Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind thread 4

[MistressoftheDarkSide]

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

Equally there have been many tgat say she doesn’t fit the profile of a serial killer.

All of these are speculative.

What a criminologist "believes" from "prosecutorial evidence" (curated to bolster the prosecution case) is vastly different to what a psychologist / psychiatrist might say after direct evaluation / consultation.

Yes everything's a witch hunt, blah blah blah.

This is true. There were always going to be experts coming out and questioning the verdict. They're absolutely shameless, but people lap it up. I honestly hope they are exposed for what they are very soon. Someone said elsewhere it's reported on so much because it generates clicks as there's not much to say about her guilt right now. The innocence conspiracy keeps people interested. It's just sickening. Those poor parents.

I don't need to name anybody nor jump through any hoops. The burden of proof is on those claiming they know better than the investigators that interviewed the witnesses and analysed the data first hand, and the criminal psychologists that actually met Lucy Letby in person. People with extensive training that do this for a living.

Like I said, I'll happily concede I may have been wrong if enough robust evidence arises to warrant a retrial.

@Kittybythelighthouse This case was not “high profile” anywhere but in the UK. My sister living in Ireland hadn’t even heard of it. Name a case where a bog standard nobody who was of zero international interest attracted an intervention like the one seen in this case from top experts from the worlds leading teaching and research hospitals in Tokyo, Sweden, Canada, the United States, etc etc. This case is of no interest in those other countries.

No one cares about this case internationally?! Since when?! By "bog standard nobody" presumably you mean "worst serial killer of children the UK has ever seen" and what about the New Yorker article you were harping on about earlier?! Have you lost the plot?

You’re also talking about conspiracy theories. There are no conspiracy theories being floated here (at least, not on the defence side).

But you think she's innocent so either you concede she was a terrible nurse and consultants assumed deliberate harm based on this (which the police and CPS agreed with) or the hospital was so bad they decided to pin it on one lone nurse. Then the police also agreed, and Dewi Evans et al. if that isn't a conspiracy involving multiple people and institutions I don't know what is. You're careful to stop short of ever saying people conspired against LL, but it's the only conclusion one can make from your posts. Especially re the insulin evidence.

🙄

Did any criminal psychologists meet LL and assess her? I don’t believe the dad. Happy to be wrong

@Firefly1987- if tomorrow parliament took a look at the law and rewrote it to disallow any appeals processes and to disband the CCRC, would you consider it a good thing?

Can't open the video link so I'll just consider the two stories.

I'm glad to see something from people with more qualifications than hosting a youtube channel, but not really tbh. This is people who evidently haven't met or evaluated LL being asked to give generalised, simplified explanations for a journalist after a verdict. Neither of them sets out their rationale, what they've considered and excluded. They both precede relevant evidence at Thirlwall. Treadwell's is particularly non-specific and is just a list of things that might make someone be a mass murderer. Which isn't a criticism of him, that's appropriate for someone who isn't claiming to be familiar with the evidence and whose point is more about putting into place systems to prevent murders in healthcare. It's certainly not of the same standard of the medical evidence we've had (including some that isn't as favourable to LL).

I'm having real trouble understanding your second paragraph.

If she was a "terrible nurse" it would have been evident very early on, no accusations of deliberately harm needed.

On this thread and others it has been covered at length that due to limitations of understanding of the medical evidence, the police ended up with Dewi Evans, who inserted himself into the case - not the usual way of things

There was a lack of due process involving reporting and investigation of all the babies deaths at the time. Information was not passed to the Coroner such as in the case of the needle aspiration. Requested inquests were nixed because of the ongoing criminal investigation.

There's a whole catalogue of dubious provmcesses / systemic issues on the medico-legal side, never mind some of the poor care / state of the unit etc already identified.

Once the ball gets rolling in these cases it's very hard to stop it. It doesn't require a conspiracy as you infer we believe, it just takes a system under strain and ill-equipped to deal with a case of this magnitude and complexity.

It's very similar to my experience 30 years ago.

And whichever way you slice it, some of the personalities involved do come with agendas and fixed ideas, with their reputation at stake.

Right now the judiciary are probably royally pissed that a case that appeared so compelling has been pulled apart because the medical evidence doesn't stand up. How to go about sorting it out is anyone's guess, but a review / retrial / referral to the CCRB would probably help the reputation of our justice system in some way.

@MistressoftheDarkSide so why do you think they picked Lucy and only Lucy out then? Just based on the fact she was there for more deaths? Why would the consultants go to all that trouble to have her removed from the unit if they didn't have serious concerns? Makes no sense. Thing is there are 3 people looking at possible gross negligence charges because they refused to believe she was guilty also. What would you do in that situation if you were them? Keep her on the unit because she's default innocent?

I think it's well established by the existence of the infamous chart that they did pick Lucy Letby because "she was always there" even though it transpires sometimes she wasn't.

