To think the Lucy Letby case needs a judicial review?

[Edenspirits73]

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/

People often overestimate the amount of vomit/bleeding when it's on the floor/bedding.

I used to do an experiment when I taught first aid - I would squirt 10mls, 50mls and 200mls of fake blood onto a dummy/floor and ask people to estimate how much blood they thought it was.

People were out massively - often by large multiples.

I don't understand why the note to all three was particularly sinister. Either she hasn't killed them and forgets one survived, or she has killed them and forgets one survived. I think you'd be a bit less likely to forget if you were a killer.

It's a bit obsessive and even ghoulish, but plenty of people come across that way about other people's tragedies.

100 day thing - it's a milestone. So is a week, a month, three months. With a dozen or so infant deaths, some will fall near milestones. It's sad but not proof of anything.

Projectile vomiting - there's no measure of the volume of liquid - hence prosecution claimed caused by overfeeding or air. No evidence stomach was empty before feed. Projectile vomiting occurs in infants without overfeeding.

Can anyone link to news reports of the note or card to the triplets family? I can't find anything about it from googling.

@cocolocosmoko it's the yellow post it, it's really hard to make out what a lot of it says. The blanked out names are meant to be the names of all the triplets.

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-04-18/nurses-notes-read-i-killed-them-trial-hears

Thanks. So that's just a line in her journalling. Not a card or a draft card. I take back what I said about ghoulishness. And there's no way to say if she's addressing one, two or three triplets, even if their names are elsewhere on the post-it.

https://images.ctfassets.net/pjshm78m9jt4/4ncvlF1R192YgkJXqHucYh/4496b6a49017fe0cb4e5186f77912ffe/9.Ex_NAC.2_-_Notes__AMB-0005_EDITED.jpg?fm=avif&fit=fill&w=650&h=433&q=80

Is this really supposed to prove something?

@Oftenaddled they're at the top blanked out as we're not allowed to know their names. She's addressing all of them and saying they're not here. Totally normal

She's written the three names. Why would that mean she's addressing all three? And what difference would it make it she was?

She's either thinking of all three and addressing two of them in that part of the post-it, or she's lost track of who was who in the stress of all the infant deaths and accusation.

So some sloppy presentation on a private post-it or a mistake about which babies are dead.

How does either contribute any evidence of murder?

Those poor babies, why is it so hard to accept that evil exists and that they do wear sheep's clothing?

Ah, thanks. Just looks like someone trying to make sense of their thoughts in a very strange and difficult situation. Can't see that there's anything more to it than that.

Baby G was not fed by LL. What evidence is there to link LL to the incident?

The baby was left behind a screen with the monitors switched off by the doctors who omitted to tell the nurse.

I can accept that evil exists.
I just don't think the evidence was very convincing or robust enough in this case.
And if this was a miscarriage of justice then justice has not been done for those poor babies.

People are defending her weird behaviour and dismissing so many of her inappropriate actions though and all the evidence. Or coming up with every other explanation for others being at fault but the one with 15 whole life orders. And it's making a mockery of a 10 month trial and painstaking work for literal years to bring her to trial. And of the verdict which those jurors finally came to after weighing up the evidence for weeks and weeks. Which wasn't the case with MJ as he was found not guilty.

I don't put any emphasis at all on such weak circumstantial evidence like it was coming up to the babies 100th day. I ignore that kind of stuff because I don't consider it to be important. You're ignoring genuinely important stuff though and just taking everything the prosecution says as gospel.

From baby G's father-

He says he never saw anything in that time where a doctor or nurse was acting unprofessionally, nor did he have any concerns. There were "no problems" until Child G was 100 days old.

Well I do put emphasis on very suspicious things like babies collapsing when they were about to go home, father's day, 100 days of life, immunisation day, 6 mins after LL was told she couldn't go in the room she wanted, collapsing the minute other staff left the room to come back and find LL there when baby was stable. Deaths following her from night shifts to days, mysteriously stopping while she's in Ibiza then starting again the minute she returns etc. I don't know how unlucky one person can be! Her behaviour explains a lot, probably why you don't believe her guilt when you are purposely ignoring the glaring red flags.

I'm not ignoring anything I'm not a medical expert so I have to trust the ones that are, why would they lie about it? Oh to make some random nurse a scapegoat, sure.

That's beside the point, there was excess vomit not accounted for and it was vomited with such force that was unprecedented for a baby of that size.

Don't you think they might've considered all that? Shame they didn't call you for the defence since you seem to know a lot that the experts don't.

