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.

If you listen to the podcast, particularly the prosecution and defence parts, then it's very clear that they were killed.

I found the podcast very interesting. Not just the evidence in court but also the interviews with the police, other crime reporters and also the hospital consultants. It's been very well done and gives a very factual narrative.

I've done this, to my DH, from the dog.

Cutesie, maybe, but hardly evidence of dysfunctionallity.

Following

No one ever saw her do anything

This is true and it's one of the reasons I first thought she was innocent. But actually she was considering or in the room at a high number of the collapses.

Plenty of reports of staff turning up to find her cot side in room 1 when her designated baby was in room 3-4. She herself admits this and often said it was because she'd work with the babies previously and wanted to check them, she couldn't recall was used a lot and there was evidence she was considered with some babies yet her notes said she was elsewhere - or the wrong time was recorded on medical entries.

It was all proven.

So although there was no forensic evidential proof of what she had or hadn't done (remember she was found not guilty of some accounts and no verdict on others) she was always the one present when these collapses happened.

Thee was one baby she'd told a nurse who returned after 15 minutes that the baby looked really unwell. She told her this from the door of the room. The lights were not on. The baby was under a canopy in the shadows and their face couldn't be seen clearly. The nurse she informed turned on the light and removed the canopy to be able to see the baby.
LL defence to this was she couldn't recall and thought maybe the light was on a dimmer. She couldn't say how she could tell a babies palor when they were in darkness.

For me often in this case it wasn't actually what she said that made me think she was guilty. It was what she couldn't say or didn't say iyswim?

Agree. That was one of the least odd things about this whole case. And I don't even have pets!

It's on Apple Podcasts. Called The trial of LL.

It was all proven

what was proved?
was she seen, what was witnessed?

The piece of evidence that was mainly used to convict her , was that she was present at every death.

But then I read something interesting.

Lucy said that one reason to explain why she was present at every death, was because she was imply there more often than other nurses.

She said that she lived very nearby, and that she volunteered to do a lot of extra shifts, as they were short staffed.

I just found it interesting aswell where a some of her colleagues said that they believe she is innocent, and that there were already big failures on the ward: short staffed, so babies not checked on enough, poor hygiene.

Witnessed her cotside with babies when she'd written medical entires to say she was elsewhere.

When challenged her defence was always "I can't recall".

I rarely heard her reply it was incorrect. Or she'd offer other explanations that blamed other staff.

And the just believe it was proven she was guilty - hence 14 convictions. They heard all the evidence.

I have massive respect for them finding her innocent where they didn't believe the evidence was beyond reasonable doubt.

I didn't think being that being present at every death, would be enough to find someone guilty. If no one saw the nurse doing something.

But I guess being present is enough to convict someone. Yes she was present at all deaths which looks suspicious, but I still thought she would have to be seen to be doing something to be convicted. As some of those babies were sick anyway

I don't know

She wrote her cats' names all over the mad confessional post its. I thought that was odd.

I’m not sure you really think that? Unless someone is seen commiting a murder then can’t be found guilty? So if you do your husband in and no one is watching, but you’re the only one in the house, you think you get away with it?

But you're just making all this up to suit your own narrative. There has been no evidence that Lucy was raised to think she was special or that there was a constant narrative about her difficult birth. This is just something you've invented.

Also you do realise that if any of our parenting styles, including yours and your parents, were put under the same magnifying glass as Lucy Letby's have in recent days, people would find something to ponder, go 'hmmm I wonder.....' about, criticise, say was 'weird', invent wild suppositions about etc. Don't fool yourself they wouldn't. And it would be people like you doing it.

I didn't think being that being present at every death, would be enough to find someone guilty. If no one saw the nurse doing something.

How often does anyone actually witness someone else murdering another human being?

She was witnessed cotside of babies who then collapsed. Multiple times and only her.

None of these babies collapsed at other hospitals or on her days off. None collapsed daytime when she was on nights and vice versa.

It's not so much evidence of a witness seeing someone commit a crime.

That's why the legal threshold is beyond reasonable doubt.

So you cannot reasonably explain what happened any other way with the evidence presented.

Ah, OK.

Well perinatal deaths are not neonatal deaths as has been mentioned.

