Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind - thread 3

[Typicalwave]

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

How many times can you ask the same questions?

The evidence was not that convincing, especially in light of all the new information coming out.

Will I respond for you?

@Firefly1987 says 'Well it convinced the jury, All that I can think is that some of you just can't believe it because you refuse to believe that a white blond woman could do this.
Well it convinced the jury... all I can think of is that you just won't believe it because you don't want to believe that serial killers exist etc etc.

Same thing over and over and over again.

No, not exactly! The point I was making is that you seem to think that you can only have an opinion about it if you followed it from the start or that your opinion is more valid if you did, now that is arrogant!!

It was a HUGE trial over here. If someone from the UK had any interest in it at all they would've followed it at the time. People are coming to it months after because of articles that are designed to manipulate them into thinking it's all a MoJ. Now they've been whipped up into a frenzy about this poor innocent nurse, because they hate the system or they're not even from the UK so are only getting half the story.

It seems you're so focused on Britishness and British is best, perhaps that's why you refuse to even entertain the idea that this is possibly a miscarriage of justice. Maybe I'll throw that out now in every response to you like you do with all your theories.

😆go for it, I can't imagine I'd mind. Sometimes I love the UK, sometimes I moan about it. I don't refuse to entertain the idea for any other reason than she's so obviously guilty.

I'm baffled none of you found the evidence convincing that's why!

Don’t forget - timelines not matching up mean we’re accusing a rightfully devastated mother of being a liar

and

You can’t trust foreigners - it’s not their business anyway (unless it’s in the form of Dewi Evans using a research paper written by a foreigner)

Then provide a counter argument.

If someone from the UK had any interest in it at all they would've followed it at the time
Says who? People get interested in news stories, particularly about crimes, at all stages, they don't have to follow them at the start, and this is a serial killer story. Even without the MOJ angle there would have been people late to the story who then became very interested in it.

Why do you have to be from the UK to get the full story? 🤔 As I said before, there's a thing called the internet.
You don't have hidden information in the UK that the rest of the world isn't aware of.

Has that ever happened before? That'll probably be your next theory, it got put in there accidentally (or deliberately) by the people at the pharmacy! No she asked because she knew they'd 100% got her if they had those bags with traces of insulin in.

I only followed it loosely because I was in the middle of some pretty importune life shit with an already reduced bandwidth and the frankly salacious headlines at yhd time were triggering.

Fortunately we have this handy thing called the internet and reporting bans were lifted in the UK until mid 2024 - and the tsunami of information followed.

This has all been pointed out to you….

I mean I have several posters asking me questions, showing me sources etc. I did read that article months ago and wasn't impressed but I'll need to read it again to have any sort of discussion about it.

Has what ever happened before? People offering ideas and theories on how something may have occurred?

Yes.

It’s happened many many many times since man began to communicate

According to my quick Google AI overview:

"Hospital pharmacy medication error rates in the UK vary by error type, with dispensing errors ranging from 0.02% to 2.7% and administration errors between 3% and 8%. While the overall numbers of medication errors are high, with estimates suggesting over 237 million errors across the NHS annually, the majority are unlikely to cause harm. However, errors can have serious consequences, including worsening patient conditions, severe side effects, and even death. Digitalisation, such as electronic prescribing and patient administration, is being implemented to help reduce these rates.
Dispensing Error Statistics
Dispensing Error Rate:
Studies and reviews place the dispensing error rate in UK hospital pharmacies between 0.02% and 2.7%.
Impact:
A hospital dispensing 2.3 million prescriptions per year could have up to 62,100 errors, though the majority are caught and corrected before they harm patients.
Medication Administration Error Statistics
Administration Error Rate:
The error rate for medication administration in hospitals is significantly higher, ranging from 3% to 8%.
Causes:
Common causes include communication failures, difficult working conditions, and human error.
Overall Medication Errors in the NHS
Total Errors:
Official estimates suggest more than 237 million medication errors occur annually within English NHS facilities."

You being baffled is a you issue.

At least one juror wasn't convinced by most of the charges either, and they sat in the court room every day. I think it's safe to assume that it was the one juror who was the same hold-out juror for all of the majority verdicts.

The only 3 unanimous verdicts were for the insulin cases and for baby O, presumably because of the liver injury. I would bet that as that juror needed more to be convinced then the rest of the jurors that there's a high chance that juror is now questioning those 3 charges now too.

So if someone, a juror, sat in the courtroom every day and was only convinced by 3 of the 22 charges against her, why do you find it so baffling that other people may also not be convinced, especially considering all of the new experts coming out and disputing it.

As I said, you being baffled is a you issue. You say you're interested in human behaviour and psychology, why don't you examine what it is in YOU that means you can't accept other people can reach different conclusions than you?

It's just the fact that it was laid out very carefully by the prosecution at the time, and everything pointed towards her guilt. I don't think it's a coincidence that the majority of people who followed the trial know she's guilty. Those podcasts are the next best thing but if it doesn't convince you it doesn't convince you. Nothing probably will.

An anecdotal story here for you:

a friend of mine visited je in the USA whrn I lived there (I guess I’m doubly mis-trusted now by @Firefly1987)

Her prescription was antidepressants.

