Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind - thread 3

[Typicalwave]

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

Just to confirm that the Thirlwall inquiry was implemented by Stephen Barclay in 2023. Under a Conservative government.

And I’m really horrified you can’t read properly. I clearly said the evidence provided and her reaction on being arrested. Multiple factors, evidence included.
Nobody is that stupid so wind your bloody neck in and get a grip!

Think about what you’re saying here: you’re expecting someone who doesn’t have expertise in endocrinology, no expertise in how insulin lab tests work to do what exactly when asked if they agree with the alleged expert - what do you expect them to say? ‘No I don’t agree that the babies were poisoned. The tests were wrong, Hindmatsh is wrong, but I can’t tell you how they are wrong?’ She’d have looked completely batshit - she said whay any reasonable person wouod say when being forced to comment: (paraphrasing) ‘If that’s what the tests say, then, they must have been given insulin.’ That’s not an admission of anything. It’s being forced to agree under pressure when not in a position to be able to provide a counter argument.

You cited her demeanour when being arrested as a reason you believe her guilty so I’m really not sure what you are getting so affronted about.

I do find it odd how often people talk about what would be normal demeanour in highly unusual circumstances, when most of them must know full well they've neither the professional nor personal experience to assess that. It's not LL specific, happens with loads of cases.

Personally I've never considered LLs facial expressions when being arrested, because I have no fucking idea what innocent or guilty people are likely to do in that situation.

Nobody has agreed with Hindmarsh about the "stickiness" of the insulin and the quantity needed. Not a single person. Because he only ever guessed, and admitted to that.

You can get experts who say - these tests are nearly always right. Great. Even if they're right 98% of the time as the expert interviewed on Panorama claimed, why should a woman be locked up for life because a test is "nearly always" right?

And that's before we get to the problems with that lab, which produced the wrong result on a quality test just a month later.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/were-the-blood-tests-in-lucy-letbys-conviction-flawed/

Also 98% accuracy could easily lead to multiple tests being wrong purely by chance. If they ran, for example, one hundred insulin tests over the time Lucy worked at the unit then the chances of at least two tests being wrong would be 60%.

“Especially the insulin argument - she could have challenged this view with her own expert but she decided not to”

Experts aren’t all equal and there are many reasons (legal, procedural, a deficit of knowledge on the part of the specific expert that was available, etc) why someone may be advised as she was in this case. That aside, procedure and justice aren’t the same thing. Sally Clark would have died in prison if procedure took precedence over justice. The actual truth matters.

“Just because another few experts have come out and said they disagree with Hindmarsh it doesn’t mean anything. There are many who agree with him!!”

Like who? Genuinely, who? By the way, Hindmarsh has relinquished his GMC registration.

“Letby herself accepted this was true”

I’m always baffled when I see this argument. She accepted what she was being told, forcefully, by the prosecution - that someone definitely poisoned two babies. The fact that this would later turn out to be far from true wasn’t in her gift to know then.

An innocent person, with no reason at the time to doubt the science, would accept that someone must have poisoned the babies if that’s what she’s told the test shows. She just knew it wasn’t her. A guilty person would have every incentive to argue the science was flawed. That Letby accepted the prosecution’s premise is evidence of innocence, not guilt.

In any case it doesn’t matter what was accepted by who. The test was not forensic and is not even usable grounds to fire someone, let alone to convict someone of attempted murder.

There are a myriad of issues with the insulin tests, not least the fact that she wasn’t even there for those incidents. She is only linked to them at all because of all the other cases. They are extremely tenuous and difficult to argue for once all the other chain evidence of murder is dismantled, which it has been and very thoroughly too.

Finally, naturally there are a lot of strong feelings about this case but it’s a very serious matter that affects all of our lives and warrants serious discussion. It would be ideal if we could have that discussion civilly.

I’d be interested in knowing what evidence you still find compelling if you don’t mind sharing. I can see that you have strong feelings about the case, many do, but I think we can have that conversation civilly if you’re up for it? No worries if not.

This thread and the two that precede it are just an echo chamber for those obsessed with defending LL, a convicted baby killer.

I don’t know how you can characterise these threads as “echo chambers” when there are continuous overt invitations made to engage in respectful conversation with people who have opposing views. The two comments preceding yours are both openly asking for that kind of discourse.

Engaging in thoughtful discussion about a potential Miscarriage of justice is not “defending a baby killer”. If this is a MoJ all of our lives are affected by it because it exposes deep rot at the heart of major public institutions that we depend on, for ourselves and our families. It’s childish to dismiss those who are concerned about that as “defending a baby killer”. The repercussions go far beyond Letby here and affect all of our lives, whether we care about that or not.

Whereas I see an abundance of facts, explained clearly and politely by people concerned about the impact on all of us of very obvious problems with the NHS and the judicial system. As far as I can see no one who has joined the thread to give a pro verdict viewpoint has been able to articulate the reasons for their confidence in the safety of the conviction. And now, in the absence of a cogent argument, they have descended into ad hominem attacks.

