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/

The obvious thing would be to pause this in case there’s a retrial, which I’m reasonably sure there will be eventually. However I don’t see how you’d pause a public enquiry.

There are online sources for the transcripts and the contemporaneous media reporting of the trial. The key areas of evidence are in the public domain including the air embolism/insulin theories.

What I find strange is that the previous judge clearly had Evans’ number. Did the Appeal judges not appreciate just how poor his theories were (did they lack scientific education?) or were they simply finding ways to uphold the status quo.

One of the judges commented that Evans’ testimony was “consistent” as if being consistently implausible was any kind of plus.

NHS hospital told nurse who tried to support Lucy Letby ‘she shouldn’t give evidence’ (msn.com)

I am not comfortable with her conviction at all (medical professional here of 34 years)

Apparently both extremes are proof of guilt?
Who has come up with a position of proof of guilt from these statements only?

I haven't read or heard anyone staring so.

Interesting theories.

Remember Rebecca Leighton? The nurse who spent 6 weeks in prison. Someone else was eventually found guilty.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/rebecca-leighton-stepping-hill-murders-9361840

I think it's a reflection of the attitude towards those accused of heinous crimes who "can't win" regardless especiallywhere there are no "obvious red flags".

In the context of the comment being quoted from, I think it reflects a subconscious human need to find an answer to something so far beyond the scope of average human experience or understanding. It's not being used as proof in and of itself but analysis of behaviour can be useful padding to bolster the circumstantial evidence.

Which is all well and good up to a point until you're the subject of such analysis yourself, to which I can testify. The "Oh feck" moment when you realise you're under scrutiny for anything to help build a case against you is devastating. And then they can add paranoid ideation to the psychological buffet.....

Yes I don’t see how they can do anything other than proceed as if there is no question about her guilt, which is going to leave a pretty enormous elephant in the room.

I thought the closing paragraph of the Private Eye article was interesting in that respect- ‘Meanwhile, the Thirlwall public inquiry may inadvertently be derailed by experts who say under oath that Letby wasn’t stopped sooner because there were far more plausible reasons for the deaths than murder. And hospital managers threatened with a corporate manslaughter charge can argue the same with plenty of expert support.’

There are going to be some people who are very strongly motivated to make arguments that if convincing would make a nonsense of her conviction, and given all the information now in the public arena they will have been in a far stronger position in the lead up to the inquiry than she was in the lead up to her trial (as well as not being as defeated and traumatised as she was by the time she gave evidence in her own defence.)

The Pure - why are you almost sure Colin Norris will be acquitted? From the very little I have read the case against him looks a lot more convincing than that against Letby.

Someone on another thread brought up Colin Norris. His case had gone completely under my radar TBH. A site called The Justice Gap has some interesting articles.

Really??

-He was said to have murdered some very elderly ladies some in their late 80s for no apparent reason at all. The a priori chances that these people died of natural causes was very high.

• for only one case (the index case) was there any proof at all that insulin levels were high and no proof at all that Colin did anything ever to anyone apart from be there. The only reason that case was thought to be suspicious at all was that it was not known at the time that non diabetic people can die of hypoglycaemia. It is now unequivocally proven that they can and quite commonly do if they are frail and otherwise ill.

• they reverse trawled all his clinical contacts going back years in a number of hospitals and then dredged up other cases where people died of hypoglycaemia and he was there. Classic reverse causation failing to look at all for cases where people had hypoglycaemia and he wasn't there in fact discounting them as natural causes if he wasn't there! Then they said to the jury if you believe he killed the first one you can believe he killed them all by association

• he has protested his innocence consistently over all these years and has no red flags at all in his background.

• all the hallmarks are there: wholly circumstantial evidence, dodgy medical expert opinion now called into doubt, retrospective trawl for cases where he was there, all the deaths originally believed to be natural, very ill people whose deaths were not unexpected.

