Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Lucy Letby denied leave to appeal

1000 replies

Viviennemary · 24/05/2024 13:40

Just heard on the news Lucy Letby the convicted serial killer has been denied leave to appeal. Good decision I think. She should stay behind bars for the rest of her life.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
32
Fasterthanacarrot · 24/05/2024 23:20

Nat6999 · 24/05/2024 22:47

Why did the babies stop dying when she was removed? It can't have been a coincidence.

There are many reasons why that could have been the case if she was innocent. Pure coincidence for a start or if you want to go down a more sinister route - it was noticed the deaths were increasing and she was an easy scapegoat and then the unit was improved and that’s why the deaths lowered.

Cover ups in the nhs are a huge problem. Anyone speaking out is threatened and there’s a culture of protecting each other at the top at the expense of others. I have no doubt a failing or incompetent unit would throw someone under the bus the save themselves

MaidOfAle · 24/05/2024 23:23

cadburyegg · 24/05/2024 23:08

I am also not convinced LL is guilty.

She was one of only 3 FT nurses in the unit and the one who volunteered for the most overtime, so it actually makes sense that she would be on shift for the "suspicious events". But in fact that widely circulated diagram with an X under LL's name for all of them, does not include all the deaths on the unit. If it did, it would not look so damning. There were also 27 other suspicious events that weren't included. One baby on that diagram died 3 minutes into LL's shift, but the baby had already deteriorated before LL arrived.

The insulin cases were charged as attempted murders but both babies recovered.

The judge told the jury they could still find LL guilty even if they didn't know how the babies were killed. One jury member admitted that they'd already decided LL was guilty before they heard the evidence.

One jury member admitted that they'd already decided LL was guilty before they heard the evidence.

How can the verdict be deemed safe after that admission of prejudice? That juror had 22 days in which to talk the other 11 into agreement and any psychologist can tell you about persuasion techniques to convince the others with.

ShambalaAnna · 24/05/2024 23:23

MaidOfAle · 24/05/2024 23:18

But in fact that widely circulated diagram with an X under LL's name for all of them, does not include all the deaths on the unit. If it did, it would not look so damning.

In academia, we'd call that omission of data points that don't support our hypothesis "cherrypicking the results" and, if discovered, it would result in papers being rejected and retracted. It's unethical and just plain bad science.

See also: correlation does not prove causality.

There's a scene in The Dropout about Theranos that basically talks about how they excluded data that didn't show their machine working, and as someone with a scientific background and GLP training, I wanted to scream.

I wonder how much of this case is just pure statistical ignorance and misogyny and papering over poorly funded and run neonatal units against the wall.

ShambalaAnna · 24/05/2024 23:24

To bring another scandal into this, remember how all those Post Office workers were definitely guilty of a thing that impacted their organisation badly? Up until they weren't, in any case.

MsCheeryble · 24/05/2024 23:24

TheFunHasGone · 24/05/2024 20:52

This is her second appeal and both have been refused, they'll be a reason for that

I'm sure if she is convicted on retrial she'll try to appeal that as well though

I wouldn't be surprised if she tries to appeal her sentences next

It's all part of the same process. If she was going to appeal against sentence she would have had to do it at the same time as appealing against conviction.

Doltieon · 24/05/2024 23:26

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

TheFunHasGone · 24/05/2024 23:27

WorriedRelative · 24/05/2024 22:48

Let's not forget Sally Clark

A jury heard all the extensive evidence regarding the death of her babies too. She was the only person present when they died.

She was found guilty and her first appeal was unsuccessful. She was ultimately acquitted because the evidence the expert gave was flawed.

Miscarriages of justice happen.

Sally Clarks babies died of cot death about 26 and 28 years ago, we had not long had the campaign to put babies to sleep on their backs at that point. Understanding about cot deaths has come on a a hell of a lot since then. It's really offensive that people keep bringing her up in relation to this case

TheFunHasGone · 24/05/2024 23:32

MsCheeryble · 24/05/2024 23:24

It's all part of the same process. If she was going to appeal against sentence she would have had to do it at the same time as appealing against conviction.

It isn't

MsCheeryble · 24/05/2024 23:33

Mirabai · 24/05/2024 21:20

Door swipes, telephones, dodgy statistics, very bad science, and not a shred of forensic evidence.

