Lucy Letby not charged with further crimes - what does this say about her current convictions

[mids2019]

So no more charges for Lucy Letby currently.

I can't say I am surprised as the tactics the CPS used the first time to secure convictions wont wash. There have been too many questions about the 'expert' evidence in the first trial and in my opinion the CPS don't want to take the risk of trying again with a more possibly more aware jury.

The police seem to be not too happy and probably thought they had similar evidence as they had initially so were taken aback by the CPS decision. They have had to approach parents to say that their children dies either through medical incompetence or through natural causes. The poor parents will now feel distraught and confused being lef up the garden path and the police maybe telling them Lucy was guilty.

I wonder if this is paving the way for a retrial?

Who else could be guilty if the consultants didn't hardly do any rounds (as the Letbyists always claim) and were only called to the unit AFTER a collapse? Who else could it be-the janitor?

Do you agree they did anything right in the investigation? At this point I think you just like being contrary for the sake of it. You switch from it being natural causes to another possible serial killer yet won't ever accept it could've been Lucy. Not sure who else should be choosing the cases either. The consultants know when the suspicious deaths started so you have to narrow it down somewhat.

And yet, when they contacted Prof Jane Hutton to ask for a figure on the probability of all the deaths clustering around Letby, she explained how they had gone about it the wrong way and they needed to start from a position of considering everyone objectively. So they dropped her.

The police know they need to say they fully investigated every possibility, but the evidence suggests they did not actually do that.

The other possibility is that there were no murders, just very sick babies cared for in a unit not equipped to care for them, just as the initial post-mortems concluded, and both of the reviews by the RCPCH and the review by Dr Jane Hawden.

I'm not switching from one belief to the other - I'm covering the full range of possibilities, murder or otherwise.

If police don't have the capacity to investigate without involving potential witnesses and suspects, that is obviously a problem they need to address.

It's like bird box trying to get some people to open their eyes to this. Apologies if you haven't seen it and don't understand the reference 😅

Stop being so contrary 😅

I meant one that would apply in a healthcare case...

Gosh really, no one ever thought of that before!

The Police certainly didn't, since they kept shopping for experts until they found one who agreed with the consultants and bent the evidence to fit their case.

Nor did the consultants who consistently ignored all the reviews and improvement suggestions to continue on with their witch hunt.

Same scenario with arsenic, a syringe, appropriately timed blood tests, and evidence of unnecessary and undocumented injection, maybe.

But with the same proviso that mistakes can yet be made.

It would be lovely if murder was always obvious and indisputable, but that just isn't the case. You can't solve that by insisting it's murder when you don't have proof.

Same scenario with arsenic, a syringe, appropriately timed blood tests, and evidence of unnecessary and undocumented injection, maybe.

Well that's all conveniently vague isn't it...

It's an imaginary scenario! You are going to need to make up your own if you want to discuss one to your liking, since other people really can't guess your requirements.

But here is an answer to the deeper problem you've posed: if we don't believe Lucy Letby's conviction was safe, are we effectively surrendering to medical murderers and admitting we can't touch them?

Stuart Clifton, who led the team that investigated Beverley Allitt stands by that conviction - but he has just come out to say that he has reviewed the investigation, he is totally satisfied that Lucy Letby is innocent of all charges, the police investigation was the stuff of fantasy, and this case is the greatest miscarriage of justice in decades.

So it's clearly quite possible to believe in the possibility of medical murders, to investigate and convict on these charges, and to see that Lucy Letby's case is completely unsafe.

https://xd.wayin.com/display/confirm/quiz/2c1ea2c7-410c-4ebf-a21d-d1f99e041b34/334112/confirmation?payload=Ln1nFxkjHxCAkQJfP%2BeNlvKDJQQPmzHaVbI02P9L0NU%3D&mode=responsive&containerId=0a9edc5e-5f9e-4994-be2b-df58f5618fb9&campaignId=334112&channelId=37257&medium=direct&source=web&channel=website

Poll in the daily express showing a significant majority believe in innocence.

He couldn't be any more critical of the police investigation going by that article!

A couple of years ago he said the cases were very similar, he's obviously reviewed it in a lot more detail now and realised that the headlines etc he was reading were making the 'evidence' to be far more damning that it actually was.

No doubt someone will say that he is just jumping on the bandwagon and wants to make a name for himself 🙄

I wonder if the Sun has been able to verify the leaked documents from the police investigation that they referenced last week. But even without referencing new information, Clifton excoriates police proceedings in the investigation.

