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?

Just on the final point in this - while a few of the babies were very sick (the 24 week old, the term baby born with an infection) I don't think it was true of many of the babies. It wasn't until I'd had my own twins at 34 weeks that I realised just how well these babies were - eg the triplets born at 33 weeks all weighed more than my smaller twin by a significant margin. At absolutely no stage post birth was there any whisper that my babies were seriously unwell. The neonatal consultant at my birth sat arms folded, very casual, no concerns at all and to be honest everything felt very routine (to them, not to me!). I couldn't believe it when I listened to the DM podcast just how similar the babies who died were similar to my own. And some of reporting has been shockingly inaccurate (I think it was a guardian article which described an incredibly rare condition called monochorionic pregnancy where the babies share a placenta - which applies to about 99% of identical twins!).

According to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gyneacologists it applies to around 30% of identical twins.

https://www.rcog.org.uk/guidance/browse-all-guidance/green-top-guidelines/management-of-monochorionic-twin-pregnancy-green-top-guideline-no-51/#:~:text=51),-Green%2Dtop%20Guideline&text=Summary%3A%20A%20monochorionic%20pregnancy%20is,occur%20in%20higher%2Dorder%20multiples.

I mean wasn’t BA called the Angel of death or something? I don’t think that’s a name given to someone who looks like an ogre 🤔

Agreed. He’s not a silk, he’s not a judge and he’s now peddling his pulp fiction novels so legal stardom doesn’t appear to be beckoning… 🙄

The quoted website refers to 30% of all twin pregnancies - which includes identical and fraternal twins. Identical twins are almost always monochorionic although there are some where both the egg and placenta split and are therefore dichorionic.

Just to pick up on this.

We knew someone who did jury service (I'll call him (Donald)). It was a case about a stepfather abusing his stepdaughter. Historical abuse.

This jury member (Donald) went with not guilty.

His reasoning? The accuser called her genitals her fanny. Donald judged her to be a liar because she said fanny and was rough and common so therefore more be a liar,

I'm not saying I can think of a better system than a jury. But I'm doubtful of some peoples ability to really understand all the evidence. Especially in very sensitive emotive cases.

So it does. Apologies. I need to read stuff properly and as my daughter keeps telling me 'FFS Mother, put your bloody glasses on.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3d93kpkl83o

Lucy Letby has changed her legal team and is planning a new appeal.

Good. He was out there defending her before she was even sentenced.

Both things can be true: the hospital was struggling and LL murdered some babies. In fact, if a person were to be tempted to murder very young babies, a struggling hospital might present itself as good cover to do so.

Sorry to keep coming back to Shipman but some (many?) of the deaths he caused were initially thought to be from natural causes. It was only on further investigation that the deaths were realised to be suspicious.

The fact other deaths occurred during the time covered by that period isn’t relevant to her guilt IMO - because those omitted deaths weren’t thought to be suspicious.

the coroner had recorded natural causes on all the deaths

He wrote the death certificates.

Absolutely both things could be true, but with the context of the other problems in the hospital, it's possible to introduce reasonable doubt. So why weren't the additional deaths brought to the jury?

He did but other doctors had to countersign the cremation certificates - and did, thereby confirming the deaths as ‘natural’.

They weren't out of the ordinary deaths though - so they didn't go to the coroner. In this case the deaths did go to the coroner, for an independent further investigation of the deaths

Why are some people do desperate to believe that she’s innocent? I’d really love to know

Do you mean that the jury weren’t told about the other deaths? But surely they’d have been told or realised that the charges in front of them didn’t relate to every single baby that died at that hospital during that period, and that the murder charges only related to deaths deemed to be suspicious after the police investigation?

I listened to that too.

I’m not sure that she’s innocent but nor am I convinced she was guilty and that the evidence against her sufficient to secure a conviction.

This is relevant to my line of work too and I want to believe in the justice system but I don’t think this case is fair and just.

Not trying to be a told you so but I was saying all of this during the aftermath of the conviction. It didn't feel right. There wasn't enough damning evidence. I was regularly searching for the evidence that made so many be sure it was her and it wasn't there.

It's NORMAL for NICU nurses to let a baby self-recover from oxygen dips. It's NORMAL to scribble notes like that when stressed, I've done it myself, called myself all kinds of unpleasant things. It's NORMAL to look people up out of curiosity. Obviously it's not professional or ideal but people are human and I don't think it's weird she looked up families after.

I don't know if she's innocent or guilty. All I know is that from what I've read and seen, there's a real lack of conclusive evidence that she's guilty.

The defense did a shit job, absolutely threw her under the bus.

I'm glad this is raising traction. If I were a parent of a deceased baby, I'd want the right people blamed, not just anyone.

The same could be said for you. With all of the question marks and lack of evidence, why are you so desperate to convict her of murder?I'd love to know....

Oh wait, was it the very vague Trial podcast? Or the media who at the time were also clearly painting her as a villain?

If you would love to know, well, it’s very easy to find out! Just read a few pages of this thread and you will soon see why some people consider there to be issues with the evidence. It doesn’t necessarily mean they think she’s innocent, though.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3d93kpkl83o

Apparently she has now switched lawyers and is planning a fresh appeal.

I don’t think people being concerned and critical of the evidence that made her be found guilty are necessarily desperate for her to be found innocent, I think they just want to know what the convincing and damning evidence was so that the prosecuting evidence doesn’t seem so dubious! This could have serious implications in future for people who are innocent, also there was a similar case with a nurse in the Netherlands who was later cleared of similar crimes.

Personally I can’t really tell if she’s guilty or innocent 🤷🏻‍♀️ I hope she is guilty in the end though because if she’s not then what’s happened is really terrifying…

I haven't got an opinion, but why did the doctors have grave concerns about her? Do people think it was to cover up other failures?