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?

@Golaz

I can’t remember the details enough, of what the plumber said - but definitely potentially it would also prevent the plumber giving evidence. Although the Defence might be able to persuade themselves it wasn’t really putting forward and alternative case.

As I say, I haven’t gone back through the detail to see whether it’s a completely credible explanation, but it’s a potential explanation.

Reading the appeal judgment also reminded me that LL had had air embolus training before all this - I’m sure I’m not the only that has given pause for thought.

not really when your (rather rude) question(?)/ point was:

Can you do anything other than parrot the catch phrases of one American attention seeking/name making journo

It really isn’t incorrect to say that at all. Lucy had one of the best defence barristers in the country. It’s bloody laughable how mumsnetters think they know better than him when it comes to presenting her defence. You have a nerve talking about other people’s opinions being silly when you choose to follow quack nonsense. If there was any doubt over her convictions then she would have been granted an appeal. She will be spending the rest of her life behind bars where she belongs.

That was a direct answer to your point. The sharpshooter analogy was discussed way before Aviv’s article came out. It’s so very obvious.

Thanks. This is interesting as I was also wondering what the line was between putting forward an alternative case, versus forcing the prosecution to prove their case.

My understanding is that the plumber was put on the stand to provide evidence of sewage issues in the hopsital, suggesting that these could have been the cause of a spike in neonatal deaths.

Meanwhile, a statistician could have been put on the stand to debunk the prosecution’s use of statistical inference in the case (this was very persuasive to the jury) and show how their numbers actually proved nothing one way or another . To me , the use of the statistician would be more “forcing the prosecution to prove their case” whereas the plumber is more “putting forward an alternative explanation”. IYSWIM.

So why the plumber and not the statistician if the explanation is “because she told them she was guilty?”

I'm finding this thread rather entertaining, for reasons other than those I expected. It's deviated from the 'what could possibly drive someone to do this', which is an interesting question; if unanswerable, back into the kind of one-dimensional conspiracy theorizing lately popularized on the www.

Of course, everyone else is incompetent. It must be a screw-up and the defence teams/judge etc didn't know what they were doing. (The document detailing the reasons for rejecting the appeal is interesting on that score). Only the conspiracy theorists (yes, the term is accurate) could possibly possess the deep level of critical-thinking skills and healthy, public-spirited cynicism to challenge the Mighty British Justice System, unlike everyone else (including some of the country's top, very knowledgeable KCs) who are like tabula rasas, with absolute faith that the justice system is infalliable and who gulliably take in and believe to the letter everything they are 'told'.

As an argument, it's revealing. It's the black-and-white stances that are so interesting here. The fact that others, also endowed with intelligence and critical thinking skills, might have weighed up these things and arrived at a very different conclusion doesn't appear to occur to the more vociferous Letby defenders on this thread. It's also striking how they are the ones resorting to calling others' contributions 'silly', or, childishly accusing them of 'mansplaining'. Those posts stand for themselves as fun examples of the immaturity, frivolousness and utter lack of nuance which make a continuation of those discussions pointless.

But as an insight into pop psychology - not only that of Letby herself - the thread has been most instructive. It's quite quaint on some occasions, and made for many a quiet chuckle on the part of Yours Truly. 😀

It's the fact that the deaths spiked after LL joined the ICU.

That the spike followed her to day shifts.

That the spike dropped when she was on holiday and working elsewhere.

That she was on duty for every collapse in the period studied. No-one else was.

That she altered notes to change her presence at the times of some incidents.

That many collapses & deaths occurred on milestone occasions. Something that could not occur coincidentally.

That she somehow has no recollection of two significant incidents re. collapses that a doctor and a parent remember acutely & say she was pivotally involved in.

That even LL agreed during the trial that insulin must have been put into the bags by someone.
So apparently there is an unapprehended attempted murderer of babies in that unit, or elsewhere. But somehow no-one else has had the factors above or below discovered about them to date.

In the wider picture,

That she refused, as much as was within her power, to take "breaks" from the ICU by working in the lower needs parts of the unit, as was common/advised for staff members.

That her inappropriate and odd behaviour was making other staff members and parents increasingly uncomfortable.

That everything found in her home and in her web browsing activities demonstrated an extremely unusual and pathological "interest" in the patients and families; gathering & retention of confidential medical notes that she had no reason (or right) to take home or retain, marking of babies deaths in her personal diary, some very disturbing written statements, with confessions to killing outnumbering denials etc. etc.

I could go on.

In general points;

Most of the NHS is understaffed and struggling. A medical professional serial killer is not mutually exclusive with that.

Incidents of medical negligence by medical professionals at some point in their career are also, sadly, common. Especially in high pressure situations. Especially with the tiniest and most delicate of all patients. Especially while gaining experience. Their occurrence at some point in some medical professionals careers are not mutually exclusive with the possible existence of a medical professional serial killer.

Their incidents of medical negligence, however, are unlikely to cluster/spike to the point where a unit becomes a weekly death zone and are beyond unlikely to coincidentally occur on baby's 100 day anniversary followed by their due date, on father's day, on transfer to other unit, with their prospects considered "optimistic" by medics (while LL declares them to "not making it out of here alive, is he?") and on their discharge day.

One milestone coincidence, unlikely in the extreme, but maybe ..... Multiple, no.

I too think saviour complex.

It was mentioned a lot before the court case that she her self had been premature and held those who saved her in high regard.

Mixed perhaps with some sort of attachment disorder based on unusual relationship with her parents.

