Page 24 | Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind thread 4

MistressoftheDarkSide · 2025-08-28T20:20:34+00:00

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

Firefly1987 · 03/09/2025 00:51

Kittybythelighthouse · 03/09/2025 00:30

“How are you any different? How can you look at only half the case and dismiss the rest of the evidence?”

For gods sake. I haven’t only looked at half the evidence. I know it very thoroughly on both sides! That’s the flipping point!

Show quote history

Not talking about prosecution vs defence. You're ignoring her behaviour and I'm ignoring the medical evidence (even though I followed it when the trial was on) so we're no different there. This case didn't rest entirely on medical evidence, you don't seem to understand that. If she wasn't creeping around bereaved parents and always the one to sound the alarm she wouldn't be sitting where she is right now. And she was doing all that BECAUSE she's guilty, not because she just so happens to be a little strange 🙄I mean wake-up and smell the bloody coffee!

Typicalwave · 03/09/2025 01:01

Firefly1987 · 03/09/2025 00:51

Not talking about prosecution vs defence. You're ignoring her behaviour and I'm ignoring the medical evidence (even though I followed it when the trial was on) so we're no different there. This case didn't rest entirely on medical evidence, you don't seem to understand that. If she wasn't creeping around bereaved parents and always the one to sound the alarm she wouldn't be sitting where she is right now. And she was doing all that BECAUSE she's guilty, not because she just so happens to be a little strange 🙄I mean wake-up and smell the bloody coffee!

Show quote history

You’ve just described one of the cornerstones of a Witch Hunt.

Original poster

MistressoftheDarkSide · 03/09/2025 01:01

Firefly1987 · 03/09/2025 00:51

Not talking about prosecution vs defence. You're ignoring her behaviour and I'm ignoring the medical evidence (even though I followed it when the trial was on) so we're no different there. This case didn't rest entirely on medical evidence, you don't seem to understand that. If she wasn't creeping around bereaved parents and always the one to sound the alarm she wouldn't be sitting where she is right now. And she was doing all that BECAUSE she's guilty, not because she just so happens to be a little strange 🙄I mean wake-up and smell the bloody coffee!

Show quote history

I cannot believe that you cannot grasp the fact that the medical evidence is the whole point of the case. Without proof or murder - which the medical evidence does not support - everything else is utterly peripheral and speculative.

And I'm bowing out for tonight, before I post something undignified.

Goodnight.

OP posts:

Kittybythelighthouse · 03/09/2025 01:03

Firefly1987 · 03/09/2025 00:51

Not talking about prosecution vs defence. You're ignoring her behaviour and I'm ignoring the medical evidence (even though I followed it when the trial was on) so we're no different there. This case didn't rest entirely on medical evidence, you don't seem to understand that. If she wasn't creeping around bereaved parents and always the one to sound the alarm she wouldn't be sitting where she is right now. And she was doing all that BECAUSE she's guilty, not because she just so happens to be a little strange 🙄I mean wake-up and smell the bloody coffee!

Show quote history

A basic principle for anyone interested in crime and justice is to be sure that there were any crimes in the first place.

“This case didn't rest entirely on medical evidence”

No medical evidence of crimes = no crimes. It’s not a difficult concept.

You may have followed the medical evidence in the trial but that’s useless if the medical evidence has been demolished since the trial, and it has. Even the actual prosecution lead expert has himself said that Letby’s supposed “favourite way of killing” didn’t happen. Too late though, because she’s already serving time for killing a bunch of babies using it!

It’s honestly silly to keep saying “I followed the trial!” while remaining this wilfully ignorant about what happened after the trial. Do you have no curiosity at all? You know that miscarriages of justice exist, yet you appear completely unable to even glance at any of the reasoning behind the massive wave of doubt that poured out after the reporting ban lifted. You’re completely incurious about a very serious matter of justice that has repercussions beyond true crime entertainment for your own life and your loved ones. It’s baffling.

“I mean wake-up and smell the bloody coffee!”

I really, really, really, wish that you would.

