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

I could be anyone from Liz Hull to Shoo Lee and you couldn't prove or disprove it. I'm not here to try to impress you. Please stop gatekeeping, and please have a think about context and relevance before trying to throw numbers around. You seem competent at calculations so I think you must know better than this.

Omfg is he still at it? 😂🥲

Of course the tests were found as part of a trawl through the data.

If the tests had been thought to be suspect at the time proper forensic testing would have been done.

That doesn't mean there was no reason for doing the test. But every insulin test will have been done for a reason.

If only someone has asked Dewi Evans, Steve Brearey and Ravi Jayaram that very important question.

Yes. It's a really well known fact of this case. You could read the Thirlwall opening statements I suppose, or watch the Panoramas, or Google Brearey insulin or whatever. It's not hard to verify, but this "nobody has provided me with a link" business isn't making me feel like acting the handmaiden.

I’m cackling! 😂 Indeed!

I can see a lot happened while I was away - lots to catch up on but I’ll be back in a bit.

Why is it that peopld do not seem to understand that the testing lab (and they should know what their tests can and cannot he used for) has it it’s own website. In red letters no less.

Their insulin assay tests are not to be used as part of a forensic investigation into wrongdoing/negligence etc ie in criminal investigations

The evidence shouldn’t have been admissible.

This was information regarding her diary entries that coincided with several incidents and was used in the case:

Lucy Letby Diary Codes & Baby Incidents Timeline (2015–2016)
Month / YearDiary CodeBaby IncidentNotes / Context
June 2015
L (Long Day)
Baby A collapsed
On long day shift; handover sheets record her presence
July 2015
N (Night)
Baby B death
Night shift coverage; logged in swipe data
Aug 2015
LO (Long Day Off)
Baby C collapsed
Scheduled off, but visited neonatal unit; diary annotations noted
Dec 2015
L (Long Day)
Baby D death
Present; handover sheets show her involvement
Mar 2016
LO
Baby E collapsed
Official day off; swipe logs indicate unit access
May 2016
LD (Long Day)
Baby F death
Long day; documented in handover sheets
June 2016
LO
Baby G death
Off day, but diary contains cryptic annotations about incident

Key Observations

1. LO days overlapping with incidents were flagged as unusual by investigators.
2. Long day (L/LD) and night shifts (N) also coincided with many incidents — showing her presence on “high-risk” days.
3. Annotations on LO days (off days) suggested she either returned to the unit voluntarily or left cryptic notes about events.
4. Defence argued that rota swaps, voluntary coverage, and coincidences could explain these overlaps.

2 years later police did searches and also found 257 handover sheets from the neonatal unit, with 21 linking to babies Letby was accused of harming. These were found stored in various places: shopping bags including an Ibiza-branded bag (which also held her NHS nursing badge) and a Morrison's bag for life (which also contained blood gas readings and a paper towel with resuscitation notes).

And if I remember correctly the swipe logs were shown to have issues on accurately and reliability

If you just flatly wish to believe there is no concern over he way the trial was conducted, and are satisfied, why do you keep coming back to say the same thing iver and over? What do you hope achieve? I believe you’ve said variations of this at least Hes half dozen times at this point.

Agree 100%

Key Observations

1. LO days overlapping with incidents were flagged as unusual by investigators.
2. Long day (L/LD) and night shifts (N) also coincided with many incidents — showing her presence on “high-risk” days.
3. Annotations on LO days (off days) suggested she either returned to the unit voluntarily or left cryptic notes about events.

So we have "flagged", "coincided with many" and "suggested".
Not exactly evidence heavy.

I think 'LO' turned out to be a misreading of 'LD' or long day - i.e. she was scheduled to work that day. LO for long off makes no sense anyway - you don't have a long day off, it's usually DO for day off in nursing off-duties (rotas).

If it was a code then it is one used by thousands of nursing staff throughout the country.

The police thought they had found a secret code in her diary. When they said this, nurses got in touch to say, this is our standard code for shifts.

So she noted what days she needed to be at work, and she noted what happened on those days if it was something major. I don't think there is anything suspicious about this at all. It is very normal behaviour.

2 years later police did searches and also found 257 handover sheets from the neonatal unit, with 21 linking to babies Letby was accused of harming.

Or, to put it another way, 236 weren't linked to babies she was accused of harming or approximately 92% weren't linked.

See how the same statistics can be used to imply guilt or otherwise.
And that's without misusing them.

The insulin c peptide ratio will not be the same in hypoglycaemia as hyperglycaemia.

Yes LO" can also stand for "Length of Stay“ in hospital records

I'm a lawyer but I don't and have never worked in criminal law.

I wonder why they decided not to call expert evidence for the defence. It will have been a tactical decision by experienced lawyers and it looks wrong in hindsight to have allowed the prosecution's expert go unchallenged.

My instinct is accidents/incompetence / poor skills / overwork + maybe being expected to do work she wasn't qualified/sufficiently experienced to undertake with a side order of cover up.

I'm aware of all the bias in my head that says she should be innocent - she's white, middle class, relatively young, was a nurse.

This is the best explanation I’ve seen

jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby:_the_missing_defence_evidence

So you think she’s not guilty but you’re questioning that because she’s white?

What scary times we live in

Swipe logs only show you coming in and only if someone doesn't swipe or buzz you in because you're an idiot and left your swipe card on your desk on the 4th floor.

You don't have to swipe out, you just press the door release button and there are usually multiple ways in or out of a ward. Not all doors will have an electronic lock because they will be in areas not accessible to the public.

I used to work in an NHS hospital. You could swipe into the maternity unit and 5 minutes later be down the road buying a Greggs sausage roll and no one would ever know, especially if someone else swiped you back in.

From memory there was another door that was used to access the area hat was never monitored.

Yes, that door had a keypad, with the access number taped to it for good measure, according to Michele Worden, who used to work there. She's great on this case.

So, incredibly reliable source of evidence for a murder trial then!

You do realise hand & footprints are done for the parents routine practice after a baby death, they do it for a memory box. You don’t know in ‘google’ that those people were actually her colleagues or they might just be like you spreading rumours & gossip, how do you think the parents would feel if they saw your post you are shameful. I am going to report you.