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

I think some posters on here are not parents, they are wannabe science sleuths or fanciers of the serial killer, probably sad old men playing with themselves at the thought of her, also the type who post in FB and YT. You know the type.

Guildford 4
Birmingham 6
Judith Ward
Sally Clark
Barry George

No justice system is foolproof.

Juries do get it wrong sometimes.

Who's to say a different 12 people wouldn't have had a different verdict?

They didn't even agree about all the charges at the original trial.

Yes that article also missed the majority of evidence out. It was very poorly written.

No. You're in contempt of Court. Or will be come Monday.

Why are you so invested in it anyway, more so than the average person. Ulterior motives.

I don't think you understand the restrictions on reporting.

https://theconversation.com/why-the-new-yorker-blocked-uk-website-readers-from-its-lucy-letby-story-an-expert-explains

From the article:

The Letby case attracted huge publicity, so jurors at her new trial will likely know who she is. With this in mind, the trial judge made a special reporting restriction under the Contempt of Court Act, known as a Section 4(2) order. This further restricts what can be reported by the media to avoid “substantial risk” of prejudice. It is a temporary ban on reporting, lifted at the court’s discretion, usually at the end of a trial or series of trials.

I am not a reporter.

Why am I invested in a potential miscarriage of justice in a case involving healthcare?

I'd like to be able to trust our justice system. I used to work in healthcare. I was very interested in the Beverly Allitt and Harold Shipman cases too, although I also take an interest in other court cases which have nothing to do with healthcare.

Why are you so upset about my interest?

Ulterior motives? Your accusations about conspiracy theories are clearly projection.

I've never thought she is guilty.

I'm a parent, gave birth the same year as some of the parents in a nearby hospital. But I've never been convinced of her guilt. This doesn't take away from thr awful treatment these families received. I just don't think she alone was responsible for the deaths, nor a murderer. We are all entitled to an opinion without being belittled. The jury are just people with an opinion.

In all fairness I've never found threads on this site compassionate towards the parents involved in this case. I too am local, NHS staff, live in the area, etc. So close to home that yes it can hit a nerve to those of us locally.

There is another forum beginning with a T, where she is discussed but it's much friendlier and supportive, especially throughout the trail last year when some were struggling mentally. Some of those girls (and guys) were amazing. And there aren't often arguments either or bitter disagreements, not on that particularly thread anyway. And quite comprehensive information has been compiled to refer to.

Not much compassion on this thread to those very local to where it happened.

“the jury are just people with an opinion”

no they’re not

what the hell

the jury are people who have sat and been presented with the most thorough presentation of facts pertaining towards LLs guilt or innocence

theyve been to school on the guilt/innocence of LL

theyve been asked to decide if beyond all reasonable doubt whether she did it. they are not guessing.

if you think LL has had anything that should have been made available to her - that wasn’t . then discuss miscarriage of justice

but her legal team were robust. there will be a thorough public enquiry

shes not been short of legal opinions, expertise, publicity, doubt, common sense. she herself is not vulnerable and is unlikely to have instructed her team incorrectly. she’s been well supported by friends and family

she made her own bed, she’s had huge public funds to defend it

shes been found guilty

if you think jurors were unqualified to decide, she’s had one judge overseeing her original trial, and 3 more eminently qualified to review the appeal

guilty

shes lying in the bed she made

I 100% believe she was guilty. But I think folk have the right to express their views if they think she isnt guilty of those horrific crimes. I think there is plenty of proof.

I think convictions should always be examined and discussed otherwise how could miscarriages of justice ever be brought to light? Perhaps this isn't what's happened in this particular case, but it has happened in others and I can't imagine how incarcerated people feel if they are innocent. It must be agony for them. Like I said, I sincerely hope she is guilty and is in the right place.

Despite the MULTIPLE written confessions in a journal found in HER house you mean!!?!?

@LetsPlayShadowlands Despite the names of the babies on the date they died, written on her calendar that was hung on her wall in HER kitchen, alongside all of the other day to day calendar-stuff she also wrote on it (which proves it was hers, even though she admitted in interview that yes it was hers and yes, she had wrote the names on it. She also admitted to WRITING the admissions in her journal but then tried saying that it wasn't true, she'd just written it 'for fun'

@EnglishBluebell I’m a MH nurse/therapist. In CBT therapy, which we know LL had accessed, clients are encouraged to write down irrational/negative thoughts so that they can be challenged. Also, people write down all kinds of nonsense when upset. I do think she’s likely guilty-but you shouldn’t put too much weight on this kind of written “confession”.

