Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think the Lucy Letby case needs a judicial review?

1000 replies

Edenspirits73 · 09/07/2024 16:19

2 more detailed articles in main stream papers today questioning the Lucy Letby verdict - mirroring the well known New York Times article that wasn’t allowed here during her trial- surely with this much questioning, there should at least be a judicial review?

aibu?

If she is guilty after review then fair enough, but yet again convictions are being viewed as unsafe.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-letby-serial-killer-or-miscarriage-justice-victim/

Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence

Exclusive: Doubts raised over safety of convictions of nurse found guilty of murdering babies

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
placemats · 13/07/2024 11:07

Ratsoffasinkingsauage · 13/07/2024 10:45

@placemats No. It isn’t. What IS confirmation bias is cherry picking interviews and stats to make it look like she was fitted up for a crime she didn’t commit by inept policing and a bad judicial system.

She is a manipulative liar who has carefully cultivated a narrative of martyrdom and childlike innocence. It began during the hospital investigation and continued during the police investigation and trial. And lots of people fell for it. Poor innocent Lucy, so young and sensitive. She’s been framed. She’s been badly treated. The mask slips in court were very telling.

Lots of people have been taken in by an exceptionally talented manipulator. The texts with her collègues in the context of events are a chilling record of that.

A prime example of confirmation bias.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 13/07/2024 11:08

@Richelieu

Oof. That article.

😳

Heidi75 · 13/07/2024 11:14

kkloo · 13/07/2024 00:50

Nonsensical 🙄

Hardly nonsensical. My God some people really just refuse to listen to anything

It is surely a known fact that sometimes evidence is not allowed to be entered into court.

It's also not beyond the realms of possibility by any stretch of imagination that it would be difficult to get experts if they are nervous about their reputations after if they are judged to be supporting someone who harmed babies.

It's also not beyond a realms of possibility that the defence fucked up. It happens.

The only one I very much doubt happened is that Letby refused to let them call witnesses, I just said that one because someone else put it forward.

It's all getting a bit conspiracy theorist territory.
Nah that's getting old now. Maybe people could say it at the start, but look at how many newspapers etc are now saying it.Now some people have started to be happy to let their names be associated with the concerns and I'm sure more and more will stop being anonymous also.

It's fine that you think that she's guilty beyond any doubt but it's just 'nonsensical' to put other peoples doubts down to them being conspiracy theorists.

Because they absolutely DO sound like the rantings of conspiracy theorists 🙄It's tin foil hat territory by the bucket load. It's just nonsense and so unbelievable but because some newspapers printed something now people are flocking at it (most newspapers in the UK are utter garbage btw)

Heidi75 · 13/07/2024 11:15

placemats · 13/07/2024 11:07

A prime example of confirmation bias.

No a prime example of facts that some people cannot seem to accept that she is guilty

Ratsoffasinkingsauage · 13/07/2024 11:15

@MistressoftheDarkSide She almost wasn’t. If you look at the hospital investigation it is horribly clear that she was playing the nursing director like a fiddle to get the consultants in trouble for bullying her so that they would ignore the evidence being presented against her. The only reason she was caught was that the consultants refused to fold.

Once she knew the police investigation had started she did her utmost to spread alternate theories and kept friendships on the ward (there’s lots of evidence of this) to try to keep up with what was going on. The diary entries are form this time period. I listened to a very compelling podcast episode which featured a criminal psychologist who posited that this was her attempt to create a narrative that she was mentally unfit for trial- something she tried when she told the judge she had PTSD from her arrest being such a rough experience (police bodycam
foootage was used in court to refute this.

She is very cunning. But not a genius. Most liars trip themselves up in their lies.

moonlightwatch · 13/07/2024 11:15

deplorabelle · 13/07/2024 11:02

Totally agree @MistressoftheDarkSide LL should have been removed from the ward to safeguard both the babies and also her, since management thought the accusations were nonsense. This would have better protected working relationships (which is not a cuddly nice to have, it's essential to have trust in a team of healthcare professionals, or really any team).

