New Lucy Letby details

[Mrsdoyler]

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

Reason: Lack of empathy

They were majority verdicts which means at least one member of the jury wasn’t convinced.
the judge doesn’t decide the verdict. They just accept the jury verdict. They didn’t give an opinion.
finally, i live in Australia, so there is very little I can do from here. I’m just interested in the case as I listened to the daily mail podcast and was convinced she was guilty, until after the trial when the reporting restrictions were lifted and I started to read more about it especially some of the questionable evidence.

Looks that way.

This is such a gaslighting post.

Hazelplayer asks a very good question and it is answered with a complete personal attack and deflection so as to avoid answering the question.

Why don’t the LL supporters answer the question? Or are you just armchair detectives for personal entertainment safely behind your keyboards in your own home?

Or are you just armchair detectives for personal entertainment safely behind your keyboards in your own home

Yes, of course we are! All of us on this thread are, whether we think the verdicts are beyond reasonable doubt or not. Why on earth would anyone expect anyone else from an internet discussion forum?

Not remotely gaslighting, and I won't be responding to any further posts about this.

It’s just madness to me that people think they know better than everyone involved in this case. She was found guilty and is where she belongs.

Its scary that some people seem hellbent on getting a baby murderer released because they personally are not happy that it was “beyond reasonable doubt”.

How many chances do you want this woman to have? Her defence team couldn’t even provide any experts or witnesses to attest to her innocence.

All of the evidence pointed to her. Would you only be satisfied if someone had caught her wielding a syringe of insulin over a newborn? Even that wouldn’t satisfy the LL supporters and would be explained away as “a mistake that anyone could make”.

How is the hospital doing since LL left btw? Did the worryingly high number of babies mysteriously stop dying?

Maybe because there aren't any LL supporters here. Just people questioning the validity of the evidence because they believe convictions need to be safe, for everyone's sake.

But the court/jury felt the conviction WAS safe. Twice.

If damning new evidence of her innocence comes to light it will be put forward and the justice system will act accordingly.

How is the hospital doing since LL left btw? Did the worryingly high number of babies mysteriously stop dying?

The unit was downgraded and the number of consultants increased, making it impossible to do any comparisons.

Its scary that some people seem hellbent on getting a baby murderer released because they personally are not happy that it was “beyond reasonable doubt”.

No, people want to make sure that the justice system is fair and robust. Baby C in particular where DE has gone from "she killed the baby this way" to "well, she did it some other way then" The two insulin poisonings were on "if you find her guilty of X you can reasonably presume she is guilty of Y"

You don't accidentally put insulin in glucose.

As an aside from this case, it was very complex case with lots of information. Average reading age is 9 years.

Medical cases like this and fraud cases in particular take many months. Now think about who is likely to be available for up to a year?

I think the "12 of your peers" is outdated in very many cases just because of the sheer complexity. There either needs to be professional jurors in cases like this, or people paid on a par to their earnings so you can get a true balance of knowledge, intelligence and experience.

And what? Was this jury a panel of medical experts? Or were they just lay people who were presented with opinion-based evidence by flaky experts?

People are allowed to question this evidence. People are allowed to present alternative interpretations for the evidence. Because at the end of the day, the evidence is not a smoking gun. It is just a collection of little things that look different depending on how you look at it.

How great would it be to have an intelligent discussion that doesn't involve calling people names.

I think the insulin cases are as ropey as the Baby C case.
She wasn’t there to poison the second bag in situ. If it had to be poisoned in store then it could have been anyone. I think that’s true in both cases.
The test results are incredible and not suitable as evidence in a criminal trial.
It is layer upon layer of improbability.

Because at the end of the day, the evidence is not a smoking gun. It is just a collection of little things that look different depending on how you look at it.

We’ve been over this. Evidence usually isn’t a smoking gun. Unless you have cctv of someone committing a murder (which would only be possible in the last 30 years or so and highly lucky to catch on camera) They went off the many, many pieces of circumstantial evidence they had and it pointed in one direction.

And yes, if for whatever reason you are looking at it from the viewpoint of “she’s innocent” you will be able to explain it away, though to me the explanations don’t sound very believable. ie. “she just forgot to throw all that paraphernalia away through two house moves despite owning a shredder”(and lying about said shredder), “it’s perfectly normal to be obsessively stalking the families of babies who died on FB, even on Christmas Day”,”it’s perfectly normal to be regularly popping in to the wards and getting someone else to sign you in bc you forgot your card on your days off when there’s absolutely no reason for you to be there”, or “to talk excitedly about the deaths and get very upset and pushy if you werent allowed to be there when babies collapsed”. To write confession notes “oh, she only wrote that bc the therapist advised her to write out her feelings” - and what? She then felt (whilst under suspicion) that it’d be a good idea to write “I did this”? “I killed those babies”? even though she didn’t?
These are just a few small examples that I think are highly indicative of a guilty person but that people on here try to explain away.
I’m just not sure why you think you know better than the many medical experts/doctors/nurses/parents/police/
barristers/judge/jury who were actually there and thought her guilty.

