New Lucy Letby details

[Mrsdoyler]

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

Reason: Lack of empathy

Is GossIsAGit in here yet!? She loves a LL thread.

has it only just come to light now?

What an irrational argument. There were that many pages because they were dealing with multiple charges, each child in a specialist unit will automatically result in hundreds of pages of notes, test results, scans, temperature charts, drugs records etc being produced, plus they looked at all the extra stuff like phone records, door entry records, emails, texts, Letby's internet searches, papers they found in her flat, etc etc.

No, they didn't have a piece of evidence showing Letby murdering a child because, guess what, murderers tend to try very hard indeed to make sure they act out of sight. It doesn't mean that the police and prosecution can't put together all the other evidence that points inexorably in one direction.

Nope. They did not. They had an increase in deaths and investigated only the ones where Lucy was there. They didn’t investigate every death.

I see what you mean - then honestly I hope they do their statistical analysis, because based on all the evidence I read (I followed it far too closely given I was also pregnant at the time of the trial!) I can’t see it affecting the outcome. And at least then the families of the babies don’t have to have the indignity of reading click bait headlines protesting her innocence.

There isn’t even any forensic evidence the babies were murdered.

Don't be silly - they investigated every death. And then identified the suspicious ones (at that point the person identifying the suspicious deaths did not know of Lucy Letby or know her shift pattern).

They're also investigating a lot more deaths now so Lucy Letby will undoubtedly be facing a raft more charges at some point.

Nope, read the case. That was not the method used.

Yes they did. There’s an entire Cheshire police operation still in progress investigating every death and collapse in that unit whilst she was working there (and investigating all of them). The only medically unexplained deaths are ones she was present for.

What would be your murder weapon? A syringe? How unusual in a hospital! Insulin? Ditto! CCTV showing Lucy Letby by the cot of her designated baby. Groundbreaking. Medical murders aren’t like a typical murder, there isn’t usually the immediate cause of death/weapon/forensics in the same way. Why are you so desperate to defend someone found guilty by two seperate juries of murdering newborn babies?

It’s relevant in as much as the media have tried to normalise her to some extent, for shock value, contrast (click bait).

It’s not surprising an experienced mentor would pick this up and it’s not new information really. Her lack of empathy, coldness and odd behaviours were there and came out in evidence from the parents and other staff.

She is however highly manipulative and calculating, which also came across, such as how she told a story to the jury of being led out in nightwear to make herself seem more vulnerable, a victim when she was in a track suit.

One is Peter Green, a professor of statistics and a former President of the Royal Statistical Society. "The chart appears to be very convincing, but there are a number of issues with it," he said. "A big thing is that it only describes 25 of the bad events which happened in this period. It doesn’t include any of the events that happened when Lucy was not on duty."
There were at least six other deaths and numerous collapses.

The prosecution was very careful about the charges brought. The fact that a charge wasn't brought in relation to a particular death or collapse doesn't mean that Letby had nothing to do with it, simply that they weren't confident of satisfying a jury beyond reasonable doubt that she was responsible. We don't know where Letby was at the time of the other deaths and collapses.

Plus, of course, this was a neonatal baby unit. It would inevitably be subject to more crises than, say, postnatal wards. It would be self-evidently mad to say "Because I can find one, two or more collapses/deaths that Letby cannot possibly have been responsible for, that must mean she is totally innocent".

Nope. The hospital sent to the police
“The force began to examine the deaths of 17 babies and the non-fatal collapses of 16 more, some of whom have been left with life-changing injuries.”

These had been preselected by the hospital as “unexplained” because Lucy had been in shift for all of them.

The hospital did not have all the deaths & collapses investigated.

I’m don’t know if she is guilty or innocent, all I am saying is her conviction is not safe. It is based on flimsy circumstantial evidence and flawed evidence presented to a jury.

Or they had been preselected as unexplained because they were….unexplained. I did think they’d reviewed every death to be fair, but seems like a waste of resources to be investigating a death that medical professionals unanimously consider to be explainable. Given the lengths the hospital were going to to protect her, I’m also not sure that argument that they’d deliberately tried to scapegoat her stands up anyway. They didn’t call the police in until they absolutely had to, having done everything in their power to protect her.

The point is they did not investigate all the deaths. The investigated was biased from its inception.

But there is only circumstantial evidence in these type of cases! Are you honestly saying that murderers should walk free where there isn’t direct forensic evidence linking them to a murder?

You can’t have medical professionals unanimously saying a death is explainable if it has not been investigated. That is what an investigation is for.

And who will the police consult on that? Medical professionals.

No there isn’t. Most murder cases that have a safe conviction have at least some hard evidence.

But the police did not consult medical professionals on the deaths that were not referred to them. Those deaths were not investigated.

There was plenty of hard evidence. Hence the length of the trials and the fact that two juries were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of Letty's guilt on most of the charges.

Because there is nothing other than circumstantial evidence, flawed evidence and assumption of guilt. There is no forensics, and no eye witness.

Our legal system is not perfect, but you are not supposed to be found guilty of crimes if there is a reasonable doubt over your guilt - that may mean the odd guilty party goes free, but that is the penalty you pay for preventing, by in large, the innocent from going to prison.

Her defence were clearly incompetent in missing many of the issues that have been picked up by interested parties (often qualified in medicine) taking a cursory look.

She could be guilty, in which case in prison she must stay, but I for one think the whole sorry situation needs looking at again as miscarriages do occur - take R vs Evans, they were sure he was guilty as were the public, and hung him, but he was, in fact tragically innocent.

This 'unsafe conviction' thing is such a buzz word that people are trying to push.

Her conviction is very safe and very, very permanent.

No there wasn’t the final summary of the judgement states clearly that the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence.

Not necessary to prove guilt.