@Golaz

There may be no merit in my suggestion whatsoever- I haven’t actually given it that much thought.

I have to concede that as a member of the English justice system I have an inherent bias - my experience is that it is largely comprised of intelligent, educated, experienced individuals acting in good faith. That LL’s legal team has monumentally fucked up is unlikely to me. If she is innocent, she is one of the most unlucky people ever to have lived - because not only was she unfortunate enough to be scapegoated by the hospital (and there was sufficient facts that allowed the scapegoating) but also the police and CPS were prepared to collude and also all the independent expert witnesses the prosecution called were prepared to fall in line, and she ended up with an incompetent legal team. All of this on top of the fact that when they raided her home they found the incriminating notes, makes her very very unlucky indeed. (Or guilty)

The other thing is that everyone involved would have been doing everything they could to make that trial as fair as they could. Both because the consequences of convicting an innocent person of those crimes is so abhorrent, but also because if she’s guilty, no one wants her to get off on a technicality on appeal. BOTH sides will have wanted the trial to be unimpeachable in its fairness (which is not say that they were successful in that, but that will have been the aim).

Not getting it on the thread because I just can't, it's too upsetting.

But I pray for the girl frequently. I believe her to be innocent. She is as a PP says, the most unlucky woman alive and a pinnacle victim of our viciously malign press.

Death is not the worse thing that can happen to a person. A name and a reputation unjustly and irredeemable destroyed is far worse.

I pray one day the my faith in our justice system will be restored in this case. I have currently have absolutely no faith it at all. I think can't think of this case without tears.

because not only was she unfortunate enough to be scapegoated by the hospital

She wasn't even scape goated by the hospital (management), to the contrast they backed her, assumed bullying, rug swept, dismissed consultants concerns and requests and only referred it to the police when they couldn't avoid it any further.

And the lead police officer said that when they started the case, they approached it as being numerous possibilities, only one of which was deliberate harm.

I agree entirely re. the likelihood of medical scape goating conspiracy, combined with extreme police incompetence or conspiracy, capped by extreme legal incompetence or conspiracy.
And on the latter case the victim has made the inexplicable decision to retain her council throughout and for a retrial.

*She is as a PP says, the most unlucky woman alive"

That poster was saying the opposite.

@SerafinasGoose The ethical repugnance and tone deafness of finding a thread on this subject “amusing” and “entertaining” is genuinely repellent.

The characterisation of criticism of the case as conspiracy doesn’t hold water. You forget that the original conclusions of hospital’s clinical staff, the pathology reports and the RCPCH report all support the original reading of the case.

Your posts betray an incapacity and unwillingness to grasp the science in the trial and the basis on which it is criticised. As such your claims to critical thinking skills fall flat. Not even to be able to see that an absence of expert witnesses on one side of a trial that relies on interpretation of scientific data is a major problem; or that “expert” witness revision of pathology reports by someone who is neither a pathologist or a forensic scientist is highly dubious, is indicative of the ditziness of your approach. Which you have, to be fair, admitted is entirely superficial.

As I have said this trial stands and falls on science. Not theories or conspiracy, or pieces of paper, or performative “chuckling”.

The sharp shooter theory is not relevant to my point.

I don't see the likelihood of even one milestone coincidental collapse to be high enough to be a valid explanation for it.

If some of the others did not occur on milestones, that to me is only a reflection of the fact that LL's opportunities for them/the circumstances in which they occurred varied etc.

Relevant perhaps that at no point during this mocking intervention into the debate have you engaged with any of the substantive points raised by those of us who are questioning the evidence. Instead you resort to name calling and ad hominem attacks. We are “conspiracy theorists”, “frivolous”, “childish” and “immature”.

And yet we are the ones who are providing “pointless” contributions to this discussion!

The ethical repugnance

The irony.

I agree, it'd be a grandiose and unlikely defence to claim that there were people who did this yes, but that they weren't LL, that other people colluded with each other and trust each other to all point at LL. Why would it not more likely have been LL.

The opposite is the problem@Cleavagecleavagecleavage so many guilty (rapists) get off (because it can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt) and they have no fear of the legal system. Why would they.

Your posts betray an incapacity and unwillingness to grasp the science in the trial and the basis on which it is criticised.

A bit like LL's entire defence team, eh.

Which is a "mystery".

As I said, so much mystery.

That wasn't my point.

That was just an observation.

It depends what you mean by fucked up. I think Myers did a reasonable job with the material.

A key mistake was not challenging the air embolism and insulin theories - which don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny. We don’t know what happened with expert witnesses, that may not have been their choice.

Lawyers have to believe in the system they give their life to. By and large it works well, but we are all aware there have been major miscarriages of justice.

The upshot may be the limitations of a jury trial format for a case of this nature. Realistically the case needs to be heard by a bunch of people qualified to evaluate the scientific claims - but that concept has its own problems.

No-one is accusing the police/CPS of “collusion” they have merely taken the word of the reporting doctors in good faith. They don’t have the skillset to evaluate the claims. Which is another highly problematic aspect to the whole case. What other murder investigation has been driven and shaped by the claims of those reporting a murder, with a vested interest in the case, without being investigated too?

An erroneous observation that @Mirabai was responding to correct.

Well, quite.

@Mirabai

Failing to challenge the air embolus evidence, if he had the capacity to do so (i.e. supportive expert evidence) would be a massive fuck up.

It's not erroneous.

She keeps citing Texas Sharp Shooter Fallacy as a gotcha re. the milestone collapses and deaths, when it is not.