But there was forensic evidence, a fact which the NYT article artistically left out. For instance, evidence of babies having more air or insulin in their systems than could have been produced naturally, babies splinting which is not something that happens naturally. You may think it is bad science, but there were no actual scientists in the relevant disciplines who came forward before or during the trial who were prepared to attack it, and indeed it is reasonable to assume that none came forward afterwards, otherwise their evidence would have formed part of the appeal.

MaidOfAle · 24/05/2024 23:35

MsCheeryble · 24/05/2024 23:33

But there was forensic evidence, a fact which the NYT article artistically left out. For instance, evidence of babies having more air or insulin in their systems than could have been produced naturally, babies splinting which is not something that happens naturally. You may think it is bad science, but there were no actual scientists in the relevant disciplines who came forward before or during the trial who were prepared to attack it, and indeed it is reasonable to assume that none came forward afterwards, otherwise their evidence would have formed part of the appeal.

there were no actual scientists in the relevant disciplines who came forward before or during the trial who were prepared to attack it

That's not how calling expert witnesses works, but never mind...

kkloo · 24/05/2024 23:44

DazedandConcerned · 24/05/2024 19:14

My concern with the New Yorker article is that there are many reasons why American publications would have an agenda regarding socialised medicine. By discrediting and making people fear the NHS, look at the concept of death panels in the cases of Alfie Evans and the like, it stops the citizens from demanding better. Medicine is big business in the USA, and money talks - so I wouldn’t be surprised if the author/publication has motives for casting doubt on LLs guilt.

I think that's a reach.
They could easily discuss the issues with socialised medicine without doing it in this way.

kkloo · 24/05/2024 23:47

IAmThe1AndOnly · 24/05/2024 16:24

Would people be talking about potential miscarriages of justice if this had been Wayne Cousins? Ian Huntley?

That's a bizarre comment.

Generally people do accept the verdicts of the jury, for this particular case some believe that it might be potential miscarriage of justice for various valid reasons. The fact that people don't often think that cases are potential miscarriages of justice should tell you that there's something different about this one.

Kittybythelighthouse · 24/05/2024 23:51

IAmThe1AndOnly · 24/05/2024 16:22

The people defending a child murderer who murdered babies inn the most abhorrent way thinkable based on some bollocks conspiracy theories spouted in the New Yorker of all things should be ashamed of themselves.

She was found guilty. She was sentenced to whole life terms. And she has been denied leave to appeal.

And not once has she ever shown any remorse, any emotion, even any sympathy for those babies.

What do you mean “The New Yorker of all things”? The New Yorker is very highly regarded publication with a particularly solid reputation in investigative journalism for the past century. Their fact checking jobs are highly coveted and their process very rigorous. It is also a left wing publication. Smearing it as if it’s a tabloid rag doesn’t hold up. Argue against the points made if you can.

Mirabai · 24/05/2024 23:53

MsCheeryble · 24/05/2024 23:12

But neither of those are new pieces of information. The defence said they were going to call their own expert at the beginning of the case, and then didn't call him. That can only have been because they realised the expert's evidence wasn't going to help their case, and almost certainly would have helped to convict Letby.

The application to throw out Evans' evidence was fully reported at the time. I strongly suspect it formed part of the appeal grounds as they are said to relate to applications which the judge didn't accede to, and if so it appears that the Court of Appeal judges consider the judge didn't get that wrong.

Clearly the numerous experts involved in this case didn't see what you see. Do your qualifications outweigh theirs? When did you see the medical evidence in this case?

That’s not what I was referring to as new information. Which was:

  • Hearing from the expert witness himself, what he was preparing to testify. During the trial all we knew was that the defence didn’t call all its expert witnesses, a decision I thought was a mistake at the time and now I think an even bigger one. Why he was not called is merely speculative.
  • The precise detail of the judge’s comments about Dewi Evans’ testimony in the previous case. Turned out to be spot on about his evidence in this one.

The medical evidence was presented to the trial, it’s also logged online. It was shaky. There’s no hard evidence of murder in any of the cases, and no hard evidence to link LL either.

kkloo · 24/05/2024 23:54

IAmThe1AndOnly · 24/05/2024 16:22

The people defending a child murderer who murdered babies inn the most abhorrent way thinkable based on some bollocks conspiracy theories spouted in the New Yorker of all things should be ashamed of themselves.

