Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind?

[Kittybythelighthouse]

I’ve been sensing a shift in opinions on the Lucy Letby case and I’m interested in hearing from people who have changed their mind either way.

Did you used to think she was guilty and now you don’t, or you aren’t sure? What changed your mind?

Also vice versa: did you used to think she was not guilty but then changed your mind to guilty? What convinced you?

The reason I’m using the term ‘not guilty’ rather than ‘innocent’ is because courts don’t prove innocence. Not guilty is a legal conclusion about whether or not the state met its burden of proof.

Agree 100%

Just curious do you believe that all justice systems in the world are infallible, and that their decisions become as unimpeachable as the laws of physics the second they're delivered, or just the wonderful British system?

Luckily no one is suggesting that, given that in this case there has been an unprecedented intervention by a panel of world class experts casting doubt on the verdicts.

Why do we keep having to say this over and over?

‘It’s just because she’s blonde etc’

’you just want to just let mob rule decide everything’

No and no. There are extremely credible experts casting doubt on the scientific evidence, without which there’s no proof of murder at all. No one can now honestly be 100% sure she’s guilty. That’s what we are actually concerned about.

It’s not pointless crap being taken from one house move to another though. It’s confidential medical handover sheets that she knew she’s shouldn’t have, hundreds of them. Filed and kept in plastic bags under her bed and at her parent house. This in itself is very odd. We aren’t talking about personal paperwork like bank statements and bills that need a bit of clear out! She seemingly had no intention of getting rid of those notes. It doesn’t make her guilty of murder, but it is absolutely not normal at all!

Unless you were in court the whole time and read all the statements and saw all the evidence, you are not in a position to challenge the verdict.

I've changed my mind from guilty to unsafe conviction.

Its not like the case hinged on it, but 250 sheets filed away and labelled 'keep' is quite different to pointless crap being mindlessly moved between houses, isnt it? Thats purposefully twisting what was reported to explain it away. Of course it still doesnt mean shes guilty, but similarly lots of the references in this thread to things discussed during the trial are not represented accurately.

That's quite nonsensical. Miscarriages of justice have happened and continue to happen. Was no one except those in court (which made the wrong decision) entitled to question them?

How about cases of blatant corruption - could simply excluding people from the court proceedings therefore invalidate any legitimate questions that anyone would have?

That's quite nonsensical. Miscarriages of justice have happened and continue to happen. Was no one except those in court (which made the wrong decision) entitled to question them?

How about cases of blatant corruption - could simply excluding people from the court proceedings therefore invalidate any legitimate questions that anyone would have?

Lots of the points people raise were covered during the trial, some Lucy even mentioned herself in her cross examination. Perhaps people should take the time to actually familiarise themselves with what is publicly available as a starting point?

Maybe she thought somewhere in those notes would be information that would show she was not guilty of what was she was accused of, including when disciplinary action was taken against her and she was subsequently exonerated and apologised to.

From memory that's not exactly what was said.

It was something like He (the new defense lawyer) said that he was worried that the information/evidence that was put forward would be seen as new evidence.

There are numerous reasons, some related to disparity of wealth, so dependent on the defence you can afford. Most of the unsafe conviction cases I’ve worked on directly were related to what evidence was presented and how and what evidence was excluded or evidence hidden from the defence team which emerged years later. I think there are flaws in how cases are investigated, finding evidence to fit a theory and overlooking evidence that works against the theory and in how cases are presented in court.

This example works in the opposite way but is recent and clear so might help - in the Erin Pattinson case, I listened to The Trial podcast and if I was on the jury I would have had some questions regarding her guilt. I was pretty sure she was guilty but not 100%. Since her conviction evidence withheld in court that her husband became very sick four times previously after eating food she prepared for him, has emerged. Now I am 100% convinced. But I could have been that one annoying person on the jury that stops the conviction.

If that withheld evidence had been something suggestive of her innocence then the conviction might now feel unsafe.

