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

Please share because I can’t see anything else.

And Hutton’s simple correction looks nothing like the word salad that Panorama published that corrected nothing.

I meant as well the misrepresentation of the defence experts' positions on Child O, and the misrepresentation of Lucy Letby's police interview on air embolism, both of which supported errors you have posted to this thread.

These aren't their only major slips and misrepresentations, unfortunately.

The difference between Hutton's error and theirs? They also were warned that the statistic was problematic, by Mark McDonald. They went ahead and broadcast it anyway. The correction won't have anything like the same reach as the original broadcast. That's why McDonald is bringing his complaint to Ofcom.

I don't know how anyone trusts them or continues to give any credence to their narratives.

I feel there's not enough evidence to convict but I'm still dubious about the evidence she gave with Baby E. The timeline was fairly well evidenced from the phone call of baby E's mother to the father. Yet she disputed this and the timing of blood round the mouth. I can't see a reason for it unless she's manipulating the times. Also Baby I, a baby went for transfer and she amended the time she gave the transfer baby meds coinciding with the exact time Baby I collapsed when she'd originally said she'd done it and hour earlier or later, can't remember.

You need to click on the timestamp on a Twitter post to see the comments on that post.

I think I have seen all the comments but can’t see that she has said anything else about the allegation? Can you screenshot as maybe I am missing some?

Thanks @junefrog

We talked about Baby E a couple of pages back, actually, and how his mother seems to have got the time wrong since Lucy Letby's notes line up with other people's. That discussion starts at:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5390441-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind?reply=146513750

Could you give a source or any more detail on baby I? That doesn't sound suspicious by itself but it's not ringing any bells.

I don't think anyone has said she said anything more about any allegation though? Sorry, not following.

@Kittybythelighthouse Would you be happy to start and link to a new thread? This has been a really interesting discussion and seems to be going strong.

This has already been debunked. Mother had to go to her phone provider to find out when her first phone call was made (because of course she shouldn’t be expected to remember timings from 2 years previously) ALL of her phone call times from that evening are 1 hour earlier than yhe three separate sets of contemporaneous notes made by Letby’s, the registrar who Letby called in and the midwife (who was up in the l&d ward)

Mums phone provider provided time stamps based on UTC time (same as GMT) - the UK was in BST.

That’s the discrepancy.

It was @typicalwave

Thanks will read. Baby I evidence you can find in the full transcripts of the cross exam videos on crimescene to court room on YouTube. Theres two of them, about 7 hours each but they're the full transcripts.

Dimitrova means they wanted her to publicise her answer to their question, is how I would read that.

I’m not sure how confirming what @Oftenaddledindicated - that whistleblower asked Dimitrova to publish their contact with her, has anything to do with an allegation.

Here you go @rubbishatballet - it’s in the reply to the very first comment on the thread

I'll have a dig later - thanks

What is? I still don’t get what it is she’s ‘publicising’ and I maintain that it’s a completely inappropriate and unprofessional way to deal with a whistleblowing allegation.

I’m afraid I don’t believe you’re engaging in good faith rather choosing to be deliberately obtuse.

You asked a question pertaining to why she’d shared publicly the whistleblower contacting her. @Oftenaddledanswered, I answered, I provided a screen shot to your question. the whistleblower asked her to publish the fact she’d been contacted by the whistleblower. I won’t be commenting further.

@KittybythelighthouseI've taken liberties and posted a new thread in chat as this one is dangerously close to hitting 1000. Give me a slap on the wrist and I will report to be taken down if you don’t want to continue

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5394916-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind-thread-3?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Thanks very much for doing that @Typicalwave , and of course to @Kittybythelighthouse for setting up the threads.

Thanks @junefrog

I have found the news story you were referring to, I think, for baby I

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65790929

What seems to have happened is, Lucy Letby was caring for another child and corrected a time on this child's chart.

Meanwhile, another baby was in distress and was transferred out to another hospital.

But nobody has ever accused Lucy Letby of attacking the transferred child that night - if you look at the date, it's 15th October and she was never accused by the police or the prosecution or anyone of doing anything then

Unfortunately barristers can bring up hypothetical issues in the cross examination to try to rattle the defendant and make them look bad. This won't be considered evidence unless the defendant agrees it happened, because you don't need evidence to bring it up. But the press can report it

All it means is that Lucy Letby corrected a time on a chart, on a night when nobody accused her of doing anything to any babies. She wasn't doing anything unusual - surely everybody fixes a word or a number in their writing sometimes.

Fair enough that you don’t want to comment further, but just in response to this my point is that I can’t see how posting on Twitter that you’ve been contacted by a whistleblower from a reasonably small organisation doesn’t pose more risk to the individual than any perceived benefit in publicising that they have asked her which confidential documents she would like leaked.

And it’s been a while since I dealt with freedom to speak up, but I’m also not sure what her status is to receive formal whistleblowing disclosure in these circumstances - she’s not even a journalist.

While I was looking for that information on baby I, I stumbled across a really good reddit thread on all of the ways Lucy Letby would have had to predict the future to get away with her crimes!

https://www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1j9eug3/remembering_the_future_how_letbys_attacks_were/

The individual asked to have the interaction publicised, though - up to them to decide what risk they are happy with.

Anyway, maybe see you on the new thread.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5394916-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind-thread-3?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Continued: **
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5394916-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind-thread-3?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share