Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind thread 4

[MistressoftheDarkSide]

With thanks to the original poster @kittybythelighthouse and @Tidalwave for continuing the discussion.

Fgs. You’ve made a three act drama over something that could have been cleared up with one straight answer at the start. When someone uses a term like legal profession - which has a specific meaning and carries authority - then they should expect to be asked what they mean by it. Particularly since you have a habit of popping into these threads in bad faith only to pull others up on minutiae. Asking for clarification was fair and necessary. It’s just about keeping the discussion clear and honest. Nobody would have thought twice if you’d just given a simple yes or no in the first place.

It’s not about “echo chambers” btw. I’m perfectly happy with disagreement and respectful debate. You really, really, just don’t like being monitored as much as you like monitoring others, clearly.

@Kittybythelighthouse It's the proximity to deaths and collapses, which I don't have. Then the ghoulish behaviour afterwards. Having an interest in true crime doesn't come close otherwise the entirety of the reddit subs dedicated to true crime and websleuths etc. would be arrested. We've been through all this and you keep ignoring it and going on about PJs and her winning the grand national-when those are literally the least incriminating things brought up the entire trial. As if that's all the police had. I'm primarily arguing on this thread because you think she's innocent rather than anything else. If I was interested in a true crime discussion I'd go somewhere else for it.

In these threads alone you’ve exhibited far more salacious interest in murder than Letby ever did in all of the extensive digging that was done on her entire life and search histories.

She was doing it in real life. She learnt everything she needed on the unit. The first air embolism death came just ONE WEEK after she'd done a course on it! Coincidence again no doubt. Seeing the parents grief and loss was the only thing she needed in the aftermath-and we have that with the facebook searches.

The actual babies initials were not in her diary Firefly. It was literally just nursing shorthand and you’ve been reading too many tabloids and/or too many tattle threads.

It was brought up in court.

Yes, because the prosecution will do literally anything to make a defendant look suss. Nick Johnson would string you up as a murderer tomorrow, before breakfast, no problem. Would it make you a murderer? No. But you continue to appear totally unable to understand that prosecution allegations are not facts.

She admitted she lied about it so...

Probably because you only take in tabloid stories and whatever Liz hull regurgitates. She didn’t claim to be “wearing a nightie”. From the transcripts this is exactly what she said:

Actually I've been listening to CS2C, he has EVERYTHING that was said in court and/or at the police station because he cares about the facts and people not being able to twist things. There's way more to it than you quoted because I remember thinking it was ridiculous how they were going back and forth for so long on the nightwear issue. It might've been in police interview she claimed it was a nightie. She can't keep her lies straight! I only know of Liz Hull from the podcasts so I'm unsure why you seem to think I'm some sort of superfan.

By the way, I don’t think a young woman being pursued, as she clearly was judging by the doctor’s own texts, is “evil”. No one with any sense and empathy would. If anything he is “evil”. Why is he, the married father chasing a junior employee young enough to be his daughter, escaping your judgement here? If you don’t care about it why did you present it as evidence of a malevolent nature?

It's just a surprise to me because mumsnet takes a very harsh view on adultery as a rule. I don't think it's great behaviour but I can't get too worked up about it-as you said people are complex. I rarely talk about Dr A (U?) at all, and I don't know what was going on there but yes he absolutely appears to be in the wrong more than her (on that issue) from what we know.

I’m still waiting for you to show any evidence of this superior ability to understand human nature that you claim to have btw. It appears to be severely lacking thus far.

I don't think I have a superior ability. If I'd met LL I doubt I would've thought anything out of the ordinary about her. I think the vast majority of people can see what she is when it's all laid out as it has been though, except for the ones that don't want to.

Exactly this. I don’t know how anyone can justify being totally happy that she has been rightly convicted under these circumstances.

@Firefly1987

“It's the proximity to deaths and collapses, which I don't have.”

You don’t work in an intensive care setting? Good for you. Lots of people who aren’t serial killers do.

“Then the ghoulish behaviour afterwards.”

Like what? Like winning the grand national?

“Having an interest in true crime doesn't come close otherwise the entirety of the reddit subs dedicated to true crime and websleuths etc. would be arrested.”

If you were accused of murder and you didn’t do it, it wouldn’t look great would it? It’s an illustration of how once one is accused of something awful like this anything can be twisted to look creepy. You appear totally unable to grasp that. Exactly the same thing was done to Lucia De Berk btw.

