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?

(That's a really garbled sentence, but hopefully you can see my meaning!)

See:
https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceLucyLetby/s/Nb4zpevVhM
for an excellent deconstruction of the insulin cases.

And again, what expertise does he have that all those who've heard the full evidence don't?

Come to that, the same question could apply to all those who "just feel" the verdict's unfair. Is absolutely everyone a lawyer now, and all those involved in the retrial and denied appeal wrong?

None of us know what kind of person she is. Her colleagues don’t really either. Do your colleagues know your every quirk, or just what you show them?

She could be efficient at work but have developed some kind of habit around letting the notes build up to the point they became hard to deal with. It’s certainly easier to shred one bank statement as it comes in than notes you’ve let build up for months.

People are rarely just one thing. She also presented as incredibly lovely to lots of people who knew her yet if she’s a baby killer there’s a contradiction there too. So are the people who thought she was lovely wrong, but the ones who thought she would always shred notes right?

This is a horribly biased piece with a pro-baby-murderer-Lucy-Letby agenda. Just one snippet of the disgusting way it's written:

"These were first-time parents and sensational headlines in the mainstream and social media have been made from the mothers anxiety-laden testimony in court."

I believe the poor murdered baby girl's (medic) mother. 100%.

We do know what type of person she is, because she's a multiple convicted baby murderer. Nobody stood up in court and said she was 'incredibly lovely' either. She moved house twice with the notes, so that will have involved packing them rather than shredding them. Placing them in the box her shredder came in and not the shredder. That's a deliberate choice.

pro-baby-murderer-agenda

oh please

It’s almost laughable if it wasn’t so horrific.

Are people really arguing that we can be locking people up for life for theft of medical notes (however many) and having too many teddies in their bedroom?

Strange behaviour =/= murderer.

You can’t use her conviction to prove she’s a terrible person when the conviction is the whole thing under discussion.

It’s definitely easier to move with a box of junk than deal with it, especially when dealing with it means spending a fair bit of time shredding. I have done similar. Lots and lots of people have. Some of them are even people who appear efficient at work, I’m sure.

She absolutely has friends who stand by her. Incredibly lovely is my paraphrasing but that’s the gist.

Anyway as I said earlier my strong view is that none of this stuff matters at all and it’s only the medical evidence that counts.

yep

Yes I agree with this. It’s the same with the FB searches, I don’t think this is that weird personally but others think this is completely bizarre behaviour. I don’t think any of it can be used to prove guilt or innocence, it should just be based on the medical evidence.

I think this too. The case for a judicial review is growing stronger every day, with so many experts voicing their concerns.

@Nobodywouldknow Well Lucy Letby seems to have had some odd traits but kept them hidden

What odd traits so you think she had?

Is this really what you've read people in all these LL threads arguing about? 'Theft of medical notes and too many teddies = locking her up for life'? Genuinely? Or is it so much more than that?

Really? No wonder

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)

She wasn’t even being careful was she? It seems she was just pushing the limits to see what she could get away with.

I honestly think she is probably rather stupid and extremely mentally disturbed, but was good at hiding that side of herself. Sometimes people seem reasonably intelligent (enough to qualify for a job such as hers for instance) but have no common sense or critical thinking. I mean, how can she have thought she wouldnt be caught?

I think part of the difficulty in understanding the case and why she did it is “why would anybody be so stupid”? I mean yes, evil and all the rest of it too but just on such a power trip she didn’t stop to think “it’s going to become obvious that it’s me doing this”. That’s beyond the comprehension for most of us to understand. It’s the “why”?

But serial killers dont think like normal people. No one will ever understand why she did it and she’ll never admit it.

She’s a pathological liar and narcissist IMO - much like Jeremy Bamber. She’ll never admit her crimes as it’s all she has left - her image of herself as being beyond blame and retribution. She possibly believes her own lies.

Ive known someone like this irl. Not a murderer (afaik!) but when you come across someone like this (NPD and pathological liar) it’s extremely difficult to process how a human being can be programmed like that.

People don’t want to believe it despite the facts placed in front of them as it’s so unpalatable to digest and requires a level of understanding (the mentality of a female serial killer who could do harm babies) that most of us just don’t possess.

That was rather my point.
Actually I think David Davies is thick as pigshit, and utterly clueless.

Neither does what you said. That's the point. It's stupid to tell people you've never met and know nothing about that they'd think differently, if something about the case was different. But if you're going to be that stupid, it works both ways. People can tell you that your interpretation is based solely on your own biases and views of what constitutes a more sympathetic accused and victim.

Yes, there is more than that but individually I'm not aware of any one piece of evidence that's really strong on its own. Recollections from years previously, deaths that were initially viewed as natural causes. Obviously circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict but a lot of the 'smoking gun' behavioural stuff looks a lot like someone who was a bit of a hoarder/overly invested in work.

I think she's innocent, I just can't see her being a killer.

(Don't ask me how I know but) In the eyes of some of these people, the reason for not confessing is because they've not been caught red-handed; there's a slither of a chance that the accuser doesn't know anything for sure. Therefore there's still hope for them that they can be exonerated or let go for lack of concrete evidence. They may feel that their confession is the only card left to play and calling the accuser's bluff by not admitting to their crime means they still have the upper hand.

Then, there are still some who'd go on to deny even in the face of concrete evidence or being caught in the act. These are the types that I'm yet to understand if it's either pride (of the extreme kind) or delusion - or both - or something else that causes them to think they'd rather die than acknowledge something as factual as 'the sky is blue', for example...let alone admit to a crime.

On YouTube someone who was at the court has recorded the prosecution word for word and posted it on the platform.

It's a good point. As someone who doesn't claim to know whether Letby is guilty or not, I've been interested to note the various posts containing appeals to authority wrt the jury. We've already had one person in this thread assert that the jury will have considered everything when coming to their verdict, which is in fact complete guesswork. None of us know that, but it seems to make some of us feel better to assume it.

I'm not necessarily anti jury either, there are pros and cons to all systems and maybe this is the least worst one. But it's interesting the level of trust that's placed in it from some quarters. When actually, an inherent part of the process is that a jury of your peers is going to include people who aren't smart enough or for whatever reason not suited to being part of the system we have, and this is going to be a more likely possibility the more lengthy and complex the matter gets. And that's just the people who genuinely want to help, care about getting it right and act in good faith. There are some more unpleasant possibilities too, and it's not like our selection processes are able to weed all this out.

Do you realise that keeping the notes are a crime? It’s enough to have her lose her medical license on its own. She also kept notes from day one of her training, so straight after the GDPR lecture, the notes from the last babies she harmed were kept separate from other notes. They were under her bed in her daily ‘work’ bag, meaning she was carrying them to and from work with her for months. The facebook searches were a little more interesting than talked about also. She searched for the parents of 3 of her victims within minutes of each other, months after the babies were killed or harmed and before she was aware of which babies she had been accused of harming. One of these babies was baby K, whose parents surname she couldn’t spell ( as it was a complex name) and hadn’t been in the ward long enough for them to be on a handover sheet. Her excuse for these searches when questioned was that she’d developed long standing relationships with the parents of the babies in her care so was curious. Can anyone explain how she’d developed a long standing relationship with someone who she wasn’t the designated nurse of and had minded for a few minutes whilst the designated nurse was on break? The 3 searches were also of babies not in the hospital at the same time and had zero link in anyone’s mind at the time, but were linked in hers so much that she searched for them one after the other. She also searched for one parent whose twin she killed, when the other baby was still in hospital, so once again the excuse did not stand up to scrutiny.