Kittybythelighthouse · 03/09/2025 01:08

Ten new documents uploaded to Thirlwall for
anyone in the thread who actually wants to talk about the case.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/evidence

Evidence | The Thirlwall Inquiry

Evidence published in relation to the Inquiry's investigations.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/evidence/

Kittybythelighthouse · 03/09/2025 01:18

Typicalwave · 02/09/2025 20:09

Interesting thread by Martyn Pitman

https://x.com/martynpitman/status/1962921882560155859?s=46

That’s…illuminating. It honestly just keeps getting worse.

Kittybythelighthouse · 03/09/2025 01:26

Professor of statistics John O’Quigley is giving a lecture on the Lucy Letby case at UCL on the 19th of September.

www.ucl.ac.uk/comprehensive-clinical-trials-unit/events/2025/sep/scientific-evidence-against-nurse-accused-deliberately-harming-patients

kkloo · 03/09/2025 01:30

What day does private eye come out?

GingerPower · 03/09/2025 01:34

Kittybythelighthouse · 01/09/2025 02:52

I think some of what you’ve said is mixing up actual evidence with rumour and hindsight bias. A few points:

Excitedly informing colleagues a baby had died” - the prosecution did highlight texts where she told colleagues about deaths, but the “excitedly” part is total interpretation. The actual messages are quite flat (“Baby x has just died”). Nurses on that unit often shared news with colleagues. There’s no proof she was “gleeful”.

“Asking to go back on the same ward after distressing events” - in critical care, many nurses actively seek out high-acuity work. This is normal. Ambition to handle the most serious cases isn’t abnormal, it’s how people get experience and promotions. Framing it as suspicious is hindsight. The nurse who had the text exchange with Letby that was read out in court and framed in the media as “odd” was not called to speak at the trial ( she was likely not allowed to as is the case with the other nurses who wanted to speak in support of Letby). She was called to speak at Thirlwall.

That nurse is called Jennifer Jones-Key. At Thirlwall she was clear that she did not find LL odd at all in this exchange. In her Rule 9 questionnaire (dated 24 April 2024), Jennifer Jones‑Key explained that she had no concerns about the messages in question. She described Letby’s remarks expressing a desire to return to Nursery 1 after being assigned to Nursery 3 as totally understandable, and clarified that when she used the word “odd” in her response, as someone who didn’t work in intensive care this was odd not that Letby herself was odd.

“Failing training for lack of empathy” most colleagues described LL as conscientious, kind, and popular with parents. One examiner remarked that Letby “lacked a little bit of empathy” in her written feedback. Letby later passed this module though. Many nurses have failed modules that they later passed. I’ve definitely met several fully qualified nurses and doctors that I wouldn’t pass for empathy!

”Too many red flags” is just confirmation bias. Once someone is accused, every normal behaviour can be re-cast as sinister. At the time, managers and colleagues didn’t view these things as red flags. There were no complaints like this about Letby until after she was charged with multiple murders.

The medical evidence that murders occurred in the first place has been completely dismantled. The lead expert witness has been thoroughly discredited. Without actual evidence of murders, things like texting colleagues, wanting high-acuity shifts, or an old examiner once saying she was “a bit cold” are just ordinary events being re-interpreted through hindsight. I’m willing to bet that none of us have such a spotless professional history that no one would have a bad word to say in hindsight if we were accused of murders, particularly if we work in a field where proximity to death is a normal occurrence.

Show quote history

It wasn't texts I was referring to. Colleagues had given statements that she'd called them and excitedly told them that certain babies had died. She also had interactions with parents that were considered 'inappropriate'.

Yes, some people want to take on the challenging work, but it was noted that in cases where most people would need a few days away from that environment after particularly harrowing cases she seemed eager to get back in there.

Would you honestly be so quick to rush to the defence if the defendant was a man?

FastIser · 03/09/2025 01:50

GingerPower · 03/09/2025 01:34

It wasn't texts I was referring to. Colleagues had given statements that she'd called them and excitedly told them that certain babies had died. She also had interactions with parents that were considered 'inappropriate'.

Yes, some people want to take on the challenging work, but it was noted that in cases where most people would need a few days away from that environment after particularly harrowing cases she seemed eager to get back in there.

Would you honestly be so quick to rush to the defence if the defendant was a man?

Show quote history

I think in this case the fact she’s a woman contributed to her demonisation.

