Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind - thread 3

[Typicalwave]

New thread for those following or wishing to comment - originally started by @kittybythelighthouse.

There’s a shortage of neonatologists, but that’s true in general in the NHS.

Just as a side note: Neena Modi and Svilena Dimitrova are both neonatologists working in Britain.

@Firefly1987 I think Evans means the distinct speciality of neonatology didn’t exist when he was choosing his specialism. Up until the 90’s ish there wasn’t good enough medical/technological advancement to help the most vulnerable premature babies to survive. Advances in ventilation, surfactant therapy, and nutrition in the 1980s–90s meant much smaller, sicker babies could survive but specialist oversight was needed. This still means Evans doesn’t have any experience of actual neonatology, which is the important point.

He’s a crank anyway imo. I don’t know how anyone takes him seriously.

They had completely different issues. Baby E massive bleeding, and baby F high insulin levels. The only thing they shared was that they were both attacked by a psychopathic nurse.

If you say so.

It's possible to think of both baby E and baby F you know - and you are the one who keeps bringing up this claim about baby E.

The point is that the mother's records are out for two independent, independently recorded, events that evening. So it does seem more likely she has things out by an hour than that there other people are separately out by an hour.

Here is a scenario which I hope will help you understand. You wake up and look at an old-fashioned digital alarm clock. It says it is 6am. You look at your watch. It says 7am
You go downstairs for breakfast. After a while you hear a church clock strike 9. You look at your phone. It says 9. You go back to your bedroom. The clock there says 8.

Which one is more likely to have been right when you woke up - your watch or your alarm clock?

The mother claimed Lucy Letby didn't call the doctor at the time (because her records of times are wrong). I don't see any claim that she didn't call the doctor at all. His notes confirm that she called him.

I hope this helps you if you want to understand what people are saying here. If you don't want to understand, I hope it will be helpful to somebody else.

Once again - if you read the motherr’s testimony of THE ENTIRE EVENING WHEN SHE MADE MULTIPLE CALLS TO HER HUSBAND INCLUDING THE MIDWIFE BEING HANDED THE MOTHERS PHONE IN THE MIDDLE OF A CALL TO THE HUSBAND and then you compare the evidence of notes/testimonies from Letby, the registrar and the midwife, yYou wouod see that the mothers times were based on time stamps that she retrieved from her phone provider around TWO YEARS LATER when she was giving evidence at Thirlwall. ALL of her times on whrn those phone called happened are ONE HOUR EARLIER than the other three sets of notes/testimoney.

But you’ve not gone and looked have you? I even posted it for you to go look yourself.

mum is wrong by 1 hour on the time she went to the nursery initially.

Try reading.

I highly doubt it will. It’s not the first time theres been wilful ignorance from them

Good luck.

Yes. Assuming ‘guilt’ at the start and then going looking for evidence of guilt, ignoring a process of testing other theories and explanations, whilst merrily removing/ignoring any evidence of innocence is never going to end well is it?

Misunderstandings about how the British justice system functions are threaded through this case. I think a lot of this misunderstanding comes from familiarity with American courtroom dramas and televised trials while most British people (thankfully) may never set foot in a British court.

I don't know what the source is, but I've definitely found it interesting the assumptions people make. Even in just these last few pages, we've had a few good examples. Convictions for murder must mean both sides agreed who was present at each alleged incident. I would expect my defence barrister to do something about it whenever the prosecutor in an adversarial system said something they're allowed to say but that I didn't like. The only way someone could say something factually incorrect in a courtroom is if they're lying.

Absolutely.

The principle is that people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Hence all the disclaimers reporters and commentators use while a trial is ongoing and the prolific use of the word allegedly.

That didn't seem to be the case for Lucy Letby at all.

A couple of take aways from this case for me.

If I am ever arrested under caution I will be innocent as I have never commited a crime in my life and never will. Previously I would have thought thar I should just explain that carefully to the police with a solicitor present. However that really didn't work out well for Lucy did it? Now I would give a No Comment interview, then prepare a statement with the help of a lawyer afterwards to address any major points and any evidence of my innocence if for example I had an alibi.

My other thought is that our justice system is not fit for purpose and at times downright silly. It is good for selling newspapers but not much else. It is performative, expensive and inaccurate. The truth seems to be the last thing any one is interested in with the result of innocent people in prison and guilty people going free.

I can't believe that if you were thinking up a system from scratch you would create anything like what we currently have. I certainly think a prior neutral fact finding exercise on causes of death (isn't that what the coroner is supposed to do?) Is needed before a charge of murder especially in medical cases.

Oh and I used to watch 24 Hours in Police Custody and think why would anyone give a no comment interview if they were innocent? But now I understand.

