Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind - thread 3

[Typicalwave]

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

Yes - if you had to choose NEC over inflicting air embolism with the registrar and consultant in the room, you'd surely choose NEC. How Evans claimed to have eliminated it isn't clear.

In a way, new defence witnesses might be tempted to that approach: here are the one or two causes we consider most likely. And here are another half dozen or so possibilities, just in case anyone wants to insist it's murder ...

I think it’s pretty obvious from the various interviews Evans has given that he didn’t do much of a differential, in any of the cases. He saw Baby O’s liver trauma and immediately jumped on ‘murder’ (let’s not worry about lack of evidence of blunt injury in yhd form of bruising etc) and just went looking for ‘murder’ in subsequent cases.

It's not one "false accusation" with Lucy Letby, she was originally up on more than 20 charges! And they've looked into her previous hospital, and I expect they've found plenty there considering she herself said she'd seen her fair share of deaths in the little time she even worked there. It's extremely compelling circumstantial evidence.

You haven't answered my question.

Several babies a month would die at Liverpool. That's the nature of the unit (large and acute). Are you blaming Lucy Letby for that? What do you think goes on there normally?

It's not impossibly high, it's the same standard I'd have for any case, particularly if the person could face life behind bars.

But it's not "any case" so the usual evidence you'd expect to find doesn't apply and people don't seem to understand that.

If you're so convinced that it's not going to make a difference then why on earth do you care and spend so much time telling people that they're wrong and going over the 'evidence' that convicted her.

Because people saying that the worst most sadistic child killer in the country might be innocent is something that needs countering. It's offensive to the children involved, the parents, the consultants, the police, the court system, the judge, the jury. I just can't sit back and watch that happen. Especially when everyone could just wait a few months and see if there is far more evidence to come-which let me guess, still won't convince people on here! There comes a point where it's more stubbornness and refusal to admit you were wrong than anything and I think that's what we're seeing here.

There you go again coming up with your theories 'seems like some people can't get their head around healthcare serial killers'......don't be so ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous when we've literally got people saying "but no one saw her do anything" (not the case anyway) and ignoring the mountains of evidence a baby collapsed the minute LL went in a room. Babies don't collapse in the vicinity of one nurse shortly after parents or other staff have left. Healthy twins and triplets don't suddenly die of different things in suspicious circumstances. The minute one nurse gets back from holiday no less! If you can't put 2+2 together then I don't know what to tell you. I do think the term "if it looks like a duck" would be trotted out more than a few times for anyone but a young female nurse in this scenario.

It's all one false accusation. If they can ignore pathologist's reports and call an expert witness willing to say no other cause of death is possible except murder, they can pin any death on her. Then once they suggest she is responsible for enough deaths, that becomes their justification - so many deaths. She must be guilty!

There isn't a single case that could have stood alone.

It's possible, we'll have to wait and see won't we? I can't guess at what the police might've found. Perhaps Lucy was trying to make Chester a bit more like Liverpool. She always moaned Liverpool was better didn't she.
Why were several babies dying at Chester if it's nowhere near as large or taking in such high risk babies as Liverpool? I thought Chester took in all these high risk babies that were so likely to die...

Also @MistressoftheDarkSide Well unfortunately she was there for every death....I'm not a nurse (and I can't think of a comparable situation) but I think if I was I'd probably have given up nursing long before we got to the point of colleagues calling me "nurse death" or "I wonder if firefly is on shift" when alarms are blaring tbh. And you know if we were at that point I think I'd probably think "fair enough" about an investigation. It'd be astronomically unlikely I'd end up being the only nurse connected to ALL deaths if I was innocent so I'd never end up in Lucy's situation would I? I'm sure there are many reasons to worry about a MoJ, this case ain't it though.

