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.

Yes this

Doesn’t it just - that’s the conclusion some people will come to. And that’s on the defence.

There was actually a comparable in case in Aus in a natal unit. They got as far as interviewing doctors and nurses individually - ie looking for someone who might be responsible - when the hospital called in an epidemiologist. He ascertained that an infection, that had occurred in a completely different area of the hospital at some distance, had passed through the aircon system and infected the babies. I don’t recall if there were any deaths or it was simply unexplained sickness. But without that epidemiologist - the cause of the illness may never have been established.

It should also be noted that one of the criticisms of the CQC’s report into Countess of Chester - was poor infection prevention and control. And clinical equipment was not always clean and fit for purpose.

@Kittybythelighthouse That they didn’t is really quite extraordinary. There is something to this and that something isn’t the defence’s laziness or lack of investment, which is what your explanation would uncontroversially point towards. Even if this was why they didn’t call anyone in her defence this would mean she did not have a proper defence and that in itself would lead to very serious doubts about the trial as well as the verdict

Yep.

One of the things that struck me about this case was how shocked and appalled Lucy Letby's friends were. If she did commit these murders and had such a split personality, wouldn’t her close friends have sensed that something was "off"? Some of these people were even her flatmates for many years.

It's insane to call the plumber but not call a more expert witness who would be able to explain the likely contaminants. They could have had an expert witness going on for hours or maybe even days about the pathogens and possible effects to try to throw up some sort of doubt, but nope didn't happen...why?

Yes, it is actually unheard of for a serial killer to have literally no one sharing bad vibes, red flags, or past suspect behaviour from their life previous to any murders. Even Ted Bundy, famously well liked and charismatic, had many many people from his past coming forward with stories of his past dodgy and worrying behaviour. He could present a charismatic front, but the mask had slipped many times. No one has any such stories about LL, or if they do they haven’t come forward.

That’s what her friend who’s interviewed has said, that she didn’t think it was her and would not believe it was her until LL herself admitted to her her guilt, if she was guilty.

Not read many replies apart from the last few and I agree with most of them. I watched the documentary recently called the jury and it was the same (mock) trial shown to 2 different jury’s. One found then defendant guilty and the other innocent. It was eye opening.

I’ve also watched a couple of crime documentaries from the US series and one particular case was striking as the judge didn’t allow evidence that would almost certainly have swayed the jurors opinion, thus changing the verdict. The defendant got 33 years and I was astonished. Obviously I’ve got no understanding as to why the judge deemed evidence that would favour the defendant (that would certainly make me think twice before convicting) as invalid but I was shocked as I think it would make people think twice.

There is something about LL case that has never sat right with me. The main reason is I just can’t believe that someone would do such an evil thing, particularly given how ordinary she was in every respect. I find it so shocking that I’m inclined to think she actually didn’t do it. I’m certainly on the fence in that I wouldn’t be shocked if in years to come it turns out she was innocent

I do think maybe there was some sort of cover up, that’s all I can think of. So if defence want to call a witness (I’ve been one for a friend in the past) then usually there’s pressure on you (I didn’t want to do it as we’d fallen out) to be a witness by the police.

So in LL’s case again if someone was a witness for her but as I said before was eg a colleague then it’s easy for them not to be a witness because, well they’d either be disciplined or ostracised. If it was experts as the names of the people given in NYT article then no idea why they couldn’t or didn’t give evidence.

From what I know (worked in law firms as admin) your client who you defend, you go to the ends of the earth with barristers, witnesses and the solicitor acting themselves. But the prosecution, there was a very strong case to prosecute at all costs. Therefore from my POV LL is a very easy scapegoat. I’m not really in touch with my old lawyer colleagues but most of them could quite easily tell in high profile media cases who they thought were guilty. And these lawyers weren’t criminal. But once you’ve studied and read so much case law then you’re bound to know more than a lay person.

Yes very easy scapegoat. It's such an uncomfortable case. I am profoundly impressed by the loyalty of a group of her close friends – crucially including her former colleague Janet Cox – who continue to believe in her innocence and to say so. Under the circumstances this requires considerable courage.

That interview with the classmate that was mentioned earlier was just odd.

He described how she always wanted to do good things and be helpful and loved getting praise and hated criticism and always wanted to be seen as good.

But then made a jump that her career path wasn't as exciting for her as she had hoped. He then said something about how she would have tried to harm the baby so that she could save the baby and get praise, and then accidentally killed one and started to derive the excitement from that and so that wouldn't be out of character.

HOW is that NOT out of character? I know lots of people who love to be as helpful and nice as possible....it would be massively out of character for them to start doing bad things so that they could get praise by helping or that whatever it was they were getting psychologically from always being nice and helpful was somehow replaced by doing bad things and getting a feeling of power from that.

Also I would imagine that even for babies who have a very uneventful time in the NICU the staff there get lots of praise and gratitude from the parents.

Actually I don't know if it was a he or she, just that it was narrated by a man.

I think most of us are coming to this conclusion. I mean you get a gut feeling don’t you?

eg the Wests, no one would ever think they were innocent, even Rose, though she denied a lot of her involvement and guilt, but you can see, they were, just looking at them. LL for whatever reason, she has an open face, honest even. Unless she’s fooled us all again!