She was found guilty. She was sentenced to whole life terms. And she has been denied leave to appeal.

And not once has she ever shown any remorse, any emotion, even any sympathy for those babies.

Somehow missing the point completely there that the people who are defending her believe that it's possible that she is innocent. I don't think anyone thinks she's guilty and is defending her. So no one is 'defending a child murderer who murdered babies'.

Kittybythelighthouse · 24/05/2024 23:57

IAmThe1AndOnly · 24/05/2024 16:22

The people defending a child murderer who murdered babies inn the most abhorrent way thinkable based on some bollocks conspiracy theories spouted in the New Yorker of all things should be ashamed of themselves.

She was found guilty. She was sentenced to whole life terms. And she has been denied leave to appeal.

And not once has she ever shown any remorse, any emotion, even any sympathy for those babies.

In addition, holding our justice system to account, ensuring it has the rigorous high standards it should have in order to protect ALL of us, is not “defending a baby killer”. If there was a miscarriage of justice (and I don’t hold an opinion either way) we ALL should care about that because it affects every single one of us, including our children and their futures. If she is as guilty as you think you shouldn’t be afraid of hard questions. It’s very troubling to me that some people are clearly very attached to the idea of her guilt and don’t seem to care about what all this potentially says about our justice system. It’s not about just Lucy Letby.

TheFunHasGone · 24/05/2024 23:57

kkloo · 24/05/2024 23:47

That's a bizarre comment.

Generally people do accept the verdicts of the jury, for this particular case some believe that it might be potential miscarriage of justice for various valid reasons. The fact that people don't often think that cases are potential miscarriages of justice should tell you that there's something different about this one.

Well the difference is Wayne cousins put in a guilty plea and with Ian Huntley there was dna evidence

You aren't likely to get that with a serial killer nurse

MsCheeryble · 24/05/2024 23:57

WorriedRelative · 24/05/2024 22:41

That rather depends upon whether the directions given to the jury were correct and whether the evidence was put forward with honesty and integrity, and whether all kinds of legal process and procedure was correctly followed.

You only have to look at a few miscarriages of justice to see that it really isn't that simple.

I am not saying she didn't do it but there is an appeals process for a reason and we should respect that.

Don't forget many of those sub postmasters were found guilty by a jury who heard the evidence.

The very experienced and competent lawyers acting for Letby have put forward four grounds of appeal based, according to the reports, on arguments that the judge should have allowed certain applications which he dismissed. It's reasonable to assume therefore that they accept the rest of the judge's directions were correct, that the evidence was put forward with honesty and integrity, and that in all cases other than those four instances legal process and procedure was correctly followed. Three very experienced Court of Appeal judges, having heard those points thoroughly argued, have decided that they are not valid grounds of appeal.

Simply pointing darkly to very different miscarriage of justice cases and saying that because they happened, there could have been a miscarriage of justice here, is just not a logical or remotely convincing argument.

kkloo · 25/05/2024 00:01

Nat6999 · 24/05/2024 22:47

Why did the babies stop dying when she was removed? It can't have been a coincidence.

Didn't they downgrade the hospital at that point also so that they weren't dealing with intensive care and that women who were giving birth before X amount of weeks were sent to a different hospital instead?

Kittybythelighthouse · 25/05/2024 00:08

kkloo · 25/05/2024 00:01

Didn't they downgrade the hospital at that point also so that they weren't dealing with intensive care and that women who were giving birth before X amount of weeks were sent to a different hospital instead?

Yes. They did. It’s also important to note that stillbirths also rose during the same period and Letby did not work in the maternity ward. In addition, Letby was one of (I believe) only two nurses trained to neonatal ICU level, she lived on hospital grounds and was keen to take as much overtime as possible to save for a house. She racked up a LOT of shifts in comparison with her peers. With all of this in mind it doesn’t seem so surprising that she would be present for so many of these crisis scenarios. That said, “she was there so she must have done it” is faulty reasoning that has already led to two almost identical miscarriages of justice (Italy and The Netherlands) with both nurses being eventually exonerated.

