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

Ah that’s interesting. Just read the timeline posted below at: https://x.com/JabesAllowed/status/1838561198423343374

And there was a further call time stamped at “10.52pm” which also does not fit the timeline, but it would do had the call been made at 11.52. Further supports the theory of the incorrect timestamp on the call logs.

Someone posted up the thread about there being swathes of "compelling" circumstantial evidence to make up for the lack of medical evidence and witnesses. I'd like to know what that is because I've never seen any compelling circumstantial evidence that cannot have a plausible explanation.

To believe the circumstanial evidence, you've also got to believe that Lucy is intelligent enough to murder babies, in front of witnesses, while leaving no physical evidence, arousing no suspicion from those who worked closely with her day to day, and without researching her methods of killing on any of her own devices but is also careless enough to leave evidence of guilt in plastic bags under her bed for years after an investigation into her is started. You've also got to believe that she can source medical-grade insulin without leaving a trace of evidence behind when the rest of the population can't even buy a pint of milk without Google et al knowing about it.

None of that makes sense. She is either a genius capable of covering her tracks to an astounding level or she is careless enough to leave swathes of incriminating evidence for the police to find. Both cannot be true.

@Firefly1987 I’ve read pretty much everything one can read about this case and I’m 99.99% sure that this ‘Lucy Letby didn’t want CCTV’ claim is not true. You might think you remember it, but it’s common when looking back for one to readjust memories to fit what they now believe to be true. We see that all the time in this case. It’s also possible you saw a nonsense tabloid claim, also common in this case. I definitely haven’t been able to find any source for it though. Have you?

The main reason why I doubt it is because the possibility of installing CCTV as standard in clinical areas in any NICU was never seriously floated until Thirlwall and it probably won’t be widely implemented now.

This is because it is actually a very complex area primarily because of the need to balance risk‑management infrastructure, such as access to records, drug storage controls, data systems, and (especially) parental access/family privacy. Bear in mind that many families don’t want to be monitored 24/7 when breastfeeding or mourning etc.

We know from Thirlwall that no trust had comprehensive CCTV in 2015, or even today. No trust had or has CCTV in clinical areas like the nursery rooms. Only a handful had CCTV in isolated areas like drug storage rooms. Therefore, it’s extremely unlikely that CCTV that would have made a difference here was seriously considered at COCH in 2015.

If it was I cannot find any source at all for the claim that Lucy Letby objected. It certainly would have helped her numerous times in the trial given the fact that the police mucked up the entirety of the door swipe data, placing her here and there at specific times (giving her “opportunity”) when it later turned out (post conviction!) that all of that data was actually back to front.

Given the fact that the COCH were quite slim on everything else, and couldn’t even find it in the coffers to stretch to vital life-saving stock medicines for common neonatal conditions, I doubt that they would have considered stretching to the expense of installing CCTV.

Upping the consultant ward rounds from twice a week to the requisite twice a day might have been more immediately helpful. Poor clinical care is a much more common cause of infant death in NICUs than dramatic serial killing nurses, so perhaps focusing on improvements there first would be wise.

https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/research/report-for-the-thirlwall-inquiry-analysis-of-questionnaires-from-120-nhs-trusts

What do you think is the strongest evidence for guilt?

How do you explain the Midwife and the junior doctor both independently having notes that match Letby’s timings but not the mother’s? Are they all lying? Why should they all lie?

It seems more likely that the mother’s phone records are in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) = Greenwich Mean Time (many phone companies keep their logs in UTC) while the hospital notes are in BST (British Summer Time). I can certainly believe (given form) that the bumbling fools at Cheshire police didn’t do appropriate checks to rule that out. Either that or the junior doctor and midwife lied too or somehow independently got the time wrong in exactly the same way as Letby.

Three sets of medical notes across three different medical staff all agree time chronology then.

It’s a bit misleading the way she says it - but it does look like whrn they asked her it was long gone snyway.

Yes, Evans admits somewhere rose (and again I can’t remember where) that by then he know LL was in the frame and added baby C to his list because he found out LL was on duty - except, she wasn’t as we all now know, and had never met baby C at the time the X-ray showing the air had been taken.