In the LL case evidence is emerging now making the conviction feel unsafe.

A case I’m working on now has seen someone in prison for over 20 years when there is a lot of evidence their conviction was unsafe, none of which was heard in court because the police hid it or manipulated it to get a guilty verdict.

Raise those specific points with them. Or tell me which specific point of mine you're referring to?

Above I addressed the notion that no one is allowed to question it unless they were there.

I'll repeat that my doubts rest on the conclusion of the panel of international experts cited in the latest documentary.

Very interesting post.

My thoughts have been for a while that in such highly specialised cases, rather than an adversarial system of prosecution vs defence, we should instead have a system of suitably qualified experts working together under the supervision of a judge to arrive at the truth.

How would you see that?

It's a very difficult one, how can we possibly know for sure with all the noise? If she is innocent what a dreadful, unimaginable thing to happen to someone. I have been on both ends of gross negligence as a patient and as an NHS worker. I know that when mistakes happen they do their utmost to cover up and make the hospital management look good and they wouldn't hesitate to throw under the bus someone lower in the pecking order.
It's enough to look at the maternity investigations of the last decades to have your hair stand up. It's a systemic problem and in that chaos all sorts of things can happen. I would want a fiercely independendant team of experts whose only interest is to bring out the truth reviewing all evidence and looking for more. Not sure if that exists though. It is frightening either way and generally speaking looking at the state of maternity services, it shows what happens when people sleep walk into this dreadful degradation of public services. There are loads of protests happening for various foreign policies. Where are the protests and big movements for the safety and quality of life of people in this country? I will never understand this population indiference when things are going downhill so fast.

I thought she was guilty. I thought there was no way a group of professionals clinicians- doctors and senior nurses would collude against a nurse.

I’ve watched/followed the Sandie Peggie case this year and read all the transcripts. I no longer feel I can trust doctors or nurses to be professional in a court setting (or a hospital) when I’ve seen the very blatant disregard for truth in that case. I’ve concluded that medical “professionals” are almost as likely to lie and smear others to cover things up than convicted criminals. The doctors and seniors have completely bought their profession into disrepute.

It’s very sad. I was obviously quite deluded and there is likely a culture of cover up in the NHS.

mind blowing that being blonde seems to have an impact on guilt assessment. shows the level of people' s critical thinking. this is not just about this case it has wider implications

The public are entitled to question and discuss matters of justice. In fact, the public and the media being free to scrutinise and criticise the justice system is a crucial cornerstone of justice in a democracy such as ours. Without this the postmasters would still be guilty. As would Sally Clark, Andrew Malkinson, The Birmingham Six etc etc. Public scrutiny of justice acts as a check on the justice system, just as juries do, and it’s no less important.

Thanks for the link.

This one is another good article for people not familiar with the subject.

https://davidallengreen.com/2024/07/the-lucy-letby-case-some-thoughts-and-observations-what-should-happen-when-a-defence-does-not-put-in-their-own-expert-evidence-for-good-reason-or-bad/

I don’t think she wilfully harmed any babies but was inept at best or haphazard at worst and her confessional notes are a sign of anguish. I also think she was emotionally immature, there are stories of her parents involved in going to her workplace. There seems to be a background of concern about her but there is greater culpability with the health board for not acting sooner.

I don't know whether LL is guilty or not, but some of the obvious issues the case raises reinforced my preexisting view that we'd benefit from expert juries in cases where such specialist knowledge comes into play. The obvious ones are medical and complex fraud.

But that would be expensive, so I doubt we'll get it.

I don’t believe in trial by media/Facebook/Mumsnet. Only the jury heard all of the facts and the context in which the evidence was presented and they reached guilty verdicts. This debate ( because she’s young and blonde ? ) is dangerous, and that’s speaking as a PIC nurse.

Surely nobody is batshit enough to think LL would ever go near a nursing role again even if every conviction were declared unsafe?

Do you mean that you think people are wanting to change their minds and question the verdict bevause Lucy is young and blonde?