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

Now you’ve really jumped the shark. Nice try.

You're boring me @Firefly1987. Have a nice life. Goodbye.

I've not come across @Kittybythelighthouse before this thread, as far as I remember, but then I rarely pay attention to usernames and I have a memory like a fish, so unless you are exceptionally funny or frighteningly dim, even if I do notice you I am likely to forget you after approximately 3 seconds.

I do know I've noticed her on this thread, not because she is the OP, but because her posts are balanced, well-reasoned, well-written, and backed up with evidence and sources.

I've yet to see the same from anyone who doesn't believe the conviction is grossly unsafe.

To echo Kitty et al, I don't know if LL is guilty. I hope the babies' parents get the truth soon, but to me, the most important issue is how easily LL was convicted, when the "evidence" against her could be easily ripped apart by a moderately intelligent toddler.

As someone who lives within the British justice system, who has children living within the British justice system, I find that terrifying.

I am equally terrified by the apparent lack of oversight over "expert" witnesses. Dewi Evans has a long, long history of controversy, and of defending murderers if they are men, but condemning any woman who is as much as suspected of a crime. He is as much a medical expert as my dog is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewi_Evans

Admittedly, Wiki isn't exactly known for being a fountain of truth, but the source references are all listed, and the ones I read check out.

OP is a long term MN poster, and a highly intelligent and well-educated one. It was the Rachel Aviv article that alerted her to the LL case iirc. I know this as I’ve been posting on LL threads since the trial.

My conclusion is that she is very interested in the case, justifiably as it’s a very interesting and complex one, raising all kinds of scientific and legal issues. And she’s not that interested in swapping nappy tips.

If you were trying to discredit her, all you have done is discredited yourself further.

I’m all for intelligent and informed debate, but parroting what you read in the papers really doesn’t cut it.

I actually don't know what that saying means.

I post a lot on here as well clearly so wouldn't necessarily say that means much (tho I do post elsewhere too!) but there's definitely some sort of agenda with OP you are right there. Maybe they are closer to the case than they let on...

I think you were focusing on the insulin evidence rather than the tube dislodgements over the past few pages. Both need a decent explanation, all this going round in circles with one side saying one thing and one the other. I'm absolutely terrible at maths so anyone could say anything and I'd believe it. I thought stats were there to make things simple to understand (for simpletons like me) but here we are!

It means gone too far for a story to be realistic.

Here is the scene it came from - it's quite funny

I do worry a bit about Mr Justice Goss' behaviour if its true that he ruled the report into the unit inadmissible and seemingly ignored Mr Justice Jackson's warning.

Ok.

Im just going to say it - either you are posting for disingenuous reasons or you are not very good at doing your own research (and that’s as politely as I can put it)

Last night it was claiming no one can trust the credentials of experts from a wide range of specialties because McDonald (who apparently is as garbled and disorganised in his thought processes as Trump) had instructed them.

Tonight it’s claiming 1 poster here on mumsnet has the statistics for LWH all wrapped up and no one ekse on here can possibly have a valid point because wibble wibble

Do you go through life like this? Dogmatically clinging to beliefs without even attempting to fact check?

Anyone with GCSE maths can see there is something seriously wrong with Panorama’s apples to oranges presentation of those ventilated shifts. But even if they aren’t sure, theres always Google (if one knows how to discern credible sources from bollocks)

I think Jane Hutton has a good handle on the issues - perhaps have a look. I’m sure plenty of other statisticians will be weighing in too.

I’ve yet to see anyone here except for those who really really really want to believe that there’s no shred of diybt whay so ever make a claim and be unable to bavk it up with facts drawn from credible sources.

@Typicalwave what I meant was I couldn't trust that they were the "best in the world" or "world leading"-I can't remember what term MM used to disparage the trial experts but it was something like "oh we're mountains above them"-doesn't remind you of Trump in the least? Presumably you're fine with him saying stuff like that, even though it's offensive to the other experts. Oh and he won't accept ANY flaws in his panel's evidence. Hmm. And of course it's fine to just disparage Dewi Evans til the cows come home. No one has a problem with that!