Im sure though that those who doggedly believe otherwise will manage to come up with an explanation - perhaps LL owned an invisibility cloak

Im sure, though, that those who doggedly believe otherwise will manage to come up with an explanation - perhaps LL owned an invisibility cloak

They already have. She snuck into the ward, without being spotted by anyone, and while evading the infallible keycard system, injected air into the baby and then left. At least, that is what Dewi Evans pertained to happen.

Just out of curiosity did you go and take a look at the link @Oftenaddled offered to you? Or are you just continuing to believe the mother’s phone is correct?

Yes, I read that too.

I find it incredible anyone takes him seriously.

He'd be better suited to D-list crime novelist.

I think you’ll find that many have looked at the circumstantial evidence and cannot find damning evidence.

For example, the mothers time line; the time lines of three other sets of notes from three medical staff (one set from a different ward even) all match up and show mothers timeline is incorrect

It isn’t the case that many out there just choose to ignore the circumstantial evidence - theyve looked at it and can see the glaring holes.

https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/thirlwall-doctors.html

Handy way to wade through all the transcripts from Thirlwall complete with hyperlinks to submissions/evidence, for anyone who doesn’t know about it.

….but without taking into account that if Lucy Letby could have snuck into the ward on a day off so could anyone therefore the entire basis for accusing her in the first place vanishes into thin air.
This may have been the peak witch trial moment in the whole sorry affair.

….but without taking into account that if Lucy Letby could have snuck into the ward on a day off so could anyone therefore the entire basis for accusing her in the first place vanishes into thin air.
This may have been the peak witch trial moment in the whole sorry affair.

I’d be very interested to see a credible source pre 2023 stating that Lucy Letby had not wanted to have CCTV on the unit

Even if the objection to the CCTV is true, I would be very surprised that Letby was the only one to object.

@Firefly1987Re: Baby E timeline discrepancy - a much longer X thread with side by side comparisons of the timelines. It’s abundantly clear that the mother bases her memory of what time she first went to the nursery that eve in on her phone call to her husband immediately after she left the unit.

It’s abundantly clear when cross referenced with the timelines of 3 separate medical notes that the mother did not know the time she first went to see baby E that evening, had to rely on her first phone call to her husband to see what time she went to see baby E, and that mothers phone calls subsequently are all 1 hour in difference to the three sets of medical notes.

Mother was wrong about what time she first went to see baby E. LL did not wait an hour to call the registrar

LL was convicted of baby Es murder on the basis of mother’s testimony. Anyone with a n ability to read English and follow a simple line of logic csn see that mum was wrong about what time she first went to see Baby E.

https://x.com/jabesallowed/status/1940393048304730317?s=46

Spoiler: it’s not. There isn’t a shred of evidence online of in credible sources that LL objected to CCTV being put in the unit.

Pre 2023 the only article I have been able to find pertaining to mentioning video monitoring of ang kind at the CoCH is this:

https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/mum-raises-funds-buy-webcam-8857024

I’d be surprised if CCTV was floated at COCH all given the fact that they didn’t even have normal neonatal supplies like Factor VIII for haemophiliac babies (which was needed at Child N’s collapse) or sodium bicarbonate infusion for severe metabolic acidosis, which was present in babies during several of the crashes.

Oh I agree. It's a total fabrication.

It was floated allegedly by the consultants as a condition of Letby returning to work - of course she never did and I’m sure there are mang out there who just assumed it was because LL refused to be working with CCTV.

https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23405472.senior-doctors-wanted-cctv-lucy-letby-returned-neonatal-unit/

Is anyone able to provide a link for today’s Mail article that knocks down the paywall?

Here: https://archive.ph/HSVWd

Thank you.

I realise this is the latest source in many showing once again that LL has friends and colleagues who support her.

Last week someone on here claimed tgat not one single person was behind her, and how telling that observation was on what people thought of LL.

I hope this extinguishes and ticks off another item on the list of unsubstantiated nonsense I’ve seen written by some people on these these threads.