There should also have been an immediate criminal investigation. It's easy for us to say but much more difficult when you're actually in the midst of it. I have been involved in a minor safeguarding situation in my own life and things that seem clear cut when you do the training absolutely are NOT when the messy truth is happening around you.

Whatever has gone on in this case, it has been compounded by a system failure of under resourcing which will certainly have cost the lives of babies.

PS like you I was initially trying to shut out details of this case owing to my own personal circumstances and biases. But I was expecting to find a more clear cut picture of LL's guilt than has been presented anywhere I can find.

It wasn't just the fact the hospital was under staffed and they were over worked, the conditions of the hospital were also extremely poor, they shouldn't of been having the extremely sick babies admitted there they should have also put the level down to 1 way before they did they only did that once Lucy was arrested. The fact also that I have seen written that she was only one of the nurses trained in certain procedures and medicines is also wrong because off course she's going to be there constantly as she was relied on by other members of staff, as you have also expressed if there was even the slight sniff of something sinister going on then why was she constantly put back on that ward knowing she was a concern to these babies and their care. I also read that there was also still borns on maternity wards that wasn't mentioned, there was only one doctor who was available who was the doctor for both wards, they was also admitting babies they couldn't look after who needed other hospitals which had the proper staffing and equipment needed to care for them. As whole the nhs has let those parents and babies down there are major failings and still are across the country, the nhs is extremely stretched and that's a major issue that needs sorting. I don't know what to believe in this case because of all these different articles and things that are now coming out about this case it's mind blown me. I do think there is definitely room for not just blaming Lucy but the whole hospital and I hope they do a thorough investigation into the hospital also because it's clear to me that things aren't all they seem in regards to the state of the hospital and how it's run,

deplorabelle · 13/07/2024 11:30

Ratsoffasinkingsauage · 13/07/2024 11:15

@MistressoftheDarkSide She almost wasn’t. If you look at the hospital investigation it is horribly clear that she was playing the nursing director like a fiddle to get the consultants in trouble for bullying her so that they would ignore the evidence being presented against her. The only reason she was caught was that the consultants refused to fold.

Once she knew the police investigation had started she did her utmost to spread alternate theories and kept friendships on the ward (there’s lots of evidence of this) to try to keep up with what was going on. The diary entries are form this time period. I listened to a very compelling podcast episode which featured a criminal psychologist who posited that this was her attempt to create a narrative that she was mentally unfit for trial- something she tried when she told the judge she had PTSD from her arrest being such a rough experience (police bodycam
foootage was used in court to refute this.

She is very cunning. But not a genius. Most liars trip themselves up in their lies.

Well it might be highly suspicious that she wanted to keep hold of her friends and use them to find out what was happening on the ward. BUT as a thought experiment, imagine you have been suspended from your job while they investigate if you've committed a serious crime and you were innocent. What would you do differently? Would you cut yourself off from your friends or would you want the comfort of having someone there who believes you? Would you take a dispassionate view that the investigation would play itself out fairly and you don't need to know the details until the findings are presented? Of course not! These alleged guilty behaviours tell us absolutely nothing either way.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 13/07/2024 11:42

Define "did her utmost to spread alternate theories"

Is that perhaps telling people she was innocent and speculating on alternative explanations for things in conversation?

Would that not be a natural response ?

How outlandish were these theories?

And let me tell you that being accused of a crime is stressful and can lead to PTSD. Whether that was due to the manner of her arrest or a combination of factors is up for debate of course.

Trying to get out of the trial? Wouldn't you, if your defence was saying "you have no defence". Because what is actually being said here is that due to the nature of the case, no one wants to consider your possible innocence and the odds are stacked impossibly against you.

Ah yes, of course, an unbiased jury is the key. Is it remotely possible that none of those jurors had heard of her given the media coverage and were able to deliberate in a completely unbiased manner?

