New Lucy Letby details

[Mrsdoyler]

Did you see today in the news that LucyLetby originally failed her nursing training.

Reason: Lack of empathy

Honestly, though, I think a lot of non-healthcare people don’t grasp, or don’t like to grasp that the doctors, nurses etc whom we see didn’t all sail through their training, getting top marks at every point and breezing through every placement with flying colours. By definition, if you’re seeing them in a medical role, they obviously passed everything eventually, but you will obviously have no idea how many assessments they needed to redo, what they only scraped through, how close they came to having to leave the programme etc.

We don’t like to think of it because we place so much trust in them. But we knew the surgeon who took out DH’s gallbladder last year when we were all students together at the same university a million years ago, and he absolutely struggled during his training.

I don’t think you know what circumstantial evidence means. Yes, the forging a will is circumstantial - it’s pretty damning and very strong evidence of guilt but it’s circumstantial.
There IS evidence the babies died by homicide - multiple experts testified to that. You might not agree with them but it’s still evidence.
LL was not convicted just on the basis that she was seen in the vicinity. There was a raft of evidence which included falsifying medical records to try to appear as if she had not been there when she was seen by colleagues and parents.
It is not a prerequisite to prove a motive. Why did Ian Huntley, Fred West, Vincent Tabak kill their victims? Because they are sick sadists most likely - none of them gained anything from it. But it’s not beyond the realms of imagination to find a motive for LL either - probably some odd sadistic need for attention.

I didn’t say it was - the point is that some circumstantial evidence is stronger than others.

There was direct forensic evidence of morphine being present in HS’s case. And the circumstantial evidence linking HS to the morphine and end of life was strong.

The circumstantial evidence against LL is by contrast very weak. Not only that the jury heard expert evidence only on side which in cases of medical murder is fundamental. The jury was not merely being asked to decided not merely whether this person is guilty but whether murder happened at all, when they are not scientists and have to have the science explained to them. If they only hear one side’s spin on the scientific evidence - how can they judge?

The upshot of this case will be reform of the way such cases are tried.

LOL how will it lead to reform of how cases are tried? She lost her appeal.
And she CHOSE not to bring any expert evidence. There WAS no alternative explanation. The experts she undoubtedly instructed did not say what she wanted them to - there was no expert (who had properly reviewed the evidence, not some guy on twitter) who could say that these were normal deaths.

How would you reform the law? Would you force the defence to bring witnesses even if the witnesses don’t help their case? If anything the legal system assisted Lucy because she had the option of not letting the jury hear even more damning evidence.

No, there is no evidence of murder in any of the LL cases. That’s just a failure to understand the scientific evidence. Medically implausible theories and wild speculation is not evidence of murder.

There is no evidence of LL falsifying records either. It’s common that medical notes are written up in parenthesis as there is no time in the middle of action. And they’re not always totally accurate. Wherever the prosecution’s claims are contradicted by LL’s notes she is accused of faking them with no evidence at all.

In HS’s case the notes were changed after the victim’s death. Kathleen Grundy’s will was written on his typewriter.

It appears you have not been following any of the medico legal discussion around this case. If you’re interested you can go and read up on it yourself.

So how would you reform the law so that the things you said happened in LL’s case don’t happen in other cases? She had the option of calling evidence and she didn’t.

Ah well, she’ll still be rotting in prison forever 🤷‍♀️
Which is a relief

I can honestly say that the majority - perhaps less so nurses - are empathetic.

So I think that's very unfair.

It’s horrendously unfair. My mum was in hospital recently and she commented on how incredibly kind all the nurses were to her and how they went above and beyond all the time.

It’s not worth engaging on this level.

Arlanymor , MrsDoyler started it didn't she!!!

Well, I'm with Miribai, all she has presented is factual - and has been extolled not just by her but by a number of acknowledged experts in medicine, neonatal pathology specifically, and law, alongside specialist medical journalists like Dr. Phil Hammond (private eyes M.D.).

To be clear, none of these people, nor me, nor I suspect Miribai are saying that Letby is innocent, rather that, it would seem that a good portion of the evidence used to prove her guilt is not robust enough and does not stand up to real scrutiny.

