psychologists making statements and judgements all have to admit she is a complete anomaly.

And I'll admit I hate the 'talking heads' experts who make cash writing articles or appearing on TV in regards to someone they haven't met or assessed. It's inappropriate and unprofessional in my opinion.

But all their theorising now is based on her being guilty so if she killed babies, this or that might be a potential reason. With no history to suggest that was part of her personality or behaviour.

There's absolutely nothing in her history, perceved personality or behaviour from the start of her life that has been publicised, that would indicate a medical serial killer. Or even a non-medical serial killer. Not one family member, friend ex-boyfriend or colleague who could report anything significant.

Every other medical serial killer known has numerous red flags in their history. Self-harm, EDs, drug misuse, stealing drugs from work, excessive sickness records, persistent lying, making up stories, fabricating illness, being caught out possibility fabricating medical records, conflict with others, hating their job and patients or just causing some people to think they're generally weird, a loner, a liar etc

Professor David Wilson, a forensic psychologist, ex-prison governor and medical serial killer expert said she is an anomaly and he also said in the interview I watched that when he read the prosecution opening statement outlining their case, he thought "is that it?"

And of course, she could be a new breed of medical serial killer not seen before but she does challenge everything previously seen or researched.

Dr Brearey said he was astounded when she volunteered for a shift on the day following one of the deaths.

It's also important to remember that deaths and collapses did not occur when

• she was on holiday
• her shift pattern was changed

Do we know if she had a physical relationship with the consultant? An affair?

You conveniently ignore my acknowledgement that that was an unusual case. However, I was answering the question "How can post-mortem findings that determine deaths to be of natural causes NOT be exculpatory in a murder case?" and that case provided one perfect example of exactly how such findings are not necessarily exculpatory. Pathologists aren't infallible, and it's not surprising that, when presented with the death of a premature baby with no other suspicious circumstances reported to them, they can miss difficult-to-spot causes like air embolisms.

Is there any danger of you addressing the question why you think the defence didn't obtain and produce those reports and call that witness when there was nothing to prevent them from doing so?

"You conveniently ignore my acknowledgement that that was an unusual case"

No I used it to show how nonsensical your attempted comparison was.

Anyone would think the parents themselves were on trial.

The initial post is full of judgement on people we don’t actually know much about and find themselves in the most extreme and unusual of circumstances, while the response is full of ‘could have’, ‘assume’, ‘can’t be ruled out’ and yet also concludes with a firm and damning judgement.

People need to accept there are unknowns and leave that to the professionals. The alternative is this baseless public maligning of people who are not on trial.

@lifeturnsonadime "She WAS unanimously convicted of three murders!"

The verdict was only unanimous on one murder - Child O
She was convicted on majority verdict of six murders - Childs A, C, D, E, I and P

And, once again, you swerve the real question. Good of you to confirm you have no answer to it.

It’s my opinion. I have worked with people who have been seriously mentally damaged by their parents and upbringing

What's disturbing? I was responding to a PP who said that people who may have doubts hadn't sat through all the evidence over 10 months.

So I said she was only unanimously convicted in 3 out of 22 cases so even one or many jury members did not feel they were provided with enough evidence for them to convict beyond reasonable doubt on the overwhelming number of cases. She was found guilty by a majority in 11 cases so one juror did not agree she was guilty.

In 2 cases she was found not guilty. In 6 cases the jury felt unable to come to a verdict.

Here's the list. If you think there's something disturbing about me stating the facts of the verdicts, I honestly don't know what you're on about.

List taken from Tattle Life which factually presented all the verdicts.

2015
08 June
Count 1: Child A (twin) - a baby boy, murder (air embolus): GUILTY 10-1 MAJORITY
8-11 June
Count 2: Child B (twin) - a baby girl attempted murder (air embolus): GUILTY 10-1 MAJORITY
14 June
Count 3: Child C - a baby boy, murder (bolus of air in NG tube): GUILTY 10-1 MAJORITY
22 June
Count 4: Child D - a baby girl, murder (air embolus): GUILTY 10-1 MAJORITY
04 August
Count 5: Child E (twin) - a baby girl, murder (air embolus & bleeding): GUILTY 10-1 MAJORITY
05 August
Count 6: Child F (twin) - a baby boy, attempted murder (insulin poisoning): GUILTY UNANIMOUSLY
07 September
Count 7: Child G - a baby girl, attempted murder (bolus of air in NG tube & excessive milk): GUILTY 10-1 MAJORITY
21 September
Count 8: Child G - a baby girl, attempted murder (bolus of air in NG tube & excessive milk): GUILTY 10-1 MAJORITY
21 September
Count 9: Child G - a baby girl, attempted murder (bolus of air in NG tube & excessive milk): NOT GUILTY
26 September
Count 10: Child H - a baby girl, attempted murder (method unlcear): NOT GUILTY
27 September
Count 11: Child H - a baby girl, attempted murder (method unclear): NO VERDICT
23 October
Count 12: Child I - a baby girl, murder (bolus of air in NG tube. With 3 previous attempts): GUILTY 10-1 MAJORITY
27 November
Count 13: Child J - a baby girl, attempted murder (airway obstruction): NO VERDICT

2016
17 February
Count 14: Child K - a baby girl, attempted murder (tube dislodgment): NO VERDICT
09 April
Count 15: Child L (twin) - a baby boy, attempted murder (insulin poisoning): GUILTY UNANIMOUSLY
09 April
Count 16: Child M (twin) - a baby boy, attempted murder (air embolus): GUILTY 10-1 MAJORITY
03 June
Count 17: Child N - a baby boy, attempted murder (inflicted trauma): GUILTY 10-1 MAJORITY
15 June
Count 18: Child N - a baby boy, attempted murder (inflicted trauma): NO VERDICT
15 June
Count 19: Child N - a baby boy, attempted murder (inflicted trauma): NO VERDICT
23 June
Count 20: Child O (triplet) - a baby boy, murder (inflicted trauma to the liver & bolus of air in NG tube): GUILTY UNANIMOUSLY
24 June
Count 21: Child P (triplet) - a baby boy, murder (bolus of air in NG tube - splintered diaphragm): GUILTY 10-1 MAJORITY
25 June
Count 22: Child Q - a baby boy, attempted murder (bolus of air in NG tube): NO VERDICT

No we don't. They may have but none of the 'phone records examined contained information that suggests they did.