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.

@TomPinch Do keep up.

When I suggested that the police had become infatuated with a conspiracy theory presented by big important men, @Blossomtoes suggested I watched the Operation Hummingbird (unfortunate name dont you think!) video, to see how thorough the police investigation had been.

Yet it would seem that while the Dsup is keen to suggest that it is an open investigation and would ideally like to conclude that that it is not murder, and independently allocated cases. His CI then contradicts him stating that he knew there would be a case to answer, and goes on to talk about the Baby F insulin case.

@Blossomtoes It may be unfortunate editing for such a sleek video, but its clearly marked under the May 2017 section and CI Riley states that he quickly found it obvious that the insulin had been administered. But he could not have known that in the initial review of cases, where they were keeping an open mind.

It was only discovered in Feb 2018. Given that this discovery was made by one of the suspects which inexplicably the police had recruited to the investigation team, you might think that the actual police would take a little time to review - was it a faulty reading? was it an accident? was Dr Brearey covering his tracks?.

So how did CI Riley who was brought in to independently review cases in May 2017 quickly determine that elevated insulin that was discovered 9 months later had been deliberately administered maliciously.

I've just looked up the good wife and can't believe that your UK A Level Law tutor was using an US legal drama as an example!

You really can't be serious!

That tutor needs sacking.

The point you're making, I suppose, is that the conviction is unsafe. So tell me how you think this led to gaps in the evidence presented at court. Otherwise all this is blah.

It still shows human behaviour,with trials and cases etc, besides as we cannot know what the jurors discussed, then it's only presumed that they only followed the directions they were given.

If you have a point to make about Lucy Letby, come out and make it. At present you're drifting around like a piece of litter at someone else's picnic.

On the specific case of Lucy, the law found her guilty.
I'm not qualified to analyze the evidence pertinent to the case. That I leave to the experts and other fellows on here that know more than me.

I'm on this thread to understand the case in more detail based on different people's opinion and perspectives.

@TomPinch My primary thesis is that the police investigation was biased and set out to convict Letby rather than investigate the deaths, and the defense was completely inadequate.

Here you have a suspect in a murder investigation being asked to investigate the case in 2018 then finding an improbable level of insulin (over 4000 and the baby survived!) in a discharge note written in August 2015.

I sometimes go on threads for that reason. I pretty much always read the thread without commenting so that I don't clog up the discussion with points that are, with respect, meaningless. For example, your one above:

"it's only presumed that they [the jury] only followed the directions they were given."

This is the case in every jury trial. In theory they could have consulted a ouija board but as we have no information suggesting this there is literally nothing to discuss.

So are you saying that a forged discharge note was put in evidence?

One or several? Which charge, or charges?

This is the Baby F case.

The discharge note is real, yet the consultant didnt flag it at the time despite it being an extremely high insulin level. The fact that the baby survived suggests that either the reading has been incorrectly transcribed or the test was flawed.

Fair enough Tom Quinn, I'll try to be more considerate with my comments.

*pinch

This is a load of unsubstantiated crap. The doctors themselves were pushing for answers, they knew if there was an investigation/it was looked into their mistakes would also be analysed with a fine toothcomb- what incentive do they have to do that? I agree Trusts often do unacceptable things to try and preserve their reputation, but having a serial killer on the staff is not something any would plan; its far worse for public trust and perception than short staffing/incompetence. They ignored it hoping it would go away, which it would have if the doctors (who have held their hands up to their misfakes) would have let it go. There's also always a tonne of ridiculous politics, covering for a nurse is much more likely than for doctors for various reasons.

I agree inquiries usually don't uncover everything and don't lead to real change, but that's a separate issue to accusing a lot of professionals of being part of this cover up- it's offensive actually.

Plus - and this is a pertinent point! - if it was infection then every baby who had it would have had an infection.

PMs proved otherwise.

Plus the mottling was generally on the stomach. Mottling due to infection is generally more widespread.

But you and I both know that won't convince those who are here and openly admitting their conspiracy theorists

Brilliant.

Very well explained

Oh goodness, of course it was incompetent.

NO expert witnesses in defence.

Just the PLUMBER . . .

I'll kindly explain it again because you've obviously missed the previous explanations if this.

Pre trial they would have consulted numerous independent witnesses. They would have only called those who helped their defence case.

That was a plumber.

That's the bit you should be focussing on. NO ONE accept a plumber could offer any credible defence.

Yes I really can't comprehend that some people think the more likely scenario is that there's a huge conspiracy against her in which her highly qualified, experienced and well respected defence are in on too rather than the obvious which is that they couldn't find any other experts or witnesses that helped her defence. I know people want to fight the system and it is indeed good to question things, but when its random theories with no base in reality and there's a reasonable, plausible, logical reality that's dismissed it's just bizarre at this point.

Can anyone explain what the benefits of her being made a scapegoat are by the way? Bearing in mind a serial killer is much worse reputationally than poor care due to lack of staff etc (which routinely gets swept under the rug and we never hear about)? I can't think of anything really, those who reported knew their oversights and errors would be looked into, management knew that their lack of action when it was first escalated would be looked into also, so who and why?

Try to remember that your Individual socks need to have different talking points. If they're all talking about Sally Clark it's a dead giveaway

I honestly can’t grasp why such a well respected legal team, who factually sought multiple medical experts to try to dispute the death cause findings, didn’t just call you to stand.

please can you email them? You can get their details on line very easily. And explain your huge expertise in the medical and legal field and how you alone have cracked this case.

then come back and let us know how that went for you.

I've been thinking the same.

It seems some fandoms on the internet could have got her an innocent verdict compared to the well respected defence team that couldn't!

Don't tempt them as someone did during the trial and got the hump when it was rejected by the defence team (as it was a crock of shite)!

It’s happened on thread 1 too. It’s like Ground Hog Day.

No way did they? 😱

I was hoping it would make them think to fully educate themselves on the facts. I guess though you can’t get conspiracy theorists to do that though.

Not from here, I'm not going to draw traffic to their social media but there's a very prominent LL fan who has recruited other likeminded people to try and organise an appeal. They allegedly according to them submitted what they believed to be groundbreaking evidence based on stats, they were most perturbed for it not to be included in the trial. They all have faux qualifications and various previous activity which makes them very questionable.

No-one can directly watch or study this as jury deliberations are entirely behind closed doors. Such studies as have been done have been with mock juries which are never going to be quite the same. But it remains the fact that they work on the basis of evidence; if they work on the wild speculations we have seen on this thread, they are not complying with their oaths.