Lucy Letby thread

[Words]

Starting this as don’t think we have a new one.

Actually I can't stand the police and would love nothing more than for them to be criticised for being useless/corrupt as they are most of the time.

You likely have never fallen victim to the shortcomings of the police and courts and faith in the ‘system’ may come easier.

And the people who have are likely biased in her favour because they're projecting their own experiences onto her.

I've defended them in the Letby case although I think they should've done more to bring charges against her for other crimes the first time round (not talking about the ones the CPS dropped) because I believe she harmed far more babies. Because of them not doing that it's led to all these types of discussions. Hopefully it'll all come out in time. Apparently some more parents just spoke out but because she was nice to them they've defended her 🙄even though it's just added more unexplained collapses around her to the pile.

However, the legal threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt regarding a 'poisoner' was never met. When this conviction is inevitably overturned, resulting in substantial public compensation, the families will endure further suffering and be left without true closure.

You're getting a bit ahead of yourself there.

I think this all boils down to whether all cases of anomalous insulin immunoassay results mean that the patient was poisoned.
You think they do.

Only if the C-peptide ratios are as extreme as the ones in this case.

The Stepping Hill case had nothing whatsoever to do with the Roche insulin immunoassay. The contaminated medicines were isolated and tested directly and found to contain medicinal insulin.

I wasn't talking about the immunoassay. A serial killer doesn't stop when another nurse is wrongly arrested was my point.

A medical opinion without physical evidence based on a test that the lab cautions does not meet the requirements for forensic standards and relies entirely on hypothesis in no way meets the threshold fo beyond reasonable doubt, especially when alternative possibilities were either not explored, ir deliberately witheld from the trial.

And I think what happened to Rebecca Leighton was shocking and I will certainly criticise the police for that.

How can you possibly know that collapses that weren't even identified as such by doctors at the time, reviewers later, Evans & co (that we have heard), or in courtbeen discussed in court were unexplained?

If you're a nurse, you're going to be around when babies deteriorate. Calling that an unexplained collapse, which is rarer, doesn't make it one. That is just morbid fanfiction, I'm afraid.

https://x.com/GuerrillaCarl/status/2071219764366545366

These are the parents who are speaking out, they also were on the Amanda Knox podcast and did a podcast with Dr Martyn Pitman.

That's seems a gentle and balanced message.

If there were "unexplained collapses" in this baby's case, they seem to have been unexplained in the sense that nobody explained them to the parents. I'm sure many of us have had similar experiences on the NHS.

Not unexplained in the sense that they were a medical mystery that can only have been attempted murder.

They've said that both the police and hospital have said that there's no suggestion she was deliberately harmed, but that the X trolls are trying to convince them that they're being lied to and that LL did harm their baby, so going by that narrative the hospital is apparently still trying to cover up LL harming babies and the police for whatever reason are also trying to hide that she harmed this baby while instead trying to put forward charges for other babies. Like come on..........🙄

It's interesting also that some of these people are the ones who who try to manipulate people into shutting up by saying think of what the poor families are going through but then they want to try to convince other parents that LL harmed their babies also even though the police and hospital ruled it out 🤔

Have we seriously got down to assuming that every adverse event on an intensive care ward was an act of deliberate harm, so long as Lucy Letby was on shift?

This shows how low the bar for proof (even suggestion) of criminal behaviour is for some of those who insist on Lucy Letby's guilt.

Because that's what happens in a lot of healthcare serial killer cases. Maybe you should read up on them? They never identified all of Harold Shipman's victims. She had over 250 handover sheets which you think doesn't mean anything and I think are trophies or sheets to identify potential victims. That's a lot of babies.

People can have their own theories and opinions without it meeting the bar for beyond reasonable doubt you know. If there's not enough evidence then rightly those cases haven't been taken to court. Doesn't stop me thinking there's a very big chance she had something to do with it.

If your only evidence is, she was there, you have no sensible grounds for your theories or opinions on this point.

@Oftenaddled you're conflating two different things-my own opinion and what would pass as evidence in court. Haven't you ever had an opinion on anything or anyone without needing science to tell you what to think every time? Wait don't answer that, I already know.

Yep, insane really, considering how much the NHS pay out in settlements and how many mistakes are made, AND considering in this particular hospital the consultants only did 2 rounds a week, they were understaffed and under qualified and not fit to care for babies who needed that level of care. but yet still every time a baby collapsed it was down to Letby 🤔

So of course with this narrative the hospital actually is absolutely flawless and the best in the country, apart from the fact they had a serial killer.

Oh for crying out loud. I don't even know how to address this ridiculous level if argument. In medical cases the science is vital. Thoughts and gut feelings or whatever you're clinging to have no place in a court room. Frankly, your sneery tone is embarrassing given the patience shown by the poster you are impugning.

We all have opinions. But people will judge their validity based on facts.

The facts in this case appear to be:

A baby was seriously unwell after a difficult birth
Lucy Letby was there
Despite thinking Lucy Letby was a serial killer:
Doctors were not concerned
Police were not concerned

Does that not suggest that there was a known cause for the child's condition?

The facts appear not to support your opinion

Some of the posters on here honestly have the patience of a saint. I don't know how they do it 😅

Thoughts and gut feelings or whatever you're clinging to have no place in a court room.

I literally just said that 🙄

Does that not suggest that there was a known cause for the child's condition?

Do we know what it is yet? Because until we do I'll continue to go with my gut instinct.

But they did reach the court room in this case.

That's why the miscarriage of justice campaign has seen so much momentum.

Just on that single piece of information - Lucy Letby was there and nobody has told you what caused the child's deterioration? Why would you expect to know this.

A new substack out today which describes the payments Cheshire Police made from the Operation Hummingbird budget to the media and to reputation and PR management advisors during Lucy Letby's trial. The media payments were to a company owned by Caroline Cheetham, who runs the Trial podcast for the Daily Mail with Liz Hull.

No wonder they managed to push their narrative so far

https://rebeccaryder21.substack.com/p/why-did-cheshire-police-use-public

Outrageous.

I still remember Liz Hull speaking to Mark McDonald outside the CCRC saying that he could have just submitted the application and questioning why he needed to hand deliver it and he turned it right back around on her saying 'well you'd know, because you run your podcast and you're at front of the media'.

Acting like she's so outraged that he hand delivered the application to the CCRC, but yet she shows up herself so she has some more material for her podcast.🙄🙄

If you're that offended by what he's doing then don't show up and don't give him airtime.

No they weeded out cases they had no/not enough evidence for which has led people to believe there were all these other collapses she wasn't present for even though she was.

Some parents coming out trying to defend her just makes her look even more guilty. The best they can seem to say is she was nice to them. I mean yeah, serial killers can be charming and spend a long time grooming their victims.