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?

This is quite a good podcast I listened to recently - concentrates on the legal process rather than whether she did it or not. Specifically they address the reasons that the appeal has been dismissed.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5XpX9FCNY270ErMnoQDYRA

Also im unsure of her guilt or not but having worked for the NHS i can tell you now that managers, doctors etc absolutely would pin their failures on more junior members of staff and you are constantly arse covering in that sort of job. It really wouldn't surprise me if she was innocent.

People say “the jury know more than we do” but I know people who’ve done jury service and honestly I’m not sure I’d trust all of them to accurately interpret complex evidence and data and/or maintain focus during a long day of deliberations in court...

I believe she’s guilty. The weight of evidence against her was overwhelming, while the defence was unable to find any evidence to support her innocence. I think @ginasevern has it spot on.

I find this interesting too. I think she is guilty, but when I look at her I still can't see a serial killer or baby murderer. She is so normal looking and her entire life was so ordinary that I think it horrifies people to believe such actions can be committed so unpredictably.

I also think this explains the delays in recognising what was happening. First the medical staff, then the nursing and hospital management, then external reviewers could not believe what the facts indicated. When the police were involved they believed it, but their job requires universal suspicion.

But how did deliberate poisoning with insulin become one of the agreed facts of the case?

There were lots of things Letby agreed (deliberate insulin poisoning, parents' witness statements, colleagues' witness statements, etc) then disputed at the last minute under cross-examination when their significance became clearer to her (and to the jury).

She didn't just agree these things on paper - she also sat there in court while these statements were read out to the jury as agreed facts.

It was only on her cross-examination that she decided to dispute them, once little details on timing, sequence of events, etc were tied together as evidence against her.

The prosecution did point out when she was belatedly disputing these previously agreed details that she clearly had no problem passing notes and interrupting people's testimony when she didn't agree with it at the time it was being said in court, and they pointed out that this begs the question: why is she only disputing this stuff now she's become aware of its significance to the prosecution's case? Why not dispute them earlier when they were being read out to the jury, the way she had done with other things she had mistakenly agreed on paper?

The jury obviously heard all this, and that fact (that she agreed stuff, listened to it being told to them as facts, and then subsequently tried to backtrack at the last minute when she realised those same facts made her look more guilty) would have formed part of their opinion as to whether or not she was guilty.

Jordan Pickford was in close proximity to every goal England have lost recently. Because that's his job. Doesn't mean he caused them.
And what about all the incidents / deaths where Lucy Letby wasn't present?

I would also be anxious going into the nhs. As staff, or if I were to have another child, knowing there was uncertainty around how infants were dying under nhs care. It certainly seems like a retrial in necessary.

In this case there is already a conclusion that the babies have not died of natural causes and they are looking for a perpetrator

@Icanttakethisanymore this isn't entirely accurate though. All initial autopsies stated death from natural causes, and they have not been exhumed and reevaluated to state they were indeed murdered.

^ That was supposed to be a quote, on app so I can't edit

Och, stop. It is a puzzle to me how defending a baby murderer has become fashionable but it isn’t a good look.

She has now been through two trials which have been lengthy and rigorous and had the highest quality defence, which is her right.

no one knows more than the people who were in those courtrooms making the decisions.

No, I think this is wrong. She was never being asked to give expert evidence about causes of death, that's what expert witnesses are for. She chose to say in oral evidence that in her opinion (unqualified) it looked like insulin poisoning. I doubt this was a hugely influential factor for the jury though. But no expert witnesses to contradict it being insulin poisoning were called, probably because there weren't any that credibly contradicted it. She would definitely have gotten leave to instruct an expert on this and she probably did but her team decided it was not helpful to her case to call them.

There was an interesting documentary about this a few weeks ago. (Channel 4, Channel 5?) This raised a lot of doubts and the conclusion there was that, although they didn't think these proved her innocent, they did not think there was enough evidence to find her guilty in the first place.

