New Lucy Letby details

[Mrsdoyler]

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

Reason: Lack of empathy

Another look? Like an appeal? Like she’s had? as well as a retrial.
As for a debated case what about James Hanratty? Touted as a huge miscarriage of justice until DNA proved he was guilty as sin.

Far, far more knowledgeable and eminent experts have said she is guilty and the conviction is sound. There’s always some idiots out there looking to make a name for themselves who will take the contrary view. Some still think Myra Hindley was innocent or a victim. Letby apologists wouldn’t know facts if they bit them in the face. Here is a fact. She had one of if not the best defence KC s in the country who has got notable victories to his name but apparently some inferior lawyers and a handful of mumsnetters think they know better.

Honestly, you're wasting your time.

A certain poster and a couple of others have worn people ragged for going on a hundred pages, in upwards of ten threads so far.

At some point you just have to stop trying to engage with them or reasoning with them.

One of those posters, in another thread, gave the most adamant, zealous, simplistic etc account of how & why Letby has been scape goated by the ward consultants ...

it was jaw dropping and almost comical in its confidence, exclusion of a hundred pertinent facts, and utter delusion. I honestly have no idea why anyone - including myself falling into the trap - bothered to engage in one single post after reading that.

Tine to stop feeding them.

Well, as MnHQ also thought that the post I was replying to was unacceptable to the point where they deleted it for breaking the forum talk guidelines, I’m not sure you get to occupy the moral high ground of principled ignorance, @HazelPlayer.

Exactly, @ThatCalmHelper. I don’t know, obviously, whether Lucy Letby is innocent or guilty, but I’m not simple-minded enough to interpret the fact that she was tried and found guilty, and was refused leave to appeal, as hard and fast proof that she is necessarily guilty of the crimes for which she was tried. The justice system has made catastrophic errors in the recent past.

Indeed it was, but the final DNA evidence closed that matter in the Court of Appeal - a long time after (not that time mattered as he was long dead) - but it did get a proper look in court - the court ruled the conviction sound.

At that time, in light of the new damning evidence, many who had doubts of his guilt happily concurred with what had come to light and fell silent on the matter as it was closed to everyones satisfaction and contentment.

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,

We live in a different age now than twenty years ago or even 10 years ago

Is that not obvious to you in terms many of the things happening everywhere, fuelled by conspiracy theorists and amateur experts online?

You seem very confused. Lucy Letby was refused leave to appeal. Therefore she hasn’t had an appeal. She will be requesting leave to appeal again against the separate verdict of the retrial in summer 2024. I believe that happens this month.

I’m sure you can’t be simple-minded enough to think that the purpose of an appeal is to establish the innocence of the convicted, or that people advocating that an appeal should be allowed in Lucy Letby’s case imagine she will necessarily walk free as a result of it?

MNHQ seems to delete pretty much everything that is reported.

If you and the poster you are defending had a robust, real response to any of my questions ...you would have made that response and not reported the post to get it taken down.

Too many inconvenient questions were asked of a poster, who is a one woman LL expert and defence team, but somehow not forthcoming about what they've done and are doing in real life to address this gigantic miscarriage of justice that preoccupies them to the extent that they write hundreds and hundreds of pages arguing ad nauseum with any poster who disagrees re. a miscarriage of justice, on every thread ever started on the subject.

She had a three day hearing for leave in which the appeal court judges reviewed all evidence she was relying on for the appeal, including the expert she was proposing to rely on. They didn’t not grant her leave to appeal because there was no prospect of success of one.

I’m sure you can’t be simple-minded enough ..

What a roundabout personal attack on someone ....from the group of posters who are very quick indeed to report perceived personal attacks.

Well, I didn’t report it. I responded to it. I don’t know which other poster you’re referring to —at a guess, @Mirabai? She doesn't represent my views, insofar as I understand hers.

You seem very confused

Disengenuous, gas light-y snideness.

I've met several nurses over the years who seemed to have zero empathy. I don't know if they started out like that. So I don't think the standard not very empathic personality/manner would be enough to fail someone.
I can only conclude she came across as abnormal.
I've always said was obvious from the way her parents were still intensively involved in her life that they also knew she wasn't normal.

I’m not simple-minded enough to interpret the fact that she was tried and found guilty, and was refused leave to appeal, as hard and fast proof that she is necessarily guilty of the crimes for which she was tried.

Again, implying other posters are "simple minded".

And your assumption that anyone who thinks LL is guilty only thinks so, because "they interpret the fact that she was tried and found guilty, and was refused leave to appeal" is laughable.

I cannot believe that someone would post on this forum, essentially;

"you people only believe LL is guilty because she's she's been found guilty in a court of law, I however am not that simple minded".

SMH

The circumstantial evidence against LL is by contrast very weak

In your opinion.

The opinion of someone who fervently believes (and has stated adamantly), against all evidence, that Letby was scape goated by the ward consultants (and in a total volte-face, the hospital let them, and then the police believed it, and then the CPS believed it, and then she had the misfortune to have most incompetent legal team in history).

