Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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
Iwant2beJessicaFletcher · 24/05/2024 18:14

Very interesting article. I didn't have an opinion either way before reading it, but it certainly raises a lot of questions about how 'expert' some of the prosecution witnesses are.

FOJN · 24/05/2024 18:16

IAmThe1AndOnly · 24/05/2024 17:50

The details as to why she has been denied an appeal can’t be released until after the baby k trial.

But appeals are often based entirely on things like new evidence etc, it’s not just a case of saying “I was convicted the first time so you need to run through the whole thing again,” there has to be something compelling which will facilitate a retrial.

Or if her legal team can prove the judge in case made mistakes which is what they seem to be claiming.

Lilacdew · 24/05/2024 18:17

IAmThe1AndOnly · 24/05/2024 17:33

Not being distraught for herself is one thing.

But she stood in the courtroom with the parents of the babies who were killed. Parents who she claimed to have cried with after their babies died, parents who she went home and looked up on Facebook. And she showed not an ounce of emotion towards any of those parents.

She did show emotion to the parents! She cried a lot when babies were dying on her unit. She wrote kind cards to the parents. These have been made out to be cunning moves by some, but fellow nurses say they had total trust in her and found her reactions honest.

Bythe time it reached court, her emotions would have been absolutely blunted. If she was innocent, she'd already been imprisoned for ages, was deeply depressed, on medication that flattens all emotions, may well have been bullied by inmates and staff. She wouldn't, at that stage, be responding like she did in the first instance, she would be confused and shut down and deeply traumatised if she was innocent.

Totallymessed · 24/05/2024 18:17

IAmThe1AndOnly · 24/05/2024 17:25

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.

Clearly you haven't bothered to read the article. And if you had any idea of what you're talking about you would know the New Yorker is very far from being a "tacky trash mag".

CormorantStrikesBack · 24/05/2024 18:17

Lilacbluebells · 24/05/2024 16:09

It is an uncomfortable case.

I am not saying I’m convinced she’s innocent, far from it; but I’m not convinced she’s guilty either.

Same. I was surprised that someone could be convicted on what seems to me to be circumstantial evidence. Ie that she was always there……but if she worked so much overtime and was given the sickest babies due to her seniority then maybe that’s why? Plus the doubt raised by some over whether the deaths were actually murder or not.

MalibuBarbieDreamHouse · 24/05/2024 18:21

Very interesting article. I didn’t read much other than what on the news at the time of the trial as it hit way to close to home - having a preemie baby that was saved by nicu nurses myself.

The media made it seem very black and white- that this wicked woman had injected babies with insulin but if that article is factual, it really was more complex than that, and the insulin argument is definitely floored r.e. The timings, as the baby crashed several hours after letbys shift.

RafaistheKingofClay · 24/05/2024 18:21

iamwhatiam23 · 24/05/2024 17:57

@x2boys i never said i did know better i simply said i was unsure! But having seen how our legal system operates up close and knowing that jury's most certainly don't see the " whole picture" but a picture with lots of facts left out ( by both the prosecutors and defence) and knowing first hand that jury's most definitely do and have got it wrong, i would err on the side of caution! Also having worked for the NHS and knowing the whole culture of it absolutely nothing would surprise me! However as i said i don't know enough facts to say either way!

The hospital trust and managers to whom complaints were made about Lucy went to quite some length to cover up the issue. The best the staff on the unit could do was to switch her from nights to days and the pattern of unexpected and unusual deaths followed her.

The author of the New Yorker piece might have had access to the transcripts. They don’t seem to have been to interested in using them to report accurately.

usernother · 24/05/2024 18:21

Just read the NYT piece for the first time. I've also listened to the podcasts and watched programmes about the case. I don't think the NYT made clear the level of violence that had been used on some of the babies. I was also concerned at Letby's demeanour when arrested and interviewed. She didn't act like someone who was innocent imo. I think she's guilty

SydneyCarton · 24/05/2024 18:24

The Court of Appeal has said that the full judgment will be handed down in due course, which will be after the retrial (I assume). They have also said that the appeal revolved around four points where the trial judge refused to allow certain legal applications, so if the defence team intend to make those same applications in the retrial then it makes sense that they can’t be made public at this time.

GrumpyPanda · 24/05/2024 18:26

sandrapinchedmysandwich · 24/05/2024 14:05

This link doesn't work. I have read it is unaccessible from the UK

There's about a gazillion copies on archive. Try this one.
https://archive.ph/kSKU4

IAmThe1AndOnly · 24/05/2024 18:30

Totallymessed · 24/05/2024 18:17

Clearly you haven't bothered to read the article. And if you had any idea of what you're talking about you would know the New Yorker is very far from being a "tacky trash mag".

