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

He has indeed. Dewi Evans spent most of his expert witness career in the closed family courts where the burden of proof is much lower. I don’t doubt that he has left a trail of destruction in his wake.

Dewi Evans meant to called Dr Martin Ward Platt as an expert witness in the Letby case. But Ward Platt died before the trial. Ward Platt was pivotal in securing the wrongful convictions of Angela Cannings and Donna Anthony, who were both convicted of murdering their children based on prosecution friendly faulty evidence.

I can see why Evans and WP were mates.

But if you go down the probability route you should also go down it the other way and look at the substandard care in the hospital etc and add all of the issues together and see which is more damning.

In one of the parents accounts in the inquiry there was a long list of failures and issues with the hospital and care and then the judge said something like 'but you weren't aware that Lucy Letby was working that night were you'?
It's like absolutely everything else is glossed over.

She's talking crap.

Manipulative people don't write notes "confessing" they're evil (that was meant for her eyes only) so not used to garner any feelings from anyone.

Manipulative people don't tend to have steady relationships and friendships and stable relationships with parents.

Manipulative people don't tend to go through life for 20+years without pissing off at least someone. (By nobody coming out of the woodwork to taint her character since conviction) I think we can safely assume she wasn't in the habit of acting oddly with people (be that callously manipulating or sickly over friendly /fawning )

Narcissist rage doesn't happen only once in 20+years. It'd have been a regular recurring feature that at least someone would have witnessed over her lifespan. Nobody did. Because it never happened.

I agree and I’ve seen no evidence to suggest it’s the case at all. That’s why I’m wondering why the poster has that view.

I don’t think I have even heard her speak so not sure she is manipulating me. Worked in the nhs for 30+yrs been bullied for calling out bad care so have experience being on the receiving end. I agree women can be vile. There will always be the ones who want to kick you when you are down. From you post seems like you have met her but I need to see your evidence rather your overall pseudo psychological assessment.

Diagnosing strangers at a distance based only on lurid tabloids and a lurid tabloid podcast is tremendously unserious.

There actually is a video of her with her friend Dawn walking round town tipsy, one or both of them walked into a lamp post or wall and burst out laughing. She was often photographed with a drink in her hand. She liked her prosecco. So you're actually wrong anyway. None of that is the least bit relevant to the case.

No... It isn't.... How bizarre that you think I thought it was. I'd get off this thread. You're embarrassing yourself rather.

No

I'd ignore that poster. I think she herself is manipulative. She managed to twist my post into something it really wasn't (and it still pretending not to get it )

I just don't know why you're making irrelevant points that even you agree don't mean anything...

Are you some kind of puritan? Who cares?!

My opinion has not changed and that is that is a matter for the police and the courts and this trial my media is not appropriate and makes the courts' work more difficult.

It’s a tough one for me. I believe in the British Justice system, wrongful convictions do happen but they are rare. From the information I’ve seen, there seems to be reasonable doubt, but I haven’t seen what the jury saw so I can’t be sure. It is also the case where there has been wrongdoing by doctors, it’s the easiest thing in the world to blame a nurse, particularly if she is a woman. The public will grab on to a “killer nurse” narrative, because we have seen them before.

I think at the very least there should be a review of the whole thing, particularly in light of the highlighted failings at the NNICU.

Just watched the BBC doc and I'm even more confused. I've got some questions.

1. If she harmed at least 14 babies, how did noone ever see anything? Is there no cctv in the hospital? Are the NICU areas not staffed quite highly (i know they were short staffed though). Some of the things she apparently did must have taken some time. Where was everyone else?
2. Where did she get the insulin? I'm guessing insulin is not a regular medicine on that ward and surely there are records of who gets what meds. Unless LL is a diabetic she would have needed to get it somewhere.
3. How do you choose which "expert" to believe???

I remember that video.
Some people tried to say that she pushed her drunk friend into a wall when her drunk friend was clearly vulnerable, and that of course was more proof of how evil and cruel she is that she'd even try to harm her drunk vulnerable mate.

Are you just being obtuse? I keep saying over and over it's meaningless whether she ever had a wild night out or not! But the PP said the tabloids would've put it out there if they could. So I'm just saying er actually they did...there's a video of it in case she didn't know. it just doesn't matter and has no bearing on the case.

Well that's ridiculous!

Let me make it very very plain for you :

1. Most of us have done something regretful in our past. Shagging someone you shouldn't have. Blazing row with an ex aged 18 that made you look a pyscho. Got pissed and fell out of a taxi. Got irate with a neighbour over something petty. You know... Etc etc

2.) if most of us were on trial for being the UK's most prolific baby killer , and the newspaper and media outlets were fishing round offering money (which they will have been like panting dogs on heat ) old Bob from number 6 back at the argument with the teenage boyfriend would have definitely crawled out to say "I saw her going hammer and tong with this poor wee fella. Looked right scared he did. She was in his face yelling like a woman crazed. I think she scratched his face. Margaret from number 8 said she thinks he had to go to the hospital. I knew right then she was destined to kill " ... Getting it ?

3.) so nowhere in any of that have I mentioned the relevance to a trial (not did I profess as such)

4.) what I have said is that she appeared to have a squeaky clean past. Because any slightest things she did or said would have been pumped full of steroids, set on fire and happily sold to the Sun or Closer magazine. Especially where money is involved. It's a miracle that nobody has found anything banal to twist and sell. .... It's either a miracle.... Or she is indeed, squeaky clean . And that's my point. I think she is.

Enough? I would you further like to chase our tails ?

@SquishedMallow OK I'm not sure why you're so angry but thank you. I agree there is nothing untoward that anyone has come out with. I expected a lot of people to come out the woodwork with stories and none of that has really happened. It could be because there's nothing to tell or it could be some other reason like they don't want to get hounded by the press etc. who knows.

1 - Public and media scrutiny are a cornerstone of British justice, providing a check on the justice system as crucial in a democracy as jury trials.

2 - There is no “trial by media”. All anyone wants is for the courts to review the evidence which plainly needs to happen.

3 - No high profile MoJ has ever been corrected without serious public and media pressure. History shows us that the courts, unfortunately, cannot be trusted to mark their own homework.

Oh @Firefly1987 you really are something aren't you .. I'm "angry" ... ?

Luckily others can read. So I think they can figure out who the off centre one is here.

I think by "angry" you mean : I've caught you out. And that's your emotive response.

Ps if anyone could point out how I am "angry" here, I'd very much appreciate it 😄

Caught me out? How exactly? I asked you to clarify what point you were trying to make which is a perfectly reasonable request (which you could've just ignored if it bothered you that much) I'm actually being remarkably restrained considering your tone the whole time with your "let me make it plain for you" and "getting it?" and now "others can read"-yes you are very angry. But it'd be great if we can draw a line under it now considering you explained what you meant and I accepted that.

@Firefly1987 what about the question I asked you about your evidence as to why LL is a narcissist?