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.

Because for whatever reason the evidence wasn't strong enough. That's just how the legal system works- if it can be shown there is reasonable doubt, you get a not guilty verdict. The alternative would obviously be a lower evidentiary standard like 'on the balance of probabilities', which could result in innocent people being convicted and imprisoned. The system we have is meant to safeguard against that. There are sometimes legal loopholes which can result in a not guilty verdict or a conviction being overturned without that person necessarily actually being innocent of the crime. But of course if that happens, they do go free and the 'assumption' has to be that they're not, in fact, guilty.

Because there's a difference between the assumption of guilt and actual guilt.

I've served on a jury where we were quite sure the defendant was well at it. The trouble was, the prosecution hadn't brought any sort of conclusive evidence that she had committed the crime she was accused of, so we had to find her not guilty. We weren't happy about it, but we kept to our oath.

I watched the sentencing live. The Judge gave a pretty damning summary.

Then the defendant was found not guilty, they weren’t guilty. What you are saying previously is that being acquitted on reasonable doubt doesn't make you innocent. But you also may well be.

it will depend on what evidence the jury are shown, as you have pointed out.

LL has been proved guilty and that’s what the jury have decided. I have to respect that, it’s how our system works. I do think it’s good to question the system though as it’s not infallible.

there is a case in Australia where a mother killed her 4 babies in the 1990s after serving 20 years in prison it’s been found they all died of natural causes.

how do we prevent this type of miscarriage of justice?

"I've explained why the PMs weren't in evidence and I've explained why Evans' evidence was probably sound"

Probably not definitely? evans who lied under oath twice, that evans, or the same evans who 👇

Dr Evans’ initial evidence in chief included taking the jury through a collection of medical training videos and explaining key terms and procedures. Among others, this included a training video on the Phillips neonatal patient monitors. During cross examination he undermined his own ‘expert evidence’ first by telling the jury that not everything could be learned from training videos, and then by admitting he had not only never used in clinical practice the Phillips monitors he had been taking them through - "but that he had actually never seen one at all".

And her defence questioned him on this, the jury were aware of this and it would have been considered, so I'm not sure what your point is? The functionality of the specific monitor was clarified again later in the trial, but there's nothing to indicate the video itself wasn't sufficient to understand what they needed to for the trial. He said videos aren't as good as having lived experience of working with neonates and carrying out these various procedures which is true- but again it doesn't mean the video for the monitor wasn't sufficient for the purpose of the trial, he said it when his experience was questioned. The rest of the procedures and terms he has extensive knowledge and experience of.

During cross examination he undermined his own ‘expert evidence’ first by telling the jury that not everything could be learned from training videos, and then by admitting he had not only never used in clinical practice the Phillips monitors he had been taking them through - "but that he had actually never seen one at all".

How did that undermine his evidence? His evidence was based on a 30 year career, the training videos were to help the jury understand.

Oh dear. Can you really not grasp basic law?

Wrongful convictions are an everyday occurrence. The newspapers just don't report all of them because most aren't high-profile cases.

I didn't actually say that (about acquittal on reasonable doubt) but I would agree with it.

I think everyone accepts that miscarriages of justice happen. After the Sally Clark verdict, I think there were clear concerns that the statistical evidence just couldn't be right. There isn't that sort of concern here.

I wish we could prevent miscarriages of justice, whether leading to wrongful innocent or guilty verdicts. However, I suspect that to achieve that you're looking at things like mind-reading which is not only not possible but would have other incredibly serious implications.

Do you accept that the defence could have put the PM reports in evidence if they wanted to?

Yea it does work both ways. That's the point I was illustrating!

Some posters were saying LL is innocent because x h and z were/are.

I was pointing out - as another pointer highlighted - acquittal doesn't equal innocence.

It works all ways.

I think thr poster feels the defence was so inept, they forgot the basics, and she herself is more qualified and can detail how they should have ran the case.

she’s not listening to thr reasons why the pms were not introduced, or why letby herself declared the babies murdered whilst on the stand, she feels she knows better and they all made glaring errors.

the fact the kc and his legal team were some of the most experienced and qualified in the uk, the poster and a few others feel they know better, much of it down to that erroneous website, science on trial, from the science grad woman, who has never been shown to practice and has been declared mentally incompetent before this even started.

care To explain it? Or are you just after making inane comments out of context?

Yea it does work both ways. That's the point I was illustrating!

sorry I hadn’t read anything there in that post for both ways, it just read to me as being guilty and being found not guilty.

Which do you think is more likely.

That the Lucy Letby Truther Movement (run by a woman declared mentally incompetent by a UK court, and a man who can't legally enter the UK or he'll be arrested, and with links to far right and white supremacist organisations) is completely correct, there really is a vast yet secret criminal conspiracy to frame some random woman as a serial murderer of babies, for absolutely no reason and for no gain.

Or the fact a highly respected and expensive solicitor couldn't find anyone able to testify to her innocence is because she is not innocent.

The thing I find so worrying about the Letby Truthers is that they're so evangelical about it. It's not a question of people randomly musing "but hypothetically maybe what if there's a 10% possibility that she's actually innocent." They are not only completely, 100% convinced she's innocent and that it's all a huge miscarriage of justice and conspiracy, and are so convinced by her innocence that they're willing to go to extreme lengths to try to convince other people. Why? What's the motivation?

There's a huge difference between saying "the trial didn't 100% convince me of her guilt" and saying "the trial convinced me 100% that she's innocent, not the slightest possibility of guilt."

Can anyone, hand on heart, say they've followed the trial and believe the trial absolutely, 100% established her innocence without any question or doubt at all?

she is an unprecedented anomaly that would represent a complete overhaul of the previous theories and understanding of medical serial killers.

Experts on female serial killers have said that she fits the profile exactly, except for the fact she's never been married.

This is just complete guff. Profiling is junk science anyway.

@978q

yes I am aware of Sally Clarke. Interestingly the expert talked about statistics saying how unlikely it was that someone could have all these cot deaths

Myers is a highly capable man - you are out of your depth in trying to discredit him

I mean fine if you think she’s innocent - go and join the go fund me page for her maybe? Or write to her but do not come here amongst us parents and defend an evil, calculating baby killer

I know this isn’t aimed at me, but when you resort to abuse you lose the argument.

That happened some time ago.

The irony is quite something.

"The irony is quite something"

In your case sublime, most definitely.

@978q did I hit a nerve?

can you clear something up?

you believe LL is innocent because Myers did not admit the PM results into evidence? Or you believe she is innocent because the PM stated natural causes?

Interesting that Letby does fit the profile (other than being married).

The prosecution KC hinted at the motive being attention-based (even suggested she liked the attention of the trial).