We need to talk about Lucy Letby

[HardwickHall]

As the “Lucy Letby denied leave to appeal” thread has filled up, I thought I’d start another thread to discuss the case, hopefully for discussion of the trial, evidence, prosecution and defence etc rather than fact free frothing.

I’ve just listened to episode 15 of “We Need To Talk About Lucy Letby” where they discuss the New Yorker article by Rachel Aviv and specifically the problems with the roster data table which was shown (several times as I understand it) by the prosecution during the trial. It’s quite shocking actually. Recommended listening.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/we-need-to-talk-about-lucy-letby/id1736761161?i=1000658160398

Why do we need to talk about her? She was found guilty, sent to prison and had her recent appeal denied.

End of story. Ghoulish otherwise.

I feel awful for the families of those poor babies. It must be hard to move on when people keep bringing their child's murderer up again and again.

Because many people are concerned that there were many aspects of the trial which should be questioned. Do you think it is ghoulish to address failings in the criminal justice system?

@TERFCat Perhaps if you read the New Yorker article you will understand why some people are concerned.

The only reason to talk about her is to look at how it happened and what can be done to reduce the risk of something similar ever happening again.

Justice has been served, ghoulish theories are disrespectful to the victims and bereaved.

The new Yorker article is lurid speculation from someone who hasn't sat where the jury sat.

The defence were free to present an alternate interpretation of the data... They didn't.

I’d like to read and can’t seem to access it.

I don’t think trying to hold the justice system to account is in any way goulish.

I wouldn't stress too much about anything written in the The New Yorker, or in the USA media in general to be honest. (I say that as someone living in the USA )

The defence were free to present an alternate interpretation of the data... They didn't

This is absolutely true, as it is about many aspects of the prosecution case and is one of the aspects of the trial of concern.

Can't she follow the usual appeals process like anyone else?

I was going to say I think there are probably more failings in the “journalism” that inspired this thread than the justice system!

It’s not available on the New Yorker website in the UK but you can find it quite easily eg on X/Twitter.

Good luck OP. People like certainty and infallability, a story with a villain and a nice tidy ending. They don't want to consider the possibility of mistakes, miscarriages of justice (which happen quite regularly) or to have to keep an open mind. Black and white is much more preferable to shades of grey.

I trust the justice system about as far as I can throw it, so the blind 'she was convicted so end of story' crowd worry me far more than the thought that serial killers may walk amongst us.

I really recommend the New Yorker article.

Ah. I don’t use social media so that’s why I can’t find it. I really have tried as well.

Tricoteuses.

I read the New Yorker article and it didn't change my mind remotely. I listened to the trial podcast and it was very obvious that she was guilty. I think people just struggle to understand and don't want it to be true.

The us justice system is very different. In England, a barrister won't present something they know to be a lie on behalf of a client in court. This might seem like a poor defence to an American journalist.

Very strange insult to use for those who are concerned about the safety of a conviction. The tricoteuses were the ones who gleefully enjoyed watching sentences carried out on innocent people.

It's the gleeful bit I was referring to, obviously. But I'll retract that and stick with 'ghoulish'.

There have been multiple miscarriages of justice in the UK, and only by campaigning have they been rectified. Not saying this case is one, I know nothing about it.

She has been tried and found guilty.

The appeals process is specifically designed to look over the trial and see if anything had been overlooked and which could make her conviction unsafe. No one has found anything untoward and her appeal has been denied.

Crazy American conspiracy nuts can complain all they like, but there really cannot be any doubt now that she is guilty.

Thanks OP, wasn't aware of this podcast but interested in the case.

Op is not "campaigning" they are tastelessly indulging themself with no thought to the victims.