New Lucy Letby details

[Mrsdoyler]

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

Reason: Lack of empathy

I don’t think most on here are confused about the appeals process, or the role of public opinion. Of more import, clearly, are the opinions of statistical bodies on the low quality of the statistical evidence and medics and scientific experts including neonatal specialists on the medical evidence.

As I understand it, on Oct 24, LL’s legal representatives request an appeal of the July 2024 retrial verdict. If this is refused, the only other option is the Criminal Cases Review Commission. I don’t know whether either of these would be affected by the ongoing Thirlwall statutory enquiry.

I think her supporters are hoping that if they pick away at the edges of the cases they can find any doubt on (however misinformed) they can make the whole thing come unstuck. They see it as one court case rather than 15 separate ones. This is why the 'but the table doesn't show what you think it shows' nonsense is so laughable - they didn't find her guilty on multiple charges of murder because she happened to be there! It'll never be unpicked because it's actually watertight - tried by top lawyers and a highly experienced judge. A handful of dubious 'experts' who haven't reviewed all the evidence doesn't discredit an enormous trial. I'm confident Ben Myers sleeps well at night.

The opinions of people who haven't seen all the evidence is of no importance whatsoever, in my opinion. And the people who have seen the evidence aren't finding the need to speak out in the press for the LL supporters and mumsnet readers because justice has been done and they've no interest in fuelling ghoulish attention towards a baby murderer. They frankly don't need to.

Only 3% of cases that get referred to the CCRC get sent back to appeal. Letby's dubious new lawyer hasn't had any success with this route in the past.

@AnxietySloth

It’s not the “edges” of the case at issue (whatever that may mean) it’s the entire core foundation of medical evidence on which LL was convicted. Evans has already rowed back on his nasogastric tube theory so the conviction for Baby C is now shaky (and for other reasons too), and there are two further cases to which that theory applies.

If you really do believe that it’s only a “handful” of medics speaking out, this implies you haven’t been following the post-trial case at all. And what is a “dubious” expert? Prof Michael Hall, Dr Svilena Dimitrova, both neonatologists, Prof Hutton, Prof Green, both statisticians, Dr Wayne Jones forensic toxicologist, to name but a few? Michael Hall has seen all the evidence, and the germane air embolism and insulin data is in the public domain.

for all the doubters if you look back at the court transcripts she acknowledges multiple times that some of these babies had large amounts of milk in their stomachs that they would not have been able to tolerate - she was their feeder, she acknowledges that they had unusual amounts of air in them - she cannot explain why,

@Mirabai can you link to where Dr Evan’s has said his evidence in nasogastric tubes is questionable

….https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/01/lucy-letby-witness-changed-mind/

As I'm sure has been pointed out by now she did not fail because of lack of empathy. It's only at the enquiry that her assessor has stated this about her. Who knows if she even thought it at the time. And apparently Letby was intimidated by her and was probably nervous and quiet as a result.

All the people on here so convinced LL is guilty. What is the piece of evidence that you found so compelling that it obliterated all doubt?

I'm not a Letby 'admirer' or 'fan' or 'apologist'. The last thing in the world I'd want to do is support a baby killer. But I've read hundreds of articles on this case and I can't see for the life of me how anyone could be certain one way or the other. What am I missing?

Please avoid 'the jury convicted her so she must be guilty'/'the appeals board laughed her out of town'/'you weren't in court so you can't know' type answers.

@GinAndJuice99

what are you missing? You are not looking at the bigger picture

This trial was a joke. Makes a complete mockery of our justice system.

Well there was a lot of evidence, if that's what you mean. A high quantity of evidence.

Why would you need one piece of evidence that obliterates all doubt? That’s not how trials and convictions tend to work except in crime dramas.