GingerPower · 03/09/2025 01:58

Typicalwave · 01/09/2025 20:06

Also known as ‘hearsay’

Show quote history

Or 'evidence'.

Firefly1987 · 03/09/2025 02:31

GingerPower · 03/09/2025 01:34

It wasn't texts I was referring to. Colleagues had given statements that she'd called them and excitedly told them that certain babies had died. She also had interactions with parents that were considered 'inappropriate'.

Yes, some people want to take on the challenging work, but it was noted that in cases where most people would need a few days away from that environment after particularly harrowing cases she seemed eager to get back in there.

Would you honestly be so quick to rush to the defence if the defendant was a man?

Show quote history

Would you honestly be so quick to rush to the defence if the defendant was a man?

They might say they would but they're talking crap. If this was Derek the 40 year old loner incel, no one would be saying the medical evidence from the trial wasn't good enough and all his creepy behaviour didn't mean anything.

GingerPower · 03/09/2025 02:50

Firefly1987 · 03/09/2025 02:31

Would you honestly be so quick to rush to the defence if the defendant was a man?

They might say they would but they're talking crap. If this was Derek the 40 year old loner incel, no one would be saying the medical evidence from the trial wasn't good enough and all his creepy behaviour didn't mean anything.

Show quote history

Indeed.

I'm generally an open minded person but in high profile cases like this there are always no shortage of experts desperate to get their 15 minutes of fame by pushing a controversial take.

I remember all the 'ex police' experts claiming Kurt Cobain had been murdered. And Diana. And of course all the 'why I believe Madeleine McCann is alive' stories. They appeal to a certain type of person.

Only today I had a guy trying to get me to watch a video about the Titanic. Something to do with a banking system used by the majority of the developed world. The individuals behind their upcoming competitor just happened to be on the boat. Something like that.

So I'll reserve judgement until I actually see a retrial.

itstartedinthepeaks · 03/09/2025 06:46

So it’s OK a miscarriage of justice happens in the name of ensuring we’re not sexist?

Typicalwave · 03/09/2025 06:54

Firefly1987 · 03/09/2025 02:31

Would you honestly be so quick to rush to the defence if the defendant was a man?

They might say they would but they're talking crap. If this was Derek the 40 year old loner incel, no one would be saying the medical evidence from the trial wasn't good enough and all his creepy behaviour didn't mean anything.

Show quote history

And around d and around she goes.

This is boring now.

Typicalwave · 03/09/2025 06:57

GingerPower · 03/09/2025 01:58

Or 'evidence'.

Show quote history

I’m ok, thanks. I know what both of thise words mean and how to apply them.

EyeLevelStick · 03/09/2025 08:43

Firefly1987 · 02/09/2025 23:00

And some of you guys have proclaimed her innocent based on what? Oh the 14 self-professed world leading experts led by Mark Mcdonald who also thinks Ben Geen is innocent and is friends with Michael Stone.

Show quote history

Why do you keep saying “self-professed”?

I mean, obviously you’re doing it to suggest they have less expertise than the trial expert witnesses, but on what are you basing this assertion?

Kittybythelighthouse · 03/09/2025 08:47

itstartedinthepeaks · 03/09/2025 06:46

So it’s OK a miscarriage of justice happens in the name of ensuring we’re not sexist?

lol that’s the takeaway!

Typicalwave · 03/09/2025 08:56

kkloo · 03/09/2025 01:30

What day does private eye come out?

Today

Kittybythelighthouse · 03/09/2025 08:56

GingerPower · 03/09/2025 02:50

Indeed.

I'm generally an open minded person but in high profile cases like this there are always no shortage of experts desperate to get their 15 minutes of fame by pushing a controversial take.

I remember all the 'ex police' experts claiming Kurt Cobain had been murdered. And Diana. And of course all the 'why I believe Madeleine McCann is alive' stories. They appeal to a certain type of person.

Only today I had a guy trying to get me to watch a video about the Titanic. Something to do with a banking system used by the majority of the developed world. The individuals behind their upcoming competitor just happened to be on the boat. Something like that.

So I'll reserve judgement until I actually see a retrial.

Show quote history

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.

You’re also talking about the deaths of internationally very famous people. Also name one where a bunch of experts holding senior positions in leading international hospitals all simultaneously got together to f*ck their careers up to claim that aliens killed Kurt Cobain or whatever.

