Lucy letby

[bloomingbonkerz]

Do you think she did it ? Watched the documentary and I’m not sure she should have been convicted

The defence choose not to put forward witnesses that would undermine her defence by agreeing with prosecution on certain points

I can promise you that’s not what single nurses think, they think thank god that’s not me!
just because that’s how you think doesn’t mean that’s how everyone thinks. Nursing staff are usually privy to more info than you are aware, previous DV for example.

Quite possibly, yes, though we don't know for sure. They didn't know how to explain the insulin results.

If scientists now think they can explain those results with new experimental evidence, our court system is designed to allow them to do that.

👋 afternoon oftenaddled

A whole panel of specialists say there were other explanations for the deaths. That makes the whole thing ‘unsound’ .

guilty as sin imo

there was a 9 month trial, which no one here was party to, so how anyone can say there wasn’t enough evidence is laughable. As are all the uninformed comments about “circumstantial evidence”

Where were they at the trial?

Exactly - I’ve read you can always come up with alternatives - I didn’t think the report was that great

There is plenty of information directly reported from the trial, plus the judgements, plus the 14 international experts who had access to all the medical evidence from the defence, which had to be shared by the prosecution. There is nothing from the trial that has been hidden from the public in terms of a prosecutory smoking gun. Being at the trial doesn't confer special ability to ascertain 100% proof of guilt or innocence.

However, a criminal trial is supposed to rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt, not the balance of probabilities from expert opinion.

Many, many medical professionals during and after the trial expressed incredulity at the idea that overfeeding or inflating a baby with air could be a mechanism of harm - nothing exists to confirm that assertion aside from Evans theorising. There is no research or precedence for those methods.

I disagree - the context of the trial is different

Im not sure shoo lees report is going to do anything - it just looks like a list of alternative scenarios to me rather than the smoking gun it’s made out to me

however there are some impressive titles of experts in there - maybe that will have the weight

Causes of death and collapse are what the experts were looking for! That's where their expertise lies.

But Mark McDonald didn't submit the summaries we have seen - the full reports are hundreds of pages long, and they are accompanied by the other evidence (statistical, experimental, procedural) which goes to explain why they are presented at this point.

Ah - no wonder

so the report we read online isn’t what’s been given to CCRC?

No, what he has given the CCRC is much longer. I remember reading that the report on Child I from one expert alone is over 200 pages. I suppose that helps explain why they are taking so long!

It's hard to put your finger on it... Which I believe is why it's drawn such worldwide attention.

I think the key point is as I said, when does the point come when all the circumstantial evidence reach a critical point of being unable to be ignored? On their own, everything can be explained away, but when it's looked at as a whole, it becomes significant.
We're talking about the medical records she took home, the asterisks she put in her diary the day the babies died/collapsed, the scribbled post-it "confessions", searching up the families on social media much later, her being the only nurse who was present for every single incident, for example.

Any one of those on their own doesn't hold enough weight, but added together, they paint an ominous picture.

And let's be honest, if she hadn't been young, fairly pretty, white and British-born, the whole case wouldn't have attracted half the attention it has. So many people looked into the case, solely because she "didn't look like a killer."

Um, you've neatly managed to miss answering the question posed.

Even taken together, none of the circumstantial points you've raised suggests that anybody was actually murdered in the first place.

Where is your evidence - and what is the basis for your belief - that any baby was actually murdered?

Babies have died in many other failing hospitals but nobody went looking for an oddball to accuse of murdering them. So why do you believe these babies were murdered?

I haven't read all the thread, and I am of the opinion LL is innocent.

In reply to the asterisk on some of the days in her diary, an asterisk in the nursing world is a sign you are the nurse in charge, this is built in to personal rotas and the whole department Roster. If an asterisk contributes to evidence you've killed someone on shift, my diary would be very incriminating, as it was written on every shift in my old diaries.

Oh that's interesting information. Thank you.

T

No she took a grievance out against the doctors bullying her, think her Dad accompanied her to these meetings. There was an investigation against the doctors it was upheld they were made to apologise to her. Not sure from any of the research there was any discliniary.

Scapegoating by insisting on a massive police investigation? That's the weirdest scape goat strategy i've ever heard of.

Also didn’t they sought permission to go to the police because the unit something there was anything odd

I think it’s the fact there were vulnerable tiny babies who were murdered/ died.
Regardless of who did it, I think it would have attracted huge attention.

There was no disciplinary. Lucy took out a grievance in September 2016 when she learned the doctors were accusing her of harming the babies. She knew well before the police were called in the spring of 2017.

One thing that isn’t evidence of murder + another thing that isn’t evidence of murder + another thing that isn’t evidence of murder = no evidence of murder

It doesn’t matter how many times you multiply 0 by 0, the answer is still 0.

Multiple examples of non evidence do not pile up to reach critical mass.

This is a fundamental issue of understanding in this case.

The handover sheets don’t indicate anything significant since a tiny fraction related to indictment babies
Same with social media
The notes she wrote indicate innocence as much as guilt but certain parts were cherry picked
The code in the diary thing is fabricated
She was the only nurse present for all the incidents she was present for, and her presence or absence determined whether events were deemed suspicious or not

Lots of circumstantial evidence accumulates beyond being able to be brushed aside

it becomes Cumulative evidence and definitely adds up to more than zero

plus the medical evidence that hasn’t as yet been disregarded