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 would like to thank @Kittybythelighthouse , @Mirabai and @kkloo (and others) for the incredibly detailed and intelligent posts. It’s really been such an eye opening thread.

Seconding this. So many thoughtful, well argued and rational posts from the above and others.

Even if we knew for sure that she is guilty that department still sounds like it was a complete shitshow.

I agree with PP on the notes. I don't know how you'd test this hypothesis ethically but I'd expect if you put people under a long period of suspicion of a very serious crime you'd get all sorts of severe psychological effects like people doubting their memories.

Thanks @Lilacbluebells I too really appreciate those posters’ comments and yours as well. It’s been a very interesting thread.

There is something called ‘the halo effect’ wherein people tend to ascribe positive traits to attractive people. However, I believe it has been established (I don’t have the research to hand, perhaps there’s a social scientist amongst us) that the halo effect only works up to a point and that there is a reverse halo effect when, for example, a young attractive woman is accused of behaving in ways that are in opposition to our expectations for her gender. We are quick to condemn and assume guilt in those circumstances. In other words, a stain like this (a nurse accused of murdering babies) would be very hard to shake off indeed. Tabloids, in particular, absolutely love a pretty-yet-evil woman story. That said, I don’t think she’s an extraordinarily attractive woman. I think she’s good looking, but ordinary. A girl next door type I guess.

What I’ve found striking about this thread is that those of us who have misgivings about the trail and by extension, her guilt, have not mentioned her appearance. Those who mention it have been saying that we think she is innocent because of her appearance (which at best, is a bizarre extrapolation). This should lead to the question as to why they are linking her appearance with her innocence/guilt at all. I think there may be something to the suggestion that once a stereotypically pretty person is convicted of a crime, their appearance is incorporated into their persona of guilt (think black widows, for example). It’s almost as if those raising her appearance are trying to have a ‘ta-da!’ moment of ‘looks can be deceiving’ because they themselves associate appearance with morality. Monsters should look monstrous and they are subverting this association to try and appease themselves (and their own intellect, frequently).

I’m willing to accept there’s an element of feeling a connection to her which is why I find this case disturbing. I’m older than she is but still she could be me, or one of my friends. I’ve also been accused and investigated at work once, a long time ago now but I know how things can be manipulated to look a certain way.

I brought it up and I have misgivings.

I have to be honest I don’t feel any connection to her at all. I started following the case in my lunch break as I thought I might gain insight into a disturbed mind. I kept waiting for the hard evidence.. which never came. So this was not the case I was expecting it to be.

I would never denigrate another woman’s appearance particularly in these circs, but she’s not someone I would have labelled “pretty” tbh. I don’t think her appearance has anything to do with it.

Thank you @Kittybythelighthouse I will look into the halo/reverse halo effect.

It was the notes, and what was being claimed about them, that first caught my attention too.
It is a normal part of CBT to be encouraged to write down negative thoughts about yourself so that you can challenge them. For most people it’s going to be things like ‘I’m a failure’ ‘nobody loves me’ but it’s not hard to imagine someone suffering reactive depression because they have been accused of involvement in babies’ deaths, through incompetence or malice, is going to be having thoughts like ‘I’m evil.’ ‘I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them. ’ The idea that that can be taken as a confession that she actually is evil is absurd.
Like other posters I assumed there must be lots of other evidence and was astonished at how little there was, especially when the flaws in gathering statistical data became evident. And the repeated denial from people trying to close down discussion that statistical reasoning came into the trial- the moment you start saying ‘she was on duty in all those shifts, what are the chances of that?’ you are using statistical reasoning so you had better make sure your methods of gathering data are watertight. And no matter what the truth is regarding her guilt or innocence, they were not.

Yes, the prosecutor’s opening statement literally started and finished with the staff rota and the ‘fact’ that LL was there for all of these events. It’s very disingenuous to pretend the stats weren’t part of the case.

For me, when I first heard of this case my instant reaction was revulsion because of the nature of it. I didn’t even want to read about it. I avoided it as much as possible. I assumed she was guilty based on what news I did see, headlines etc. I certainly didn’t see her photo and think she must be innocent.

I happened upon the infamous New Yorker article when I was on holiday and was gobsmacked. Then I looked into it in depth and my jaw hasn’t left the floor since. It’s astonishing that something like this can happen in 2024. I find it genuinely scary. I would find it scary if she was ugly/old/whatever, too.

Our justice system needs a massive overhaul. I don’t think the adversarial system works for cases like this at all. In France, I believe, trials are about drilling down into the truth. Over here it’s okay to lie or omit the truth as long as you get away with it at the time. It’s like an absurd game.