What about the nurse who said that she heard Lucy Letby talk excitedly about a death

I suggest the doubters should read the enquiry updates

it was noted that when she was on shift at Liverpool WH tubes becoming dislodged increased by 40% on her shifts as opposed to only happening 1% usually

Also the professor who came out and mentioned the insulin test was not reliable- well his counterpart at Oxford states that yes of course it would have been great to do the extra tests but that the test used at the hospital is completely reliable and shows the children were given a high dose of insulin

Also she administered antibiotics to one baby off her own back when they were not required and gave another baby 10 x the dose of morphine

Not to mention one of the babies mothers found her standing over her child who was screaming and Letby shooed her away then falsified the records to say she was not in the room with that baby, at that time and down played medically what the mother had witnessed

Like I say the bigger picture is totally relevant and even if people think she is not guilty of murder she is clearly guilty of manslaughter and gross incompetence!!!

There was globules of air found in the brains and lungs of these babies. This doesn’t just happen

Virtually every piece of evidence has been questioned in some way. Not even the original jury was unanimous. Any number of experts have disputed the prosecution's case since.

Is it just the sheer quantity of the evidence? A belief in the criminal justice system?

Some people treat AIBU as a dumping ground for news or anything else that occurs to them rather than an advice / opinion sub forum for problems and dilemmas.

@GinAndJuice99

Looking at the whole picture this woman has been shocking from the outset

Lying, searching families on Xmas day, keeping a diary, handover notes of the babies, seeing a married man, the triplets in her care who were born at 33wks (can’t remember exactly may have been older) gestation and had a 99pc chance of survival- only one survived - thank god she was kicked off the ward after this! These triplets were healthy!

Yes. You need to look at it in the round. It all adds up to it being her:
-Plenty of evidence of deliberate harm to babies (as verified by several experts) including insulin poisoning
-LL present every time a suspicious collapse occurred, nobody else there for even a third of the collapses despite them doing similar hours
-testimony from parents and colleagues about suspicious behaviour, including repeatedly putting herself into a room she was not assigned to
-falsifying notes and leaving out information or changing the time to deflect suspicion
-taking home notes and keeping them
social media searches of parents whose children she later claimed she didn’t even remember caring for
-constant desire to be at the centre of attention, the weird obsession with “getting back in the room”’ that none of her colleagues seemed to have, anger at being moved to a different room etc

Taken all together, it’s quite damning and very indicative of her guilt. As was the view of the appeal court. You don’t need the one piece of evidence because you look at all of it. The idea that all the above would just be an unfortunate coincidence is so remote as to be impossible.

Yes, most of the babies were not exceptionally premature. They would have been there even after the unit was downgraded because they were born after 32 weeks.

There are something in the region of 16,000 pieces of evidence some of which are 1000s of pages long. Nowhere near virtually every piece of evidence has been questioned. And even those pieces that have been questioned age being questioned by people that haven’t seen all the evidence. It’s not about quantity it’s about context.

the test used at the hospital… shows the children were given a high dose of insulin

this is not true. It was not a test for exogenous insulin.

Thanks. But this is exactly what I mean. Everything here is disputed or can be interpreted differently.

I think the most compelling case against her is that a series of sudden collapses of that number is highly unusual and unlikely to be coincidence. But I honestly don't know if that's true, medically speaking.

There was theory and supposition and circumstantial evidence

Have you seen it all? If not I don't know how you can be sure she is guilty either. I imagine the most salient evidence was reported in the media. But in any case I can't really draw a firm conclusion from something I don't know about.

Yeah but there are so many things against her that it would be so so unlikely that all of them are untrue/a mistake/ a vendetta. What are the odds that you happen to be a liar who falsifies notes, happen to have a habit of stealing medical handover notes and keeping them, happen to be there every time a suspicious collapse happens, happen to do repeated searches of families of victims but you didn’t actually do it and are just unfortunate in being unfairly targeted?

Yes that's what I mean. I think people think a mass of circumstantial evidence adds up to an overwhelmingly compelling case. I don't think that.