There’s no need to read the article.

She’s guilty.

She was found guilty in a court of law, not just of one murder, but several, and several attempted murders,

And the fact that not every case shows that clearly the jury did look at all the evidence, and found in each individual case.

But hey, continue to defend a sick twisted murderer on a public website.

Are you prepared to stand by your defence of her to any one of her victims’ parents who might happen on to this thread? Because this is a parenting site, and anyone could be reading it, including the parents of the babies she murdered.

Yesiamtiredactually · 24/05/2024 18:37

IncompleteSenten · 24/05/2024 16:13

I may be wrong but I don't think right to appeal is universal or automatic is it?
It has to be based on something that can be proven was wrong at the trial, or new evidence or something like that?

Exactly. I always used to think that everyone could appeal a ruling (like you can appeal the decision of a disciplinary at work etc) but that’s just not the case. There has to be something significant that wasn’t part of the original trial for an appeal to be heard. I really think the media could do a better job of making this clear.

Ponderingwindow · 24/05/2024 18:41

If that New Yorker article even accurately hints at the truth, every person should be terrified of being put on trial.

correlation is not evidence.

Being falsely accused of a horrific crime and incarcerated is enough to cause a mental breakdown in anyone and should not be used as evidence in court.

perhaps this woman is a horrific serial killer, but no on should be convicted without solid evidence

bfsham · 24/05/2024 18:49

Those who are convinced LL is innocent on this thread, please explain the insulin poisoning deaths. Anyone who listened to the podcast evidence week by week, knows that was the game over moment.

Lilacbluebells · 24/05/2024 18:53

I don’t think even one person here is convinced of her innocence, some of us aren’t totally convinced of her guilt. They aren’t the same things at all.

Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain · 24/05/2024 19:00

bfsham · 24/05/2024 18:49

Those who are convinced LL is innocent on this thread, please explain the insulin poisoning deaths. Anyone who listened to the podcast evidence week by week, knows that was the game over moment.

If you read the NYT article (and I skim read it) it said something about how hard it would be to tamper with the insulin. At least in one of the cases.

Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain · 24/05/2024 19:02

Lilacbluebells · 24/05/2024 18:53

I don’t think even one person here is convinced of her innocence, some of us aren’t totally convinced of her guilt. They aren’t the same things at all.

That sums up my views too.

Lilacdew · 24/05/2024 19:09

Lilacbluebells · 24/05/2024 18:53

I don’t think even one person here is convinced of her innocence, some of us aren’t totally convinced of her guilt. They aren’t the same things at all.

That's my view too. There is some reasonable doubt if the NY piece is accurate.

FlyingOverAllOceans · 24/05/2024 19:12

Yep, I’m unsure of her guilt - this is the best way to sum it up, I have doubts.

I do feel in years to come we will find many many more people we’re not innocent in all of this tragedy.

Lilacdew · 24/05/2024 19:14

bfsham · 24/05/2024 18:49

Those who are convinced LL is innocent on this thread, please explain the insulin poisoning deaths. Anyone who listened to the podcast evidence week by week, knows that was the game over moment.

From the New Yorker:

Nearly a year after Operation Hummingbird began, a new method of harm was added to the list. In the last paragraph of a baby’s discharge letter, Brearey, who had been helping the police by reviewing clinical records, noticed a mention of an abnormally high level of insulin. When insulin is produced naturally by the body, the level of C-peptide, a substance secreted by the pancreas, should also be high, but in this baby the C-peptide was undetectable, which suggested that insulin may have been administered to the child.

The insulin test had been done at a Royal Liverpool University Hospital lab, and a biochemist there had called the Countess to recommend that the sample be verified by a more specialized lab. Guidelines on the Web site for the Royal Liverpool lab explicitly warn that its insulin test is “not suitable for the investigation” of whether synthetic insulin has been administered. Alan Wayne Jones, a forensic toxicologist at Linköping University, in Sweden, who has written about the use of insulin as a means of murder, told me that the test used at the Royal Liverpool lab is “not sufficient for use as evidence in a criminal prosecution.” He said, “Insulin is not an easy substance to analyze, and you would need to analyze this at a forensic laboratory, where the routines are much more stringent regarding chain of custody, using modern forensic technology.” But the Countess never ordered a second test, because the child had already recovered.

Brearey also discovered that, eight months later, a biochemist at the lab had flagged a high level of insulin in the blood sample of another infant. The child had been discharged, and this blood sample was never retested, either. According to Joseph Wolfsdorf, a professor at Harvard Medical School who specializes in pediatric hypoglycemia, the baby’s C-peptide level suggested the possibility of a testing irregularity, because, if insulin had been administered, the child’s C-peptide level should have been extremely low or undetectable, but it wasn’t.

