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/

Yes, it’s another bit of ‘evidence’ a statistician could show to be nonsense in 5 minutes flat. I don’t know if any of them have bothered to write it up as it’s a relatively unimportant part of the case, there might be a blog post somewhere.

Ooooh you're from tattle😂Makes sense 😂

Doesn’t it just.

There's a lot of illogical thought processes.

LL writes about being upset about babies dying
LL records dates of babies death in her diary
LL looks up the parents of babies who have died

Apparently all proof of guilty (although frankly I can imagine doing all the same things)

Yet also:

LL doesn't seem unhappy enough when bathing a dead baby
LL doesn't seem unhappy enough when helping with creating keepsake memories

Apparently both extremes are proof of guilt? To me this seems like a professional nurse mourning the deaths in private while trying to hold back that feelings dealing with the parents.

To add - I don't work in healthcare but did have to deal with an unexpected death by suicide of a volunteer I had been working with. The reactions of people I worked with ranged from attempting to deal with the situation through dark humour to crying to total shutdown and refusing to acknowledge the situation. I was shocked and quite numb but didn't really talk about it at work much. I sent a card to the family and if Facebook had been a thing then I can imagine having looked up the family. I still have a picture the person drew me well over a decade later.

It is normal to react strangely to death. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a 'normal' reaction.

There’s an article in the daily mail today about why someone who sat through the trial every day thinks “it’s time for this Lucy Letby is innocent madness to stop”, with the evidence she believes proves her guilt.
Can’t see the article as it’s behind a paywall. If anyone is able to see it, the gist of it would be interesting.

It's just the same thing that has been said over and over again.

You can see most paywalled stuff by copying the link into archive.ph

It’s by one of a couple of women who did a podcast chat about the trial. One is a DM journalist and the other is a media consultant with a background in local news. They failed to engage with the junk science so she’s basically defending her podcast.

archive.ph/2024.07.20-082202/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13652275/Lucy-Letby-innocent-madness-stop-trials-evidence-proves-guilt-LIZ-HULL.html

This is an amazing tip I did not know this

I just can’t see how they think the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt.

I guess this can be the problem with the justice system. Really, I think it’s worse for someone innocent to be locked up than someone guilty to go free.

Dr Evans said that none of the other babies he reviewed had suspicious deaths and that is why they weren’t included. Considering they all had autopsies, none of the babies deaths were suspicious at that point. So what was his criteria for deciding a suspicious death? It’s all very vague and subjective.

What were the medical criteria for “incidents”? What are his qualifications for overturning specialist perinatal pathology reports when he wasn’t even a pathologist or a neonatologist?

I don’t know who comes out of this worst - the medical profession, the courts or the media.

New Telegraph article reports the hospital told a nurse who was prepared to give LL a character witness not to testify:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/20/claim-nhs-hospital-told-nurse-dont-give-evidence-lucy-letby/

If anyone wants an analogy about how she could have written the notes and still been innocent what about that Taylor Swift song Antihero. It's really popular because a lot of people can relate, 'I'm the problem it's me...Everybody agrees' I have been depressed and had thoughts like that. I have thought that I am a bad person/mother/worker and that I should be punished for mistakes I have made that I can now see were minor and accidental. I work in mental health and I see that though process all the time. Those notes certainly do not prove anything for me

Reasons why I worry that she may be innocent

• quite a number of nurses have been accused of being serial killers and it was later found that the patients died of natural causes these include Lucia de Berk in NL, Daniela Poggiali in Italy and Colin Norris here in the U.K. Colin's case was finally taken back by the CCRC to the Court of Appeal and I am almost sure he'll be acquitted.

• many babies have died in poorly performing U.K. neonatal units eg in Telford and on Morecambe Bay and no-one suggested there was a serial killer in those cases just bad clinical care. This is no less a tragedy for the families concerned

• the NHS absolutely does scapegoat individual clinicians for systemic failings. It does it quite commonly eg Dr Bawa Garba convicted of gross negligence manslaughter in a failing understaffed paeds hospital where she made a fatal error whilst doing the work of at least 2 people with no support.

• miscarriages of justice absolutely do happen and often poor use of statistics and blind slavish acceptance of received wisdom from experts later shown to be wrong is at the root. Sally Clark and Angela Cannings are the obvious example but also the Norfolk family who had 3 children adopted away for NAI later shown conclusively to be rickets and all the insistence on the triad of signs of shaken baby syndrome that later proved possible to occur without abuse.

• I find the lack of direct evidence of how she is supposed to have killed them very alarming. Harold Shipman it was proven to be morphine, Beverly Allit there was good evidence of insulin overdose but in this case there is no proven mechanism at all for any of the deaths as far as I can understand. The air embolus theory is just a theory. The insulin OD was not proven to the correct standard. Also serial killers have an MO. They find a way of doing stuff and keep doing it. She is supposed to have done all this different stuff.

• any 'ooh doesn't that seem suspicious' stuff about Facebook or handover sheets or whatever I do not find convincing because of confirmation bias. Humans look for evidence to confirm theories they already have.

• any 'ooh isn't it a coincidence' stuff I would have to be sure that proper statistical rigour had been applied to determine how likely any of the events was at baseline. When you do that you often find that things you inherently think quite unlikely like 2 or even 3 cot deaths in one family are actually quite likely. Roy Meadows said it was 1 in 73 million chance of 2 cot deaths but it's actually only 1 in 60.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13655221/Former-Cabinet-Minister-spearhead-campaign-conviction-killer-Lucy-Letby.html

How many more were out there who were afraid to give evidence to either support her character or/and could detail mistakes and issues in the hospital?

Fair play to the nurse who came forward during the trial to give evidence in relation to child G, how she wasn't interviewed in the first place I don't know but it must have taken serious balls for her to come forward!

I’m actually quite taken aback at how fast this case is unraveling..

One of the things that has baffled me has been the silence from the majority of people who must have known Lucy Letby since the trial finished. No former boyfriends keen to sell their "bunny boiler" stories. No "mean girl" anecdotes. Pretty much tumbleweed. I haven't seen that level of restraint from known associates in any other high profile case.

Interesting piece on the appeal court decision by Peter Hayes (whom I previously posted an article by):

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/07/10/medical-evidence-against-lucy-letby-is-clearly-defective-so-why-was-her-appeal-rejected/

Absolutely.

Wishful thinking on your part. The public inquiry will be very revealing.

This is an illuminating and terrifying analysis IMHO, because this trial seems to undermine the legal process entirely. Essentially a jury doesn't need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to decide guilt. Technically it means anyone could be found guilty of anything, particularly in a health care setting where negligence and accident can become murder simply because the tools are potentially at hand.

I still don't understand how after so much time and with clearly conflicting medical evidence, the case made it past the CPS as murder because there is no plausible indication of intent. One could possibly argue criminal negligence or involuntary manslaughter but given all the variables I think even that is a stretch.

Those absolutely convinced of her guilt constantly imply we don't have the case notes nor all the facts, but the thing is, it is the facts put before the court and a matter of public record that secured the conviction. Sceptics are told there is no "smoking gun" it's the cumulative evidence, yet also imply there is a "smoking gun" but we're not privy to it. Both things can't be true.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/

Haven't read everything on the site yet, but given this enquiry is based on the assumption of unequivocal guilt on the part of Lucy Letby, it's already operating from a position of bias.

That’s because she’s been found guilty and failed to provide grounds for an appeal so it’s been refused. The PI isn’t biased at all, it’s based on fact.