Lucy Letby denied leave to appeal

[Viviennemary]

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.

I felt that as there were no incriminating searches (which I find unusual) they had to focus on any searches and put emphasis on that. Like the supposed codes in her diary.

Also to add - the fact she searched for so many other people - that was left out so the searches for parents wasn’t in context . They weren’t the only people she searched for

Trust me, the holes in the theories these two put forward are so gaping that that just isn't realistically likely.

I'm not saying it's totally impossible that further evidence might turn up that changes things, but there's nothing that has been produced so far that suggests these verdicts are in any way unsafe.

That simply wouldn't account for the evidence of babies splinting, having artificial insulin in their system etc, let alone the fact that these events were all happening when Letby was on shift.

Normally I'd agree with you about the reliability of the New York Times, but for the fact that the author refers to Gill and Adams uncritically and seems to be unaware that they have been pretty comprehensively debunked. I really don't think she's done her research here.

Yet nobody ever saw her harm a child , and even when under suspicion still she was never seen harming a child ? Something is just not adding up

They almost certainly did see her, but didn't know what she was doing. If you see a specialist nurse injecting a child, you have no way of knowing whether there is an air bubble in the syringe; when you see her hanging a bag of nutrition, you have no way of knowing she's already put insulin into it. Murderers do tend to hide their tracks.

I don’t know if this has been posted yet but here is a link to the article:

https://londonletter.substack.com/p/special-edition-the-lucy-letby-new

It’s slightly difficult to read as is photos of the print copy but still readable

I’m just very uneasy about it something seems wrong and I know that people need and want an answer sometimes but the wrong answer is as bad as no answer

Yes, she clearly had a pattern of behaviour of searching people she met. Tbh I do the same. It's very different to 'she ONLY' searched for the family of the children who died

The one thing I would say re Letby is there are interviews with a former high school friend and colleague of hers.

Now, as I said before, this person could be prejudiced against her but it’s interesting to see how he (I assumed it was a he) was biased against her, due to interactions. It made for really interesting listening.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WH8wbJpFTs0

Re the searching the parents social media, I wondered if she might have been one of those people you get in public facing roles that doesn't have clear boundaries between their work and personal life. They're mostly going to be harmless if possibly quite lonely people.

Very true. I know though that when I worked as a legal secretary I’d sometimes Google our clients especially the super wealthy ones.

I had a clear boundary between my work and social life and sometimes you’re just curious.

There was no evidence of exogenous insulin - that was an inference based on a theory made after the fact.

There are also interesting interviews with other friends who remain convinced of her innocence and continue to stand with her

Yet that conversation describes an entirely ordinary teenager.

Not really. If it’s the same one I watched it’s highly critical of her.

I know that. I’m trying to be balanced.

The one linked above is just audio, with the ‘interviewer’ also speaking the words of the classmate to preserve their anonymity. Yes, it’s critical in tone, but the behaviour being described is deeply ordinary — that the teenage Lucy Letby liked gossip, sometimes hogged attention, did well academically, was a bit of a teacher’s pet, was weepy, responded badly to criticism etc etc.

Her defence was very strange too - literally nobody as a witness except a plumber I recall ? Which I thought at the time was a negative indicator but then I read last week about nhs whistleblowers being targeted and persecuted and I now feel was that the culture at this particular unit ? Were others just too scared to speak out ?

It's The New Yorker magazine, not the New York Times. I would think given she has interviewed and been in contact with multiple doctors and nurses who were around at the time, working in that hospital, and has read and analyzed thousands of pages of court transcript, it is unfair to say she hasn't done her research.

Gill and Adams are merely referenced in one paragraph in this long piece.

The New Yorker article falls apart fairly quickly if you followed the trial at all. Why would you fail to mention that while there was a temporal correlation with the insertion of the line medical imaging showed it was in an OK position (although not perfect) and didn’t cause their death. Similarly, the baby with pneumonia was being treated appropriately and recovering well and their sudden collapse was incongruous with their condition leading up to it. The journalist has the court transcripts. They know that.

We would be much better focusing on the failings at CoC that caused them to ignore concerns that something odd was happening as early as June/July 2015 and continue to ignore those even after their own internal investigation had concluded that the first insulin incident could only have happened by deliberate tampering.

IAmThe1AndOnly · Yesterday 17:25
bibop · Yesterday 17:18
**
No-one on this thread has said she must be innocent. I am saying there's a small chance she could be. I thought the New Yorker article was interesting. They read all the court transcripts. Did you?

**
The jury were there, the judge was there, the CPS saw everything.
**
If you’re going to put your faith in some tacky trash mag we might as well abolish the justice system and put all cases in the daily mail instead and let the public decide.”

This.

I'm pretty disgusted with this thread. It really demonstrates the toxic side of social media/ boards like this.

You're all making uninformed assertions and discussing really sensitive issues as though they were an episode of Eastenders.

This issue is the subject of an ongoing legal process and there are real people involved in really difficult, complex and tragic circumstances.

Shame on you all.

Report it then. I’m not seeing what you apparently are - but if I was disgusted by a thread and felt it was in poor taste I wouldn’t keep it active, personally.

If you’re that affected then take a step back and don’t read threads about it ?

We are allowed to discuss this case, we are allowed our own opinions. It’s not a clear cut case it’s very unusual in many areas. It’s not toxic to consider all possibilities. It doesn’t change the current legal ruling. We are lucky we live in a country where we can discuss such things and discussion shouldn’t be shut down. Of course it’s horrendous for the families involved - it’s heartbreaking and I don’t think anyone has been disrespectful on this thread.