Lucy Letby case - Rob Rinder and David Davies

[LimeFawn]

Going back to thread in summer about Lucy Letby case needing criminal case review- surely that has to happen now?

In the past couple of days, I have seen David Davis MP talking about this on Good morning - apparently senior neonatal doctors contacted him directly;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5HcW71BSGSM

Rob Rinder who is an expert in criminal law has also raised concerns- pic included below.

And article in guardian about her notes which was used a lot in this mumsnet thread as proof of guilt:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5115849-to-think-the-lucy-letby-case-needs-a-judicial-review

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/03/i-am-evil-i-did-this-lucy-letbys-so-called-confessions-were-written-on-advice-of-counsellors

Surely there is enough new information coming to light to justify a criminal case review - her conviction really doesn’t seem safe at all?

So your assuming I'm white and middle class? Double standards in your come back ..

I've told you my opinion. You don't agree with it. That's absolutely fine.

Let's let the thread move on...

I would hope that the parents would want the truth, whether that means that LL is guilty or something else was the problem.

Yes, just stupid lies. Who wouldn’t KNOW that they had a shredder? Unless you have some kind of dementia no one is that forgetful. Same with not getting rid of the notes. But telling silly lies about things which on their own may seem minor just leads to the overall conclusion that someone is a liar in general and therefore not to be relied on to tell the truth. She couldn’t keep up with her own lies and was tripped up over and over again. She couldn’t even come up with plausible excuses!

You're claiming what hasn't happened. Were did I assume you're white and middle class? Where did that even come from?

Whether you are white, grey, purple, middle class, center class, you cannot speak for any group even if you belong to it. Your opinion is your opinion. You claimed that those who speak about LL being white, middle class, blonde, etc don't belong to the 'marginalised group' and my reply was how do you know who belongs to which group on mumsnet unless they tell you? Sorry there's no double standards to find here like you claimed.

I've said my opinion too. Yes let's move on.

I've had a fear of being tried by jury ever since sitting on a jury. It's not just the ability to understand, it's the people who already have their preconceived ideas and go by "feel" rather than evidence. In the first trial I sat on, two people were convinced of the defendant's guilt, he was certainly a "wrong un" and I suspect he was guilty, but the evidence just wasn't there. We found him not guilty, but the 2 stuck to their guilty verdict. So I guess the process worked, but what if there has been 3 jurors agreeing? Do we just accept that it generally pans out, that 12 is the correct number to balance the process?

There's already been a poster upthread who commented on case in the media where someone was convicted on dubious evidence, but that's OK because he was obviously guilty. How many think like that?

mumsnet experts with oodles of knowledge" wording ffs.

I only used a word you wrote - "...qualified in oodles of different areas" therefore they have oodles of knowledge, surely?

You're still seeing "misogyny" where it doesn't exist.

HTH

I can understand that an HCP might sometimes take home handover notes by accident but if you do it 250 times, surely that's no longer an accident. If I kept doing it, I'd make a point or make a note to make sure to empty all my pockets before leaving or something. Not hoard them all in a box under my bed.
For someone who said in her evidence that she never makes mistakes, it's also quite odd behaviour. She reports her colleagues for minor infringements but it's fine for her to take handover notes because she 'collects paper'. Yet she then says she didn't dispose of them because she had no shredder (even though she did). Well, if she took them to add to her paper collection, why would she consider disposing of them? It's all such bullshit.

Based on the news reports during the trial, I'd of thought there was enough questionable evidence to put doubt into a juror's mind. Lets remember that to convict somebody of a crime, the evidence must put a juror beyond reasonable doubt.

Basing it just on the statistics of babies suffering similar deterioration I believe that

1. The number in total during the entire time the hospital was taking in the sickest babies should be included, and

2. A comparison to similar hospitals in other areas taking in the sickest babies.

I am completely on the fence on her guilt, and have been all the way through.

@Shruggss I will accept on face value that misogyny was not your intention (cause I don't want to see another thread derailed while we argue over the intention behind one sentence) however I maintain I have seen it from other posters

I don’t know why people are fixated on the handover notes- they have nothing to do with anything.
likewise the diary scribblings, although those are now being discredited.

