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 joys of the Internet and everyone suddenly being an expert 😑

It’s not really a puzzle as other NHS workers have said they’ve done the same.

It’s a moot point whether she kept them intentionally or just never threw them away and they piled up.

Funnily enough, there are actually some experts on the internet because, contrary to popular opinion, they don't solely spend their time in their book lined studies reading academic articles whilst listening to Brahms.

I know nothing about the Colin Norris case than what I've read here. Did the patients with concerns come forward before or after the conviction?

I don’t know if she’s guilty or not but the idea of the collection of work papers proving guilt of murder is just not adding up. If she’d had a collection of plastic forks from the cafeteria would that also show her guilt? It’d be weird but again something weird or a bit off is not evidence for murder.

She may have been murdered but NOT by him!
So not only wrongly accused of murders that were actually not murders (which is still to be demonstrated), but also happen to be a genuine murder, it just happens to be someone else...

Is it possible? Yes in that everything is possible, but to be absolutely convinced he is not guilty, mmmm....

It’d be weird but again something weird or a bit off is not evidence for murder
Nothing in this case is evidence on its own. It's the accumulation of circumstantial events that led to a guilty verdict.

Yeah but even with it all accumulated many of us aren't convinced.

I think the medical evidence (the most important bit) proves absolutely nothing because it didn't even convince me that murders had even been committed.

So take that out and all there is left is stuff about handover sheets and post its etc. and they are definitely not enough to convince me either.

Of course we know it was enough for the jury but who knows how everything will play out in the future for an appeal.

You can keep on piling up tiny bits of contrived and unconvincing evidence and it never gets any more plausible.

Well the prosecution and jury didn't think it was a moot point...and your examples of NHS workers were ones that took a few by accident and destroyed them as soon as they realised so not really the same. It's very relevant in the case of one accused of murder.

And that is troubling because humans can join the dots wrongly to make a completely different picture.

Confirmation bias is a real and powerful thing. Once a narrative has taken hold then everything seems to fit it but if you take a step back and have an open mind it can all just as easily be coincidence

@Richelieu can you link to the substack again please, I can’t find your post with the link?

Yeah the link I posted earlier from the barrister discussed this.
From the start of the article..

Appearing for the Crown in a murder trial he was hoping to lose, a senior colleague once quipped: “People want to know how we defend the guilty, but the really tricky thing is prosecuting the innocent.” I’ve only done it once, to my knowledge. And the lesson in the power and contagion of confirmation bias has stayed with me.

The series starts here
https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/ll-part-1-hospital-wastewater

Only one of the jurors had a grasp of the case imo.

I’ve got a lot of work stuff that needs shredding - it’s been sitting there for ages. The more it builds up the longer it will take to shred and the more I put it off.

It could be taken of proof of hoarding details whereas I just cba to shred it.

Thanks @kkloo , I was just about to post a link to that blog for @CormorantStrikesBack but hadn’t quite whizzed back to the first page.

(Edited for clumsiness!)

I am sure as a dr and a scientist and having read the evidence about hypoglycaemia in the elderly that it will be proven that the 4 deaths were not murders and those convictions will be quashed.

You have to know the sequence of events: The police picked Norris to be suspicious of mainly because of the dumb coincidental comment he had made. Then they trawled back over years of patients Norris had looked after specifically for hypoglycaemia deaths. Obviously they found some because we now know it is common. All of them had originally been ruled natural causes and there was no blood test evidence. Cases of hypoglycaemia where he wasn't there were ruled as non suspicious. The 4 cases were reclassified as murder literally just because he was there. You surely have to be able to see how flawed that is. It's exactly what was done to Lucia de Berk in the Netherlands and Daniela Poggiali in Italy whose convictions were quashed.

Then they used that 'evidence' to say there was a pattern and therefore he must have murdered Mrs Hall although there was no direct evidence that he did and at least 15 other people could have.

Then they made up a motive that he hated old people for which again there was no actual evidence at all. Do you reckon some disgruntled people might come forward to say he was mean to them after the conviction if a tabloid paid them enough money? Of course they would. Again multiple examples of people pilloried in the tabloid press for crimes they are later proven innocent of eg Christopher Jeffries who did not murder Jo Yeates but plenty of people were willing to come forward and say shit about him when he was questioned.

You think it's unlikely that the wrong person would be accused and fitted up? Well how do you explain that the exact same thing happened to Rebecca Leighton who was imprisoned for the crimes of Victorino Chua at Stepping Hill hospital.

So no it's NOT that unlikely that someone could be accused of a murder they did not commit and then have the police trawl back in a statistically flawed manner to reclassify natural deaths and make a person look like a serial killer. It has happened multiple times to a number of nurses in different countries now.

Poor understanding of statistics, bias and risk and poor understanding of medical evidence has led to multiple miscarriages of justice in the U.K. and around the world. It is not stupid or credulous to think this might be one of them.

And that’s dangerous in the absence of any hard evidence.

Circumstantial evidence to support strong evidence to clinch a case is one thing; association of disparate circumstantial evidence could easily lead to a miscarriage of justice.

I don’t work in nursing, but plenty of people who do , have come forward and said that this is actually a very common thing to do 💁🏼‍♀️.

One nurse on this very thread explained she did it all the time because there was no shredder at work and you can’t just chuck them, so she would just shove them in her bag/ her car whatever and forget about them. She even went so far as to say she suspected everyone had done this at some point.

Maybe Lucy was sloppier than most, having so many, and not disposing of them, but lots of people are sloppy like that . It’s hardly unusual. Unlike being a serial baby killer with 257 trophies of (presumably 10s if not 100s) of victims…

Putting 2 + 2 together and coming up with 5

How many nurses have come out and said that they do the same things that she was doing? Quite a few.

Thanks @kkloo . Have started reading and very interested to read about the Oklahoma cluster and pseudonomous. We had this bug at the hospital where I used to work and it caused a lot of infections. At the same time we also had major ongoing plumbing issues with wastewater coming up through the hand sinks like brown fountains.

Do you know who writes it? I couldn't find his name.

I thought someone called him Scott in the comments but I can't find his full name. I don't think he's hiding his identity though, I just can't find it 😅and he did say that he was filmed for the channel 5 documentary.

It's very interesting and a lot to take in!

On a lot of the pages there's also a lot of interesting comments in the comment section at the bottom!

Oh yeah I’ve done the pseudonomous rabbit (plug) hole.

I’m baffled as to why the hospital didn’t call in an epidemiologist/microbiologist, or why the defence didn’t call them to link to the plumber’s testimony.

I think he’s Dr Scott McLachlan - Lecturer in Digital Technologies for Health at King's College, London.