Lucy Letby ( To understand)

[PassingStranger]

What made her kill these babies. Been in the news again today.

It's hard to understand?
Presume as she is in prison and not a hospital, she is not mentally ill?

Will anyone try to find out, I guess if people don't admit they are guilty it's hard too.

Instead of people saying give me 5 mins in a cell with her, surely it's better to stop this happening or maybe it's not possible?
Why does she want to be one of the most hated women in the universe and not give a shit about the babies families and even her own parents?

So much better to be known for doing something nice and have people like you?
AIBU to wonder why she took this road in life?

*Have fun in your little echo chamber just with people who agree with you"

The irony.

Enjoy your CS forums.

Hi Bouquet, I have not seen that she did this, would you be able to post a link? Thanks

Yes, it's still seen as "safe" if a woman's around, or that he's have no motivation- with a partner for sex - to commit sex offences.

Unfortunately the first thing sex offenders often do is establish a respectable front.

There are still a lot of attitudes, even in western developed countries, around sex offences, that are highly disturbing.

I've even encountered them in young women.

This.

Please see above.

a nurse conspired to go on a murderous rampage injecting air, injecting insulin, whacking one baby on the liver, another in the throat, splinting diaphragms

Such respect for the victims.

Are her parents and some friends still refusing to believe she is guilty.

Conspiracy = a secret plan by a group to do something wrong or unlawful

A serial killer acting alone is not a conspiracy. One of the things that makes conspiracy theories implausible is the number of corrupt / lying individuals presumed / required to make it make sense

Far from ruining any reasonable discussion on this thread, @BouquetGarni224 has written well-argued, clear posts and contributed greatly to the discussion. She and others have certainly given me a better picture.

When I read the New Yorker article by Rachel Aviv mentioned by PPs, I did think it raised some questions. Then I read this.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf

It's a written judgement by three appeal court judges, explaining why they refused Letby's request to bring an appeal against her convictions for murder and attempted murder (in her first trial).

The New Yorker article seems to be based on the grounds for appeal that were put forward by Lucy Letby’s lawyers. This judgement refutes those grounds.

Unlike a magazine article, it’s not entertaining, but it is very thorough and quite convincing. As it’s 59 pages long and not easy to read, I didn’t get all the way through, but it answers at least most of the questions raised in the Rachel Aviv article, probably all of them.

If you have read the article, try reading the judgement too.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf

This Guardian article explains the appeals process and gives a summary of the four arguments given by Letby’s lawyers, and what the appeal court judges said about them. (They said that ‘[the judge]’s handling of the trial [her first trial] had been “thoughtful, fair, comprehensive and correct”. They ruled that none of the four legal challenges advanced by Letby were “arguable” and said they did not consider that the criteria for the admission of fresh evidence… had been met.’)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/02/lucy-letby-appeal-court-what-could-happen-next

The doctors’ narrative is that the hospital management conspired to protect a serial killer and prevent them going to the police.

You make a lot of assumptions. It only requires a small group of doctors to convince the police, who are not in a position to evaluate their claims scientifically, & find some medics willing to support their conclusions in court. (There are many who do not and are appalled at the bad science displayed in the trial.) I have never personally claimed they were lying. They found a narrative that protects their careers - I hope to God they are deluded rather than corrupt.

The case would have looked very different if the defence had called as many expert witnesses of their own to counterbalance the prosecution case.

I think we all have blind spots/thinking traps we fall into and the more often we repeat certain behaviours, the more established they become. So people really do think they are in control of more than they are or can make accurate predictions. Or just that nothing bad will happen to them.

Aviv’s article had nothing to do with the appeal case. It was written in response to the original trial.

The appeal was inevitably going to fail as it’s made on points of law. It was sought on the basis of 4 points where they held the judge was wrong. As long as the judge hadn’t committed any errors it would fail. But the problem with the case is not the judge but the evidence. An appeal is not an evaluation of the science.

Have her parents disowned her?

Her parents think she's innocent and are moving house to be closer to her prison.

They would.
Too painful to take on board whats she's done I guess.

I believe there's still the possibility of taking her case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which has the power to obtain evidence, to arrange new forensic tests, new expert witnesses, or have psychiatric evaluations.

But as I understand it, there would need to be new information that could plausibly have made a difference to the verdict if the jury had had access to it.

Last I heard on a programme a while back was that her parents and some of her friends think she is completely innocent. think there's a difference between standing by somebody who is convicted and refusing to believe they're guilty.

Because she is evil. Her actions will never make sense.

I have to say, having skim read my posts that I have used the word "ridiculousness" once re. some of the arguments put forward by the conspiracy theorists on this thread.
I stand by that as being relatively restrained lol.

The doctors’ narrative is that the hospital management conspired to protect a serial killer and prevent them going to the police.

No, it's not.

I don't know how anyone could have got that from what those doctors have said to date.

The case would have looked very different if the defence had called as many expert witnesses of their own to counterbalance the prosecution case

Why do you think they didn't?

Thanks for this.

I responded to this already but forgot to add a point.

I'm in Ireland and there was a news story here a couple months ago about a schizophrenic who tried to murder his mother. He refused to use the not guilty by reason of insanity option because he didn't want to go to the central mental hospital and didn't want an indeterminate sentence, instead he pleaded guilty to attempted murder where he got 10 years followed by 6 years probation and psychiatric services.

I think it's wild that that's allowed.

I believe he's been sent to the central mental hospital anyway, or he's at least on the waiting list, but my understanding of it is that even if he was doing very well and able to be released (unlikely due to the specifics of his illness) that he'd be sent back to jail to finish the sentence first.

And we currently don't have laws to impose an indefinite term in the central mental hospital so it seems that if the 10 years are up and he's in an even worse way that he'd be released anyway.

Aviv’s article had nothing to do with the appeal case. It was written in response to the original trial.

Looking further at the appeal judgement, I see it doesn't deal with all the questions in Aviv’s article. It doesn’t mention the possibility of errors in statistical reasoning, or why a particular defence witness was not called to testify at the first trial, or the state of the neonatal unit where the deaths took place. But it does go into great detail on two issues that were used as grounds for appeal.

Whether evidence given by one expert witness, Dr Dewi Evans, should have been disregarded, and further evidence from him not admitted.

Questions about how good the evidence on air embolism was. E g, was air embolism diagnosed just because other causes of sudden collapse had been ruled out?

The appeal judges say that they found it necessary ‘to read a vast volume of material (including from the transcripts of evidence) well beyond the material specifically relied on by the defence, in order to examine the matters complained of in their full context.’

An appeal is not an evaluation of the science.

The judges do explain why they agree with the prosecution that the evidence about embolism was not too vague or inherently weak to be admissible. (Points 140-150.)

For instance, the judges say it is not true that the expert witnesses wrongly based a diagnosis of air embolus ‘solely on an exclusion of other possible causes’. They give grounds for this.

Another example: the defence had argued that a reliable diagnosis of air embolus could not be made solely on the basis of a particular type of skin discolouration, other than one specific type. But the appeal judges say that this is not what the prosecution expert witnesses did - again, with grounds.