In this case, until now, nigh on the whole country was indeed "out to get her".

If the subsequent reservations over her conviction were simply due to this master manipulator playing an incredibly long con, why are reputable medical experts questioning the scientific evidence rather than focusing on what a sweet person she is? Because it is alarming to think that faith in medical evidence could be undermined so badly to make it worthless in criminal cases. If this is all left untested, innocent people could be jailed and the guilty go free, both of which are damaging to them, the public and the entire medical and legal establishment.

deplorabelle · 13/07/2024 11:47

moonlightwatch · 13/07/2024 11:15

It wasn't just the fact the hospital was under staffed and they were over worked, the conditions of the hospital were also extremely poor, they shouldn't of been having the extremely sick babies admitted there they should have also put the level down to 1 way before they did they only did that once Lucy was arrested. The fact also that I have seen written that she was only one of the nurses trained in certain procedures and medicines is also wrong because off course she's going to be there constantly as she was relied on by other members of staff, as you have also expressed if there was even the slight sniff of something sinister going on then why was she constantly put back on that ward knowing she was a concern to these babies and their care. I also read that there was also still borns on maternity wards that wasn't mentioned, there was only one doctor who was available who was the doctor for both wards, they was also admitting babies they couldn't look after who needed other hospitals which had the proper staffing and equipment needed to care for them. As whole the nhs has let those parents and babies down there are major failings and still are across the country, the nhs is extremely stretched and that's a major issue that needs sorting. I don't know what to believe in this case because of all these different articles and things that are now coming out about this case it's mind blown me. I do think there is definitely room for not just blaming Lucy but the whole hospital and I hope they do a thorough investigation into the hospital also because it's clear to me that things aren't all they seem in regards to the state of the hospital and how it's run,

Oh I agree entirely. I think the investigation was hampered by them knowing the unit could not close without causing catastrophe in the region. And by the fact the nursing team could not do without letby because she was the most qualified.

I'm tempted to say the consultants could have overridden that by themselves refusing to work until LL was removed since they were even more indispensable. But it is probably much more complex than that and a much more difficult decision which would definitely have led to professional proceedings against them which would have followed them throughout their careers.

This is also true for Letby. Once accused, guilty or innocent this was never going to go away so should have been investigated immediately.

It is a horrific catch 22 made a thousand times worse by the scandalous level of under-resourcing that was the continual background to this tragedy.

This is also the reason why NHS managers (good, well paid ones) are vital. And no, I'm not an NHS manager I have no axe to grind. In this case, I feel the managers failed to act appropriately and compounded the situation with tragic results. It is ludicrous to allow/require everyone to stay in post when you have two members of staff who genuinely believe crimes have been committed in their workplace.

Neodymium · 13/07/2024 11:52

@MistressoftheDarkSide that is exactly what the defence said. If Dr Jayram really saw what he said he saw, then why didn’t he call the police. Raise the alarm. All this gossip over coffee nonsense. He had a phone. You pick it up and call the police and say I’ve just witnessed a nurse harming a child. She was then accused of twice more trying to harm the same child later that night. If he saw what he said he saw, why did he allow her to be alone with the baby again? That’s what makes me think it’s not true.

Ratsoffasinkingsauage · 13/07/2024 11:54

@MistressoftheDarkSide

I think you are projecting a lot of assumptions on to her. If you can find them, go back and have a look through the text exchanges against the timeline of baby deaths. She begins immediately to provide alternate explanations in the cases of Baby B, C and D that were surprising to the collègue she is communicating with. This is well before she is under suspicion. From the very beginning she is crafting a narrative around the babies who have collapsed to cover her involvement, in some cases gaslighting collègues into believing her version of the deaths- saying a child was septic when it had never been a part of the case.

