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?

I was never convinced she wasn't a scapegoat

We all want to believe that the NHS will do all it can, regardless of a shoestring budget. But that's not possible. So instead of admitting that these poor babies died due to underfunding, understaffing and neglect on the part of the healthcare authority, they picked her.

I've said before that my DS was in neonatal. It was so badly funded and understaffed that two babies died. There were 6 incubators in a corridor awaiting fixing. No one knew when this would happen.

I couldn't get my milk to come in, yet was moaned at for not giving breastmilk. Later on down the months I was told I should have received medication to make it come in, instead it was incorrectly recorded that I refused this- I had breastfed my DD for a year so had no issues doing so again.

When it came time to leave neonatal, we had a social worker put a block on us taking him home. They came to our home and said as we hadn't sufficiently shown we were OK taking care of a baby with illness they would not let him leave. I was told only one of us had visited him at neonatal, and only "3 times" in the 4 months he was there. This was entirely false. I only proved different due to bus tickets and 2 other mums who were in the same part of the department.

So false recording or incorrect recording happens. I once had his consultant- who was vile- have a go at me in front of other parents for ignoring a call. She was calling the local midwife number, out of hours. She accused my DH and I of not being together. I had someone from maternity call to complain that I had failed to turn up for my scheduled C-section. I had to point out I had had the baby months before at their hospital and was kept in their ward for 2 weeks.

I don't believe she was guilty. At all. But imagine the situation they admit that? Firstly she would be entitled to some serious compensation. And also, where do we go in terms of the NHS? It took seven years for the Grenfell enquiry. And they still have no justice.

It's uncomfortable.

This case went on for months and months, there is no way it could all be reported in the press and of course a lot of it was not allowed to be made public for confidentiality reasons. The jury had its reasons for coming to its decision. Many other staff would have been interviewed before charges were brought. So all the pundits coming out with their opinions, whether legally qualified or not, are not in full possession of the facts.

Yes but what about the parent that stated they saw their baby vomiting/foam and letby just stood there and watched, she is a well trained nurse in her profession and she just stood there? Surely that's very questionable.

It's too suspect, I believe she's guilty.

Courts are public, you can go and sit in the public gallery of a crown court that is part of the basis of our justice system.

Never thought he was a judge. Barristers know quite a bit about the law as well.

I heard a discussion about this on the TV. One of the things mentioned was that much was made of the fact that LL was on duty on every occasion that a child became ill/died. However, it was not stated that there were other nurses who were always on duty on those occasions as well.
Without having attended the trial or having access to a transcript of the trial, I think it is dangerous to jump to conclusions. But there was an awful lot of evidence that seemed to implicate LL. I assume there will be people who will pursue this matter.

That is true but I very much doubt that Rob Rinder or other critics sat through every day of evidence.

That is not how our legal system operates

I find a grown woman having all those teddies and ‘cute’ things a bit disturbing too and agree about arrested development.
I always thought her relationship with her parents seemed rather odd too; they were terribly upset when she decided to keep living 100 miles away, her mother tried to get police to arrest her not LL etc.

I actually attended one of the court sessions because due to my line of work I was interested. I was surprised at the amount that was covered that wasn't reported or even alluded to in the press (for obvious reasons), it's easy to forget/not realise that this was a very long trial, with only a % reported in the media. No one in attendance on any of the days is permitted to share any detail, but the jury were of course privvy to all of it. I don't really get what their incentive would be to find her guilty for the sake of it- they weren't unanimous in their verdict & she wasn't found guilty on all counts, surely she would be if they were simply bias?

@Toothrush , I know this is probably a silly question, but why can’t everything that was covered in court be reported on now that the trial is over? I would be interested to hear any extra evidence.

This was what you wrote. @Bunny65

and of course a lot of it was not allowed to be made public for confidentiality reasons.

thus my post stating courts are public, have public galleries and the public are allowed to sit and what

I wasn't suggesting that a particular person went and sat int he gallery for 10 months at Manchester crown court and watched the case

Agreed.

It takes extraordinary mental gymnastics to try to dismiss all the evidence against her.

It really does.

Yep. Just quoting this because it's another one of these posts conveniently missed or excused by the LL 'defenders'.

Sure, Lucy did nothing wrong and did her job well, and attracted no complaints, as some pp have said.

Still waiting for the excuse response to this too but like other posts like it, it seems invisible.

The typical "defence":

▪︎Lucy is such an angel and all these claims are simply people who've been paid to sabotage her work. Nothing strange or sinister about LL as someone said;

▪︎Somehow we've all done these things in the past like LL - it doesn't make us murderers though even though we've never been accused of murder while having all these convenient incidents piled up.

▪︎It's just the worst bad luck in the world.

Very well said.

The looking up on Facebook of the bereaved families is suspicious.

I haven't seen anyone say any of those things, or anything like them

She wasn't even particularly unlucky, if you presume she was innocent. Statistically, a certain number of units looking after newborn babies will have spikes in their mortality rates every year. Letby's hospital wasn't even in the top ten in the UK for this kind of increase when she was accused of the murders.

Statistically, if seven out of 100 or so babies admitted over a year die, some nurses in the UK will end up at a cluster of deaths, like Lucy.

So obviously she was unfortunate that people around her started to suspect murder, but she wasn't absurdly unlucky with the incidents.

She's not an angel. She's not an everywoman. She may or not be a murderer and I don't really understand why people get so angry or disdainful when that question is asked.

She made hundreds of searches on Facebook, not just bereaved families.

I haven't seen anyone say any of those things, or anything like them

Ok, I have.

She may or not be a murderer and I don't really understand why people get so angry or disdainful when that question is asked.

I haven't seen anyone angry. Surely people are just debating. Throwing around the word 'angry' is a typical way to shut down others who're saying what you disagree with.

Oh right ok. Fair enough

Surely she was unlucky in that she happened to be present for all the deaths deemed suspicious and not one of her colleagues was there for anywhere close to as many? That’s got to be spectacular bad luck - 25 incidents and one person there for all of them and the most anyone else is there for is 8 of them.

You mean she used Facebook as normal and also took out time to search out her victims' families.

Of course, she searched other things - she probably didn't create a Facebook account just to search out families.

Indeed. That would be considered bad luck to anyone who isn't trying to defend the indefensible. Like Lucy, some people will never admit the truth.

No, I don't mind hearing what people have to argue at all. I do find it odd when people claim they know what the "other side" is thinking. And there are some quite angry posts upthread though yours wasn't one of them - sorry if that seemed implied.

'She may or not be a murderer and I don't really understand why people get so angry or disdainful when that question is asked'

Yes the attacks, the sneers, the patronising comments are all very unpleasant.

Some people think the evidence doesn't sound conclusive, what on earth is wrong with stating that when our brilliant judicial system has indeed cocked up in the past.