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 think she is guilty. Fiddling with breathing tubes even.

Around the same time but not immediately and they said it stopped immediately when she was taken off clinical duties. Also that there was a cessation in collapses when she was on holiday and then immediate commencement when she returned (where she claimed she’d be “back with a bang”).

Exactly, she has that meek look which I think makes people sorry for her.

Those babies died in agony. She is a monster and I’m glad that her greatest fear of never having a family of her own has come true. I hope her life is a misery.

Something about this case has always sat uncomfortably with me.

If you dare suggest she could be innocent (i'm not suggesting that for clarity ) the popular 2024 "correct think" gets trotted out "it's because she's white/middle class/has blue eyes/European" etc etc.

I think it's more that there's absolutely NOTHING in her past. Squeaky clean. No old school friends coming out of the woodwork to declare she was always a bit odd/struggled with her mental health/was a loner etc etc (not saying those things make one guilty, I've struggled in the past with MH ) but it's SOMETHING in her past. With her there's literally zilch. Nada. She doesn't look cruel or dead behind the eyes. Her bedroom was full of teddies and cute things. She came from a good home. There was no "issues".

Some evil people can go to the highest lengths to be calculated and charming to throw people off the scent whilst they commit their deadly crimes. There was no charm offensive with her either.

I won't comment on the evidence, I wasn't there and feel it's inappropriate, especially in respect of the victims.

But i do understand why people think something doesn't add up (rightly or wrongly)

By that logic is she guilty of the others if she didn't scream and cry after the others?

Im open to the idea the jury made a mistake, but most of the reasons people give for thinking she's innocent are nonsensical or just based on vibes.

Edit to add: the only emotion she showed during the trial was widely reported to be when the doctor she was allegedly seeing gave evidence.

Yeah, I'm finding the claims about looks and public perceptions rather bemusing. Letby is an average looking young woman, and it certainly wasn't the case that everyone assumed she was innocent from the get go either. I don't know whether she did it or not, but this particular view doesn't add up.

That makes a lot of sense.
She obviously wasn’t a great witness, but the question remains why did her defence allow deliberate poisoning with insulin to become one of the agreed facts before she entered the witness box?

I think it's more that there's absolutely NOTHING in her past. Squeaky clean. No old school friends coming out of the woodwork to declare she was always a bit odd/struggled with her mental health/was a loner etc etc (not saying those things make one guilty, I've struggled in the past with MH ) but it's SOMETHING in her past. With her there's literally zilch. Nada. She doesn't look cruel or dead behind the eyes. Her bedroom was full of teddies and cute things. She came from a good home. There was no "issues".

Not entirely true. There’s a YouTube interview with a school friend that a blogger who covered the trial did and it suggested some behaviours such as liking to be in the centre of drama. There’s also the evidence by parents and colleagues who said that her behaviour was odd at times. The fact that nobody has done a big time “tell all” on her is probably because she confined her activities to her workplace (where strangeness was picked up). She wasn’t killing people in her spare time so no need to act odd.

Yes she had cute teddies in her room. She also had boxes full of handover sheets that’s she’d taken over the years, spent her Christmas googling parents of dead babies, and wrote notes saying “I did this”. She was quite complex I think.

No it's more than that, it's like @Halloumiheaven said it's more that there is absolutely zero, nothing in her background whatsoever. This, the fact that she continues to claim she is totally innocent - when you look over the years at the worst miscarriages of justice, those have continually said they are innocent. Remember the poor guy who spent 18 years in prison for rape because he refused to say he was guilty.

If she is guilty then of course let it stand and let her spend the rest of her life in prison, but so much of this just makes me feel ill at ease

Exactly and Beverley Allit isn't exactly Quasimodo. I'm not saying people aren't influenced by appearances but LL versus BA isn't some great beauty versus some repulsive person.

I can't see that LL is sooo attractive and Beverley Allitt isn't. Neither of them are stunning beauties and they both look fairly normal looking young women.

BA was overweight and unattractive. Lucy in her FB pictures and hospital promo literature was slim, blonde, fashionable. I’m not saying she is a supermodel but there’s an absolute world apart between her and Beverly Allitt and anyone saying otherwise is quite disingenuous. If she was in the news for something other than being a child killer, people would be saying she was an attractive young woman.

It looks, to me, like a lot of people who are defending LL are enjoying the exploration of the counter-factual. So "what if LL didn't do it, who did?"

