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

@Kittybythelighthouse she's sitting in jail with multiple WLO's, keep up. What do you think they're doing with operation hummingbird then? It's a three year investigation into every baby she ever came into contact with. They only covered a year for the trial. There are already some other parents who came out and said they think she harmed their baby too. I don't think I've even mentioned Dewi Evans more than in passing 🤔

Example of a serial killer ‘trophy’ pattern:

BTK kept specific personal items from each of his victims in a box which he returned to and used to “revisit the crimes”. This stash was found because he was caught with no warning and no time to hide/destroy it.

Not an example of serial killer ‘trophy’ pattern:

Letby keeps her handful of ‘trophies’ (sheets of paper) intermingled with hundreds of unrelated sheets of paper in random bin bags and bags for life scattered around her house. She rifles through all those hundreds of documents looking for the ‘important’ ones each time she wants to ‘relive the crime’. She doesn’t dispose of them even when she has AMPLE time and the knowledge that she is under investigation. She doesn’t even have a sheet for each victim.

It’s just nonsense.

She didn't admit she was texting non stop, did she? He accused her - nothing else.

How does any of this even suggest Letby was a murderer?

Conversation 1 - nurse is disturbed by three deaths. She is not blaming Letby.

Conversation 2 - Letby uses interchangeable words interchangeably, and two nurses describe a rash (which they may have seen at different times) differently.

People on this thread have said Letby's nursing colleagues did not see anything remarkable in her behaviour around the deaths, not that they didn't find the deaths (some with / from rare conditions) remarkable.

I am very well caught up, thanks. Operation Hummingbird are saying absolutely nothing, after having been very vocal post trial, even producing a self congratulatory video that’ll surely go down in history as an example of unbelievable hubris + stupidity. Why so quiet recently? They know they are fucked. That’s why. There won’t be any more charges.

If you aren’t an Evans fan why are you so sure she’s guilty? Take him out of the equation and the case collapses. All of the medical experts relied on HIS fantastical reports and wildly speculative theories.

Here is the corrected link - apologies

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/lucy-letby-murder-trial-nurse-tells-court-she-kept-babys-medical-notes-under-her-bed-because-she-collects-paper-12898181

It was just a random accusation which ignored the fact that feeds were noted at approximate times. Nobody saw anything. The child wasn't sick. What exactly could Letby do other than deny it?

No. She wasn’t a bad nurse at all. She was a normal nurse. She was a human nurse. This means she was imperfect. This means that when she was accused of a terrible crime, the prosecution was able to point to evidence of her less than perfect/ ideal behaviour. As they would with any other human, any less than perfect person who might ever be accused of a crime for whatever reason. If it were you, they would find something- I’m sure you aren’t a perfect human either.
She may have been texting when she shouldn’t have been on her phone. The most normal fault that you could find with anyone anywhere in this day and age: Thats all it is/ was.

I'm asking for evidence of something very specific, not that she used her phone but that she used her phone whilst putting tubes in to babies.

Was she ever actually seen doing this or is it more "she must have done it because she's guilty"?

I am very well caught up, thanks. Operation Hummingbird are saying absolutely nothing, after having been very vocal post trial, even producing a self congratulatory video that’ll surely go down in history as an example of unbelievable hubris + stupidity. Why so quiet recently? They know they are fucked. That’s why. There won’t be any more charges.

@Kittybythelighthouse presumably they have been so quiet because it is an active investigation? And the fact that they have been recruiting recently also suggests that they may not 'know they are fucked'. Everyone's favourite Liz Hull has also says that she anticipates

Sorry, posted too soon!

Liz Hull has also said she anticipates new charges, and whatever you think of her I don't think anyone can deny that she has sources within the operation. In fact that has been one of the issues people have had with her, and what they see as her lack of impartiality.

Hummingbird recruiting could equally mean that lots of people on it have jumped ship because they know it’s nonsense and they are going to look ridiculous and it won’t be good for careers, rather than that it’s going so well they want to expand it.

tbh though I do think it’s most likely they were planning to bring charges and that’s why Macdonald did the press conference at the start of February rather than waiting till the reports were finished at the end of the month. What that doesn’t tell us is whether they are going to be any less ridiculous and trumped up than the last lot. It is clear there are some people with very poor judgement in senior positions in the police and of course they are going to be the last people in the world to admit they made a mistake.

Once again for the hard of understanding. People are not “sticking up for Letby”. They are considering the facts, which indicate that no murders occurred.

The truth, whatever that may be, and however unpalatable to you, is the truth, and must be uncovered. I say “unpalatable to you” because if new/additional facts come to light that show that murders did occur, then I will accept that.

All your bluster about her being an unpleasant person and a bad nurse is wholly irrelevant and evidence of nothing. You must surely understand by now that correlation does not equal causation?

Hummingbird appears to have stalled since Dewi Evans withdrew his services at the end of last year

Maybe @TheCountessofFitzdotterel is correct in suggesting that other key personnel have also resigned necessitating further recruitment?

