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 did.

oh and as for not keeping the thread active, the more people post on it, the quicker it will fill up.

This thread is like the Lucy Letby appreciation society.

That’s not quite true IIRC. There were concerns about insulin at the time which was why a blood sample was sent to Liverpool. It was the Liverpool lab that suggested the insulin levels were so high that it was likely to be exogenous insulin. But by this point the baby had fully recovered so further testing would have showed nothing. That’s the point they carried out their own investigation into the incident.

Letvy herself doesn’t seem to dispute the insulin event. Her argument is it wasn’t her and she’s surprised they disposed of the IV bag because she thought they should have kept it.

Generally sceptical about US publications (and news outlets) for the reasons you highlighted. They are often agenda driven. Fox News, or its opposite MSNBC, they are opinion based and devoid of impartiality or credibility. That lunatic Ben Shapiro who came on the BBC and accused Andrew Neil of all people of being a leftie (after Neil had dismantled him); they view everything from being left or right as their media is based on opposing sides.

Would wait before there's a more credible source before commenting on Letby.

Yeah. And my opinion is that the people publicly defending this convicted murderer have not an ounce of compassion for the innocent victims.

You might be interested in this case.

Kathleen Folbigg - Wikipedia

Quite the opposite actually. I know they want an answer but they need the correct answer not a potential scapegoat

American media is always looking for a cause celebre to take on socialised medicine. It’s odd that - apart from Obama - privatised medicine is the one thing they can agree upon across the aisle.

The last thing the USA wants is a cohesion among the general population. Especially for socialised medicine. If they needed to fund healthcare the American war machine would rapidly lose its funding. And so much of the economy depends on the military.

I lived in Canada for 28 years, and it’s the one constant in the USA.

I am wondering what people would consider a "more credible source".

Others may have posted, but ...

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240513112618/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20240513112618/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it

It really isn’t like the LL appreciation society. I think a few of us aren’t as convinced of her guilt as we were.

There are significant issues with the evidence presented, medical conclusions from tests not carried out and disclosure. A VPN is required for the New Yorker article which is extensive and well-researched.
Many convictions start with investigators identifying an 'obvious' suspect and then cherry-picking evidence to support that case and failing to disclose inconvenient truths to the defence.
Clive Freeman, Sally Clark and Jeremy Bamber were convicted on the evidence of pathologists airing pet theories and poor levels of disclosure - so far, only one of those has been overturned.
Those sentenced to 'whole of life tariffs' or who end up serving them due to maintaining their innocence need to be dealt with in a more transparently just process.

I followed the trial closely and I disagree.

I noticed on a Reddit thread that most people thought this friend was not credible.

No artificial insulin was found in their systems.

It’s the New Yorker. Not the New York Times. Two completely different publications.

There was nothing in the article which shed any real doubt IMO.

The evidence presented in a 10 month trial where Letby was found guilty and her defence team had the opportunity to raise any issues is good enough for me

I listened to this and thought she sounded like a pretty ordinary 18 year old being remembered by another 18 year old who didn't particularly like her.

Utter bollocks.

I can question whether or not there has been a miscarriage of justice and still have lots of sympathy with the possible victims. I have every sympathy with parents who have lost their babies.

The question for me is whether or not there were crimes committed here or is Letby a possible scapegoat for the manifold failings within a seriously under funded and under resourced NHS?

It is clear from the New Yorker article and from this thread that I am not alone.

No one is claiming Letby is not guilty - few would dare given the slightest chance she could be guilty.

I think there is so much reasonable doubt here but then you have to trust the jury who sat through all the evidence.

However, it is very concerning how lacking in critical thought and objective thinking some people on this thread seem to be. If these type of people made up the jury then it could easily be a miscarriage of justice. Comparing the Letby case to Wayne Couzens and Ian Huntley is ridiculous.

It is a fundamental of science that you can't cherry pick evidence to fit a predetermined theory and that is what appears to have been done.

It was very strongly pointed to by the high insulin levels found combined with low C peptide. If the insulin levels were natural, there would be accompanying high C peptide.

That's nice. I was asking about which publications people would consider "a more credible source" than The New Yorker. I'm still waiting for that list.

But the fact that the author cites them wholly uncritically throws really strong doubt on the quality of all her research.

It is one inference. But it was not the inference made at the time. And there was no actual evidence of babies “having artificial insulin in their system” as you claimed. That is simply incorrect.

That makes it all the less likely to be reliable.