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?

It's NORMAL for NICU nurses to let a baby self-recover from oxygen dips.

I've always wondered why it was considered so odd that she was "caught" standing by a baby "doing nothing". If she was "caught in the act", as has been claimed, wouldn't she be doing SOMETHING, to try to cover up what she'd done?

Yeah, I said similar on the other thread. If this did turn out to be a vast miscarriage of justice at some point, that would probably cause more pain than it not being iyswim. The least painful option at the moment would be her being bang to rights. I can understand why people would struggle to confront the absolute horror of her not being.

I personally don't believe she was scapegoated. I think the doctors who raised alarms about her did so because they genuinely believed she was guilty. They were concerned because she was often on shift when the "attacks" happened. They then put together "evidence" which supported their claims. The problem with that is, (as someone mentioned either on this thread or the other one), the case was built around believing LL was a murderer, so they were looking for "proof" she did it. Confirmation bias. They ignored information that contradicted this claim. The infamous rota graph which doesn't include the "events" that LL wasn't on shift for, is a good example.

And she carried on working as normal after that; if that doctor really thought he was witnessing an attempted murder (as he so spuriously try to claim in retrospect) don’t you think he would have reported it to the police at the time?!

Yes, finding the prosecuting evidence dubious - that’s the best way to put it.

In, for example, the Adnan Syed case, I personally do believe he’s guilty, but he should not have been convicted on the evidence as it was presented.

I don’t know if she is guilty or innocent, however, having listened to a podcast ‘we need to talk about Lucy letby’ and read some of the articles mentioned, I do think that the conviction may be unsafe on the evidence used. I think it’s important to question the evidence as there does seem to be several alternative views on whether the deaths were malicious or whether they were ‘expected’ or whether they were through incompetence of the ward team. Questioning the evidence does not mean that Lucy is innocent. Only greater examination or retrial could determine that.

I agree - if the doctors were indeed wrong about her, I doubt it was because of any great conspiracy. That just doesn’t seem plausible.

More likely it was a combination of her working overtime a lot, so naturally being present at more deaths than other nurses; and the fact she had traits that made her dislikable, such as reporting other staff members for minor issues, potentially having an affair with a married man and so on. I can easily see how they could become convinced she was a wrong ‘un.

It is also possible she was genuinely more incompetent than some of the other nurses, which might make her guilty of something, but not murder.

This is one of the reasons I have concerns. Some of the people I’ve worked with will try and pin things on you even if you weren’t connected with the failure. It’s not because of how she looks.
Even outside the NHS how many different innocent people were jailed just for trying to run post offices? It’s an awful set of cases altogether but my faith in our systems is shaken.

why are you so desperate to convict her of murder

Did the jury not do that themselves? ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ and she was quite literally proven guilty so why all the cartwheels and bending over backwards to say that the conviction is wrong? Strange.

I’ve never heard of whatever podcast you’ve mentioned in my life. I’m not invested in this case hence the question. You clearly devote your life to this which is why you probably got so defensive

Someone doesn’t need to devote their whole lives to this case to exercise a little critical thinking regarding the evidence 🙄

Anyway, we are all here posting on this thread - yet you’re up on your high horse just because you have blind faith in a system proven wrong many times before.

I don’t care whether the case is done with or not. LL has zero impact on my life. I’m just bemused how it’s become fashionable for people who unless they were in court all day every day are not in a position to critique the evidence. She had a lengthy, fair trial and an expert defence team. It’s hardly been a rushed job.

yet people who know nothing about medicine, law, the criminal justice system, or the detail of the case, feel able to wax lyrical about miscarriages of justice and all the rest of it.

What do you think about those who do have relevant expertise who have questioned the evidence?

I find it crazy that it wasn’t that long ago there were half a dozen of us arguing on here for how it’s important to be able to ask questions about cases such as this one, where there was no evidence and considerable doubt, in order to hold the legal system to account, and we were called all sorts of terrible things.

And now social media generally has switched and everything is acting as if they’re on her side. Insane.

I’m on my high horse because I believe a conviction that was given by a dury after 76 hours? 😂😂😂 so everyone who believes that the conviction given is the correct one, is on their high horse? That’s enough MN for today honestly

yet people who know nothing about medicine, law, the criminal justice system, or the detail of the case, feel able to wax lyrical about miscarriages of justice and all the rest of it.

Silly bored keyboard warrior housewives 🤷🏼‍♀️

🎯

Quite.

I'm interested that you mention the length of the trial here. Do you think it having taken some time is a reason why people should be more likely to uncritically accept the verdict and make positive assumptions about it, as you do here? Because it's quite obvious that a long trial combined with a jury system poses certain risks, but perhaps you have some reason why you cite it as you do. I used to practice in one of the areas you mention, if that helps.

Or at least not wandered off and left her alone with the baby (he was called back twice later that evening).

it’s looking at the justice system we have and want to make sure it’s robust in bringing society justice.

i want to know that the justice system is working to get the correct results.

when I read in private eye back. Before 2012 that the post office had a problem and it seemed something fishy was happening, now again with LL they have raised queries, other professionals have raised queries - I want to read what’s happening and see people question the system.
if it’s robust it’ll stand up and may even have to accept some changes ultimately.

That's why band 5 nurses are so vulnerable - they're the lowest accountable person (and the easiest to scapegoat)

Everybody thinks they'd never ever let an innocent person (nurse) be a scapegoat for such horrors. However, theoretically, if a trust has lots and lots of deaths that were avoidable and it's known amongst senior staff and management that there have been a series of serious negligence and failures (these are usually chain reactions) - they know that heads would absolutely roll ( 'important' staff, heads of trust, executives) the impact even harder felt and more emotive when we're talking about babies and children. This would lead then to hugely expensive enquiries that would take years and years and millions of pounds, public outcry, massive media attention with the trust and managements names on front pages - people baying for blood on behalf of those poor families.

The trust and the hospital name would never recover. Those devastated families would be entitled to individual enquiries and millions of pounds of compensation between them. (And bloody rightly so - not that money crudely touches the pain )

That's one option.....or, you can fit up a 'fall guy' - Hobson's choice. Lesser of two evils for them ?

I'm not for one second saying this is what actually happened. But illustrating how it can become a choice in terrible circumstances to opt for choosing a scapegoat Vs the catastrophic consequences for them as managers/a trust to admit or even dare to admit - something they've done or not done is the cause of those deaths.

These people probably just want more attention/publicity from the public. Of course she's guilty; she was present at every deterioration, a doctor caught her when the baby's monitor was beeping, she severely injured a baby and told the baby's mum there was nothing to worry about (probably with the intention of injuring the poor baby further). This is a classic case of a narcissistic woman with evident mental health problems. She clearly felt some sort of thrill in harming vulnerable innocent babies and relished in this, so much so she searched for evidence of suffering of the deceased babies parents on social media. We need the death penalty.

Can I urge anyone who thinks she innocent to read the article about her in spiked -which is an on line magazine

www.spiked-online.com/2024/08/30/the-case-against-lucy-letby/amp/

Don’t be silly. The Trust bent over backwards to try to find she had done nothing wrong. Doctors were made to apologise to her for questioning strange coincidences. There was talk of her transferring to Alder Hey to make up for her treatment.
The problem with this thread is that people have what they think are sensible theories on their heads-cf Jordan Pickford earlier bit do t actually fit with what happened on this case at all. Someone even mentioned a nurse from The Netherlands-that nurse was convicted on statistical evidence alone-unlike Lucy Letby.