I found this interesting blog

https://substack.com/home/post/p-156888975

It is a bit long but it compares Lucy's trials to actual witch trials in the 16th century. Many of the techniques used by the prosecution were the same. And actually so were the objections made by some people in the 16th century that the deaths alleged to be caused by the witches were due to natural causes.

I do firmly believe the character evidence is basically irrelevant. If there were no babies murdered then it doesn't matter if Lucy was an unpleasant person. However all the snippets I read paint quite the opposite picture to me. A normal young woman who rescues cats and invites her friends over for pizza.

That witch-hunt analysis is absolutely brilliant. I have coincidentally read a lot about witch hunting in the last year and have been seeing similarities for a long time between the Letby case and the 16th and 17th century witch craze (specifically: the vulnerability of women who look after sick babies, the damned if you do, damned if you don’t logic, the focus on whether she cries at the right moments) but this blog picks up on so many things and goes through them forensically. Excellent work.
Btw I really recommend the Reginald Scot Discoverie of Witches, it’s a brilliant humane, rational book which feels like spending time with your most calm and thoughtful friend (compared with the swivel eyed misogynistic lunatic who wrote Malleus Maleficarum).

Dewi Evans is the true heir to Matthew Hopkins.

Here’s his lecture on the same subject:

I have read all the court reportsi g again for baby A and compared to press conference.

Why did shoo decide suddenly there was no rash as a sign or embolism? He hasn't had this peer reviewed yet.

A haematologist expert said the baby didn't have the blood disorder from the morning. The new panel do not have a hametology expert.

The court of appeal also didn't find shoo's change of mind significant. He could not provide reasoning why he says why there is only a single type of mark diagnostic of air embelism. Is this different now?

Seems to be issues around Aerterail embolism and Venous air embolism. He says rash cant be caused by aerterial passing from venous. But yet there are cases of this and babies have a foramen ovale where it can happen.

It has taken me two hours to reread all the reporting from baby A thoroughly. The timings , that something strange but as I keep saying are circumstancial and not proof of her guilt but the bigger picture.

This is just one baby. There were several experts from GOSH etc and also a man who died before it got to court. They were all cross examined Ben Myers knew his stuff. Shoo hasn't been yet.

It really wasn't a witch hunt.

Sorry for typos I have arthritic hands.

Why did shoo decide suddenly there was no rash as a sign or embolism?

He didn’t suddenly decide that. He said that the paper used as evidence of venous air embolism was actually about arterial air embolism and that even in those cases only 10% of the babies in his study had the specific skin appearance. And that the specific skin appearance observed was not the same as what was described in the LL case. DE used the mottled skin appearance to support his hypothesis of venous air embolism in a high % of alleged LL harm cases and Dr Lee felt compelled to point out the errors, as misuse of his paper had been used to put her away for the rest of her life.

That blog is a stunning piece of writing and analysis.

If anyone is still in doubt about the extent of poor maternal care and babies being at risk from frankly negligent medical practice, and think that a serial killer nurse is far more likely, there are a couple if harrowing stories in the Sunday Times worth reading.

Not sure if they're behind a pay wall but I managed to read without subscribing but couldn't copy the link to do the archive thing because it was hidden by the Sign In banner.

Anyway it's very relevant seeing these stories come out right now.

@skyfirechesnut you might listen to the latest red handed podcast. It lays it all out really simply and they admit to having changed their minds.

Why did shoo decide suddenly there was no rash as a sign or embolism? He hasn't had this peer reviewed yet.

Are you referring to his 2024 paper or to the new review by the panel of experts?

The court of appeal also didn't find shoo's change of mind significant. He could not provide reasoning why he says why there is only a single type of mark diagnostic of air embelism. Is this different now?

Shoo has not changed his mind. What do you mean? I have no idea what the next two sentences mean.

The court of appeal also didn't find shoo's change of mind significant

That isn’t true. The issue was that his evidence could have been explored during the trial and wasn’t. Due to the vagaries of our legal system this meant that the evidence wasn’t grounds for appeal. It wasn’t not significant, it wasn’t new.

Seems to be issues around Aerterail embolism and Venous air embolism. He says rash cant be caused by aerterial passing from venous. But yet there are cases of this and babies have a foramen ovale where it can happen.

With this defect blood can pass from the left to the right atria (not normal) but it does not cause blood to flow backwards around the body.

I'm just catching up with the press conference now and Dr Shoo Lee is like a sane, logical breath of fresh air. He is explaining things really well and sounds so much more credible than Dewi Evans.

I listened to the trial podcast and read reports whilst the trial was going on and was very much on the fence when it all finished. I kept wondering where was the proof that the babies had been murdered at all. I have remained undecided until this weekend. I did not have a strong opinion on guilt or innocence but I did not think the evidence from the trial, that was available to the public, was compelling. I now think she is innocent. Dr Shoo Lee is making much more sense than Dewi Evans.

I worked with adults in ICU for 15 years and I had so many questions about the care the babies received which are now being answered. The medical care on the unit seems beyond incompetent.

And yet the Inquest into Baby A's death 'no cause was ascertained'

No evidence of air embolism at the post-mortem