Yes, I understand that. The Birmingham Six had a six week consideration of whether their appeal would be allowed in 1988, before it was refused. Three years later, an appeal was allowed and the convictions overturned. (I should say I have no particular investment in the Birmingham Six. It is just another example of a trial and a series of refused appeals that generated a lot of heated public debate, and where the convictions were eventually established as false. The James Hanratty case is interesting in establishing that the original conviction was correct so long after his execution.

The Letby defenders are very quick to report posts - I had one deleted on another thread too. Don't take it personally.

I agree with the poster who said it might be better not to engage. I think they are probably involved parties (in some way) who are trying to whip up public opinion in favour of the multiple baby murderer - perhaps not the best audience here on a parenting site? Either way, they have misunderstood how the law works. Public opinion isn't going to get the evil woman an appeal. The handful of dubious experts will pipe down, life will go on. Except for Letby who is rotting in jail where she belongs.

The thing that comes unstuck for me is baby c. Dewi Evans was very confident that they had been killed by injecting air into their stomach and had the X-ray to prove it. That was his diagnosis. When it emerged that Lucy hadn’t even seen baby C when the X-ray was taken, rather than sticking with his confidently stated diagnosis (which means if the baby was injected with air, so it must have been someone else) he changed his diagnosis to air embolism with zero evidence of this. Surely if he was so sure initially that this was a murder and that was the way the murder was carried out, then that should stand. That should have been one alleged murder she couldn’t possibly have done. What was his revised reason for the big air bubble that he attributed to the collapse? Suddenly it seemed that significant air bubble became inconsequential. He never explained that. He just said she was present when baby c died. Had she happened to be on shift when the X-ray was taken he wouldn’t have changed his diagnosis.

@ThatCalmHelper

being near those cots when babies repeatedly collapsed demonstrates an alarming number of coincidences that are, well highly unusual!

her motive is that she liked the drama around resuscitation and got a thrill out of it!

if Myers ever speaks out in a documentary later down the line I’m sure all will be revealed as to why he didn’t call others into evidence

LL was someone who was looking up the parents on FB on Xmas day of children who had long since passed, why would you do that? Why when she was arrested did she not protest her innocence? I mean come on! I’d be screaming blue murder if I’d been accused of harming a baby let alone killing numerous

I wrote this on another thread. The Tortoise podcast I refer to is called Lucy Letby Expert Witness. It doesn't explore guilt or innocence instead talks around the role of EW in trials.

In the Tortoise podcast that I linked on the page before Dewi Evans said the following. (It may not be fully correct, but will be 99% correct) (Around about 13 minutes in)
"Babies are simple things, there's not a lot that can go wrong with them. If they are premature, they have breathing difficulties, they are at risk of infection, they are at risk of haemorrhage and of course newborn babies may have congenital problems. That's about it really. so going through a checklist of what can go wrong with a baby doesn't take a lot of time........ Babies don't just go from being nice and stable, not requiring much in the way of additional support to suddenly dropping dead. That just doesn't happen."
The presenter then goes onto say that he could find 10 experts in the next 5 minutes who would say that the picture is more complicated than that and that many of the babies were not well and stable prior to their collapses.
He (in his own words) decided within ten minutes of reviewing the medical notes that [one of the triplets] had suffered intentional harm. If he holds the opinion that babies don't just "suddenly drop dead" then he has already made his mind up and will look for the evidence to prove that.
The issue is bigger that LL's guilt, it is the role of expert witnesses in trials and how you know that they are truly an expert.

(This thread) I believe that some of the verdicts will be ruled unsafe - especially baby C, and the two insulin poisonings (no evidence that it was her other than, she is guilty of X so can also be found guilty of Y)

As for failing a placement, 25 years ago I had an absolutely dreadful clinical placement. The supervisor (imo) was absolutely dreadful and she would set me up to fail (specific tasks) My last supervision session with her was basically a character assassination where she told me I would never amount to anything. Fortunately she did pass me, and I went on to have a brilliant further placement, ironically in the setting she told me I would be hopeless at.

As others have said, too much shouldn't be read into one placement.

And this is the RSS’s point isn’t it that people don’t understand stats so they think statistical associations are more significant than they are.

On shift doesn’t actually mean present at the baby’s bedside, in some cases it doesn’t even mean in the building.

And it turns out there was another doctor and another nurse who were on shift at a high number of the deaths who were never investigated.

Dewi Evans is a Paediatrician, not a Neonatologist, there has been, in my mind correct, criticism of him (by Neonatologists) being central to the prosecution case as lead expert, when in fact he is not an expert in this field of medicine - and neonatologists exist, there are experts who the crown could of used.

Just curious to ask, if LL did kill some of the babies, and if there isn't any likelihood of a second baby killer still running loose.. does anyone really care if she may have been also blamed for a death that she actually wasn't responsible for?

Only that I've seen quite a few posts where people seem to be worried that she may not have killed ALL the babies she's been imprisoned for. I mean, if you think she is a baby killer then surely that's enough - why worry if every single component of her conviction is fair? I don't get it.
I often think about the families of the babies and feel devastated for them. I never think about LL or worry about if everything about her trial was completely fair.

Life isn't fair, it certainly wasn't for those babies and their parents.

Because you cannot charge someone for a murder they did not commit