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

Shoo Lee wrote a paper in 1989, based on cases of air embolism in babies reported until then.

When he revisited the issue in 2024, he revised the paper to look at all the cases reported since then.

The revised paper has been peer reviewed before publication.

It would be terrible terrible science not to do this! Nobody has studied these cases as a group since 1989, and so he has completed the work.

This is like complaining that your child's teacher has revised their school report so it is not the same in Year 12 as it was in Year 1, or that your house is being valued at 2025 prices instead on 1985 prices.

It is fine to think critically and read widely but if you are coming across sources raising these things as problems online, they are not well informed sources and you should be careful not to rely on them.

So in the whole of the uk no one can know anyone close to the case?
I work in Chester
im not in the habit of lying to randomers in a chat!!

He hasn't changed his paper at all, he's added to it and clarified things. He hasn't taken out or contradicted anything said in the original paper.

I'm not convinced that trial by jury is the best way to decide cases which rely on a lot of technical evidence. Personally I wonder if suitably trained judges would be better placed to decide them.

Well, spill then. Oh, but of course, you can't, cos confidentiality and ongoing case. Perhaps you could tell us why it's taking so long to reveal all these other deaths Lucy Letby us responsible for?

The truth is none of you have any handle on everything. The judge at the trial did and juries are tasked to consider everything relevant. Not assertions that are not relevant.

So now we have a different opinion to add to the defence. The CCRC is the only organisation that will consider them. It’s possible they might ask for an appeal but it’s not going to be an overnight decision. MN really won’t have any idea of the outcome yet. Two attempts at appeal have already not been allowed. Of course a panel of experts brought together by the Letby lawyers won’t agree with the former convicting evidence. It would be a pointless exercise if they did. However it doesn’t make them correct. The existing evidence was still compelling enough to convict. It’s a case of whether the new views are significantly more compelling.

Interesting Op.

My humble opinion on your post

I was a court solicitor for 20 plus years, partner level, top of my area.

I specialised in child protection and high conflict divorce by the end, but also did a huge amount of child protection as a Safeguarder via appointment (Scotland). Thus would be called to criminal proceedings.

My opinion would be that we will never know, because we cannot ever be there. However, we either believe in the justice system or we do not.

Experts can be wrong, and solicitors can be poor.

The jury came to the verdict they did based on the evidence presented to them at that time.

Should additional evidence be found, then yes, an appeal should be heard.

Speaking from a Scottish perspective, here an appeal would only be heard on a legal point, and a common one used would be inadequate representation. Never happened to me, but something we all dreaded.

The grounds for appeal are set out and are not just I, we don't like this decision.

But @skyfirechesnut you are absolutely correct. People just go with the headlines, or the media, and it sways the public interest or perception.

The reality is it's really hard to find someone guilty, beyond reasonable doubt. Where was all this evidence at the time.

And sadly, like many cases, where are the victims families in all this.

If this was true you wouldn't post about it on line, seeing as the person who told you this who is close to the case would be in breach of the law by telling you

I haven't read the thread as the lettering is a bit on the small side on my phone.

Can someone produce a synopsis in BIG letters for me?

Thanking you. 😘

There are a lot of headlines about a lot of things. I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect people to 'do their research' beclfore mentioning any of them tbh.

@lnks
Don't believe me but I did. I appreciate I was limited to what was written.

I so wanted her to be innocent at the start it just doesn't seem she is.

Everybody knows there was a higher than expected number of deaths during 2015 - 16.

Deciding that means murder is a huge leap.

About three units like Letby's a year will have a similar increase in deaths. Should we assume there are murderers working there?

We know that Letby's unit started taking more babies who needed intensive care and children with lower birthrates just before the death rate went up.

It is alleged that doctors on the unit made some mistakes in treating this group. Not one of them specialised in caring for newborn babies.

Both of these things would be far more likely explanations for murder than a killer nurse.

https://liverpoolwomens.nhs.uk/news/trust-statement-on-lucy-letby-investigation/
Obviously I’m not going to say who I know. But the investigation into the deaths at Liverpool women’s hospital is in the public domain.

The Trial podcast reported that the investigation of the previous hospitals she worked at started once she was found guilty. So I imagine it's still ongoing.

Again.. haven't read everything on here but...she was diagnosed a psychopath and she reacts like one...plus what for me is difficult is my husband has a few conspiracy theoriest friends and when I pointed that out he said ,oh u know her do u..he suggested that nurses are never left alone with babies... hello!! Evidence was damning and her complete lack of emotions!! I don't know how I'm gonna broach this subject when I speak to the friend again... apparently Finland doesn't exist either 😳

They havent discussed anything with me that isn’t already in the public domain. liverpoolwomens.nhs.uk/news/trust-statement-on-lucy-letby-investigation/

No you can't. Absolutely not, it is just that people say with such conviction after one headline. Fine if they want to discuss not just state as fact.

I am probably 95 percent to 5 thinking she is guilty. I don't think this new non peer reviewed evidence is robust enough.

I am interested in what will come from the CCRC.

Do your research - read The Mail 🤣

@inks

Not sure what you are on about either. I have looked at biased documents from both sides.

I like to read both opinions.

Yes, it's been in the public domain since at least 2023 according to your link.

By now you'd think there would have been further charges, wouldn't you, given the high profile and contentious nature of the case. Especially now, given the damning indictments over the state of the NICU etc.

I think the Crown Prosecution Service won't want to embarrass themselves why further.

Chester police asked a consultant at Liverpool to write a report on Letby's shifts there only back in 2018. The doctor they asked was a friend of Letby's chief accuser at Chester and had been helping him privately to write up his concerns about Chester.

Lucy Letby did only 34 shifts at Liverpool, mostly heavily supervised as a trainees. There was no witness to her doing anything wrong there. The police have now had that report on those 34 shifts for more than six years.

What else are they going to find out at this stage?

Fair comment…

Interesting post. Thank you.

The death rate at Liverpool certainly didn't go up during Letby's short time there. They publish annual monthly reports.