Think some of us that are questioning the outcome probably have more knowledge than you!
we know how the nhs works.
This isn’t just about Lucy this is about every nurse, midwife & healthcare professional & for all the ones that have been bullied in the nhs.
DE had not worked in the nhs for over 14yrs they were also involved in women loosing custody of their children & the sally Clark case imprisoned for the murder of her children, she was released but died not long after release.
i don’t know about law but felt the judge who had been warned by another judge about DE, the jury was told about this but no detail. I feel she was badly defended.

How would you characterise your views? Are you not an echo chamber? Are you open to new information?

Or do you just wish to keep claiming people blindly supporting LL (let’s not entertain the idea of a fair and just justice system nor the reams and reams of evidence posted in here to back up assertions) throwing out ‘facts’ without backing with evidence?

I am not engaging with your obsessive nonsense, no matter how much you @ me. Get a life.

To which I'd add, as a fence sitter, that there are some clear structural issues within our system that mean there's a risk of a miscarriage of justice, whether that's LL or someone else. That is a problem, and it's one we should all be concerned about. These threads have seen substantial discussion of said problem, from people with a variety of views on LLs guilt.

Perhaps reflect on why you feel you need to continue to read and interject into a conversation you thoroughly disapprove of and have no need to be a party to before you tell others who wish to explore and discuss to ‘get a life’.

HTH

I guess it could be argued the Birmingham Six or Guildford Four were convicted murderers and terrorists…until their convictions were quashed as unsafe.

A Hollywood film was made about the latter miscarriage of justice.

Cases involving deaths while in care of NHS should concern us all.

As should access to justice.

Alright, so it’s your choice not to engage. That’s fair enough, but it doesn’t make the thread an “echo chamber”. People not agreeing with you, but doing so calmly and reasonably while you choose to be hostile doesn’t make the thread an echo chamber either. Thanks anyway.

Yes, and I think that’s extremely important to discuss no matter what your views are on LL. I agree entirely.

I find it particularly disturbing it invariably seems to be women who are scrutinised and judged on their demeanour in front of a camera: Lindy Chamberlain, Joanne Lees, Amanda Knox, Kate McCann.

It’s as if women are expected to break down in hysterics or uncontrollably sob. And if they don’t, people suggest they might be guilty or suspicious.

Ok so on the sources I was asked to provide-

The CCTV source-I'm sure I read she wasn't happy about the prospect of it but have to concede I can't find anything specifically on that. There was a Telegraph article about it, but it just said "mention of installing CCTV on the unit without explanation had unsettled the nursing team further". Same as a PP had quoted.

I MAY have been getting mixed up with the article where she was the face of that campaign and she said and I quote "“I hope the new unit will provide a greater degree of privacy and space,” which doesn't sound like someone who would be up for CCTV!

https://nypost.com/2018/07/04/friends-co-workers-shocked-by-arrest-of-kindhearted-nurse-charged-with-murdering-babies/

On the facebook searches-she searched baby K's surname over 2 years after their death (at Arrowe Park) when she wasn't even the designated nurse. Why would she need to do this if she had no connection to baby K? Unless she was worried she'd be accused of harming them?

The prosecutor questioned the defendant why, 26 months after Child K's collapse, she had searched the infant's surname at around midnight on April 20, 2018. Asked why she had conducted the search, Letby said: "I can't answer that. I don't know why."
The prosecutor suggested to the defendant that by then, although it would be another three months before she was arrested, she 'knew' police were asking questions about her. She denied she was friends with Child K's designated nurse, Joanne Williams, who the jurors heard was interviewed in March 2018.
Asked if she was telling the truth when she agreed it was 'just a coincidence' she made the Facebook searches a few weeks after Nurse Williams had been interviewed, the defendant said: "I am."
"The truth is you habitually searched for the parents of the children you have been convicted of murdering or attempting to murder," said the prosecutor.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/lucy-letby-denies-killing-babies-29411227

The final link is about how bad the trust was-

In 2017 the Countess of Chester was among 21 hospitals called upon to investigate higher than average death rates.
Authors of the MBRRACE-UK (Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK) report looked at stillbirths and neonatal deaths around the UK in 2015.
They found the Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust had a neonatal death rate of 1.91 for every 1,000 live births that year.
This was the highest out of the 43 trusts of a similar size it was compared with, which had an average of 1.27 neonatal deaths for every 1,000 live births.
There were also 5.42 extended perinatal deaths - deaths within four weeks - for every 1,000 births, including stillbirths. The average for similar sized maternity units was 4.73 deaths per 1,000 births.
The rate declined in 2016 but was still among the highest in the group.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-44696813

I think that was everything?

Probably for the best we didn't have the internet when those cases were ongoing and the appeals pending.

It baffles me how so many people can be so blind to the fact she is 100% guilty! The system did it's job this time, very well. Justice was served. She is a vile evil murderer of the most vulnerable newborns and then she took it upon herself to make up memory boxes and taint all the parents last memories of their child who she killed. Evil on so many levels. You would be hard pressed to find a more monstrous person than her.

@Firefly1987 I really wouldn’t bother - this is just an echo chamber of egotists who seem to believe they hold greater knowledge and insights than the rest of us. LL is a convicted baby killer and will be staying in prison indefinitely. This is not an example of a great miscarriage of justice, no matter how much some deluded posters here try to bend and distort the facts.

The level of obsession, grandiosity and projection is quite something!