You've hit on something true there: Liverpool was overcrowded or hit by infection several times during 2015 - 16, and vulnerable children who should have been there or whose parents wanted to keep them there ended up at Chester, a worse staffed and equipped hospital for their needs. Other children would have been born at Liverpool or another level 3 hospital if the birth had not been sudden or if their condition had been recognised. Other children were awaiting transfer to Liverpool when they died or collapsed.

This would include baby D, baby E, baby H, baby I, baby K, baby L, baby M, baby O and baby P.

Liverpool's struggles in 2015-16 probably did have some effect on Chester. But it remained a larger hospital, with 15 intensive care cots for long term use to Chester's 3 for short term use. So Chester never took more babies than Liverpool, but obviously took some, including to relieve pressure on Liverpool.

But no, Lucy Letby wasn't "always" moaning about Liverpool. There are some interesting points to discuss but when you exaggerate things like that, there's less room for serious discussion unfortunately.

Statistics will tell you that about 3 nurses a year - in neonatal units alone that is - will have a run of events like Lucy Letby's. Are they all guilty?

Also she may have been there for the deaths / collapses she was charged with, but there were others.

If every baby she ever nursed died, I might wonder, but that isn't the case, is it? I'd love to know the number of babies she nursed during her career that went home in fine fettle.

Firstly, I think we all feel great sympathy for the parents here. Most, if not all of us, are parents ourselves. We are not in opposition to the parents and neither is the truth, whatever it shows itself to be. The narrative you’re attached to has fallen apart at the seams. It isn’t true. That’s why we don’t accept it. No other reason.

“There comes a point where it's more stubbornness and refusal to admit you were wrong than anything and I think that's what we're seeing here.”

This is massive projection. No one is “refusing” to believe anything factual. People are refusing to go along with a story that is now functioning more like a belief system. It’s faith based. Not fact based. You are asking us to believe things that there simply isn’t any evidence for.

I really don’t mean to offend you here, because I think we’ve mostly been able to get along well without doing that, but I really do think you’re stuck in a bit of a loop where it’s emotionally difficult for you to revisit the narrative you’ve understood as ‘the truth’ for years. All of this is so emotive. I get that. I really do. But you’re projecting heavily in these last few comments. You’re the one being stubborn and refusing to admit it when you are shown where and why (with evidence!) certain beliefs you hold about the case simply aren’t true, you keep clinging to them anyway and then accuse us of being stubborn. This is projection on a legendary scale.

Anyone reasonable would have to admit that there are at the very least questions and lapses in the prosecution’s narrative, but you don’t seem able to let go of any of it. Do you still trust Dewi Evans? That’s an easy one, you should be able to say “No” just the same as anyone else. At this stage he’s the new Roy Meadow in waiting and everyone knows it. But will you admit that he can’t be trusted? I don’t think so.

“explain why it just so happened when Lucy was there again?”

You keep saying this even though it’s been answered five thousand times. Because they chose the cases she had charge of. That’s why. This has been shown and explained. You choose not to believe it, you’re entitled to believe whatever you like, but you can’t pretend that we don’t have any explanation for these points. We do and we’ve presented the evidence for that time and again. You just ignore it because you’re emotionally attached to a guilty narrative.

“ignoring the mountains of evidence”

Nothing you’ve presented has been ignored. Literally nothing. Every single thing has been engaged with thoughtfully, respectfully, and with evidence and references/links to Thirlwall or the transcripts etc etc. In fact you could say that we are the ones presenting you with mountains of evidence that you ignore. That would be far more accurate.

@Firefly1987

But it's not "any case" so the usual evidence you'd expect to find doesn't apply and people don't seem to understand that.

In which case the medical evidence should have have been tested vigorously and robustly, and the best experts in the world should have assessed it, even if that took dozens of them.
It certainly shouldn't have been down to Dewi Evans versus whoever the defence could find.

Because people saying that the worst most sadistic child killer in the country might be innocent is something that needs countering. It's offensive to the children involved, the parents, the consultants, the police, the court system, the judge, the jury. I just can't sit back and watch that happen. Especially when everyone could just wait a few months and see if there is far more evidence to come-which let me guess, still won't convince people on here!