So my experience with my DC has left me with CPTSD. Therfore I am prone to hypervigilance and catastrophising, which means dealing with major negative life events gives me extreme anxiety even though they are "normal".

In the last 5 years my DM, my DP, my DF, my MIL and an Uncle have all died, the last three since April. All illnesses, no suspicious circumstances. I was present at the first 3, saw my MIL two days prior.

I have also been ostracised by my SM of 40 years whose MH has meant she has levelled serious accusations of theft and abuse at my DF and myself. She currently lives alone, and we are NC. My frustration at the way she has treated myself and my DF has been sometimes expressed unkindly, although I accept that she "can't help it" (allegedly).

So hypothetically if she was murdered or died in unexplained circumstances, and I was interviewed, following perhaps interviews with people she has spoken to but don't know me, and who have believed her delusions, the police, going by Lucy Letbys case, might consider me a good suspect. My DNA is in her house probably, as she has gifts I've given her etc and I used to visit.

I live alone so I wouldn't necessarily have an alibi. Phone tracking? I could have left it at home. My search history would show an interest in the occult and true crime.

I have a history of being accused of harming my DC. I have had episodes of binge drinking and confrontation publicly witnessed, while under extreme stress. (Not ideal, and not proud, obviously).

My point in bringing up this hypothetical scenario, is that on paper, on the balance of probabilities, a skillful prosecutor could probably convince a jury they had me bang to rights.

My protestations of innocence could be painted as manipulative. Friends testifying to my character could have fallen victim to my "charm". If I used big words or was sarcastic or angry in the witness box, that's all potential ammunition. Indeed, during my DCs case, all of those things came up as red flags in reports.

It could be argued that cumulative stress drove me to it, or that the other deaths around me should be looked at again - after all, my DM and DP might have been dying of cancer, but it doesn't mean I didn't help them along.

And imagine, in a bizarre twist of fate, this scenario came to pass (honestly it would be rubber room time for me if it did) and the prosecution found this post.

Would it be premeditation or a confession as presented to a jury? Or evidence of a sick mind proving a point?

Now some readers will be rolling their eyes, scoffing or accusing me of hyperbole. Some will understand exactly what I'm getting at. And that the justice system, as a PP mentioned, isn't always about justice at all.

“I would expect my defence barrister to do something about it whenever the prosecutor in an adversarial system said something they're allowed to say but that I didn't like.”

You’d think. But it’s not like the US here. British JS etiquette is entirely different. The BJS fancies itself to be more civilised, but imo the stuffy etiquette is just dreadfully naive in a complex and emotive case like this one. Most British judges (and I get the impression that Goss was one of them) absolutely hate interjections. The expectation (which is entirely unrealistic particularly now when most people are more familiar with the American style frequent “objection!”) is that the jury can be trusted to judge what’s being said and that they are in any case directed not to treat barristers assertions as evidence. Barristers have to stay on the right side of the judge or they won’t get far. Interjections are therefore rare here. Most barristers wait until it’s their ‘turn’, which here turned out to be many months later after 22 cases had been presented.

“The only way someone could say something factually incorrect in a courtroom is if they're lying.”

Not exactly. Yes, they couldn’t tell a barefaced lie about something that is a definite fact - for example the time of death or who was on shift. But they can and absolutely will spin a story out of all the unknowns that gather between all the facts. For example, if nobody knows who was in nursery 1 at precisely 10.52 on a particular date in the NICU the prosecution can allege that this is when Letby struck, but they’re just making that up. It could be when she struck (if she’s guilty) but it could be when she was chatting about Corrie to a colleague in another room etc (if she’s innocent). The prosecution will attempt to present the narrative that fits their story, the defence will attempt to do the opposite. There is no fact being twisted or denied, because nobody knows for a fact what happened in between two moments that are factually recorded - say clocking in at 7 and then medical records show a procedure was done at 11pm etc.

It is these grey in-between-the-facts areas that are always in contention in this case. For example, a PP thinks that because NJ said Letby always attacked babies “shortly after” their parents left, that it is therefore a fact that she always attacked babies shortly after their parents left. The ‘proof’ offered for this was literally a quote from NJ’s cross examination.

That example is by no means a fact and he’s given himself a lot of leeway with the word “shortly” but it is a colourful and shocking allegation to make, which has a narrative impact that we can see actually did work on the PP here, and probably many others. It’s not a fact by any means, let alone an agreed fact, but it’s not a lie either. It’s just an assertion.

“I have no idea why he wasn't called, why would I if even he doesn't know?”

I didn’t ask whether you knew. I know you don’t know. I asked what you think. This because you appear to be implying that because Hall wasn’t called this somehow points to guilt, even though we know that Dr Hall doesn’t think she’s guilty and even if he did he is not even in the same stratosphere as the defence experts now.