This what a meant before about ALL the date making a full picture. The police detective interviewed said it was chilling once they matched her text activity with the timeline because it caught her out in lies and manipulative behaviour.

Golaz · 13/07/2024 11:58

Ratsoffasinkingsauage · 13/07/2024 10:45

@placemats No. It isn’t. What IS confirmation bias is cherry picking interviews and stats to make it look like she was fitted up for a crime she didn’t commit by inept policing and a bad judicial system.

She is a manipulative liar who has carefully cultivated a narrative of martyrdom and childlike innocence. It began during the hospital investigation and continued during the police investigation and trial. And lots of people fell for it. Poor innocent Lucy, so young and sensitive. She’s been framed. She’s been badly treated. The mask slips in court were very telling.

Lots of people have been taken in by an exceptionally talented manipulator. The texts with her collègues in the context of events are a chilling record of that.

And lots of people fell for it. Poor innocent Lucy, so young and sensitive. She’s been framed. She’s been badly treated. The mask slips in court were very telling. Lots of people have been taken in by an exceptionally talented manipulator.

But the only people talking about her demeanour are people like you who are convinced she is guilty? No one who is questioning the integrity of the conviction is saying- but look at her! - she is so sweet and innocent! She can’t have done this. But people like you are talking about her “mask slipping” and dissecting her texts, reading all sorts of meaning into them. Demeanour “evidence” is entirely subjective and is always at the heart of wrongful convictions. You can read anything into someone’s behaviour and use any aspect of it to argue for both innocence and guilt. She shows too much emotion- performance/ overly invested, she shows to little emotion- cold/ calculated, etc etc. How you interpret her words and actions is entirely dependent on whether you perceive them through a framework of guilt or innocence.

Those of us who are questioning her guilt are discussing the objective parts of the case, like the scientific evidence and showing why it just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

lawnseed · 13/07/2024 12:01

MistressoftheDarkSide · 13/07/2024 11:07

If she was that great a manipulator surely she never would have been caught......

And why did she keep all those handover notes and agonised writings in a diary? Wouldn't she have known she had all those and disposed of the evidence? She's remarkably dim for a master manipulator by having all that damning evidence.

lawnseed · 13/07/2024 12:05

Ratsoffasinkingsauage · 13/07/2024 11:15

@MistressoftheDarkSide She almost wasn’t. If you look at the hospital investigation it is horribly clear that she was playing the nursing director like a fiddle to get the consultants in trouble for bullying her so that they would ignore the evidence being presented against her. The only reason she was caught was that the consultants refused to fold.

Once she knew the police investigation had started she did her utmost to spread alternate theories and kept friendships on the ward (there’s lots of evidence of this) to try to keep up with what was going on. The diary entries are form this time period. I listened to a very compelling podcast episode which featured a criminal psychologist who posited that this was her attempt to create a narrative that she was mentally unfit for trial- something she tried when she told the judge she had PTSD from her arrest being such a rough experience (police bodycam
foootage was used in court to refute this.

She is very cunning. But not a genius. Most liars trip themselves up in their lies.

Where is this information? I didn't keep up with the trial when it was happening, I just followed the outline in the press.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 13/07/2024 12:10

I've found the texts in a BBC report. Have to say I can't see what's so compelling or sinister about them to be honest.

Oftenaddled · 13/07/2024 12:34

If you start from the assumption that Letby is guilty, her staying in touch with what's happening on the ward, complaining about victimisation, and writing about both innocence and guilt in her diary with the main theme of being stressed and horrified by the accusation looks like a cover-up narrative. But only if you start the assumption she's guilty.

These would be reasonable behaviours from an innocent person too. They don't prove innocence. Nor guilt.

If your question is, why would LL do all the above if she's guilty, sure, we can find an answer. But not proof of guilt.

Ratsoffasinkingsauage · 13/07/2024 12:36

@lawnseed It’s in the Panorama doc and the Daily Mail podcast and other podcasts and articles. None of this stuff is hidden. Did you read the Vanity Fair link I sent from Reddit. I’m astounded people are so set on the idea she’s innocent with such little knowledge of the case.