Tonight it’s claiming 1 poster here on mumsnet has the statistics for LWH all wrapped up and no one ekse on here can possibly have a valid point because wibble wibble

No I just wanted to hear a counter argument if there was one. I mean we've been presented with the facts-40x more tube dislodgements on her shifts. Massive amounts of insulin vs C-peptide. Either we take those results as true and all accept that or your lot will have to explain why they're wrong AND accept counter arguments without getting all defensive.

Do you go through life like this? Dogmatically clinging to beliefs without even attempting to fact check?

Oh the irony!

Well said @Typicalwave - I watched the end of the documentary today and was struck at how belief led Evans is - he made no effort to really engage with questions he was being asked, just kept repeating he believed etc etc etc. Or dogmatically stating that everyone else was wrong.

Belief is not rational, so you cant have a rational conversation with someone who just keeps saying 'this is what I believe'. Its very concerning that the standard of public debate around the world is so poor that people can keep stating their belief without backing them up with facts.

He certainly did both.

His reasoning on the report was that unless the report referred to specific babies on the indictment, it wasn't relevant. It is a bit of a tough read, but you have a large chunk of the transcript at
.https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/s/rpp5VamY3n

What's worth remembering is that Letby's defence experts didn't write reports to prove how babies died. They wrote them to prove they didn't die the way Evans and others said. Then during the trial, Evans and the prosecution leaned into the idea that the hospital was absolutely fine, exemplary care, safest place in the world etc - even though reviews in 2016 found the unit should remain downgraded without significant changes, and at least 15 out of 17 deaths and instances might have been avoided with different care.

Since the jury wasn't told that, Evans' argument that there were no signs of problems, care was fine, so the deaths must have been murder were far more convincing. I find it very hard to understand how Goss justified this decision, even reading his rationale.

Where has Lee refused to accept any flaws in his panel's evidence?

The great thing is, one of McDonald's grounds for review is that Evans has shown himself not to be an impartial witness (arguably he said, being a lawyer) in media appearances since the trial.

He must have been rubbing his hands together with glee every time Evans appeared on Panorama!

1/ McDonalds experts - I tried last night with this: why don’t you look up the names of the experts and find out gif yourself who they are abc where they sit in their chosen areas of expertise? It’s not difficult

2. You claim the 40x dislodgement theory is a fact - it MIST be true because Panorama says so.

The very thing you are accusing everyone else of - being a conspiracy theorist - is exactly what you are doing. Blindly accepting whatever comes across your path, repeating it. No considered thought. No checking with other sources.

Your claims that none of Letby’s former colleagues have had anything to say in her favour are incredible - the internet is littered with former colleagues. ITV documentary just aired last week has her former manager still stating she saw nothing to concern her. There are interviews, statements to Thirlwall, podcasts with former colleagues stating they had no issue with her.

You spout baseless nonsense and then accuse others of being conspiracy theorists.

1/ McDonalds experts - I tried last night with this: why don’t you look up the names of the experts and find out gif yourself who they are abc where they sit in their chosen areas of expertise? It’s not difficult

Again not what I said. But yes I will look them up. I'm not sure anywhere will tell me they're the best in the world though. That's all in MM's head. @Oftenaddled I meant MM not Shoo Lee.

1. You claim the 40x dislodgement theory is a fact - it MIST be true because Panorama says so.

The very thing you are accusing everyone else of - being a conspiracy theorist - is exactly what you are doing. Blindly accepting whatever comes across your path, repeating it. No considered thought. No checking with other sources.

No one has stopped anyone trying to debunk the stats? And why shouldn't I believe Panorama? They're there to fact check these things so I don't have to. You're only up in arms about it because it makes her look bad.

Your claims that none of Letby’s former colleagues have had anything to say in her favour are incredible - the internet is littered with former colleagues. ITV documentary just aired last week has her former manager still stating she saw nothing to concern her. There are interviews, statements to Thirlwall, podcasts with former colleagues stating they had no issue with her.

I think you're mixing me up with someone else there as I don't believe I've ever mentioned anything about former colleagues not coming out in her favour. Think that was another poster. Now I'm copping aggro for other poster's as well 😆oh my days, time for bed I think...

At the end of the day, nobody knows the truth other than LL herself. Even armed with all the medical evidence in the world, nobody can be 100% certain as she was never physically caught harming babies.