Meant to say thanks for thanking us and I’m sorry you went through that at work. It must have been horrendous ❤️

In the Sally Clarke trial, Roy Meadow cited his self-serving statistics which reinforced 'Meadow's Law',

'Meadow told jurors the probability that both boys died naturally from “cot death”, or sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), was 1 in 73 million – a figure that many thought was pivotal in Clark’s conviction. The figure was later disputed by the Royal Statistical Society and other SIDS experts. Taking into account the influence genetics and environment, the probability of a second case of SIDS in the same family was put at about 1 in 200.'

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7683-top-paediatrician-guilty-of-professional-misconduct/

While the judge in that case told the jury to disregard the sensational claim, the verdict demonstrated that they found that difficult/impossible to do.

Fictionalised crime shows on TV, demonstrate investigators with open minds, pondering lots of competing theories, often building a case against one suspect before additional crimes or evidence reveal the actual culprit. That's great for filling up an hour's programme, but recent miscarriages of justice suggest that a culprit is is selected early in the process and evidence that fits that theory is gathered to prove the point, while other information is ignored.

Andrew Malkinson's conviction was quashed in 2023 after the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) declined to grant him new appeal hearings in 2012 and again in 2020. This is worrying since the CCRC was created to remedy miscarriages of justice such as the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. As with the Subpostmasters, there is no speedy process for compensation.

The Jeremy Bamber case is being reviewed after dozens of failings by Essex Police. Like some other cases, new evidence hinges on someone having the time, opportunity and inclination to investigate objectively.

The Letby case like the Clark case before it, makes some uneasy because there may be no actual crime. I cannot imagine the pressure and strain on parents whose children have undergone a postmortem, had the death declared to be due to natural causes before a novel theory makes their child a murder victim.

Once emotion is taken squadron this case there does seem to be concern and it does seem like a case where a miscarriage of justice can't be ruled out. I think a lot of people who had a visceral reaction to the case are now starting to rethink and the possibility of an innocent woman in jail is going to sit uneasily with many.

From the Daily Mail:

'Line Of Duty writer Jed Mercurio is reportedly set to create a drama based on the child serial killer Lucy Letby, with Sophie Turner and Jodie Comer in the running.

The series aims to 'explore' the 'important story' with Jed enlisting the help of hospital consultant paediatrician Dr Ravi Jayaram, according to reports.

A TV insider told The Sun: 'Jed sees this as an important story that should not just be chronicled in a drama but also explored.
'It aims to try to explain how her crimes could have gone on for so long and how others — particularly Dr Jayaram — tried to act when suspicions were raised.'

For a number of individuals, this case is a gift that keeps on giving to some.

This is an interesting development for a number of reasons. In the case of Jeremy Bamber, Essex Police gave the dramatist access to some of the 300,000+ pages of evidence that they failed to disclose to the defence. There is other evidence that they still refuse to release.
Revelations made through the drama led to fresh applications for appeal and the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has ruled against the force that secured his conviction.
It concluded that Essex Police breached its statutory duty by not referring 29 serious complaints to the IOPC about how senior officers handled the case.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is looking at fresh evidence that was submitted by Bamber’s lawyers last October.
In a letter to Bamber, seen by The Mail on Sunday, the IOPC said: 'Having considered the nature of your complaints, there are matters raised in relation to allegations that officers lied about evidence, altered witness statements, passed evidence to a third party, withheld and concealed evidence and tampered with a crime scene.’
https://www.insidejustice.co.uk/news/jeremy-bamber-says-police-watchdog-ruling-could-see-him-freed-from-jail/298

Something I hadn't previously been aware of, there is a useful link if you want to know more about a police service that you have concerns about/interest in/may be interested in applying to here:
https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/publications-library

Again this doesn't mean that any conviction is necessarily unsafe, just that short-cuts and cherry-picking reflect poorly on the justice system and its publicly funded players.

If it's true that is sick. I don't think actresses such as Jodie Comer and Sophie Taylor would agree to play such a part of a wicked baby serial killer.

Those actresses are far too pretty to portray Letby.

Someone commented Gemma Whelan looks like Letby, and while that might be true it's still sick.

Yes recently seen Cheshire Police advertising within the last week or so for detectives related to this.

Hopefully we will find out next week.

This is the weirdest comment I’ve read. What is wrong with you?

This is the weirdest comment I’ve read. What is wrong with you?

Agree.

Who would want to play this part. Then again it is the tabloids reporting it so probably untrue.

I pray for the day the families can get piece from this nasty piece or work who is Britain's worst serial killer.

Sorry. *Peace. (Auto-correct!)

My sentiments entirely.

Surely that's not

Oh god, no way that would be awful X