The evidence will have been put to her solicitors and barrister. It will have been examined by them. The witnesses were cross examined. The jury saw the evidence. There have been two trials.

It's easy to sit in a comfortable no-risk position and ponder the alternatives. But if you aren't in possession of the full facts and evidence of the case, you may as well be asking "but what if Mary Poppins did it?"

That sounds like you assuming everyone not only shares your view of what's attractive and has seen the same range of photos as you have tbh. If anything, more people will have seen footage and photos of Letby being arrested. That's going to be the commonest image, more so than her Facebook in 2015 or whatever. Understandably, she wasn't exactly looking her best when she was arrested.

I have no idea what you mean by this post. Most people who think there is a problem with the conviction think the babies died of natural, albeit possibly avoidable, causes in a failing hospital.

Quite. Just because he has a TV show, that doesn’t make his opinion worth more than that of any other barrister.

I don't know about Lucy Letby but I have been on jury service for a complex case involving a death and it scared me just how little some of my fellow jurors were able to fully understand the evidence put before them, despite the best efforts of barristers who were presenting everything in layman's terms.

So let’s say all of these babies, most of whom collapsed unexpectedly rather than deteriorating gradually with some rapidly improving as soon as they were off the ward, died of natural causes. And out of all the nurses, ONE was there for all of them, texting about or playing some sort of role in what was happening. The most any other nurse was there was for less than a quarter of them. So even if more deaths were to be included in the list, that’s still a huge disproportion. That also happened to be the nurse who regularly snuck out confidential documents - not one or two but hundreds, which she kept. It was just a coincidence that when she was on holiday, nothing happened and when she came back, collapses started again.
That does seem extremely unlikely.

But isn’t it usually parents who kill their babies? Mothers who are mentally ill?

Lots of people who don't suffer a 'miscarriage of justice' proclaim their innocent too, and continue to do so for their entire sentences/lives. Did you follow the entire trial? There was some about her upbringing and past, there was also a lot of text messages shared which whilst don't show any criminal or shady past, do give an insight into how her relationships with colleagues etc actually were; quite different from a lot of the narratives online imo.

Again I'm not saying I believe fully she's guilty and that's that, but none of the she might be innocent really has any backing besides it seems weird for someone 'like her' to be convicted of this. There's also a gap in the daily reporting from court and the summaries and articles written- also remembering the gap between everything that happened in court and what could be reported.

I remember the handover notes etc people tied themselves in knots to explain how they also accidentally would take them home and nothing weird about it, but she moved houses and stored some documents she shouldn't have taken from hospital (goes against the goody nurse in itself) in a box labelled 'keep'. That isn't shoving some in your pocket and then forgetting about them under your bed. She said she did it because she "collects paper", which presumably includes notes from a resuscitation attempt written some blue tissue paper from out of the bin.

Oh and it also happens to be the nurse who altered timings in medical notes.
She must be the most unlucky person in the world if that was all a coincidence.

There’s an interview on YouTube of the barrister Mark McDonald declaring Lucy Letby innocent before the original sentences had even been passed.
Where have her own team been?

It sounds like clutching at straws from the school friend to me. Teenage girl liked to be the centre of attention...?!

Handover sheets get taken home more times than any HCP will ever admit.

Googling people for mawkish or ghoulish reasons is unpalatable - but people do it. An aspect of human behaviour that nobody likes to admit as it's distasteful, but I'm afraid some people do it. A woman I know enjoyed attending randomers funerals (she wasn't a murderer) she just got something out of it. Mourning/drama by proxy? It's weird alright, but some people are mawkish. Alone, I don't think these things are hard evidence.

Irrespective of whether she is guilty or not, I think the amount of scepticism about her conviction has less to do with her gender and looks and more to do with an increasing lack of trust in the NHS, particularly post covid.

A lot of people who doubt the verdict think it has to do with a hospital cover up of inadequate treatment. And that whistle blowers in the NHS get poorly treated, leading to a reluctance to speak out.

Oh fuck yes. When DB did it, there was one person there who believed people are only on trial if the police already know they're guilty, for example. There are pros and cons to the jury system and I'm not necessarily against it. But an inherent part of 12 of your peers principle is that some won't be very bright, some will be but in a way that makes following a very rigid and specific process like a jury trial difficult, and not all of them will be aware of their limitations.

Are you asking why her own defence team haven't been doing interviews on YouTube?