“We've been through all this and you keep ignoring it”

Ignoring what exactly? You bring literally nothing of substance every single time.

“I'm primarily arguing on this thread because you think she's innocent rather than anything else.”

I think she might be innocent and it makes me deeply uncomfortable to think that our justice system could make such a series of massive blunders if she is, because that is a threat to all of us.

In the context where the medical evidence has been torn to shreds I haven’t seen anything to make me comfortable with the convictions. I don’t know how on earth you can be. You keep referring to stupid stuff that has no bearing on anything if there were no murders in the first place.

“The first air embolism death came just ONE WEEK after she'd done a course on it!”

It matters not a bit to you that there is ZERO diagnostic evidence of air embolism and that the expert who literally wrote the paper the prosecution relied on in court actually came out of retirement to come all the way to England and call them out on misusing the research? That’s wild. You know better than the expert panel somehow?

“Seeing the parents grief and loss was the only thing she needed in the aftermath-and we have that with the facebook searches.”

That’s exactly the kind of thing witch hunters just like you said about Lucia De Berk. She was framed as an “attention seeking” murderer and every normal behaviour was reframed through a lens of that. That’s why the prison guards ignored her for ten hours when she had a stroke.

“She admitted she lied about it so...”

So you’re clinging to this idea that calling a tracksuit you’ve slept in “pyjamas” is lying. I hope you are never cross examined because you are a total patsy and will be torn to shreds.

“Actually I've been listening to CS2C”

Lol! He only presents the prosecution case. You’ve never listened to or read anything that challenges the prosecution have you? Interesting.

“he cares about the facts and people not being able to twist things.”

You MUST be joking.

“It's just a surprise to me because mumsnet takes a very harsh view on adultery as a rule.”

This is so weird. You think Mumsnet is a monolith except for you, you are a real three dimensional person. You’re completely incapable of engaging empathy or complex thinking about other people. Bizarre from someone who thinks herself to be a student of human psychology.

“I rarely talk about Dr A (U?) at all, and I don't know what was going on there but yes he absolutely appears to be in the wrong more than her (on that issue) from what we know.”

I’m glad that you can at least admit this.

“I think the vast majority of people can see what she is when it's all laid out as it has been though, except for the ones that don't want to.”

Again, you’d have said exactly the same thing about Lucia De Berk. At least be honest and do some examination of yourself before pulling other people apart.

It's fascinating to me how many of the arguments which you keep dogmatically - and sometimes gleefully - reciting are exactly the same as those used against other women wrongfully convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

Yet you seem to lack any insight into this.

If you were accused of murder and you didn’t do it, it wouldn’t look great would it? It’s an illustration of how once one is accused of something awful like this anything can be twisted to look creepy. You appear totally unable to grasp that. Exactly the same thing was done to Lucia De Berk btw.

This is true. There are a number of people who should hope that if there's ever a serious attack on anyone connected with the LL defence, one of the experts who dispute the conviction or LL herself if she does end up being released, it doesn't happen in their vicinity. Lest their internet posting histories prove unhelpful.

That said, I think a certain amount of this is inevitable with very highly publicised trials in the mass social media age.

It's fascinating to me how some people on this thread are utterly convinced they're right and fighting this "miscarriage of justice" without any insight into the fact they could be arguing for a serial killer to be released. It's not me with the lack of insight believe me!

I think it’s difficult to argue that there aren’t any grounds for reasonable doubt.

People may have their own opinions but I don’t see how you can say there’s no doubt at all.

Is there anyone on this thread who believes they're actually fighting a miscarriage of justice merely by posting? I haven't seen that. It's not immediately obvious how that could happen via the medium of AIBU, given the way our appeals system works.

Stupid as it may sound if. Lucy’s parents are reading or her friends I really, really hope they have some comfort from the fact some of us are actually confident in her innocence.

The course Lucy Letby did in spring 2015 wasn't about air embolisms. They wouldn't wait until a nurse was three years qualified to mention basic safety precautions. Unfortunately Jonathan Coffey and Judith Moritz have consistently misrepresented Lucy Letby's police interview on this subject. As she explained to police, all of the nurses had awareness of the need to manage lines safely and avoid air embolism, but not "air embolism training".

