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

Really interesting article here on the judge's direction to the jury
https://www.jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby:_the_judge%E2%80%99s_direction

What a good thing for Letby and everyone else that we live in a society where critique of judges and their handling of cases is permissible. Who wants to live in a police state where we can't opine on actions taken by those in authority?

@Typicalwave ,

‘the law commission has warned about the dangers of the way else use of ‘experts’ in yhd courts.

And yet plus ca change.’

But what is the alternative? You do need to try complex issues, both scientific and financial.

It is a really hard area! People talk about expert juries. But you wouldn’t get the experts who would agree to do this and you would also be taking them away from the vital daily work that they do.

Ultimately we have to rely on lay juries. Having served on a jury (as I imagine most have), I was amazed at the low level of discussion we had. It was really decided by 3 or 4 of the twelve, with the remainder pretty disinterested and just wanting it to end.

It is an imperfect system but I still way prefer it to the alternatives.

Also reporting restriction do not get in the way of tabloids whipping up public opinion - a good puppeteer always knows how to find new angles.

At the time. Becaise she got away with it so many times.

I posted an article written by the head of faculty at Liverpool law school aboyg this - must have been yesterday evening? (Times pretty meaningless to me right now - off sick and finally have had the time to start delving into the case that bedn niggling me gif a year) - but I think it was last night. It’s a good read.

there are alternatives. Something has to change.

Reporting restrictions play directly into the hands of the prosecution as papers are allowed to report anything said in court. This usually translates directly to prosecution accusations on front pages, because they are likely to be lurid and salacious (as they often were in this case).

For gods sake do not invoke the facists.

Exactly

There were no suspicions raised while there were bodies to deal with though, you see. Hawdon and McPartland were reviewing case notes and old pathological records later. Nobody could have conducted a forensic autopsy without police involvement: that's what makes an autopsy forensic.

If the consultants had wanted a forensic autopsy at any of these deaths, they had only to inform the coroner, openly or privately, of their suspicions of deliberate harm, and he could have handed the case to the police. They knew this. The fact that they didn't report any of the deaths as suspicious, even privately, suggests that it was all fomented in hindsight.

@Typicalwave ”something has to change”

Exactly this. That change is not going to magically happen if the public don’t make a fuss about it.

@Oftenaddled ”If the consultants had wanted a forensic autopsy at any of these deaths, they had only to inform the coroner, openly or privately, of their suspicions of deliberate harm, and he could have handed the case to the police. They knew this. The fact that they didn't report any of the deaths as suspicious, even privately, suggests that it was all fomented in hindsight.”

Quite! We are expected to believe that these drs sat on a “drawer of doom” full of evidence for a year, playing email ping pong with management, while they knows that a serial killing nurse stalked the wards? If their jobs were really more of a priority to them than multiple babies being murdered then they had several safe options open to them: The Pan Cheshire Child Death Panel which exists to protect whistleblowers, the coroner, who they actually had a duty to report to but didn’t, or simply calling 999 like an 8 year old would. But they did none of these things.

Well, that’s what I assumed. Jo McPartland making that comment as a pathologist herself leads me to believe that , at the time she was asked to review, there must have been chance to gather forensic information - or why as a pathologist would she have said it? (unless she’s been misquoted)

Also compketely agree with your second paragraph - why indeed did these consultants sit on it gif a year instead of whistle blow. They keep hiding behind ‘management’ - and that’s why whistleblowing policies exist.

If these babies were murdered they are grossly negligent.

It’s strange for anyone to acknowledge that we have an imperfect jury system which can and does fail, but also to argue that we should not feel entitled to question a jury decision, particularly in circumstances when so much credible doubt has been raised and in a case as complex and contested as this. That isn’t a logical stance to take.

Sorry, but some of your responses to or about this poster are wild, and bear absolutely no relation to the completely reasonable contributions they are making to this discussion. It’s honestly quite embarrassing. Why the need for personal attacks every time they post? I have seen nothing patronising or misogynistic about their posts, despite you constantly implying (or in fact stating overtly!) that that is their agenda; but no doubt this will just make me a handmaiden in your eyes.

Do you even know for sure that the poster is male??

@Typicalwave ”If these babies were murdered they are grossly negligent.”

Yes. They don’t come out of it as heroes whether she’s innocent or guilty.

I don't think this was Jo McPartland: I think it was Jane Hawdon?

What actually happened in 2016 is that the hospital did not tell her about the consultants' suspicions, she completed the review, and then when he had more questions in 2017, Ian Harvey did share the consultants' letter and concerns with her:

Her response was not to disown her report but to offer some advice on handling the consultants' bruised feelings:

"I perceive a combination of understandable professional pride regarding standards of care on the unit along with concern over unexpected and unexplained events, both of which are entirely reasonable reactions, but both of these should not prevent accepting and learning what could have been improved
...
Hint: avoid the term downgrade"

I know she rolled back on that at Thirlwall, presumably from the assumption that Letby was guilty, with hindsight, and under some very aggressive questioning.

But she was aware of the accusations and, in my opinion, nailed the correct response back in 2017.

Her email pretty much disposes of the whole case: https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/evidence/inq0014376-pages-1-3-of-emails-between-ian-harvey-and-dr-hawdon-dated-14-02-2017/

Only in their heads - The Deluded.

There's no evidence in all of Thirlwall anyway that they had anything other than cosy chats, calm friendly emails and peaceful consensus with management until after the last of Lucy Letby's alleged victims died. The idea that they were coming under pressure from management not to report concerns, or that police were discussed at all, is just not sustainable.

If you don’t find the constant accusations of us “airily dismissing” elements of the case that we’ve actually produced evidenced and sourced arguments against as “patronising and misogynistic” then it’s probably because they are not aimed at you.

If you don’t find the constant interruptions that are nothing but arguments as to why we shouldn’t be talking on this at all, because we are ‘not qualified’ or ‘probably working for a pr firm’ then that’s probably again probably because it’s not aimed at you.

You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I’m sure some may agree with you, I know that many agree with me. I won’t be taking notes from anyone on how I speak.

The bit where they pretend that moving her from night to day shifts could be an agreed response to suspicions of murder really jumps the shark.

I mean we've all worked in mad places, but come on!

I’m happy to be wrong (not so happy that it’ll be another example of middle age brain fog) but I’m certain I read it (and re read it several times) - guardian article, flagged as being seven months old. I reread it several times bevause it stood out to me.

Maybe I misread it. I can’t find it now - but it was Jo, not Jane Howden - she was mentioned too.

Astonishing moment of self awareness there! Do any videos of this band still exist? Or have they all been wiped. John Sweeney had a clip on his podcast.

This case is struck through with a severe misunderstanding of statistics from
beginning to end like a stick of Brighton rock, yet we are told over and over that statistics had nothing to do with it.

People who misuse statistics often say they aren’t using statistics at all. It doesn’t work like that. Once you talk about coincidence, probability, or ‘what are the chances’ you’re using statistics.

I work in the social part of our H&S sector - and access somewhere with incredibly vulnerable people. If there was a report of me being inappropriate I wouldn’t expect management to give me an AirTag to make sure i was no longer being inappropriate with vulnerable humans