I’ve been torn on this case and quite honestly am 50/50. I always look at things objectively and fairly; I can understand how people want justice and a fair trial, but I don’t understand how anyone can be 100% certain LL is innocent and fully back a stranger (who could well be a prolific killer). Unfortunately I feel it’s always going to be a case where views remain divided, unless some absolute concrete evidence comes to light.

I can understand how people want justice and a fair trial, but…

There is no but.

Shes currently in prison for the rest of her life and the facts do indicate that the standard of proof wasn’t met. That’s all anyone has said. No one on the internet can be 100% certain that she’s innocent at this point but surely no rational person would think it’s better to leave her to rot just in case? I think what people fully support is the idea of a fair and thorough review of the evidence and all aspects of the case.

No one that I’ve come across is ‘fully backing a stranger’

The principle of a fair trial, something which is the at the core of our justice system, is being questioned. The threshold of the principle of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt increasingly appears to have not been met.

Babies are dead, someone is in prison for life, a mother and baby hospital was potentially allowed to continue operating under grossly negligent management.
Evidence appears to have been witheod from the defence (perverting the course of justice), a police force appears to have conducted an investigation from the starting point of ‘guilty’, a large body of experts including somd who were originally asked to help the police in the investigation are speaking out, the way we use expert witnesses and how that does or does not feed into the principle of a faire trial is being called into question.

This is a matter of public interest.

There is a typo (a date) on the summary report that the panel produced, which was likely typed up by an assistant in any case. We have no reason to think that the actual reports contain that small error, or any other errors, as they are currently with the CCRC and haven’t been published publicly. In any case that has no bearing on the findings.

Any other criticisms that I’ve seen are nothing more than attempts to double down on the Court of Appeal decision when they rejected Letby’s second (and final) leave to appeal application.

CoA leave to appeal application hearings are made up of a panel of three judges, who most likely do not have a science A level between them, let alone enough understanding or experience to dismiss a medical expert of Dr Lee’s standing and expertise.

To do so in the context of elevating someone like Evans, who is not a neonatologist and has in his entire life only co-authored one published paper (in an obscure journal in the 70’s) is laughable.

Dr Lee has published ~400 peer reviewed papers in highly regarded journals internationally across his career. Dr Evans does not know more about air embolism in neonates than Dr Lee, who literally wrote the 1989 paper that the prosecution relied upon (and misunderstood) as their only evidence of air embolism.

That aside, if Dr Lee is a crank, then why are we accepting his research as the only diagnostic evidence for air embolism in order to convict someone for 15 whole life orders? If he is not a crank, then why are we not accepting his opinion that his own research was misinterpreted by the prosecution?

This was frankly a moment of international embarrassment for the British judiciary. It does not diminish Dr Lee one bit. The only error there is the judiciary’s.

Sometimes pro verdict people will say that the panel “got a cause of death wrong” which is simply a circular argument when the entire point of the panel reports is that they have found alternative, far more plausible, causes of death than what Evans found when he diagnosed murder in “ten minutes over a coffee”.

These are 14 internationally renowned experts in their field(s) who hold senior positions in top international research hospitals, such as e.g The Karolinska Institute (the home of the Nobel Prize for Medicine) who hold centuries of experience between them, have saved the lives of countless babies through their important front line practice and research, and have collectively published thousands of peer reviewed papers in respected international medical journal, working pro bono out of professional and moral integrity.

Dewi Evans is a long retired paediatrician who co-authored exactly one paper in the ‘70s and diagnosed murder in “ten minutes over a coffee” working for at least £700k to keep (in his own words) his “daughter in horses and my (his) son in cars” (verbatim Dr Evans from a post verdict podcast interview with Dr Raj Persaud).

Besides the above there is nothing else except possibly Susan Oliver’s (who is not a Dr by the way) foolish attempt to have Dr Lee’s 2024 updated air embolism in neonates paper withdrawn. She commented on the paper on Pubmed with her criticisms, which she is in no position to make (she is again, not a Dr). Dr Lee replied, very politely, correcting her misinterpretations of the paper. The paper was not withdrawn or corrected by the journal because…she was very, very, wrong.

That’s it I think.

P.s: guess who turned down Lucy Letby’s first application to appeal hearing?

Sir Robin Spencer, the barrister who prosecuted Sally Clark.

There will always be people who choose to be dogmatic in the face of glaringly obvious circumstances because it suits them.

Excellent post.