MsCheeryble · 25/05/2024 00:10

The insulin cases were charged as attempted murders but both babies recovered.

Yes, that's why they were charged as attempted murder rather than murder. What's the point of this comment?

The judge told the jury they could still find LL guilty even if they didn't know how the babies were killed.

Yes, that's correct in lw.

One jury member admitted that they'd already decided LL was guilty before they heard the evidence.

When?

Lilacdew · 25/05/2024 00:11

IAmThe1AndOnly · 24/05/2024 22:18

So if the poor love is innocent then who do people think murdered those babies?

Who deliberately injected at least one of them with insulin?

I seriously cannot believe that a woman is found guilty of a crime which she clearly committed, and then people read some conspiracy bollocks article and suddenly their eyes have been opened and they think they know better after a snapshot read as opposed to a six months trial.

You do know don’t you that there are convincing articles about pretty much every crime that has ever been committed calling for charges to be dropped against some of the world’s most heinous criminals?

Just to be clear - I certainly don't suddenly think she's innocent. But I followed the trial at the time and on the basis of all the reports I saw and heard, was convinced of her guilt. A lawyer friend of mine thought her trial was a travesty and I was surprised by their reaction at the time. But I never came across the material outlined in the NY article. And a PP is right to say the jury who sat for 10 months hearing evidence are likely to have a more accurate understanding than anyone just reading up online. But the NY information shocked me - the whole place was way more chaotic, unsanitary, understaffed and run by massively under-qualified and over-worked exhausted people when it needed to be at the top of its game for such delicate babies to survive. It has raised questions.

MsCheeryble · 25/05/2024 00:16

ShiftySandDune · 24/05/2024 23:05

It’s bizarre to me that some of the comments here read as if juries can’t get it wrong. The recent show with two juries seeing the same evidence and coming to two totally different conclusions, with much of their process showing how much group think and peer pressure comes into play, really hits home about how utterly flawed a jury system is. That’s not to say it isn’t the best we currently have, but best doesn’t mean infallible.

Personally, I think there is a lot of doubt in the LL case. There is seemingly no motive and no direct evidence, with plenty of potential incorrect conclusions.

I also think this will end up going down as a miscarriage of justice down the line.

That was really quite a laughably poor experiment. Taking two hand-picked "juries" who have been chosen specifically for a TV programme and putting them in front of a camera simply bears no resemblance to a real trial process.

No-one claims that the system is infallible. But if you know anything about this case, you will know that the prosecution put together an incredibly thorough case which was also explored very thoroughly over the course of a ten month trial. The fact that the jurors took their jobs very seriously is shown by the difference in verdicts.

SpiritAdder · 25/05/2024 00:18

MsCheeryble · 24/05/2024 23:33

But there was forensic evidence, a fact which the NYT article artistically left out. For instance, evidence of babies having more air or insulin in their systems than could have been produced naturally, babies splinting which is not something that happens naturally. You may think it is bad science, but there were no actual scientists in the relevant disciplines who came forward before or during the trial who were prepared to attack it, and indeed it is reasonable to assume that none came forward afterwards, otherwise their evidence would have formed part of the appeal.

There was a quote from the article re the insulin and it pointed out the blood tests done were not done to the standard required for forensic evidence and in the case of one baby, it would have required Letby to have snuck insulin into an IV bag that another nurse would have randomly selected from storage with dozens of other bags as the baby deteriorated too many hours after Letby had left the hospital for her to have tampered with he baby’s current IV bag.

Saschka · 25/05/2024 00:20

Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain · 24/05/2024 19:15

That’s what I read too.

For me, as a doctor, that doesn’t seem far fetched at all. You are in the drug cupboard with the insulin, it is trivially easy to open the fridge and inject it into the TPN. You as the murderer then get to play Russian roulette with which baby will die.

If you are sick enough to murder a newborn baby then Facebook stalk his parents’ grief, you are sick enough to enjoy killing babies at random by contaminating their feed and waiting to see who dies.

If you are a doctor concerned that somebody has received exogenous insulin, you send the sample to your local lab. You don’t find a forensic lab and send it to them unless the police are involved, and the police aren’t going to be involved unless there some evidence of a crime. So that part also seemed like it was written by somebody who has never worked in healthcare.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.