AFAIK she wasn't there once for the first child C incident, but was definitely there (in the room) when he died. Anything else about her not being there is just pure speculation. She was even there both times for the insulin poisonings. If she wasn't there for some they'd have no reason to pick her out would they? So either it's a conspiracy, or she really was there for every suspicious collapse/death.

I’m glad that you’re willing to concede that it’s possible that you might be wrong.

As regards naming other international experts who have ever simultaneously come from senior positions in the world’s best research hospitals to make up crazy stuff, jeopardising their collective and singular futures for the sake of a completely unheard of person - the answer is never. It has never happened. It’s totally unprecedented.

“the investigators who analysed the data first hand”

Do you mean like the specialist neonatological pathologists who actually conducted all of the post mortems and ruled that the deaths were all natural? As opposed to the prosecution experts who never saw a single one of the babies bodies?

“the criminal psychologists that actually met Lucy Letby in person”

Who are you talking about here? The only psychiatrists (not sure that any psychologists of any sort have met her) who met her are the ones who said she has anxiety and PTSD. Nothing more than that.

Do you mean the ones who didn’t meet her? There were an equal number of psychologists, forensic psychiatrists, and indeed an actual psychopath expert who said that her behaviour (notes etc) was normal in the context of an innocent person being hounded and wrongly accused. Even one of the psychologists who believes she’s guilty said that the notes were “meaningless” as evidence, underscoring how easily they could mislead a jury in an adversarial system.

Terrifying thought.

She was assessed by a psychiatrist and diagnosed with ptsd and anxiety, notably not with psychopathy or narcissism or a personality disorder or anything else @Firefly1987 wants to diagnose her with from a distance and with zero training. As far as I’m aware no one else met her to assess her.

Sounds like the sort of thing that'd influence a jury so not surprised. Normal well-adjusted people don't torture and kill babies so if she's guilty there's going to be something up with her, obviously.

But you think she's innocent so either you concede she was a terrible nurse and consultants assumed deliberate harm based on this (which the police and CPS agreed with) or the hospital was so bad they decided to pin it on one lone nurse. Then the police also agreed, and Dewi Evans et al. if that isn't a conspiracy involving multiple people and institutions I don't know what is. You're careful to stop short of ever saying people conspired against LL, but it's the only conclusion one can make from your posts. Especially re the insulin evidence.

I wonder if you’re aware of all the assumptions you made in just one paragraph about what another poster must think or is suggesting. I actually think you’re probably not which is a little scary. And ironic, given the crux of this whole discussion.

I’m glad that you’re willing to concede that it’s possible that you might be wrong.

@Kittybythelighthouse the question is are you willing to concede the same? I don't think I've ever seen you say you could be wrong about all this.

Since when? Since the dawn of time right up until the moment that 14 international experts from senior positions in the world’s most prestigious teaching and research hospitals had to come to England to hold our wayward justice system to account. Aside from that, there was a bit of buzz around the New Yorker article time.

The New Yorker, which I’m pretty sure you’re still confusing with the New York Times, is a well known publication, but it’s not a newspaper. Despite the name, it’s not just about New York either. it covers a wide range of topics, including:

• Journalism: in-depth investigative reporting and commentary on politics, culture, and current events.
• Essays and criticism: literary, film, art, and theatre criticism.
• Fiction and poetry: it has a strong tradition of publishing short stories and poems from major writers.

Stylistically, The New Yorker is known for fact-checked, carefully edited prose, long-form narrative journalism and intelligent commentary.

The international panel has been covered by e.g Al Jazeera, Reuters, etc. So it has had significant international attention since then though probably not in a way you’d like.

Before the international panel press conference it was at best a footnote on page 16 somewhere in other countries out side the UK. England is not the centre of the universe I’m afraid.

“if that isn't a conspiracy involving multiple people and institutions I don't know what is. You're careful to stop short of ever saying people conspired against LL, but it's the only conclusion one can make from your posts.”

We’ve been over this before more than once. Scapegoating in the NHS is complex and not as straightforward as you’d like to characterise it. It also happens quite regularly, though usually with less extreme results. It doesn’t require a conspiracy and never has.

What you’re suggesting though - that all these international experts from senior positions in the world’s best hospitals, from Tokyo to Sweden, each decided to chuck their lucrative careers and extraordinary legacies to band together and shill for a killer nurse in Blighty - is a bonafide conspiracy theory, complete with tin foil hats.

“Especially re the insulin evidence.”

Not sure what you mean by this. Feel free to expand.

@GingerPower mentioned mental Healy professionals having met LL - I couldn’t remember any being reported save for the diagnoses of trauma related diagnoses - wonders whether it was an assumption on their part.

@Firefly1987i really would be interested to know your feelings on any and all recourse to appeal being hypothetically removed from the landscape in the UK. Would you support a UK government doing this?

No idea where it came from, but as I say the only ones who actually met her diagnosed her with nothing save PTSD and anxiety.

Others, who haven’t met her, have opinions on both sides.

You’re not surprised the CPS didng get a forensics psychiatrist in? Interesting - why do you think they didn’t?