The CCRC have referred his case back to the court of appeal so they agree his conviction may be unsafe. I can't see how it will stand.

ccrc.gov.uk/news/commission-refers-the-murder-and-attempted-murder-convictions-of-colin-norris-to-the-court-of-appeal/

www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/killer-nurse-who-poisoned-patients-15636763.amp

He's even started an initiative for prisoners to donate to food banks from inside! I just really feel for this guy and can't understand at all why he was convicted

I think nurses are in a particularly vulnerable position because they're so intimately involved in the care of very sick people, most of whom are skirting around death. Add to this the access they have to potentially lethal substances and an underperforming and failing NHS full of toxic managers and egotistical doctors whom often vastly overestimate their own abilities and intelligence and it's a perfect storm. Doctors make mistakes all the time, but appear to be immune to being held to account, whereas nurses are immediately reported to the NMC and spend months or even years under intense scrutiny and stress wondering what will happen - loss of career, referral to the police too. It's like living under the sword of Damocles.

How many people have died as a result of GP misdiagnoses? Everyone has a damn story. Any of them ever held to account?

The notes and her behaviour with the babies have been repeatedly brought up when flaws in the science have been raised as concerns.

I was just pointing out that there is a lack of logic that she is being accused of caring too much about the deaths and too little concurrently.

I don’t think the notes or fb searches are proof of anything. I search people on fb. I could see her thinking about someone, wondering how they are doing, and looking them up. I’m sure I would do the same.

It will be interesting to see what happens at the inquiry. The whole thing is a mess, I feel like the justice department will probably try to cover up anything that makes them look incompetent.

She took home 250 documents. Even taking one would be an offence but she took the risk to take 250.

A nurse posted on here that she took documents home to destroy them as there was no shredder at work.

I’m not disputing that it’s a GDPR breach and a disciplinary offence, but this report indicates it’s not uncommon.

After a shift staff are supposed to place the confidential hand over sheet in a bin for shredding. However after a 12 hour shift, sometimes staff have been known to forget to do that. I have sometimes found the notes in my pocket before I put my nurses tunic in the washing machine but I shred or burn it immediately.

They will tie themselves in knots defending her weird behaviour. Other nursing staff have said they've accidentally done this but were at pains to point out it was only a few (NOT 257!) at most and they immediately destroyed them. Just makes LL look even more guilty if anything, hardly helps her defence. It was clearly no accident she kept them, they were trophies. She had a shredder she could've used at any point. But she liked collecting paper so nothing to see here🙄

Think a version of this has already been posted but interesting:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucy-letby-child-killer-nurse-b2583362.html

To misquote Oscar Wilde: one document taken home can be seen as a mistake, 257 looks like something entirely different.

I don’t disagree but the mistake people make is thinking “entirely different” means murder.

Is this just confirmation bias? I think it’s atypical to have so many but I don’t see the connection to murder. I’m sure there are people who have documents from work they shouldn’t have. I know I have in the past. It could have just been a bad habit she got into. I don’t see how you can conclude they were trophies as only about 20 of the 257 sheets had names of the babies she was accused of harming.

It does not make it look like murder to me
Handover sheets are not in the slightest bit akin to clinical notes. They are an aide memoir just bed numbers and names usually with some scribbles on. Drs have jobs lists that are equivalent and many of those went home in my scrubs pockets in stark contravention of hospital policy in my years of hospital medicine and I am sure I failed to shred them and they may be lurking in some corner if the police were to raid my home now. Probably not 250 but who's to say how many might be uncovered.
Yes it's against policy but I am willing to bet that 100% of frontline healthcare staff have done it as long as you don't leave it at Tesco then you are not going to get in much trouble for it.

Anyway none of this stuff is the point

The point is that no-one would be searching her home or treating her internet activity if she was not suspected of murder.

If they did this to all the other staff at the hospital how many would have similar findings? It proves nothing. It might 'look suspicious' but it proves nothing.

First of all there needs to be evidence that any babies actually died other than of natural causes which I do not agree there is and then secondly evidence of how she murdered them which I also do not agree there is.

All these babies were at huge risk of dying of natural causes because of their prematurity and health complications the more so after they were born into a failing unit. It's entirely possibly the mortality spike was a statistical anomaly or evidence of poor care. The numerous ways she is supposed to have murdered them are wholly unconvincing to me. Air embolism is notoriously silent. How can it ever be proved either way that this happened? It can't.

If there were no murders then all the hoarding of handover notes and Facebook activity in the world don't matter.

Indeed. I am reminded of that quote "when the only tool you have is a hammer it's tempting to approach everything as a nail," or words to that effect.

Confirmation bias works both ways.....