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?

Fair enough.

She was unlucky in the sense that of course that would be unpleasant, and it won't happen to most people so she could ask, why me?

She wasn't unlucky in the sense that such a string of associations could only be explained as murder (or mean she caused the death) because the laws of probability mean that some medics will have a similar run of events.

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

This is happening from all angles though, including the 'angry' posts (If you see them as that). It's the nature of having an extremely divisive topic. Also, MN has always said offence is not given, it's taken.

I haven't seen the "attacks". Quite the hyperbole though.

And people, including the appeals court try to claim that the prosecution’s case wasn’t based on (misleading) statistical inference 🤦🏼‍♀️.

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

It wasn’t anything to do with “luck”, that chart was a chart of when Lucy Letby was on shift and there were incidents. Nothing more, nothing less. Could have made one like that for any of the nurses working in the unit at that time.

There hasn’t been an “appeals court”. The application for appeal was turned down. There was no compelling additional evidence or any evidence of fault with the prosecution case.

She claimed under oath that she couldn't really remember Baby K at all, because she wasn't the baby's assigned nurse. Yet the doctor saw her standing over baby desaturating with a silenced alarm, doing nothing. And TWO YEARS later she searched up the parents on Facebook. The parents of this baby she claims she can't even remember.

I didn't follow it closely, but I do remember seeing the spreadsheet with the deaths in the unit and her name as being present at all of them, so to me that seemed like a done deal as to her involvement.

However, now we are hearing that in fact there were other deaths during that period which were excluded from that infamous spreadsheet, deaths in which she was not present, so you do have to ask about the veracity of the one we all saw which was publicised. Its easy to say, oh there were reasons for why the others were excluded, however in reality they presented a skewed analysis of the deaths in the NICU and, for me, it throws a lot of things into doubt.

She's truly a pathological liar and that is the least of what Lucy Letby is.

Where are you finding this kind of info please? I've been trying to locate evidence which isn't in the mainstream media but not having much luck.

It was all heard during the trial. There's a site that has it all catalogued very well but not sure if we're allowed to mention/link.

I think she was used as a scapegoat rather than the hospital take responsibility for being understaffed, not equipped to take the most premature babies etc

I agree - she comes across as an unpleasant person. I know it's not anybody's best time but she also came across incredibly unpleasant in court. Snappy, snide, know-it-all, completely cold and devoid of empathy, officious etc. Just my opinion.

I don't know what she was like in court but coming across as unpleasant, snide, know it all, cold, devoid of empathy and officious doesn't mean she's a mass murderer. If it does I've worked with a few mass murderers who've never been caught out.

She’s not a mass murderer, she’s a serial killer. There’s a difference.

And while being unpleasant doesn’t necessarily make someone a murderer, having been tried and convicted in court for the murder and attempted murder of multiple babies does.

She searched approx 250 people a month, which wouldn't be my normal. She was obviously a heavy user of Facebook, and that included her victims / bereaved families, however you prefer to see it.

Exactly this. Thank you.

If I was under suspicion of murdering someone I would probably look them up online too, or their families, with a newborn.

This is like some of the comments about her being snide and hostile in court. The stress and trauma of investigation, arrest, accusation and trial will have affected her behaviour too.

I don't actually think she's innocent, as it happens, but I think she is "not guilty". I think it's a very shaky and unsafe verdict and lots of avenues for reasonable doubt. I think the jury were misled about a number of things.

I wouldn't say it's weird for a parents only child to choose to live 100miles away - and them to be upset about it.

• however unpalatable - her parents are also victims. Only ones that nobody will actually feel comfortable feeling sorry for. To have their only child, who they were so proud of, arrested for the most heinous of crimes is unthinkable. Her mother offering to "arrest me instead" is a sheer distraught , panic response. I doubt she seriously thought that was possible.

• an adult woman having cuddly toys and cute things I wouldn't say was weird per se. Maybe slightly 'young' behaviour. Perhaps she was a bit "child like" and spoilt by her parents and as such lacked consequences so thought she was entitled to do anything she liked and would just always get away with it....but why, just why...

She was doing the Facebook stuff long before she was under suspicion. The straw clutching here is unreal.

I'm answering the poster who referred to her googling a child she hadn't been assigned to (but was accused of attempting to murder) two years later.

Generally I agree with you. She was an intensive searcher of Facebook. Lots of people are, and she seems to have dwelt on the infant deaths, whether because she murdered them or whether she was upset by them, even before she came under suspicion.

The leave to appeal was turned down by the court of appeal, who then issued the final judgment.

Can you explain your evidence? Many thanks.

I'd love to see people making pronouncements like this performing under the pressure LL was under in a court room - would you really be able to present the most appealing picture of yourself knowing that 99% of the people in the room believed you were the worst baby killer ever? Or might you be strung out, defensive and aware that no matter what you said or how you said it you'd be "wrong".

If she'd been emotional - manipulative, trying to gain sympathy. Challenge the prosecution and experts - arrogant. Vague about incidents from what, 6 years ago? - Convenient memory loss.

I've been in a similar situation without actual death in the mix but with serious accusations leveled at me and no way of proving my innocence. That put me under the scrutiny of the authorities for three long tortuous years and left me with permanent CPTSD. At my most paranoid, I truly believed I was going to spontaneously combust and could be found often sitting in a cold bath in the wee small hours. When I shared this with my barrister, he didn't break stride other than to reassure me there was a working fire extinguisher in the corner of his office.

I didn't get as far as criminal court (and looking at the "evidence" in this case, I cannot fathom why not as medical experts were unanimous in their opinion of my case) but I had to deal with people who believed in my guilt wholeheartedly on an almost daily basis for three years, and who made my life as miserable as possible in several cases in lieu of punishment by prosecution. I am still, 30 years later, on official record as guilty by the balance of probabilities with no recourse. When I left the Family Court with as positive a resolution as was possible my solicitor, who went on to be a respected circuit judge in the field, told me to not even think about suing. And the experts implied I should just stick with the one child if I wanted a quiet life. Which I did.

So if LL is innocent, I promise you she's in a special kind of hell indeed. Especially given the "medical evidence" presented.

Some of us have been through the system from her side due to dogma, and an unwillingness to fully examine other explanations for things "just in case" a guilty person "gets off". The system is a juggernaut which, once rolling, has no brakes. The more time and effort and money put into a case, the harder it is for the multiple agencies involved to call a halt because the damage has been done anyway, and the adversarial justice system relies on winning or losing.

Some of us are experts in a narrow field indeed. A minefield.

Here's an interesting new article from the Telegraph showing how the spike in deaths could have been explained by the increased number of very premature babies on the ward at that time.

At the same time that Lucy stopped working there, the unit was prevented from taking more premature infants, and that's enough to explain the decrease in deaths, Lucy or no Lucy.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/06/spike-in-deaths-at-letby-hospital-could-be-explained/