We're not coming up with 'every other explanation'. There's one other explanation which was made up of many things, this was basically that this was suboptimal hospital providing suboptimal care.

What do you think that that quote from Baby Gs father is supposed to prove exactly? He didn't witness the doctors forgetting to turn the monitor back on and the baby being left behind a screen either and yet that happened.

If you use anything at all as a milestone then of course you're going to see a pattern.

We've been over the day to night shifts and the holiday several times.

They're not glaring red flags, there's certainly far less red flags for her than there is for Michael Jackson who you keep bringing up and you don't think he's guilty.

If you want to believe medical experts who say things like there's only one reason why a baby would projectile vomit then go ahead.

Your faith in the system is touching but misplaced.

By your logic the sub-postnadters are actually all guilty because experts said so.

The people affected by the blood scandal were just unlucky.

And obviously there has never been a miscarriage of justice.

Sally Clarke was obviously guilty.

Angela Cannings, Trupti Patel et al, and the Websters - all blatantly guilty.

The first set of experts in this case - the pathologists etc all totally incompetent. The second set of experts - beyond reproach.

When I was told I needed a solicitor because I was about to embark on the wild ride that is the family court, I walked at the suggestion. My response was "Don't be ridiculous. They'll sort it out. I trust that they're just doing their jobs and though it's painful right now, as long as I tell the truth and co-operate, it'll all work out".

Talk about a rude awakening.

Why didn't I pursue redress? Because I was told categorically by my solicitor when things were resolved to as satisfactory a solution as possible not to even think about it. And the implication from the authorities was that if I wanted to keep my son I'd better put up and shut up. Echoes if the judgement of Solomon.

I repeat, there is too much scope for untold damage to be done when complex medical evidence is being used in criminal cases. And a good number of independent experts think so. Believe me, no expert is going to be raising red flags by defending a "baby killer" on a whim, because, well it doesn't look good does it to be questioning your professional peer group, the establishment, the police, the justice system as a whole, and I promise you they're not doing it for shits and giggles or because they're bored.

Balked at the suggestion that should read.

Fat fingers and insomnia after waking up from a nightmare .....

@kkloo I'm less sure of MJ's innocence than you seem to be of Letby's. I just try to be open-minded and explore all possibilities. Which is what I did whilst the trial was ongoing. There came a point where the circumstantial evidence became overwhelming though. You seem like someone who needs a smoking gun but there isn't one because it happened in a hospital and everything she did was done covertly and would've looked normal to anyone else. She could've been caught on CCTV injecting multiple babies that go on to collapse and people would still say "you can't prove the baby collapsed because of her it could've been xyz" you could make up literally ANYTHING. Oh it could be some mystery illness no one knows about. Or maybe it's the most likely explanation and the one sitting in jail did it.

We're not coming up with 'every other explanation'. There's one other explanation which was made up of many things, this was basically that this was suboptimal hospital providing suboptimal care.

Yet somehow it functioned fine when she wasn't around. Healthy babies don't collapse out of nowhere even on a poorly run unit, with ONE staff member ALWAYS there.

What do you think that that quote from Baby Gs father is supposed to prove exactly? He didn't witness the doctors forgetting to turn the monitor back on and the baby being left behind a screen either and yet that happened.

That the baby was doing well until narcissist Letby decided to wreck the 100 day celebrations.

If you use anything at all as a milestone then of course you're going to see a pattern.

Anything? 100 days of life was a HUGE milestone and the parents thought they could relax with baby G making 100 days. Father's day for a new nervous dad is also not "anything", neither is million to one (or more) identical triplets. There's probably more but I'd have to go back and read up. First immunisations is also a pretty big deal for a baby like baby G, and proves she was doing well. You have a funny idea of what you think doesn't constitute a milestone-maybe that's all mundane to you, but not to the parents I'm sure...

We've been over the day to night shifts and the holiday several times.

Indeed we have, and yet you still won't accept the deaths followed her everywhere she went and stopped when she wasn't on the unit.

They're not glaring red flags, there's certainly far less red flags for her than there is for Michael Jackson who you keep bringing up and you don't think he's guilty.

Ah ok so not worried about a miscarriage of justice there then if he'd been found guilty! Only with the blonde female nurse. Storing hundreds of handover sheets at home like trophies, fishing notes out of bins to keep, facebook stalking parents, going in rooms she's not supposed to be in (including a room newly bereaved parents were in that she has to be asked to leave by her supervisor) and gleefully making up memory boxes (to name a few) are indeed red flags and not something anyone should want in a nurse taking care of them or their precious children!