For example, people make it sound like the hospital investigation was a witch hunt against her when in fact she had the support of the director of nursing and senior hospital admins who were all trying to get the consultants to stop pursuing the idea that she was somehow involved in the spate of collapses. Bear in mind that at this point they were assuming medical negligence and not murder. Between then she, her parents and the nursing director very nearly managed to get the consultants dismissed. This is where the ‘poor Lucy, bad consultants’ narrative begins.

This is also why the police began at a different point to the consultants and started the investigation afresh, to avoid starting with possibly wrong assumptions.

Oftenaddled · 13/07/2024 12:39

I remember when I was being bullied at work constantly checking up on the people bullying me on social media, but also on everyone we worked with, to see who was linking up with whom or to remind myself that there were these people as well as those. It was obsessive and I look back and find it hard to believe. But I can also remember how alone and frightened I felt and just that I needed to keep an eye on everything or it would get worse.

And my work didn't have anything life or death going on! Letby could have been obsessive about her work, enmeshed in relationships there, and a bit unsure of her identity outside work. All that applied to me, and her reactions to the work stress and accusations don't seem that sinister to me. Unhealthy but we aren't all perfectly well balanced individuals.

Ratsoffasinkingsauage · 13/07/2024 12:42

@MistressoftheDarkSide The texts aren’t sinister until you look at them in the timeline of a particular babies’ case. The context for them is crucial (as with everything) because it shows her texting when she was supposed to be doing feeds (a supposedly two handed job) or making assertions about particular collapse that would lead people away from what had really happened.

When she was cross examined about this in court she tripped herself up in lies- like pretending not to know what ‘go commando’ meant or asserting that she had been treated roughly at arrest when the body can footage showed she wasn’t. It is lots of tiny lies but it all adds up to Lucy constantly spinning a narrative where she is the victim.

Oftenaddled · 13/07/2024 12:46

Ratsoffasinkingsauage · 13/07/2024 12:36

@lawnseed It’s in the Panorama doc and the Daily Mail podcast and other podcasts and articles. None of this stuff is hidden. Did you read the Vanity Fair link I sent from Reddit. I’m astounded people are so set on the idea she’s innocent with such little knowledge of the case.

For example, people make it sound like the hospital investigation was a witch hunt against her when in fact she had the support of the director of nursing and senior hospital admins who were all trying to get the consultants to stop pursuing the idea that she was somehow involved in the spate of collapses. Bear in mind that at this point they were assuming medical negligence and not murder. Between then she, her parents and the nursing director very nearly managed to get the consultants dismissed. This is where the ‘poor Lucy, bad consultants’ narrative begins.

This is also why the police began at a different point to the consultants and started the investigation afresh, to avoid starting with possibly wrong assumptions.

I don't think there was a witch hunt. I don't think it helps us to talk in extremes. Life isn't always like that.

The evidence reads as if some consultants gradually came to believe Letby was involved in the deaths, hesitated, and then began to interpret her past actions in that light. But when held up to scrutiny, it's hard to judge those actions that way with some of the statistical and scientific claims etc are seeing.

The hospital didn't initially believe this, positions hardened, and eventually Letby was arrested.

I wouldn't call that a witch hunt. I would say that consultants constructed a narrative, which they believed to be true, and interpreted facts accordingly.

Nobody questioning the verdict is saying Lucy was too nice, too pretty, or the hospital just conspired against her. They're saying that the evidence brought to trial seems shaky.

Ratsoffasinkingsauage · 13/07/2024 12:47

@Oftenaddled She was grouping her searches together by the method she used to kill them before she’d been arrested or anyone else was able to group the deaths. Is that not a strange coincidence?