Posing again, the handy list of experts and former colleagues who have publicly spoken out concerning the case, in case there are people on the thread who wish to know more about who they are, whether they support the verdict as it stands or are questioning its veracity, and what they have said

https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby:_those_experts_in_full

“nobody can be 100% certain as she was never physically caught harming babies.”

The same is true for most of us, including me and you. We don’t lock people up ‘just in case’. That’s not how justice works.

It’s not even that there isn’t enough evidence here, but that someone had to have killed those babies. There is zero evidence that the babies were murdered at all. All of the ‘evidence’ used to convict her has been shown to be utterly without merit, or (even worse) simply entirely invented and dishonestly presented.

It’s not like she would be getting off on a technicality, there has been a total, global dismantling of everything that was used to convict her and the expert witness could not be more thoroughly discredited.

“I don’t understand how anyone can be 100% certain LL is innocent”

Once everything against her has been dismantled, which it has, we can be very sure that she is as innocent as you or I.

The only way she could have killed those babies is if she was very clever, and she invented new, undetectable, murder methods that left no trace and have never been seen in all the history of medicine/crime, including murder from a distance, but she is also really stupid because she didn’t rid her house of ‘incriminating’ diaries (which only contained nursing shift code) and bags of handover notes (of which 90% had nothing to do with the case anyway) despite having already been arrested and having her house searched twice. She did somehow forensically erase all trace of ever having researched her cutting edge murder methods though.

Either she is the stupidest, yet smartest, serial killer alive, or she didn’t do it.

“and fully back a stranger”

The postmasters are strangers to me too. Justice isn’t just for our friends. Justice is for everybody or else it’s for nobody. If the glaring issues this case raises are not addressed it could well be you or me or one of our loved ones next.

Ignoring a MoJ is like leaving a loaded bear trap in a public park, maybe you won’t get caught in it, but someone definitely will.

“(who could well be a prolific killer)”

There is no “could well be” about it. It’s vanishingly unlikely that she is, unless she is literally a witch.

“Unfortunately I feel it’s always going to be a case where views remain divided,”

There are still those who think the Birmingham six are guilty, and Lindy Chamberlain. It doesn’t matter if some think that. It’s still important to right wrongs when they happen.

“unless some absolute concrete evidence comes to light.”

There was never anything like this to begin with, not even close, and again this isn’t how justice works. I could say you murdered my aunt right now. What’s your defence? Do you have concrete proof that you didn’t? What could ever reach this bar for you, if a total dismantling of the evidence used to convict doesn’t do it?

@Firefly1987 ”I mean we've been presented with the facts-40x more tube dislodgements on her shifts”

This is not a fact and has already been shown to be wrong multiple times. It’s egregiously wrong on its face. It’s not about an “argument”. It’s about maths. The maths are wrong and badly wrong at that. You won’t find a statistician that defends them. Simple as that.

“Massive amounts of insulin vs C-peptide”

You mean like there was again the very next month in a quality control check at the very same lab with the very same test except it was down to testing errors? The test that the lab underline in red in their guidelines is “not suitable for forensic purposes”? The test that isn’t acceptable for routine firing purposes but which was used to convict someone for life? The test that returned a result so clearly indicating exogenous insulin that neither the lab nor the hospital did a single thing about it until years later when it was dug up to use against LL? Oh yeah, and the fact that she wasn’t even there when both of these events happened.

“Either we take those results as true and all accept that or your lot will have to explain why they're wrong”

Why on earth would we accept something that isn’t true and for which zero compelling arguments have been raised? These things have been explained and debunked multiple times. I’m assuming you’ve read those explanations given you’re rejecting them, so tell me what exactly it is that you’re rejecting and on what basis?

“AND accept counter arguments without getting all defensive.”

Why do we have to accept counter arguments that don’t stand up? That’s not how debate works.

Your opinion, though you’re entitled to it, doesn’t invalidate facts. If you want us to “accept” any of your claims you’ll have to evidence them with facts which you haven’t done and I already know you will not be able to do. No one can, because the “facts” you presented here are not - in fact - facts.

This is something that should trouble everybody. Evans and the consultants swore up and down that this death trap neonatal intensive care unit is absolutely fine, thus swerving attention away from it and as a result endangering even more vulnerable new borns.

Even if LL had killed those babies, that unit was a death trap. Lying about it is not heroic.