If you want to believe medical experts who say things like there's only one reason why a baby would projectile vomit then go ahead.

Is there some reason I shouldn't believe them when they've had decades experience with premature babies and know what's normal and what's hugely abnormal? Oh right because the mumsnet sleuths know better.

@Firefly1987
I just try to be open-minded and explore all possibilities. Which is what I did whilst the trial was ongoing.

Right so you don't want to be open minded about the stuff that is coming out now after the trial or the medical opinions that are being shared, that's fair enough, but many other people are so get over it. What is the point in you going on and on and on about the stuff that was used in the first trial when we've heard that 10000 times before and it hasn't convinced us?

You seem like someone who needs a smoking gun

Proof that some actual crimes had taken place would be a good start!

She could've been caught on CCTV injecting multiple babies that go on to collapse and people would still say "you can't prove the baby collapsed because of her it could've been xyz" you could make up literally ANYTHING. Oh it could be some mystery illness no one knows about.

Bollox.

Or maybe it's the most likely explanation and the one sitting in jail did it.

The most likely explanation isn't that there was a serial killer.

Yet somehow it functioned fine when she wasn't around.

It didn't. Neither did the maternity ward. Was she in harming women and babies in there too?

Indeed we have, and yet you still won't accept the deaths followed her everywhere she went and stopped when she wasn't on the unit.

She went on holiday for a week.
There were periods of time of weeks and even months where she wasn't accused of harming any babies.

Ah ok so not worried about a miscarriage of justice there then if he'd been found guilty! Only with the blonde female nurse.

Nothing to do with her being blonde and female. I wouldn't have been worried about a miscarriage of justice with a man who slept in beds with random children and had extremely inappropriate relationships with them no.

Storing hundreds of handover sheets at home like trophies, fishing notes out of bins to keep, facebook stalking parents, going in rooms she's not supposed to be in (including a room newly bereaved parents were in that she has to be asked to leave by her supervisor) and gleefully making up memory boxes (to name a few) are indeed red flags and not something anyone should want in a nurse taking care of them or their precious children!

Did you not see the list of stuff found at Michaels Jacksons house? 😂

Most of the handover sheets related to other babies who she wasn't accused of harming. Only a tiny minority of facebook searches were for the parents of babies who died.

I'm not going to discuss the circumstantial stuff anymore with youabout facebook searches or her going on holidays because it's been done to death and boring as fuck and the rest of the thread is actually pretty interesting!

Is there some reason I shouldn't believe them when they've had decades experience with premature babies and know what's normal and what's hugely abnormal?

No, no go ahead, continue to believe them all you want.

Please direct me to the forensic psychologist report entered into evidence at court that diagnoses her as a narcissist.

@kkloo You're right it's been done to death and neither are going to change our minds. I would however like a source for what you keep saying about the maternity ward as I've not heard anything about that.

Did you not see the list of stuff found at Michaels Jacksons house? 😂

And yet he was exonerated, funny that. But it's such a shame that someone who enjoyed bathing dead babies, photographing them and writing fantasy sympathy notes whilst living opposite a baby cemetery was found guilty. You must be so worried about little innocent Lucy and the huge miscarriage of justice there's been. They should do a scientific study on her because the amount of coincidences and bad luck are almost paranormal and defy science. She must be gutted she couldn't have just won the lottery several times instead.

I think I'll go back to tattle where they actually know what they're talking about.

@Firefly1987
Ooooh you're from tattle😂Makes sense 😂

Here's your source!
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/countess-chester-one-highest-baby-13241817

And the second download here has the table of figures www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/neonatal_deaths_and_fois

How is making up a memory box which is part of her job a red flag? Who says she was “gleeful”.? Is this just not confirmation bias?

when I’ve started making up memory boxes I may have been sat in the staff room happily chatting to a colleague about plans for the weekend. We don’t sit there sobbing even on sad shifts. And then I will go in the room with the bereaved parents and cry genuine tears while doing footprints, etc. but many staff can compartmentalise their feelings on such shifts, it’s a self defence mechanism. So even if she had appeared happy while making the boxes up I’d say that means nothing.

Nobody celebrates 100 days of babies being alive. The fact the parents/nurses felt this was such a huge thing to celebrate implies to me that they didn't expect to reach the milestone.

On the subject of milestones, surely with an infant who is poorly you’ll have a lot. You could have every ten days, every new week/ month and then the days of significance dotted throughout the year like Father’s Day, Christmas etc. I’m not sure that’s evidence of much since there will always be one close.