We are all entitled to an opinion without being belittled.

No, we're not. We're entitled to an opinion. Notwithstanding that if that opinion is unsubstantiated, it isn't worth a whole hell of a lot.

If we choose to share that opinion with the world at large then we open it up to being belittled.

That is free speech. This is the way it works.

Personally I’d have thought that free speech meant both sides being able to express their opinions and politely debate. That name calling and belittling others was bullying rather than free speech but there you are.

And yet the most emotionally invested posters seem to be the ones who are angry that people are discussing it at all, rather than the ones who would like a calm discussion on problems with the evidence.
If you’re not emotionally invested why not just step away from the thread rather than try to shut it down?

Why don't you discuss Wayne Couzens, Thomas Chapman, Connor Chapman and all those others who are serving whole life orders or very long sentences? Don't they make you angry as well?

And what each of those did is nowhere on the scale of what she did, numbers wise.

Precisely. Some of these posters here are just sick.

Yep, plus the fact she agreed the insulin poisonings were intentionally done, by someone!

I’m surprised that you can’t see that the issue is not someone serving a long sentence but whether there has been a fair trial.

She agreed that the blood results were indicative of insulin being administered and as she said it wasn't administered by her the natural conclusion is that it must have been done by someone else.

The lab stated that their tests were not suitable for forensic purposes and there are other reasons why both blood sugar and c-peptide results were low.

I think the fact that the babies had periods with low blood sugar, blood tests were taken to investigate but the abnormal results were not noted at the time suggests there were issues with medical competency on the unit.

I'm baffled that people are so aggressive about a discussion of a potential miscarriage of justice.

There's a really sad history of cover up in the NHS, which seems to particularly impact maternity care. One of the often noted potential reasons for our repeated poor performance on maternal and baby deaths is a cultural and legal backdrop which discourages open discussion and learning. Let's not get angry about people questioning convictions or evidence.

The trial was entirely fair.

The jury and legal professionals sat through ten whole months of one of the most voluminous bodies of harrowing evidence known in legal history.

That the NHS is capable of a cover up isn't in question, nor was this other than one factor of many other factors presented in that trial.

There was an embargo on reporting anything other than the evidence heard in court. The Mail's extensively thorough podcast was informative but barely scratched the surface of the material covered.

The question of the cover-up was raised seriously at the time - and presented thoroughly on the podcast. Letby's defence had every opportunity to address that issue in court. Only they didn't - not sufficiently - as the jury found.

The correlation between her presence and the crashes/deaths was also one factor. There are some extraordinary protestations that the entirety of the verdict was based on that correlation.

It wasn't.

There were reams and reams of evidence which juries do not consider in isolation but in relation to the pattern presented as a whole - and on this occasion the 'whole' was huge. And it pointed compellingly to Letby. Those jurors took 22 days to reach their verdicts. Where they were not sure, as in the case of Baby K, then they did the correct thing and failed to reach a verdict. Those twelve men and women were not engaged in frivolous speculation as per this thread. They took their duty entirely seriously.

Letby had the opportunity to testify in her own defence. She did so. And her own evidence was about as damning as anything else I've heard in that trial. Other than claiming she was bullied and issuing repeated denials, she had nothing to say which could have refuted or even satisfactorily explained - enough to raise reasonable doubt - the evidence presented by the prosecution.

There are strictly defined criteria on which leave to appeal is granted. Letby's convictions do not meet those criteria. Despite the protestations that she's on some way being singled out, the rules are the same for everyone.

The only people who are being belittled in threads such as this are the families of the babies concerned and the jurors who worked diligently and have performed a great service on behalf of their country. To have their very well-informed and seriously made judgment questioned by idle gossips in the internet must be galling.

Don't even kid yourself you're engaging in any form of serious, meaningful debate. Not one of us was on that jury. Ignorant, idle and prurient gossip is exactly what it is. At least have the decency to admit it.