Lucy Letby - what's happening

[Viviennemary]

In the last few days I've heard conflicting news stories. One an ex coroner saying she is innocent. And another piece of news saying the Cheshire police want to charge her with more crimes believed to have been carried out at two other hospitals she worked at.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7emsrFSRA6w9QfXDplGaOp?si=qvyI4Tb5Q162KX_XVxcECw

Im pretty sure this was the podcast I listened to which talks about everything in detail. I remember listening to the whole thing and being incredulous that anyone could think LL is innocent.

That's the Daily Mail podcast, hosted by a journalist who was being paid to give media training to the investigative team working on Letby's case. Caroline Cheetham's company received payment from the Cheshire Police, specifically for work on Letby's case, before, during, and after the trial. The Daily Mail Group confirmed that she never revealed this conflict of interest.

So they put together a pretty polished podcast, with inside contacts in the police, but obviously her independence is compromised. Liz Hull, the second podcaster, writes for the Daily Mail and her articles on Letby are full of distortions. So that is not a source I would trust at all.

Edited to add: here is a link to the story about these payments, from the Telegraph in May: https://archive.is/M10yX

Interesting that the podcast seems to have stopped covering Letby since then.

It was hours and hours of what sounded to me like pretty balanced information.

Some people, for whatever reason are going to be convinced she’s innocent whatever the evidence shows. It’s baffling to me (perhaps they’re her family).

The last podcast they made was in April and covers concerns some people have about the convictions being unsafe.

And some people seem determined to believe that nothing could go wrong in a jury trial as the law always gets it right, and to believe the bullshit and bluster from a discredited retired doctor despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. It’s utterly baffling to me how anyone would prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and go la la la, repeating the same tired tropes rather than find the actual truth. Especially people with no dog in the race. It just defies logic. But you do you.

If you’re baffled maybe that’s a clue that while they are giving the appearance of balance they’re not quite as objective as they would have you believe.
I don’t find it baffling at all that certain people are adamant she’s guilty, it’s generally people who followed the trial very closely and watched a lot of podcasts particularly the Daily Mail one. Whereas the people who have brought expertise to bear and dug into the evidence are more questioning of the verdict.

So the allegedly misleading statistics of the rota chart not really an issue then 🤔

Yes - the payments from Chester police were revealed in May.

I do think it comes across as reasonably balanced in some ways. They don't insist Letby is guilty. But they aren't an independent or reliable information source at all.

Of course if you have an affair with a married doctor you must also be a murderer. Not sure why it's on her anyway - he's the one who's/was married, not her.

I don't know if she's guilty. I do think her convictions are unsafe. And this sort of viewpoint (oh she must be guilty because she had an affair) is why we shouldn't have jury trials for complex cases.

It really isn't that simp[e. Look at the post office cases and how long those have taken to resolve, and some aren't even resolved yet - there's a whole other computer system and cases related to that that need looking at.

Are you old enough to remember the Sally Clarke case (and other similar cases - Angela Canning/Tripti Patel among others)?

If so you wouldn't be asking that.

If you are younger, please go and read about their cases and then reconsider that view point.

Experts are not infallible.

If you've got hours and hours to listen to a podcast then surely you can spare a couple more to read Private Eye's excellent coverage: https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby

Phil Hammond has lost the plot over Lucy Letby and is going to end up looking very foolish. Some of his sources are dodgy to say the least, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Private Eye are sued for libel as a result of some of the accusations he’s made. Trouble is he’s in too deep now, so keeps doubling down.

Any examples? I've found his work well evidenced when cross-checking with Thirlwall, Lee, and reports and interviews elsewhere in the press.

I literally mentioned the affair because she may have received protection from him as he’s senior management. I don’t care if she had an affair or not, my point was it buys in protection.

It’s funny how I’ve sourced multiple articles and explained my point yet you’re fixated on the affair sentence. Get a grip.

Svilena Dimitrova for one. She appeared on TV as a neonatologist claiming Letby’s innocence before she’d seen any of the evidence. Now says she’s read ALL the trial transcripts, medical evidence and witness statements - 50,000 documents, some running to thousands of pages each - in the space of a few months, which is not humanly possible.

He wasn't senior management or even a senior doctor - he was a registrar who had worked on the ward for a few months. He did share confidential information with her but he wasn't in a position to protect her from anything.

There was also no actual affair - he was a bit creepy/ white knightish and she came across as having a bit of a crush. Nobody has suggested evidence of a full blown affair and it wasn't part of the prosecution's argument.

Hasn't he corresponded directly with Dewi Evans? Fair enough to describe him as a dodgy source.

Anyway Phil Hammond is saying the same things that every other investigative journalist is saying. If he ends up looking silly then he will be in good company.

Maybe she's taken the same CPD course in speed-reading medical data as Dewi Evans. He only had to read for 10 minutes in order to find definitive murder. With similar skills she could have gotten through all of the cases before lunch and still had time for elevenses.

Tbh I don't even care about the affair, she's guilty and justice was served. She is being charged with more babies murders, so further justice will be served. My heart goes to the parents. She can rot in hell.

Of course I believe that miscarriages of justice do happen and have happened but not in this case because the evidence in its totality is overwhelming where I sit.

However, I was not in that court room. I tend to believe that where the lawyers are the best that money can buy, the system should be safe. None of us are able to see court transcripts unless you pay £100,000.

Yes the affair is irrelevant whether it did or didn’t happen. A lot of nurses have affairs with doctors. Most of those don’t also murder babies.

What about where the lawyers are the best you can buy, but the prosecution has unlimited funds to incentivise their experts (Dewi Evans made £500k from this case), whereas the defendant is limited to paying their experts legal aid rates. Is that system still safe?

Or where you have the best lawyers that money can buy, but the government has declined to implement reforms that mean expert evidence would have to meet a reliability threshold, so you and your lawyers are stuck with a system for admitting evidence that is known to allow whatever quacks the prosecution decides to pay through the gates? That one safe?

Also the investigation of this case isn’t even finished yet. They’re digging into all her career history and where she worked. What babies she has access to. The general public have no idea what this evidence ultimately amounts to. This so called experts are being stupid. They only have access to what the police, NHS and government choose to release. We need to give them time to investigate and do their job.

Reality is Lucy Letby was charged. Senior management ignored doctors warnings and concerns. No matter how much people scream she’s innocent, the evidence shows she’s guilty. Too many MN lawyers.

That's your prerogative - I still prefer to correct the inaccurate information you've given for the sake of anyone reading the thread