How can we, as a society accept that someone is convicted of such a heinous set of crimes when it would appear they were not given a robust trial and had a weak defence that failed to uncover what journalists have.

I'm not saying let her out, but rather the whole matter should be heard again, to properly thrash out any doubts cast - if at the end of that process we are sure of her guilt, throw away the key.

Failure to go down that route will leave a raging debate for years to come, undermining trust in justice and fairness in future similar cases (god forbid) and the very real chance of the Letby case being classed as a mis carriage of justice later on.

No one who believes in the robustness of our legal system, and its inherent fair play attitude should want any of that.

Maybe have a sit down and a cup of tea, @HazelPlayer. It was before the internet, but I remember precisely this level of spittle-flecked outrage when Granada ran a series of tv documentaries in the mid-1980s arguing that the convictions of the Birmingham Six were unsafe. They’d been denied leave to appeal in 1976, a year after they’d been jailed for life. When the Granada programmes aired, the case was referred to the Court of Appeal, which after a six-week review of evidence in 1988 declared the convictions ‘safe and satisfactory’ and refused leave to appeal. Only in 1991, when journalists had uncovered evidence of police falsification of evidence and problems with the scientific evidence, did the Crown decide not to resist another appeal, and they were freed.

And all the while the tabloids were printing headlines like ‘Looney MP Backs Bomb Gang’ and ‘String ‘Em Up!’

I have no idea whether or not Lucy Letby is guilty, obviously, but it’s hardly controversial to point out that appalling miscarriages of justice do happen in the British justice system, and that being refused leave to appeal is no proof that the convictions aren’t false.

But she did get a robust trial. It went on for nearly a year. She had a very very experienced legal team defending her. She chose not to call evidence (she would make that choice on her lawyer’s advice). What more could she have had? If Ben Myers KC is incompetent why has he had such a stellar career? Why did his competency not come into question at any point during or after the trial?
What if, horror of horrors, the expert she commissioned actually agreed with the prosecution? Which is probably what did happen. No way would even the shittiest defence lawyer not call an expert who actually helped his clients case.
You keep saying the system is wrong but it actually works pretty well. The thing you don’t like is the outcome. To that I can only say - tough shit.

@ThatCalmHelper

Precisely and well put.

My post was in reply to @HazelPlayer’s now-deleted post.

The Birmingham 6 had been tortured by the police which cast their confessions into doubt. To compare Lucy Letby to that is a total joke. Miscarriages of justice are where people have been abused, tortured, denied legal representation, had incompetent legal representation, had evidence unjustifiably excluded. Not a case where several experts agreed on a point and the defence couldn’t find anyone to contradict that.

According to your logic most trials would be unsafe because usually the defendant swears blind they didn’t do it. What if all the cock and bull stories raised by defendants are actually true? Let’s let them all out immediately.

My first thoughts, plenty of HCPs lack empathy so must have been absolutely terrible.

And yet the fact that the confessions were elicited under torture and subsequently falsified/expanded was not picked up on during any of the appeals or reviews that took place between the conviction in 1975/6 and the eventual overturn of those convictions in 1991. And neither was the highly problematic scientific evidence about explosives residue.

That is my point. Glaring errors were not picked up either in the original trial or in subsequent applications for leave to appeal.

Well you could say that about any trial couldn’t you - what if actually Harold Shipman was innocent all along? There isn’t anything in LL’s trial, retrial or appeal that suggests a miscarriage of justice other than that you don’t like the decision the jury made.

.

Interestingly (and I've been teaching Criminal History for nearly 20 years, I can think of only a handful of cases that have aroused debate post trial, amongst lay and expert persons, Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Derick Bentley and Timothy Evans are those that come to mind.

All of those cases ended up being over turned - which is why in this case, it needs a full and proper review and the evidence examining closely.

I'm not saying Letby is innocent or that she should be released, just that it deserves another look.

I always think the quality of a post is set by the first sentence.

And since you went instantly for "calm down, dear".

I didn't need to read the rest.