And I assume you're aware they consulted with quite a number of medical experts.

Yes, I’m surprised people think this, I’ve seen it on other sites.” It’s all circumstantial. No one saw her do it. “ The overwhelming majority of murders no one sees them do it. It’s how murderers tend to work, as they want to get away with it, they don’t do it when someone is standing watching.

I genuinely believed most adults and children over a certain age, knew this. We see crimes every day in the news. Seldom has someone watched them do it,

But it seems not, some folks don’t know this and think if you are not seen doing it, then you get away with it. You can murder anyone you wish as long as you do it when no one is watching.

But if the place was short staffed, and unhygienic, surely the deaths would have carried on when she was away? Her absence would have left the place even more short staffed - and yet, deaths didn't seem to continue in her absence. She had a holiday in Ibiza, and, to my knowledge, no babies suddenly collapsed and died in this time. She comes back, and two die in two days.

I haven’t rtft so apologies if this has already been explained…

Handover notes are your own personal notes you take when you first start your shift and the nurse who has been on the previous shift “hands over” the care of their patient(s) to you. They often have standard information pulled off the computer database (name, age, diagnosis, current treatment, plan) and you then add any other relevant info, to do lists etc. Every nurse develops their own way of doing them.

They are only used for one shift and, as pp says, you are supposed to put them in the confidential waste before you leave the hospital. They contain confidential information and should not be taken home. However, as they mostly live in your pocket, it’s easy to take them home by mistake. We’ve all done it. But you would either destroy them immediately if you have a shredder at home or take them back in to put into confidential waste on your next shift. There is no excuse for having a whole collection of them at home. You would face disciplinary action for that.

This is a discussion forum. There are hundreds of threads about subjects I don't have any interest in not mulling over so I don't post on the thread belittling others.

Why don't you do the same? I am embarrassed for you

i completely agree
that many whole life sentences on circumstantial evidence frightens me.

Thank you @itsgettingweird

I am both appalled and intrigued but more than anything would like to get closer to the detail - those poor babies and families regardless

I agree! 👏👏

a huge, huge amount of murders are convicted on overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Would you like them all to be released? Or just the baby serial killer Letby?

im stunned at what folks are posting. Husband murders his wife. No one sees him doing it. But suspicion is he’s been beating her for years. So many injuries she had, but she never told. Then she’s killed. Strangled to death. No one saw. She never reported dv. So for some posters he can’t be convincted? Because it’s just circumstantial?

people really think this?

This is a scandal - not just of the NHS, but also of the police who appeared to outsource their forensic work to a known grifter (no crime, no pay) with no forensic or neonatal experience and indeed the entire judicial system.

The notion that an expert's evidence cannot be reliable if they are paid is misleading. Of course they are paid - they can't live on air, and often the work involved is very complex and time-consuming.

Every professional witness giving evidence is paid. That includes, for example people giving evidence in personal injury cases, disputes about alleged negligence in building or in industry, tribunal disputes etc. It doesn't mean that it has to be assumed that they are biased in favour of the person paying them. Expert witnesses are generally subject to their own professional obligations and ethics, and in the case of medical witnesses that means a very strong obligation to tell the whole truth, not to suppress any information which might seem inconvenient, and to give an honest, fully reasoned opinion based on the available evidence. It is also not in their interests to depart from those standards, because not only will there be witnesses called by the other side who will almost inevitably pounce on any weaknesses or untruths, there are lawyers and judges who will go through their reports in great detail and are very experienced in testing these things. If they regularly give biased evidence that fact would become obvious very quickly, and they would basically never be used again because there is no point calling an expert witness who is well known to be totally unreliable.

It really is very telling that no expert witnesses were called on Letby's side. I'm quite sure that her lawyers will have tried to find people to discredit the prosecution evidence, including the statistical evidence, but clearly they couldn't find them - or the people they did find actually backed up the prosecution. That's another illustration of the fact that experts don't just say what their paymasters want to hear.

I don't know anything about Evans, but just calling him a grifter because he was paid for his work and therefore he is unreliable just isn't rational. It must have been open to Letby's lawyers to give all the reasons why his evidence might not be reliable, but you are left with the fact that, despite strong cross examination by a very able KC, the jury still apparently accepted his evidence.