It was narrated by a man but actually sounded more like a woman’s views. Unless the man was gay. And someone like LL could easily wind up a peer who’s a woman in secondary school the wrong way, jealousy etc reasons.

Oh well that says it all then , she has an open honest face unlike Fred and Rose west who you could tell were guilty by just looking at them 🤦‍♀️

I think this is a really strange take if genuine. I don’t agree that “many of us” are coming to any such conclusion for any such reason. You’re the first person here to say anything like this. That perspective is as troubling to me as that of those who are hell bent on guilt no matter what the cost is. Both positions are unsettling and illogical.

I know very little about the LL case, beyond what was reported in the news headlines, so this thread has been surprising. But I just wanted to comment on the blind faith that people here seem to have in trial by jury.
I've done jury service twice, recently and a couple of decades ago. The first case has bothered me for years and I would be terrified to be tried by jury, I didn't back out of the second trial in the hope that it would set my mind at rest that things are different now. It didn't and they aren't.
A jury - a bunch of random
people with their own pre-conceived ideas and prejudices with varying levels of intelligence and some unpleasant characters amongst them - one man was an awful bully and another had some strange theories. It's such a hit and miss way to decide someone's future.

Like Christopher Jeffries you mean? Plenty of people suddenly had a gut feeling that he was a wrong’un when he was arrested. Except it turned out he wasn’t.

Harold Shipman was a much loved GP.
Someone I know is best friends with Christopher Halliwell’s son. Absolutely none of his friends or family expected him to be a murderer.

And the list goes on.

I mean if we’re going on gut feelings I think she’s guilty as fuck. And she’s beeen found guilty and I hope she rots in jail and then hell when the time comes.

but if conviction was based on gut feeling rather than evidence then a lot of criminals would walk free, and a lot of people would be convicted purely for being different.

Kathleen Folbigg
Lindy Chamberlain
Sally Clark
Angela Cannings
Ian and Angela Gay

Weren't they also found guilty at some point?

Here's some links to a toxic major hospital building at Glasgow very sadly causing deaths.

Assume this is what the LL defence was suggesting they brought the plumber guy in...he wasn't there to talk about the medical stuff but the possibility of an infection caused by building conditions (amongst other pressures)

But this would mean massive liability for the hospital presumably.

https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/nhs-glasgow-infection-scandal-hospital-27048480?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

I don't have gut feeling about LL's guilt or innocence. I have no idea if she committed the crimes she's convicted of or not but every time I read a key piece of information which seems to indicate her guilt I have about a dozen questions I need answering before that evidence seems significant.

It's possible some of those questions would be answered if I had the time to read the court transcripts but typically court reporters write up the edited highlights of the days court proceedings and they tend to include key pieces of evidence for either the defence or prosecution and how that evidence stood up under cross examination. There just seems to be so much evidence for the prosecution which was not challenged by the defence.

For example: a pharmacy technician was questioned about the number of vials of insulin supplied to the unit in two consecutive years. In the first year it was three and in the following year it was six. From the prosecutions point of view this is supposed to make us think that the unit needed more insulin because babies were being poisoned but without further information it suggests no such thing. I have about a dozen questions on that piece of evidence alone.

Some more links. Sewage, water flooding leading to infections leading to cover-up.

Now a Corporate Homicide investigation.

NHS board named in Glasgow hospital corporate homicide probe - BBC News

I suppose a description of a flooded sink just makes me think "annoying" or "expensive plumber needed" (which just speaks of the privilege we have in the UK).

But I guess when patients have that level of vulnerability it makes all the difference.

Hospital child infection deaths 'biggest scandal of devolution era' - BBC News

Witness Statement of Professor John Cuddihy - redacted version.pdf (hospitalsinquiry.scot)

Here's some analysis of the plumbing, from a Substack blog

LL Part 3: Death already lived in the NICU Environment (substack.com)

(I echo the writers comments, in that this is ALL just information and opinions, and people should make their own minds up).

I worked in a maternity unit once where we had pseudomonas bacteria in the plumbing system/pipes. The neonatal unit was also affected. I worked there for years and the bacteria was never eradicated. We had to change some procedures such as no longer using tap water to clean down vulvas after suturing. But ultimately women were still showering in this water, we as staff were hand washing in it.

interesting article here about how it affects and kills neonates. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2692859/

I don’t recall if they said in the trial if such tests of the water had been carried out.

It IS what they were suggesting but they should also have brought in other experts to explain the possible medical consequences.

Their client was a woman who was essentially fighting for her life in court, they knew she was facing a whole life order, but they only called the plumber and then left it at that. Bizarre.

That's why I thought the whole thing was incredibly odd when I first heard....

...no real evidence she did anything, then like you say no defence.

It felt like a little bit of playground gossip, and then the guilty verdict.

They go round in circles

"IF you assume she was guilty then she was clearly goading the parents.

She was goading the parents, therefore that counts as evidence she was guilty".

The media had been running photos of LL for a while, so there was clearly a planned build up of information and deals being done (a bit like the New Yorker clarified - they were clearly making deals with the media for documentaries etc).

But then... no actual proof? Here's our person she's guilty if you say anything else you're evil.

Did you or anyone else pick up on the judge sort of directing the jury? Anyone comment on that?