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.

"Is there a source for this please?"

The unchallenged opinion of Dr Andreas Marnerides, who is a very distinguished perinatal and children's pathologist,at Guy's in London.

You’re right. Except the Coroners’ office isn’t always involved. It becomes involved where certain criteria apply, those are:

Coroners investigate all deaths where the cause is unknown, where there is reason to think the death may not be due to natural causes, or which need an inquiry for some other reason.

The trust had carried out PMs and given causes, they were judged to be due to natural causes and it was the consultants who pushed for an inquiry. So please address the points in my previous post.

Did the defence not cross examine him, then?

@D1nopawus : But she has a KC, and they've been working on the case for years. It must run into millions?

I’m not sure ‘the coroner refused to look into the deaths again because he has full confidence in his pathologists’ is quite the argument you think it is in this case. And if he has full confidence there shouldn’t be an issue with a review. It will return the same results.

I dare say this particular element may be looked at in the inquiry.

I think it will be and the arrogant Dr Nicholas Rheinberg will be called to explain himself. I’m looking forward to that.

It was fully reviewed by the many many medical experts in their field. There was no need for a second pm. And those medical experts were employed by both defense and prosecution. The fact defence didn’t call to dispute tells you there was no way to dispute it.

seriously this legal team was one of the most respected. Not just some random reading conspiracy sites and posting on mumsnet like they know better,

it would be funny if it wasn’t so sad due to the context.

The "argument is no more illogical than claiming the Coroner's office pathologists are so incompetent,that they botched 6 PM's.

It would certainly be expensive, but legal aid rates are way lower than private rates. Nevertheless, IME legal aid lawyers work bloody hard, especially with cases like this - no-one goes into criminal legal aid to make a fortune. Some of the best lawyers around are in legal aid work.

"There was no need for a second pm"

How could there be any second PM's

I think it has been said that it was unusual that she had a top notch team (due to cost) but the funds were made available.

I'm guessing one of the reasons was to get the trial as water tight as possible and to stop the accusations of unbalanced legal teams.

(I'm aware though that it hasn't stopped the #teamlucy trying)

So where exactly do you say the pathology reports produced by the prosecution went wrong? As pointed out upthread, the author would have had to cite chapter and verse on how he reached his conclusions and be available to be closely cross-examined by the defence.

It's discussed in some depth earlier in the thread and I think the consensus was that the majority of her defence was funded through legal aid.

The RCN would only be responsible for representing her at professional and HR hearings - if she is a member. Incidentally, at the internal meetings she took her Dad and not a union rep.

It does happen, if the deceased has not been cremated.

"How could there be any second PM"

No, the answer is simple, no physical bodies remain, for use in any secondary PM's.

Doctor who claimed he has suspicions about LL in 2015, failed to retain or collate any evidence from the babies he has suspicions over, indeed coming forward much later, all in all, not good.

If LL had stabbed the babies teamLucy would still be claiming that a suboptimal but not dangerously placed longline and being a bit short staffed were the cause of death.

Although they don’t ever seem to be able to say exactly how the babies in a way that’s consistent with their medical notes. Myers couldn’t manage it plausibly in cross examination either. And despite what some may think he’s well respected by his peers.

So where exactly do you say the pathology reports produced by the prosecution went wrong?

You will need to show me where I claimed that, rather than I gave Dr Andreas the respect his standing in the medical field deserves.

You never say anything concrete, just skirt around the issues and when asked for clarity deny saying anything and offer no further evidence.

Carry on enlighten me as to what I said , instead of wittering like some old hen.

instead of wittering like some old hen.

Why are you posting a selfie?

The term team Lucy turns my stomach. I genuinely can’t believe there is people so Ill informed and deluded they are defending a serial killer of little babies.

I get it when it’s things like flat earth or Elvis is alive. But this. This is just awful.

I am gobsmacked as well.

My theory is that people are defending her and finding "arguments" for her innocence because she's a pretty, young (white) woman.

Jodi Arias has a Fanclub as well.

Ah the poster is misogynistic too, don't say we have had the absolute pleasure of being joined by AG himself.

Still keen to hear why the defence didn't call any medical witnesses when they even said themselves in their opening statement that the medical aspects would be vital to this case. Any ideas? Beyond the obvious that they couldn't contradict that given as no professional was willing to?