One of the experts here for example holds a senior position at The Karolinska Institute- that’s a hospital so esteemed that it’s the home of the Nobel prize for medicine! These are not cranks for hire. Dewi Evans is though.

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

Nobody has mentioned sex either. It’s ridiculous to simply refuse to discuss or look at the actual evidence by handwaving it away due to something nobody said and nobody thinks.

Kittybythelighthouse · 03/09/2025 09:00

EyeLevelStick · 03/09/2025 08:43

Why do you keep saying “self-professed”?

I mean, obviously you’re doing it to suggest they have less expertise than the trial expert witnesses, but on what are you basing this assertion?

Show quote history

Yes! We need facts here. @Firefly1987 will you bring some facts to us finally? Prove your assertion. Show us how these experts are “self-professed” and show us how the prosecution experts outrank them (even equal them).

Looking forward to it!

Kittybythelighthouse · 03/09/2025 09:09

FastIser · 03/09/2025 01:50

I think in this case the fact she’s a woman contributed to her demonisation.

Show quote history

There is a recognised phenomenon in criminology, law, and psychology where women who transgress gender norms are actually judged more harshly than men for similar behaviour.

It’s known as double deviance/double transgression and it applies where a woman who commits a crime is punished not just for the crime itself, but also for violating expectations of femininity (e.g. being nurturing, passive, sexually restrained). This was often discussed in the Amanda Knox case.

It’s incredible that the true crime students of human behaviour somehow remain ignorant of well known concepts like this. Though not really if one consumes only CS2C and calls it “research”.

Kittybythelighthouse · 03/09/2025 09:13

GingerPower · 03/09/2025 01:34

It wasn't texts I was referring to. Colleagues had given statements that she'd called them and excitedly told them that certain babies had died. She also had interactions with parents that were considered 'inappropriate'.

Yes, some people want to take on the challenging work, but it was noted that in cases where most people would need a few days away from that environment after particularly harrowing cases she seemed eager to get back in there.

Would you honestly be so quick to rush to the defence if the defendant was a man?

Show quote history

“Would you honestly be so quick to rush to the defence if the defendant was a man?”

First, I wasn’t “quick to rush to defend” here. I spent a lot of time reading everything available and giving careful consideration to it before I said a word in any public forum.

Secondly, my interest is in whether or not this is a miscarriage of justice. I care about that because it has serious repercussions for all of our lives. I don’t brainlessly hook myself to any old thing because there’s a girl involved. Ffs.

Kittybythelighthouse · 03/09/2025 09:16

P.s @GingerPower can you point to a source that says she “called” anyone to inform them of baby deaths? It doesn’t matter much either way, but as far as I am aware there were no phone calls to inform about baby deaths.

Kittybythelighthouse · 03/09/2025 09:25

Firefly1987 · 03/09/2025 00:51

Not talking about prosecution vs defence. You're ignoring her behaviour and I'm ignoring the medical evidence (even though I followed it when the trial was on) so we're no different there. This case didn't rest entirely on medical evidence, you don't seem to understand that. If she wasn't creeping around bereaved parents and always the one to sound the alarm she wouldn't be sitting where she is right now. And she was doing all that BECAUSE she's guilty, not because she just so happens to be a little strange 🙄I mean wake-up and smell the bloody coffee!

Show quote history

Firefly, I’m “ignoring” her behaviour because I am not interested in any circumstantial discussions if there were no murders in the first place. This is why I’m focusing on the medical evidence.

This is really basic. Ffs.

You’re arguing that anyone and everyone should be convicted of murder for being (in your estimation) weird in the aftermath of any apparently natural death, just in case 🤞

Are you sure?

“This case didn't rest entirely on medical evidence”

The evidence that there were any murders to try in the first place, did though. Didn’t it?

“you don't seem to understand that”

Oh lord.

You following the medical evidence when the trial was on is, again, USELESS GIVEN THE FACT THAT EVEN THE LEAD PROSECUTION WITNESS DOESN’T SUPPORT THE TRIAL EVIDENCE ANY MORE. Much has changed since the trial. Either engage with that or go back to gorehounding on Tattle and stop wasting our time.

Christ.