And it’s an interesting question the one a pp asked earlier: if LL was black do you think we’d be having this conversation?

Be honest now..

Courts have always been right first time have they?

I was just watching the case of Meredith Kercher. The English woman murdered in Italy.

Her female flatmate was convicted of murder.

Then the conviction was over turned later on and now she is free.

In her documentary she said that she felt very alone until she went to a support group ran by people who had been wrongfully convicted, and she learned that it had happened to loads of people.

Again I'm not saying that LL has definitely been wrongfully convicted.

Just that it does happen

People aren't looking at it from the viewpoint of she is innocent, though. No one can know if she did or did not do this. It actually has very little to do with her as a person, white or otherwise. It's about what is the truth. What is factual. Are you forgetting or just ignoring that experienced doctors/pathologists initially determined that a number of these babies died of natural causes. That was "factual" at that time. But now it's not. So apparently facts can change. Don't you think it's normal for people to want to know for sure if the babies really were murdered or if their deaths were the result of negligence or natural causes as they were initially determined to be.?

Baby C was very much like the other babies - stable etc but having desats etc

The fact that Dewi linked LL to a scan taken on the 12th when she was not on shift has been put to the appeal court judges - who have not deemed it valuable enough. The scan didn’t show the cause of death - how could it as baby was alive for days afterwards!

She was not supposed to be looking after baby C - she was told to go back to her own babies! Whatever you think the scan doesn’t necessarily matter - she was there doing her thing - and she did that same thing to many other babies. Infact the nurse in charge of that baby made a complaint about her not leaving that baby alone. Note she had been moved out of nursery one and was feeling very aggrieved about this but it was felt after the deaths of A & B she needed to be out for her own good.

Letby complained about this in text messages saying she felt it was best to get back in the room etc even her colleague said that management were just trying to give her a break but she was clearly agitated. So what did Letby do? Return to work then go to room 1 anyway and attack baby C!!! (Texts available online)

And as for the Gynaecologist who gave evidence at the inquiry- go and READ the transcripts- many if not all staff are saying they did not think at the time that these babies were being murdered.

Even the guy who has come out and complained about the insulin - his counterpart from Oxford has said that Prof Hindmarsh was correct to draw the relationship he did!

Even Letby agreed, Myers agreed that there was no doubt these babies had been poisoned- yet here people are arguing because a certain test wasn’t done - according to an expert dr west. so who is right the Oxford expert- dr west or prof hind?

Baby C was very much like the other babies - stable etc but having desats etc

Baby C was not seen for three days, how can it be determined whether or not they were stable?

I can accept her guilt for sake of argument ,but she was also in an absolute shambles of a unit, which either contributed to the baby's deaths or enabled her to go on for so long. Or indeed both.

The hospital must be held responsible for the part they played.

And stable doesn't mean healthy. It doesn't mean "going to survive". It just means "not actively deteriorating right now".

Nurses who look like they are about to fail usually get led by the nose to pass ( in my experience ). Never heard of anyone failing for that - quite shocking - could be the same problem that the woman had whose baby went missing at Aires Rock years ago - perceived to have a lack of empathy

@Dollybantree if LL was black do you think we’d be having this conversation?

Yes I am 100% certain that we would. This would have been an extremely high-profile case no matter who was in the dock. Its high-profile nature brought it to the attention of a wide range of experts in relevant fields who have publicly questioned the evidence.

This level of questioning of the evidence by highly qualified people almost never happens. That is why the public have become so interested in LL’s guilt. It’s absolutely nothing to do with any of her personal attributes.

Honestly, people act like this is the first time a white woman has ever gone to prison. Or imply that LL is some sort of extraordinarily charismatic supermodel that people simply can’t accept would hurt a baby.

These arguments just don’t bear any relation to reality, and are completely irrelevant to the reliability of the actual evidence in any case.

Agree entirely, and there are so many other factors too that add up to the full picture.

Some of the posters seem feed these fantasies of innocence by fixating on granular pieces of the case, because if anyone with any sense looked at the whole picture then there is only one conclusion you could conceivably come to.