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

Thank you for the new thread, OP. I have serious misgivings about this case based on the reading I’ve done. I read a lot about crime and it’s very rare that I think there are issues this serious within the trial and conviction.

What I don’t understand is why some people seem to think the justice system is airtight. That’s just weird. We should be constantly questioning the justice system and holding it to high standards. If I was someone who believed whole-heartedly in her guilt then it wouldn’t anger me to test the robustness of that. So why does it with people here? It seems to me that emotively reacting to legal processes is exactly what should be removed from the system.

Indeed.

Also the idea that it is in any way an insult to the jury, let alone to the parents of the babies, to say that there were problems with the investigation.

The jury can only do their best with what is put in front of them, in terms of both the evidence available and the arguments put forward by both sides.

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.

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.

Apart from her being in duty what other pattern was there?

The question I asked myself was did I think that, on the basis of available evidence, she would have been convicted if she had stood trial for one murder.

The rota was critical to the prosecutions evidence, cherry picking only those incidents she was on duty for undermines it's evidentiary value.

I agree. I find it quite perplexing that some posters on this thread are unable to put their opinions without resorting to vilifying anyone who has concerns about the trial and accusing them of not caring about the babies and parents and of insulting the jurors. This kind of approach really doesn’t suggest a belief in open justice and the law being impartial and objective.

I do wonder if these pp would have attacked anyone questioning the convictions of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four before their convictions were overturned.

I agree OP. To say 'how insulting to the victims of IRA bombings to question the convictions of the Guildford 4' is insane. Those men, and the Birmingham 6, and the victims of Hillsborough, and Andrew Malkinson and on and on and on are all testament to the idea that 'a jury and our world leading justice system is infallible' is the worst sort of blinkered vision.

The mass murderer is back in Court next week.

Wonder if she'll turn up?

She's as guilty as sin, she even wrote pathetic little diary's to herself admitting it.
In my opinion she's as disgusting a person as someone can get and the likes of her, Rose West and Wayne Couzens (full life sentences) are a complete waste of money and oxygen and are why the death penalty should still exist.

She'll turn up I'd imagine. Nothing for her to lose. I wonder if her deluded parents will make it up to Manchester, or her gormless friend. She's fooled them, they're also her victims.

@Corksoles I hadn’t heard of Andrew Malkinson’s case and have just been reading about it. How awful that the exonerating DNA evidence was known about by the CPS and Criminal Cases Review Commission for years but no action taken.

Why? Juries are far more likely to find in the defendant's favour. They have decide she is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, which is very difficult to prove.

Interesting debate and I'm sure there will be more to discuss as she's tried and convicted for more of her crimes.

Nobody here thinks the justice system is airtight, that's not to say that all verdicts are therefore wrong.

I would say it was fairly unusual for such a serious case not to be granted an appeal, the fact that Letby hasn't means that her defence have been unable to find any weak spot or oversight in the investigation or handling of this court case.

As for being a scapegoat unfortunately there have been several maternity units which have been found to be inadequate without having to blame one person for being a serial killer.

People want to believe she's not guilty because she's an attractive young blonde, and that is far more concerning to me.

Thinking of all the victims and their families.

This coming week with her being back in Court must bring up all sorts of feelings.

Wow the rudeness of some posters on this thread! Like the post above, quoting people and bullying them. Pure bullies.

Whatever your opinion she's not getting out of prison anytime soon, like it or not.

Looking forward to seeing all your opinions and catching up with chat here next week. Popcorn at the ready.

Don’t forget your knitting.

Thanks petal 😘

What really struck me about the whole thing is which scenario was more likely, a female serial killer, or poor standards of care in an NHS maternity unit?

Both - female serial killer AND poor standards of maternity care.

Here we go again with the “You must not question LL’s trial because of her sex/age/race/hair colour”. Disturbing. These are irrelevant or they should be - obviously to some pp they are very important.

Post was 'we need to talk about Lucy Letby' so people can say what they want. Especially as it'll be very much back in the public eye next week.

Not everyone is interested in the science or legal aspects. So we can talk about hair colour, what she looks like now etc etc.

Blimey. Honest at least ……

Indeed. Does anyone really want to to know how, for example, Myra Hindley, carried out whatever she did, out? Nope of course not.

But 'Profiles of a Serial Killer' programmes on Netflix etc are very interesting.

I would say that Crime Scene 2 Courtroom, however, is interesting, he's great.

But you haven’t put forth any opinions yourself, OP, all you and other Miss Marples do is refer people to the repeat-fest New Yorker article and a podcast.

What do YOU think?

What evidence is problematic for you and why?

Why do you think she’s innocent?

Link to the previous thread where people were discussing some of their specific concerns on the last page or so.