You need to remember too that the idea that Baby A suffered air embolism at all is based on a misreading of Dr Shoo Lee's research, which was about some rare symptoms of pulmonary arterial embolism under high pressure oxygen ventilation, not venous air embolism. So even if Lucy Letby had had random training on air embolisms a week earlier, it would be irrelevant.

Let's remember too that Lucy Letby was in the same room as at least three others at this point, and would have had to explain why she was randomly administering anything through the baby's line, when nurses did medication in pairs, always. She would have had to get around the fact that an alarm would sound instantly. She would have had to flush the line to remove evidence of her crime - but how and when?

That is why people are so impatient when they keep hearing about diaries and courses facebook searches and notes and texts and gossip, and impressions and hindsight. Because it's not just that this mountain of non-evidence doesn't prove anything. All of this drama and trivia obscures the fact that the prosecution is asking us to believe the impossible.

Vague signs that we can see Lucy Letby was evil aren't helpful (or to me, remotely persuasive). How was it possible for her to commit this crime?

Because I don't have a photographic memory of 10 months of a trial?! I know the weaker triplet survived whilst his two brothers died so that's two babies, plus baby D. Baby E before LL attacked him. Baby G was doing well after an extremely tough start. I think she'd been moved to one of the outside nurseries. Why are you asking me to be specific whilst people are saying the NURSE looking after the babies "isn't a pathologist" so she apparently doesn't even know the health of the babies?! Didn't think Shoo Lee was a pathologist either but there you go!

Not directly. But sharing accurate information can be powerful. I was on a reddit thread where somebody posted an obscure news programme from New Zealand, featuring an interview with Neena Modi. They pointed out that Modi had expressed concerns about the children's obstetric records. Nobody has seen them. One of the readers expressed astonishment at this, as an obstetrician. He tweeted about it. He started a blog about it. Then he stopped the blog because Lucy Letby's defence team had contacted him and invited him to work with them.

We don't know who may read what and where that might lead. But there are oceans of gossip, sensation and misinformation about the case out there. It's no harm to work to put other narratives, or at least questions, in the public domain.

And what about if the parents of the babies are reading this? Did you consider them AT ALL?!

So not a lawyer then

The problem is the exaggeration. The fact that a child is improving, the fact that a child was in better condition in utero than his brothers, the fact that a child has been moved from intensive care to high dependency before catching an infection - none of this mean that child "isn't that sick" or only needs to feed and grow.

I don't know if you've ever had the experience of caring for someone who is seriously ill, but it's not neat and tidy. The prognosis changes. Their symptoms improve and then get worse. You are always worried about infection undoing all your progress. The way you are describing these children just doesn't match up with reality.

I think everyone has been respectful of the parents, and the thread title would enable them to avoid deeper engagement assuming that's what they wanted to do. There's no more that can be done - we can't decide to ignore concerns about this case in case it distresses the parents.

Which is something else again really. I think discussion of, say, the way potential for MOJs is baked into our system is very important, but what @Firefly1987 wrote read like she thinks people genuinely believe they're going to have an impact on the outcome.

By this logic, Letby should never have been charged in the first place. If talking about something adds to their pain and therefore shouldn’t be done, it would be better to have said nothing and let them believe their children died of natural causes.

You clearly don’t believe that, because you believe Letby is guilty. In other words, sometimes adding to someone’s anguish is unavoidable in pursuit of justice. I agree with that. Where we disagree is what justice looks like in this particular instance.

Statistically it's rather more likely that a loved one of a miscarriage of justice victim is reading.

Only because the parents have spoken out and said how they've had to avoid all social media for this very reason!

Nurses have explained here that they often note what child they were responsible for against their diary entries for the shifts they worked, so that they can easily check and show the record of care against the shifts they are paid for. So nothing suspicious there.

The thing I find really frightening about this case is that there are allegedly civilized countries around the world who have the death penalty. If we had it there is no way LL would not have be sentenced. Can you i9magine the travesty that would be...

They are sensible to set these boundaries for themselves if they feel that they need to, certainly.

As awful as the death penalty is, what’s disturbing to me is how corrupt our core systems have been revealed to me. I’ve lost faith in the NHS, the BBC, the police and the judicial systems.

Letby is an individual tragedy and I do believe she’s innocent. I thought from the start there was something off and disturbing about it but as the trial went on I thought she must be guilty. Then more and more things were coming out and more and more people started to add their voices and I’m now sure she’s innocent. And I just can’t imagine what she’s feeling or has been through.