Lucy Letby: Have you changed your mind?

[Kittybythelighthouse]

The other thread has had a lot of really interesting discussion but we are running out of pages so here’s a new one for those who are interested in continuing the conversation.

Whether you’re sure she’s guilty, sure she isn’t, or are somewhere in between, I’m interested in hearing how your opinion has evolved (or hasn’t!) since you first heard about the case,

Please try to be respectful - this is a heated topic. Its a matter of huge public interest with a lot of strong opinions, but we are all adults and can disagree with each other in a respectful manner.

Old thread is here (the poll still has a few days left):
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5388914-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind?page=38&reply=146359313

My sympathies to those who lost their babies. Its horrific to go through that

But my opinion remains the same. Lucy is the victim of corporate bullying and has been scapegoated for hospital failures.

People are evil. Always. 🥺

I haven’t changed my mind that I can’t see how she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.there are so much maybe this and maybe that.

and this case plus complex fraud really need more specialised juries.

I definitely agree that such cases need specialised juries. If I heard two compelling, but very different, reports from two doctors, I wouldn't know who to believe, it may just come down to which report is better presented (so hardly grounds for a conviction).

Yes definitely. Likelihood is she is guilty at least in part but the appalling failings that ran right through the NHS trust & the flawed evidence mean we will likely never really know what happened.

At least it's opened people's eyes to the shocking reality of the NHS. It seems to be regarded as a special organization whose staff can do no wrong when the reality is there's more evil & incompetence than in any other organization/private company.

Yes, the case has exposed so much that’s wrong in several important British institutions; the justice system, policing, the NHS, and even the media. It’s a historical case. That’s for certain.

Checking in

I had to have emergency treatment and surgery on the NHS following a routine operation done privately at the Portland Hospital in London. The room and the food was top notch but I nearly died. Thank goodness for the NHS.

The Jubilee Line fraud case was appalling and had to be abandoned. The treatment of the jury was reviewed, but as usual nothing came from it. I would add that expert witnesses should be neutral and be neither for the prosecution or the defence.

That’s quite the lottery isn’t it?

It’s always struck me as odd that people can be locked away on the basis of 12 of their ‘peers’ judging them.

I do think she’s guilty and always have. However, things have come to light since which make me concerned for the safety of that conviction.

The conviction possibly being overturned doesn’t make her innocent.

The expert witness system 100% needs reform. There have been glaring problems for years but the judiciary just keep on kicking the can down the road.

I think that’s a fair stance to take. Just fyi nobody is found innocent in British courts. ‘Not guilty’ doesn’t mean innocent.

It means that the prosecution haven’t met the burden of proof required to eliminate reasonable doubt. Scotland has a (contentious) third option ‘Not Proven’ but that comes with its own issues.

There are two truths that could be at play, and we will never know which one was the main issue:

Nasty and/or ill people work for the NHS.

Bullies in the NHS scapegoat poor nurses.

I followed the whole trial for many months on the mail podcast and I always thought she was innocent snd this has beena terrible miscarriage of justice. She had an appalling defence. That expert witness was a total charlatan and the statistics were cherry picked to convict her.
I feel desperately sorry for the families who still have no answers and will undoubtedly have to go through further torment before they get the truth finally.

But the things that have come to light tend to call into question whether any crimes were committed. If there were no crimes then of course she is innocent.

Thanks for starting the new thread.

I voted needs review. I have never actually changed my mind, because I didn't pay much attention to the article until I read Rachel Aviv's New Yorker article raising concerns about the case.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it

When that article was published, the British media was still unable to print anything like that because Letby's retrial was in preparation/ in progress. But I understand they had been contacted by anxious experts and were sitting on similar material waiting to go.

It's amazing how much material casting doubt on the convictions has accumulated since, but those early articles stand the test of time really well. Can't find it, but at least one of the Times and Telegraph published concerns at the same time as the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/08/a-superbug-doctor-shortages-and-a-neonatal-unit-out-of-its-depth-failures-at-lucy-letby-hospital-revealed

So I've not been following her appeal as it was all too upsetting in the media the first time round to read. From what I remember though, she wrote a letter or her diary pretty much admitting to what she did?

Yes, I think I have. At first I believed it was her - I couldn’t wrap my head around why, but I believed it had been her. But now I don’t think it was. It’s pretty clear it was a failing unit and they looked to blame whoever they could.

I think that one of the things that bothers me the most is the post mortems

All but one of the babies had one, they were all (I believe) carried out at Alderhey. Nothing was ever found that gave cause for concern. And then over 12 months down the line there was evidence (allegedly) of foul play. All of the babies had been murdered.

Can it truly be possible that all the pathologists involved at Alderhey doing post mortem are that bad they couldn’t see there was something wrong? Or am I missing something?

It seems quite obvious that we have a number of really bad maternity units in this country. (I seem to remember that stillbirths were also very high in LL's hospital during the period in question?)

I don't quite understand the drive to think "ah, it was the nice looking but actually evil nurse that did it. Case closed, she's in jail now" rather than look into the many, many problems with this hospital unit, which wasn't even the worst performing maternity hospital in the period - i.e., we should really be pushing to fully investigate this properly and not with a focus on LL but the entire unit, because it almost certainly will lead to conclusions that will be relevant to other maternity units.

If she's innocent then this has to be one of the most appalling miscarriages of justice ever. I'm so glad I wasn't on that jury. What's worse: acquitting a guilty person or convicting an innocent one who is going to spend the rest of their life in prison?

I think enough has come to light to render the original conviction unsafe, but I can't imagine that she'd have an easier time of it on the out. Someone will have a go at her.

I don't have an opinion on her guilt/innocence, but I do think some of the evidence presented was very flawed and her defence did an absolute dogshit job of robustly challenging it.

I'm not sure, but I think that initially they were looking for a cause of death but the deaths weren't considered suspicious. If they had been then presumably more detailed forensic testing would have been undertaken to rule in/out deliberate harm.

The Panorama last night has made me think that she is definitely guilty. I was wavering before that.

The insulin/C peptide and the tubes coming out in the ‘ventilated shifts’ at her previous hospital were pretty damning.

Theres so many parts of it I just don't understand and will never have access to the information that presumably explains it.
Why was her defence so poor when she had a shit hot lawyer?
Why didn't they call any other witnesses when staff offered to bear witness for her?
Listening to The Trial podcast and the 'court watchers' episode 2 ex-nurses went with a view to hoping she was innocent but said within a day it was blindingly obvious she was guilty- why? I need to know!
I'm a nurse and our biggest fear is being blamed for something horrific like this so I always sympathise with LL and want her to be innocent.