Ratsoffasinkingsauage · 13/07/2024 12:48

@Oftenaddled That is really not what happened. You need to go back and read the case properly. She was not arrested on consultant suspicions. She wasn’t arrest until nearly a year into the investigation when the people had independently come to the conclusion that she was a possible suspect.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 13/07/2024 12:55

Ratsoffasinkingsauage · 13/07/2024 12:47

@Oftenaddled She was grouping her searches together by the method she used to kill them before she’d been arrested or anyone else was able to group the deaths. Is that not a strange coincidence?

Sorry, what searches do you mean?

Ratsoffasinkingsauage · 13/07/2024 12:56

Here is an extract from that Vanity Fair article:

Page 86:

IT WAS PRECISELY 8:26p.m. On June 8,2015, when the world began to lose him. The baby boy was only 2 pounds and 12 ounces, nine weeks premature, vulnerable enough to be sent to the neonatal unit at the hospital where he was born, the Countess of Chester Hospital in northwest England.

For almost all of his short life —one day— he had been stable, sometimes wriggling around in his incubator. That night, though, he stopped breathing. His monitor alarm beeped, alerting the medical staff. "Please don't let my baby die, his mother sobbed. "Please don't let my baby die!" The doctors and nurses compressed his tiny chest, but he showed no response to resuscitation, nor to adrenaline to kick start his heart. The baby's skin color was unusual, a dusky blue, with patches of pink around the abdomen. The medical staff hadn't seen anything like it. He died at 8:58 p.m. His mother had never held him in her arms.

Later that night, the doctors fast-tracked a post mortem examination in the hopes of identifying a cause of death. Specifically, they wanted to know whether an autoimmune disease the baby boy's mother suffered from, that can increase the risk of blood clots, might have passed to him. If so, might it affect his twin sister, who had also been admitted:

But no clear cause of death could be identified. Which made the baby girl's collapse the following night even sarier. She also stopped breathing as her heart rate fell. The same blotches appeared, Unlike her brother, though, the infant responded to resuscitation, and the discoloration vanished.

Over the next four weeks, until the baby girl was discharged, her mother, by then at home, would set alarms through the night tocall the designated NNU parent line, asking the staff to check that the baby was still breathing. She spent every day cuddling her surviving child.

But the NNU was shaken. Staff cried; one doctor took bereavement leave. Despite the obvious vulnerability of sick and premature babies, most of them survive. Only three babies died on the ward in 2014, two in 2O13. A 2021 report shows that for every1,000 premature babies born in the UK each year, 22 die.

When babies suffer cardiorespiratory arrest, there's normally a downward trajectory in their health. Their temperature increases. Their heart rate slows. And there's typically an identifiable cause: heat, infection, or dehydration. But that wasn't the case with the twins.

Even when babies collapse, there's usually a reason, even if if's not obvious at first, and medical intervention usually works. But this baby's collapse was inexplicably sudden and severe, and there was no response. It "didn't fit with any disease process that I have seen, learned, or read about, Ravi Jayaram, a senior doctor on the ward, would say later. As the parents scoured the internet, the medics searched for explanations.

Four days later, another baby at the Countess died. Born at just over 30 weeks gestation, he'd been feisty, wriggling and pulling at his tubes even though he was one of the smallest babies the nursing team had ever seen. Only three days old when he collapsed, he too didnt respond to resuscitation. Doctors were initially unable to install a breathing tube because the back of his throat was so swollen, as was his belly.

One week later, a baby girl, larger, stronger, and gestationally older at 37 weeks, survived only 36 hours at the Countess. She collapsed suddenly, three times, and the same strange rash appeared on her tummy. She died on june 22, the day after Father's Day.

This describes the collapses of Babies A, B, C and D. Baby C was born on the same day that B collapsed and was attacked and died a day later.

Ratsoffasinkingsauage · 13/07/2024 12:57

@MistressoftheDarkSide Searching the families on Facebook. Those searches were grouped by either attack method or particular anniversaries.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.