Lucy Letby. Why do some people only read headlines?

[skyfirechesnut]

I was at work today and someone says so Lucy letby is innocent now. They have just gone with the media headlines. Instead of researching.

Sorry for the fail link but this is quite a good article below on the current state of things. The author has attended all trials and listened to appeals and conferences.

I also don't understand people who say she was scapegoated. If people follow the Thirwall enquiry this is far from the case. She was totally protected, her parents calling up, being in meetings, dictating apologies. It beggars belief.

I can somewhat understand people saying she is innocent based on medical evidence after the press conference but even that is nothing new.

You can't say my expert is better than yours.

Also people seem to think it was all Dewi Evans for the prosecution it wasn't. There was Dr Bohin, Prof Arthurs , Prof Hindnarsh and Dr Mar etc.

That is without the Doctor colleagues if you want to dispute them.

Then they new defence have changed ideas from the conference they had in December.

They are also not totally impartial.
It isn't as simple as the headlines.

Here is the article.

archive.ph/NYg7U

@1WanderingWomble and yet she was meticulous about shredding/destroying her financial information.

@FrippEnos
It is in my staff handbook.

I'm meticulous in some things, not others. Is this unusual?

But we're talking about whether that makes her a murderer right? It doesn't.

Oh no. I was just wondering who blindly made excuses for everything she did and who was more objective.

For example I don't think Dewi has shown himself in a good light. I agree the note shows nothing really. Though she never siad a therapist did it.

People who blindly follow one side will not be swayed and it strange.

You mean she shredded a few bank statements?

Strange. It’s you who seems to be wedded to the idea that she’s a murderer and a bad nurse, yet you’re characterising those of us who think this all needs to be looked at again as “blindly making excuses”.

I’m not. I’m just pointing out that several of your assumptions are not based in fact and trying to get you to see that it’s not as clear cut as you want it to be.

It isn't as clear cut as you think either.

And I am sure people here agree that it would have been better for Letby not to bring notes home, or if she had, to shred them.

But it is also reasonable for these people to point out that this is a minor issue, that it's not hard to see how it happened, and that it is in no way supporting evidence for murder.

But it is nit common for nurses to have that many as pp have said.

People who blindly follow one side will not be swayed and it strange.

I agree with this but I also find it strange what people find suspicious. Obviously if the medical evidence is really strong or if it comes out that there is strong evidence of a long history of harmful behaviour towards babies in her care, then that is a different scenario. It's always been an odd case given that she showed no previous history of sociopathic/whatever issues and worked for several years apparently without incident before apparently finding multiple different ways to harm babies in her care, none of which were flagged by post-mortems at the time. But if the medical evidence shows they were deliberately harmed and there is a real consensus on that, then I accept that of course. But the other stuff just seems like such a reach to see it as indicating guilt, to me. Even writing a sympathy card was presented as evidence against her.

To look at it another way: there are those who blindly impute malign or negligent motives to relatively ordinary behaviour because they’re invested in her guilt.

Others are more objective and dispassionate and note that said behaviour is relatively common in the population and thus not indicative of psychopathy or guilt.

Xpost. Quite.

It's worth saying that Dewi Evans too has babies' medical records (not just handover notes) at home, despite being retired from the case. He has offered to show them to journalists(!)

I don't think this is relevant to his dreadful performance as an expert witness, which speaks for itself. In the same way, notes at home tell us nothing about Letby's potential to murder children, or about her nursing abilities.

Exactly this.

but your handbook isn't used in every school or by every teacher.

If you believe she is guilty you will interpret everything through that lens and see it as part of her guilt. Never mind that all sorts of people/ nurses do similar things and it has logically nothing to do with the death of those babies.

A lot of people are very attached the idea that LL is guilty. I guess a serial baby killing nurse is a lot less scary than the alternative- that she was just an ordinary, caring, hardworking nurse who was made a scapegoat by a failing health service, backed up by an incompetent police force and Mickey Mouse justice system;

Really interesting interview with a nursing manager at the hospital

https://archive.is/5uWda

I don't think there is any evidence she was a bad nurse in terms of her clinical practice

It is very witch hunty. Especially the pressure to denounce her.

Her defense was shocking though.

There seem to be an awful lot of people who volunteered to testify for her and were not called.

This is heartbreaking:

‘The senior nurse said she wanted to attend Letby’s trial at Manchester crown court but was prevented from doing so as she was on a list of potential witnesses. “I wanted to go in the court just so Lucy could see me,” she said. Rees, who offered to give evidence for Letby’s defence but was never called, says she always believed her to be innocent.
However, Rees’s lawyers advised her to publicly denounce the nurse after she was besieged by press in the wake of Letby’s conviction in August 2023: “[Letby] was very convincing. I now know that this was a calculated and successful attempt to make me believe her story, and I was deceived, as were so many others.”
Rees claims she has always regretted that. She has since contacted HMP Bronzefield, Surrey, where Letby is serving her sentence, to apply for a visiting order. So far Letby has not accepted.’

Tbh I’m not surprised, the sense of betrayal when Rees caved must have been overwhelming.

Because serial killers keep trophies.

She was texting whilst supposed to be doing a feed. They know how long she was texting for and how long it takes to feed a baby. You can't do it one-handed. For her to have finished the feed in the time it would've taken means she would've had to force it down. This was brought up by the prosecution which I'm sure knows the relevance of it. As OP said-she was a terrible uncaring nurse (at the very least) more interested in gossip than looking after the babies. The fact you all refuse to admit this means you're too far gone into conspiracy land.

For goodness sake. Hoarding and keeping unnecessary stuff is not an indicator of an individual being a serial killer.

You’re a teacher, I think? You know that “all lions are cats, but not all cats are lions” thing? Have a think about what that means.

So what? She might have been. She might have not been the good nurse that most of her colleagues said she was.

You must understand that this is not evidence of her having deliberately harmed babies?

She had over 200 didn't she? And the vast majority nothing to do with these babies. It just sounds disorganised to me.