What matters most in this case is the medical evidence. Look at some analysis of the air embolism cases and the insulin cases. The prosecution case was completely bonkers.

A circumstantial case isn’t necessarily a weak one. However you do need to read all of the evidence to understand the weight of the evidence. Questioning one aspect of a circumstantial case may seem like a ‘gotcha’ but it really isn’t. It’s the weight of the evidence taken together. Limitations of any of that evidence would have been clear at trial. The limitations of the insulin tests and air embolism evidence were made clear at trial. She also explained why she wrote those notes, the jury had all that information. I think a lot of the ‘journalism’ has been typically irresponsible. Just because a doctor is willing to talk about their opinion on a podcast does not mean they will repeat that in a trial. Doctors must stay within the confines of their experience at court, they can’t speculate. They must be balanced. An expert was instructed by the defence but he wasn’t called. They’ve made a choice not to call any medical expert. I doubt that’s through incompetence or oversight. I think the judgement on the decision to refuse her application to appeal is a helpful summary of the evidence (as best as such a long trial can be summarised).

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf

I feel the same. I wouldn't like to risk my future life to people who do make biased decisions on thing I may of said out of context or the way I come across in interview.

There’s a long analysis here:

https://substack.com/@lawhealthandtech/p-136552899

I've said from the moment I heard about this case and all through the trial that she's innocent.

It has never made sense.

Crumbling nhs, shitty legal system, experts too weak to speak out in the trial for fear of having mud slinged at them and being seen as supporters of a "baby murderer".

Justice for those poor babies would be the NHS admitting it's failings and improving their health care system.

If anything I think BA looks better than LL in those photos but I'm sure you can dig up different ones to "prove" your point but I stand by what I said, two perfectly normal looking young women. Admittedly BA must have issues with food as there are photos of her much thinner and much heavier but personally I don't judge people by their weight.

@Peakpeakpeak Ok, well in that case you wouldn't be saying this if she'd been on trial for killing convicted paedos and murderers in a prison hospital. Telling people they'd think differently if there was something different about the case works from multiple angles.

This makes absolutely no sense.

Don't know why the pictures won't post but they both look like normal young women.

Can't make the photos show but if you look at this www.itv.com/news/calendar/2023-08-21/was-lucy-letby-inspired-by-angel-of-death-beverley-allitt
The photos are at the top of the page.

She also moved house with them - twice.

More than that... she stored some of the notes in the BOX FOR THE SHREDDER.

I have moved house with a full sharps bin that I still have five years on 🤦‍♀️ Not a nurse, just from injections I used to have to give myself.

Just saying, some of us are disorganised in weird ways. I totally see how the handover notes could just be one of those weird things.

She wasn't one of those types of people though. She was if anything overly efficient and officious, as her colleagues testified. She shredded her bank statements but not the handover notes. She kept those on purpose.

She admitted that somebody had to have injected insulin into a feed, but wasn't her. There were only 3 people including her that could have done it. Another baby projectile vomited approx 30 mls of feed after she fed baby, baby was only on a 2.5ml feed every 4 hours regime. This is just 2 of the hundreds of incidences that have been reported, how can anybody think she is not guilty? have you properly reviewed the evidence and her responses?

3 siblings who were stable crashed within a few days of each other, all after being alone with lucy Letby. 3 healthy babies who are all siblings don't just suddenly die (or almost die).

I am medical, so I may review the evidence slightly differently,but there is no doubt she is responsible for babies deaths. I admit some of the evidence is circumstantial but there is enough evidence which is not so it somewhat removes the element of doubt when you weigh up probability.

It seems people’s reactions to both the handover notes and the “confession” is entirely based on whether these are things people can see themselves doing if they weren’t guilty. Well I can say I can see myself doing both those things in some circumstances. Others on this thread will swear blind this behaviour is totally beyond the pale, simply because they’re different kinds of people.

To me this makes this terrible evidence that should never have been allowed to form such a core part of the case.

The medical evidence must be the focus. It’s all that matters. But it’s the part most of us don’t understand very well so instead we go round in circles about the notes.

The trouble is that agreeing - theoretically - with the statement that with x results and her medical knowledge, there must have been insulin present to explain them, is not the same thing as agreeing there was definitely insulin present.