No it doesn't need countering. If you're so convinced she's guilty and never getting out then countering it is actually keeping many of these conversations still going. If you weren't on here 'countering' then the threads would just contain the new news as it happens and then probably brief discussions about that and then the thread would die until there's a new development.

I can understand that it can be offensive to the babies involved and their families, but there is a very real chance that is a miscarriage of justice, in which case that needs to be rectified.

I don't give a fuck if it's offensive to the police/court system/judge or jury.
For the police and everyone involved in the judicial system that's their job, they get much praise and they often get criticism along with that, at the end of the day they're dealing with peoples lives.

There comes a point where it's more stubbornness and refusal to admit you were wrong than anything and I think that's what we're seeing here.

😂 Jesus Christ.

For those who have doubted this from early on or when the New Yorker article came out, all that we've seen since then is more and more and more rebuttals and experts coming out and doubting it so obviously doubts will get stronger, not weaker. The stubbornness and refusal to admit you are wrong is coming from YOU. I don't care if you still think she's guilty, but everything else....you'll ask a question and someone will provide the information and then you say 'oh you lot have an explanation for everything don't you'. You won't accept anything, you just repeat the same things over and over again like what you wrote there in the last paragraph, which I'm not going to even get into because other people have already discussed that in depth repeatedly.

I do think the term "if it looks like a duck" would be trotted out more than a few times for anyone but a young female nurse in this scenario.

You know what looks like a duck........hospital failures....but you ignore the quacking and say it's a serial killer.

It’s not just one duck - it’s all the ducks.

There are no ducks left bevause they're all sitting in a North Western city quacking away.

Did you go an look yet at the midwife’s and registrar’s statements (and find out their names) yet to be able to see that it’s is mums timeline that differs to three other timelines recorded independently that night all all agreeing on times?

No?

I didn’t think so.

It is you who is unwilling to consider the facts and how they function together to create a wider picture. Not everyone ekse.

‘I have not heard any criticism from any individual whose view I respect. And I have not heard any criticism from any organisation whose view I respect."’

If one were to look up the words ‘hubristic’, ‘prejudiced’, ‘subjective’ and ‘self-aggrandising’ ‘anti-science’ one would fibd ‘Dewi Evans’ next to them.

I am astounded anyone can take him seriously at this point - well, anyone who is a reasonable person open to new information and ideas.

I wonder if, each time he gives a new interview (and he keeps saying ‘this will be my last’), the CPS considers jacking it all in and changing careers.

Are people still taking Dewi Evans seriously? Can't speak to anyone's IRL experiences, but I've noticed in online discussion that even the people most convinced of LLs guilt tend to gloss over his contribution.

Yes. The thing is that you cannot seriously still insist that the conviction is safe and she’s 100% guilty if you have lost faith in Dewi Evans. He and his crackpot theories are the spine of the whole thing. It all falls apart once you take him out of the picture.

From what I’ve seen across SM there are some who still see him as being the man who stopped an evil baby killer, yes, and as a result can do no wrong and it is anathema to critique him.

She was not present at every death. Have you seen the evidence? The graph was skewed to fit the prosecution’s case.

I'm thinking more of people who haven't joined those particular dots, who either wouldn't accept that contention or aren't aware of it. Haven't really looked at SM much though @Kittybythelighthouse, that's a fair point.

Also, remaining silent isn’t an endorsement - something Dewi doesn’t seem to understand, may find out pretty quickly if this all unravels.

The tabloids will have a field day.

I would be interested to see a source for this.

It is good that at least a charity will benefit from this awful situation.

You are confused. I am not saying that I believe beyond reasonable doubt she is not guilty. I am saying that I do not believe beyond reasonable doubt that she is guilty and the verdict is therefore unsafe.

When she is released, she will have to live with the doubt of a huge number of people which is horrific if she is actually innocent.