Stand out things for me:

• Misuse of statistics. A key piece of evidence was a spreadsheet that showed which members of staff were on duty when certain "incidents" had occurred. Letby was the only person on duty for all of them. This screamed misrepresentation to me. I think there were 25 incidents covered. But there is no way of knowing how any such "incidents" had actually occurred. There could have been twice that many but they had only chosen to include the ones which supported their case. A statistician on the programme said it was a text book case of poor use of statistics.

• The fact that they could get no medical experts to speak in her defence. This was explained as being as a result of such a toxic culture in the NHS that discouraged whistle blowers. People feared for their careers if they spoke out in her defence.

• The general failings in that unit which could easily have led to the rise in deaths. The babies treated there were all very poorly anyway, by definition, and if there was a shortage of trained staff and available consultants this could have contributed.

Rob Rinder really is

People who 'look like' a serial killer don't get close enough to people to kill them.

That how people like Harold Shipman get to be serial killers. Plus, of course, proximity to those who might die unexpectedly, such as the elderly or premature babies

She may well be guilty but the conversation around the issue is saying her conviction is unsafe which gives her room to appeal and potentially be released and exonerated. I believe under English law she would not be able to be retried for these crimes.

The insulIn one has always thrown me they tested the second bag which was hung after letby was off shift, than claimed it could have been contaminated by the line it was going through from
the first bag.

that makes no sense to me ( 10 years of hanging Tpn ) and I just can’t see how the insulin infused in bag one would then still be one in the line and make its way out the line up the giving set in to bag 2 ?

I've probably not phrased this accurately in that case, however, LL's defence is not that the babies weren't murdered, her defence was that there was medical incompetence and the hospital was badly managed which lead to the babies death. Her legal team did not dispute the fact that the babies were murdered (which is very different to the case of Sally Clark).

Lucy’s solicitor refused to pass on a friendly personal letter of support to Lucy or to her parents because she had not instructed him to do so. Should one laugh or cry about that excuse?

Lucy Letby is her solicitor's client. Her parents are not his client. Mr. Gill is not his client. He is bound to act on her instructions. If she said don't pass on letters, then they are her instructions in that regard, and he is ethically bound to comply with them.

Lucy Letby's solicitor is not the one coming off as 'not very bright', in this anecdote.

I know nothing of statistics etc. so cannot comment on the medical aspects. But I am looking forward to the inquiry if only for the opportunity it may provide to expose the wider senior leadership culture in the NHS.

You have a point. I have come to the guilty conclusion by making an assumption. Unfortunately, unlike in LL's case, Pickford's performance was televised. Sometimes assumptions, hopefully educated one's, are made.

People saying the Beverly Allitt case is comparable need to read up on it. It's not comparable in any way - suggesting no one has spoken up on her behalf because she isn't attractive is wrong. People didn't speak up to defend Allitt because the evidence she did it is overwhelming (and not just circumstantial). I am not 100% convinced Letby is innocent but the way the verdicts have been reached is clearly unsafe.

These downloads are an interesting, and concerning, read

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby

I think it’s not about defending her. She could well be guilty.

The issue here is that there is a load of new evidence that points to an unsafe verdict- guilt has to be found ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and that’s what is the issue.

So review it, and then try again. Because it’s locking up an innocent woman for a long time of not. The families also deserve to know what happened too.

I agree with you 100%. This case must be reviewed.

However would Lucy Letby be proved innocent or would just be a case of huilt not proven or unfounded.

I can't help feeling that she will have a hard time if/when she leaves prison and certainly won't be able to work as a nurse again. She will also be in danger and needs to have an identify change. It wouldn't be difficult to change her appearance.

I am glad well known people are getting involved and pushing for all the evidence to be re-examined. I feel for the parents of the babies but also feel for Lucy Letby if a miscarriage of justice has happened, and her parents. Her life is ruined.