I don't know, has the Sun been pro-guilt up until now?
In the article it says
"The Sun approached Stuart to end speculation around Letby's possible innocence...
Within days of beginning his review, it became clear he could not support the conviction."

I don't think it has an editorial line saying the case should be reviewed, like the Guardian and the Telegraph and the Observer; and I don't think it's had particular pundits criticising the case repeatedly, like Hitchens and Dorries at the Mail. But its chief feature writer, Oliver Harvey, wrote clearly of his belief in her innocence a few months ago, so this certainly isn't their first article to put that case.

I think they were reaching a bit with the idea that the Sun could put an end to debate on the matter! But this is their front page for tomorrow, so they're not shy about taking a stand now.

I think it is more difficult to conclusively prove murder in a medical setting.

The "scene of crime" is also the suspect's place of work. They're in a location that they're supposed to be so stating that they were present doesn't really prove anything. Any number of people will have the "opportunity" to commit murder.

Their normal job requires handling drugs and equipment that can kill if used wrongly. They have the "means" to commit murder.

Multiple people are involved in the care of each patient and sometimes patients die anyway. Sometimes those deaths are preventable if there was poor care, neglect or unintentional mistakes. We can't treat every death in a hospital as a potential murder.

We hold doctors and nurses in a position of trust in this respect, so I don't think that it's unreasonable to investigate if there are an unusual number of deaths that can't be explained by other means. Statistics need to be applied correctly and other causes of death ruled out first.

There have been so many experts who have expressed concern about the way these cases have been handled that I think it's almost inevitable that they should be looked at again.

It is telling that tabloids who initially were 'hang the monster' are now in the position of opening questioning the guilt. As these are populist papers I don't know if they are brave enough to produce their own agenda of are merely reflecting a position that reflects the views of their reader base?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/38049543/lucy-letby-miscarriage-of-justice-stuart-clifton/

F me......this is the 'hang an high' Sun? It just feels like the public sphere is in a place where more are feeling that this is a miscarriage of justice than not.

I want you to acknowledge the possibility that they didn't look at the scenario that these deaths were natural in very sick very young babies or medical accidents, in spite of the fact that there were no suspicions at all about some of those deaths until after they decided that others were murdered.

And acknowledge that's a view held by a growing body of experts, many with far better experience and qualifications than the prosections expert, who was the man who decided to retrofit murders to those previously unsuspicious deaths.

But you are utterly closed minded about her guilt and completely blind to the lack of safety in her convictions.

You feel more comfortable "knowing" the person responsible for those deaths is locked up than facing the thought that the situation in that hospital, or even another person, could possibly be the cause because that would mean it could all happen again.

Your faith in the infallibility of juries is touching, but I can assure you from personal experience that it's misplaced.

OK, I’ll try something more specific.

Baby Y’s blood result shows unexpectedly low c-peptide. This triggers the medics to suspect factitious hypoglycaemia so they order a second test - one that is suitable to be used in such a scenario. This confirms the presence of medicinal insulin.

An error is ruled out by investigation so deliberate harm is concluded.

Only nurse Z had opportunity, so there is circumstantial evidence of guilt.

It's one thing to believe she's guilty, it's another to hold the position that the investigation was handled perfectly, the evidence was completely sound and no stone was left unturned in examining the other possibilities therefore they know without a doubt she did it, that's something else entirely. To watch this unfold and see more people expressing doubts and then even more people expressing doubts and to still hold that position is deluded.

I get the feeling there are some on here who are deliberately obtuse when it comes to accepting the "she could be not guilty" views, I have no idea why but they are not persuading me to change my "this was a very dubious conviction based on the evidence" view.

It's an imaginary scenario! You are going to need to make up your own if you want to discuss one to your liking, since other people really can't guess your requirements.

But I'm asking what you'd consider strong circumstantial evidence-it has to relate to the case though. As an example-if they kept the TPN bags and saw they'd been tampered with. That kind of thing. Whatever would get you to believe in her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Obviously we know they didn't keep the TPN bags at the time so that wouldn't be possible. So I'm not sure what else we're left with other than letting her out because there's not enough evidence...which seems to be what people want.

But here is an answer to the deeper problem you've posed: if we don't believe Lucy Letby's conviction was safe, are we effectively surrendering to medical murderers and admitting we can't touch them?

Yes that's exactly what it sounds like.

So it's clearly quite possible to believe in the possibility of medical murders, to investigate and convict on these charges, and to see that Lucy Letby's case is completely unsafe.

Maybe he should come out and admit they actually didn't have much on Beverley Allitt either if that's his opinion on LL all of a sudden.