Why wouldn’t you call the defence expert if you were guilty? That doesn’t make sense since surely your aim would be to avoid being found guilty. Can you explain your reasoning there?

The coroner was deliberately kept out of it and the CoCH deliberately withheld info from the coroner. That’s not from me, that’s from Stephanie Davis, chief coroner’s officer for Cheshire at the time.

I misspelled her name: Stephanie Davies

Here’s wgere she explains that information was withheld and coroner was kept out of the police investigation

https://x.com/voice4thedead/status/1958257972468924800?s=46

@Firefly1987 ”No it's just that the prosecution case was far more compelling, for obvious reasons. You could say that for any case "oh you only thought x other serial killer was guilty because their defence was so poor"-well yeah obviously! She IS guilty. If she wasn't her defence would be able to counter all the things that made her look bad. And we'd have heard about it. They can't do that because it's what actually happened.”

This logic would apply to every single miscarriage of justice ever. Do you want to round up all the postmasters again? Because that’s the logic you’re relying on here and it’s failing you badly I’m afraid. As in the postmaster’s cases (or a multitude of other MoJ) it’s only after the trial that expert evidence came to light which showed what was wrong with the initial trial. This is really basic.

“How many times have different people (other staff and parents) said a baby suddenly collapsed and Lucy Letby was the only one there? They can't ALL be mistaken or lying.”

How many times? Why don’t you catalogue them and tell us? I already know that it’s a lot less than you think it is because you’re relying on what NJ asserted in his cross examination, under the mistaken belief that it was a fact when it isn’t. Nobody said anyone was “lying” either, but you keep trying to claim it.

“I imagine Myers was scrambling around for literally ANYTHING to counter the prosecution's version of events. The fact he couldn't tells you everything you need to know.”

It clearly doesn’t tell us everything you need to know, because you seem to be oblivious to the fact that regardless of what happened during the trial if the evidence does not stand to scrutiny then it does not stand.

Again, apply your metric here to any other MoJ of your choosing and tell me that because the prosecution in that case won, and the defence lost, that therefore that defendant was actually guilty and should be banged up again. Is that what you really think though? I doubt it.

“OR what's more likely is this comment will almost certainly age like milk.”

We’ll see. I’ll put a fiver on it if you will 😉

Yes, quite. I was surprised to hear someone who apparently is familiar with criminal law think they could expect a good defence barrister to somehow the deter the prosecution from putting the Crown's case, from doing the job the adversarial system requires of them.

I don’t know how you’ve come to the conclusion that most barristers won’t rise if there’s an issue with their opposite’s line of questioning and will instead only wait ‘their turn’? My experience (admittedly some years ago now professionally, but also in doing jury service over a 3 week trial last year) is that it happens pretty frequently in UK courts - it was at least once or twice per session in the trial last year as I recall.

And what you set out in your fourth paragraph is stating the bleeding obvious and I don’t think anyone on this thread has actually said anything in contradiction.

It’s not even just from her! This is accepted by everyone. At Thirlwall the coroner quite rightly made a bit of a stink about the doctors not brining any of these supposedly unexpected deaths to his attention.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2y5zqw0jdo.amp

As he should have.

I just wanted to post Stephanie’s perspective as she was his chief officer on Cheshire police, whom Cheshire police implied was a girl frok the typing pool after she spoke out. She was booted from her job.

I have yet to be convinced of Letby's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Still waiting.

Not considered as guilty without a doubt the following:

Notes
Facebook searches
Looks, demeanour and court reactions

Stephanie Davies is a complete loose cannon with delusions of Columbo (and not to mention a very obvious bone to pick with Cheshire Police).

https://jamesandwest.co.uk/senior-coroner-takes-employer-to-employment-tribunal/

I didn’t say “most barristers won’t rise” at all full stop. Obviously they do under certain circumstances. What we are discussing is whether or not British barristers would interject every time an opposing barrister (like NJ) makes assertions that are neither facts nor lies, but are not accepted by the defence. The etiquette in British courts is that you should avoid it. Myers didn’t object to a multitude of things NJ said which we know aren’t accepted by the defence. He addressed them when presenting the defence’s case in answer to the prosecution, which is the norm as I said.

Once or twice per session is not in any way frequent compared to how often objections are raised in the US, which was the comparison being made.

This was my fourth paragraph:

”That example is by no means a fact and he’s given himself a lot of leeway with the word “shortly” but it is a colourful and shocking allegation to make, which has a narrative impact that we can see actually did work on the PP here, and probably many others. It’s not a fact by any means, let alone an agreed fact, but it’s not a lie either. It’s just an assertion.”

That’s exactly what is being discussed here, which is why I said that a PP said this. So, no. It is clearly not “the bleeding obvious” to everyone.