The police consulted with an endocrinologist, who said that the babies theoretically could have received insulin through their I.V. bags. Evans said that, with the insulin cases, “at last one could find some kind of smoking gun.” But there was a problem: the blood sample for the first baby had been taken ten hours after Letby had left the hospital; any insulin delivered by her would no longer be detectable, especially since the tube for the first I.V. bag had fallen out of place, which meant that the baby had to be given a new one. To connect Letby to the insulin, one would have to believe that she had managed to inject insulin into a bag that a different nurse had randomly chosen from the unit’s refrigerator. If Letby had been successful at causing immediate death by air embolism, it seems odd that she would try this much less effective method.

Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain · 24/05/2024 19:14

Lilacdew · 24/05/2024 19:09

That's my view too. There is some reasonable doubt if the NY piece is accurate.

I would feel awful if it came out years later that Letby was innocent and it was a miscarriage of justice like the Dutch woman.

I’d feel devastated too if I were the parents of all the babies who died but at the end of the day they want answers and someone to be held accountable, whether it’s Letby or not.

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.

Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain · 24/05/2024 19:15

Lilacdew · 24/05/2024 19:14

From the New Yorker:

Nearly a year after Operation Hummingbird began, a new method of harm was added to the list. In the last paragraph of a baby’s discharge letter, Brearey, who had been helping the police by reviewing clinical records, noticed a mention of an abnormally high level of insulin. When insulin is produced naturally by the body, the level of C-peptide, a substance secreted by the pancreas, should also be high, but in this baby the C-peptide was undetectable, which suggested that insulin may have been administered to the child.

The insulin test had been done at a Royal Liverpool University Hospital lab, and a biochemist there had called the Countess to recommend that the sample be verified by a more specialized lab. Guidelines on the Web site for the Royal Liverpool lab explicitly warn that its insulin test is “not suitable for the investigation” of whether synthetic insulin has been administered. Alan Wayne Jones, a forensic toxicologist at Linköping University, in Sweden, who has written about the use of insulin as a means of murder, told me that the test used at the Royal Liverpool lab is “not sufficient for use as evidence in a criminal prosecution.” He said, “Insulin is not an easy substance to analyze, and you would need to analyze this at a forensic laboratory, where the routines are much more stringent regarding chain of custody, using modern forensic technology.” But the Countess never ordered a second test, because the child had already recovered.

Brearey also discovered that, eight months later, a biochemist at the lab had flagged a high level of insulin in the blood sample of another infant. The child had been discharged, and this blood sample was never retested, either. According to Joseph Wolfsdorf, a professor at Harvard Medical School who specializes in pediatric hypoglycemia, the baby’s C-peptide level suggested the possibility of a testing irregularity, because, if insulin had been administered, the child’s C-peptide level should have been extremely low or undetectable, but it wasn’t.

The police consulted with an endocrinologist, who said that the babies theoretically could have received insulin through their I.V. bags. Evans said that, with the insulin cases, “at last one could find some kind of smoking gun.” But there was a problem: the blood sample for the first baby had been taken ten hours after Letby had left the hospital; any insulin delivered by her would no longer be detectable, especially since the tube for the first I.V. bag had fallen out of place, which meant that the baby had to be given a new one. To connect Letby to the insulin, one would have to believe that she had managed to inject insulin into a bag that a different nurse had randomly chosen from the unit’s refrigerator. If Letby had been successful at causing immediate death by air embolism, it seems odd that she would try this much less effective method.

That’s what I read too.

Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain · 24/05/2024 19:16

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 don’t know anything about the author and yes you’re right about medicine being big business in USA but it looks like the author wanted to investigate an interesting case.

CormorantStrikesBack · 24/05/2024 19:19

There was something in that article that I said right from the start about the stats. That they only looked and who was on duty for the deaths of the babies that they had decided was suspicious.

But maybe they should have looked at a wider sample. Especially when there is so much doubt about whether some babies were killed or not. Weren’t some of the babies she was tried for originally found to be natural circumstances for cause of death by the coroner? It makes me worry that they just gathered up the babies that she’d been present for and said, “right these have all been murdered”. And then they make the facts fit the hypothesis.

also in court a verdict wasn’t reached on all the babies……has that table been recalculated with those babies removed? If so was Letby still the only nurse on shift for all of them?

And remember one baby got sick before she was on shift but died 3 minutes after her shift started and they counted that one as well. Seems a stretch?

I do worry that it was overall incompetent, chaotic care rather than murder.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.