She started to have some very unusual symptoms whilst she was visiting me. At first I brushed it off but as time wrong by I became increasingly concerned as she was displaying what I wrongly thought was symptoms of serotonin syndrome - based on the fact I rightly assumed she was taking newly prescribed ssri medication)

Once she returned to the UK she went to her GP - her medication that was supposed to be a SSRI was in fact a vaso dilator - it made the news because she ended up being one in a long line of truly eye watering mistakes from that particular pharmacy

It's just the fact that it was laid out very carefully by the prosecution at the time, and everything pointed towards her guilt. I don't think it's a coincidence that the majority of people who followed the trial know she's guilty.

Yes exactly.....of course it isn't a coincidence that for many who followed and believed the prosecutions story that they think that she's guilty, they lapped up the story that the prosecution laid out, that doesn't mean that the story is correct!

The podcasts are not the next best thing.

They use the most damning soundbites, as did a lot of the newspapers. There's far more information in the live updates from the Chester standard etc, which I've went and looked at many times to find out information about things.

So if someone, a juror, sat in the courtroom every day and was only convinced by 3 of the 22 charges against her, why do you find it so baffling that other people may also not be convinced, especially considering all of the new experts coming out and disputing it.

I mean none of the jurors were saying she was 100% innocent of all charges like you are?

As I said, you being baffled is a you issue. You say you're interested in human behaviour and psychology, why don't you examine what it is in YOU that means you can't accept other people can reach different conclusions than you?

Being baffled is not a problem for me 😆it is bizarre we can both look at the same evidence and come to such different conclusions, but there you go. My only concern is society making sure another Lucy Letby never gets the chance to harm anyone ever again. Because there are probably more like her out there and that's terrifying.

Statistically it was probably one of those pesky clusters…

No one was accused of trying to kill anyone

At the time no, I did write a paragraph about that in my post, and as I said, I bet there's a high chance that that particular juror is questioning those 3 charges now.

It certainly is a problem if you can't understand human differences to the point where you have to keep coming up with all these theories about why other people think why they do, instead of just accepting the obvious explanation. Are you normally so confused about other people thinking differently than you do?

Not sure why you'd think it is bizarre, it's very common because people aren't all the same.

I don't think that's what happened in this case, no. I do think it's very obviously the first question you would ask, since the bags were mixed in the pharmacy. As I said, I think anyone would ask that question, so asking it really can't be used as proof of guilt.

It’s pretty basic trouble shooting skills - which one would hope to see in a nurse.

That all might be true but if a baby was naturally hypoglycaemic they would not have low c-peptide levels. That points only to insulin being administered and not occurring naturally. If it was a routine test the result would be the same as all the other naturally hypoglycaemic babies wouldn't it? Not wildly different. Oh but it just so happened the test was wrong these times they suspected Lucy? Come on, even you don't believe it.

They didn't even make the connection with the insulin babies until the police asked Dr Brearey to check the twin siblings of those that were attacked as the pattern with multiples had been noticed. Only THEN did Brearey realise the other twin had been poisoned with insulin. Just more evidence for you to dismiss, of course. It's all just coincidence this!

It’s like she thinks that test is only ever done when exogenous insulin is suspected. She’s insufferable. I cannot bear her performative saccharine attitude when it’s clear that if you scratch the surface even a little (or read any of her DM pieces) that she’s v nasty and mostly just concerned with profiting from all of this while using grieving parents as a human shield. I cannot stand her.

Or she just so happens to be right about it all? Here's where I'm baffled again because I don't get that impression of Liz Hull AT ALL. But then we come at this from different sides and you're determined to see anyone who thinks Lucy is guilty as the "enemy". I'm still quite taken aback at you saying all this though.

She had a thing about multiples because she was jealous of the attention they got (yes she's that pathetic) and attacking both of them the same way was too risky. Healthy twins suddenly dying with her on shift would've raised massive questions. Hence the insulin that would be infused so slowly she'd be off shift by the time the baby started showing side effects.

Very normal to ask.

I had to make statements a couple of years ago (no suggestion of wrongdoing on my part) and I asked loads of questions 'did you check this?' 'do you have that'? It's normal when you're trying to help.

Previously I'd made a statement about the same thing years ago, the detective at the time wasn't as nice and was more suspicious I was withholding information (I wasn't) but it was very early days of the investigation at the time. I don't remember very much about that or my original statement, so I was very surprised by it when it was read back to me years later, so I can see how easy it would be for LL to forget stuff, but I do always remember that when he was asking me questions about the timings of certain persons comings and goings on a certain day that I didn't know the answers because the day didn't stand out to me and so I said I don't know but did you check the phone records? was there CCTV?' because I knew that would probably give them the answers and I also was trying to show I wasn't hiding anything because I wasn't.
I only remember that part because he snapped at me that 'this isn't CSI'. and I remember thinking 'it's hardly CSI to check the basics like phone records 🙄'

Do you understand that this is nothing more than supposition?

@Firefly1987

Oh but it just so happened the test was wrong these times they suspected Lucy? Come on, even you don't believe it.

I would imagine they looked at every single test that could be connected to her. So hundreds against the two that stand out. Are you not aware of the 2% error rate? And the wildly incorrect control test from the lab around that time?