Lucy Letby thread

[Words]

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

What evidence is there that any of the babies were murdered?

An overwhelming majority of experts (involved both before, after, and during the investigation) believe the babies died due to substandard care and avoidable medical failures.

As far as I can tell, only one expert (excluding those whose substandard care failed the babies) believes there were any murders, and his ethics, motivation, and practice are questionable at best.

People process emotions in different ways. People express things in different ways. This doesn’t make someone a murderer.

You are deliberately misrepresenting things. She did not say she “wanted to get her first murder out of the way”, what an absurd comment. This is why it’s almost impossible to have a sensible discussion about anything online, people inventing hyperbolic ridiculousness.

And yes, I can completely understand why a police officer might also express that they’d like to get past the first time they see a dead body. Many start as basic patrol and therefore very soon come into contact with being the first to arrive at traffic accidents that have caused catastrophic injuries. Many fear this, and do indeed “want to get it out of the way”, because they know it will inevitably happen to them in the course of their job and that nothing will prepare them for the impact of it, so they just want it over with. It’s a completely legitimate feeling and while many might not express it that bluntly, many feel it. If you don’t do such a job yourself, do you at least know any police officers or medical staff who deal with such situations where their job regularly involves either witnessing people die or seeing them dead? Perhaps you don’t, and that’s why you don’t understand it.

Regardless, none of this remotely qualifies as evidence of multiple murders otherwise half of our emergency service workers would be serving whole life sentences.

Actually the person who made these absurd claims that the babies were murdered (the one who gave evidence in court and presented himself as an expert) wasn’t actually a specialist in neonate care at all and had no expertise at all in this area, as is clear from the laughable assertions he made about the causes of the babies’ deterioration in health, his ridiculous claims about how insulin levels manifest in neonates and complete lack of scientific knowledge about this, his assertions about how feeding tubes don’t regularly dislodge etc etc…

I also think it’s disgusting that people are continually trying to compare Jamie Varley to the Lucy Letby case. There are no similarities whatsoever, for all of the reasons pointed out earlier.

Jamie Varley was a predator, a safeguarding lead at his school. He was deliberately manipulating doctors at hospital to try to cover up his crimes which are proven by physical evidence on poor Preston’s body, the horrific injuries from abuse, broken bones and internal injuries he suffered, video and photo evidence of this, evidence of lying to authorities and telling different stories to people, clear evidence of cruelty and violence and abhorrent abuse by this paedophile.

This was a paedophile trying to cover up what he did by ridiculing what would be the safeguarding concerns on the minds of the doctors: as one of the safeguarding leads at the school at which he worked he knew what they’d be thinking so knew exactly what to say to deflect any concern, and knew the doctors would be more trusting of him because he was a teacher and therefore DBS checked etc. He thought he could get away with it on that basis and clearly did for a while for which the social workers and doctors should hang their heads in shame, but he was clearly a very manipulative individual and there is absolutely zero doubt about his guilt.

It’s not remotely comparable to someone being accused of crimes which there is no convincing evidence took place at all, let alone that they personally perpetrated these alleged crimes.

Convenient how people pretend none of that happened isn’t it, and everyone currently in prison MUST be guilty…

My point was never about the CCRC and if there are any failings or if it is fit for purpose. This is where you misunderstood my point.

I quite rightly pointed out that saying she’s innocent does not make it true. The only body at the moment, whether you like it or not, who could possibly say there will be another trial is the CCRC. (And no I don’t think they have any influence on the outcome of any subsequent trials, if granted, before you misunderstand me again)

I have not said she is innocent. I have said that there is not sufficient evidence that a prosecution should have been brought or for her to be convicted. And pointed out that the CCRC is incapable of addressing many miscarriages of justice because its remit precludes it doing so.

You appear to be arguing against yourself rather than any point I have made. I’ve explained in detail why the CCRC will likely be incapable of rectifying this miscarriage of justice, and why their failure to do so to date and likely going forward as well does not change the fact that it is a miscarriage of justice.

Miscarriages of justice at a “minor” level happen on pretty much a weekly basis in the UK magistrate’s “courts” but a fair few also happen in higher courts also and this is one of the most egregious examples in recent years.

You seem to be confusing whether the CCRC may allow a retrial with whether someone might not be guilty and the two things often have very little to do with each other.

It's a massive stretch to compare it to the Lucy Letby case, the evidence against Varley was overwhelming and cannot be disputed.

I would imagine Nick Johnson, who defended Varley was acutely aware of this when he tried to make claims that Varley would have had to have been a sophisticated criminal mastermind to have hidden the abuse, and that some of the injuries could have been caused trying to save Prestons life and that the throat injury could have been caused by a breathing tube.

In Letbys case that defence actually makes sense, far more sense than what Nick Johnson put forward for the prosecution in the Letby case.

You think ‘taste’ is more important than justice or truth? Weird values you have.

Offensive to who? The two criminals are different in that one had a sexual motive and one did not, but both took a sadistic pleasure in hurting a defenceless baby.

And yet none of these experts stood up in her multi-million pound defence trial.

Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but the talks from the Nineteen Nurses Conference are worth a watch. Held at University College London in June. I’ve got several still to see but Steve Watts, Tom Hayes & Martyn Pitman were good: https://www.youtube.com/@19nurses

You quoted my point from another post where they said LL is innocent. It was never directed at you.

You’re confusing yourself now and arguing with me who never once said the CCRC was beyond reproach. You are the one arguing with yourself.

(Edit: the Martyn Pitman talk is from
an earlier conference.)

I don't understand what your point is. They are speaking out now. Why is it relevant that the defense didn't approach them before the trial?

I’ve read about Lucy putting forward a grievance against the consultant and that other one can’t remember his name, it all started on a ‘gut feeling’ that these babies were being murdered by one of the consultants and it was put forward after investigation that there was no evidence of foul play and that they couldn’t take it further I.E the police because of someone’s ’gut feeling’ I believe she has been set up because the hospital was not in a fit state to look after such sick newborns and was extremely under staffed. She was doing all the over time and always there because she was a single woman with no responsibilities and the most qualified and experienced on that ward as she had further training.

If this woman is cleared of these crimes then they need to look into all the higher up professionals that have passed the blame onto this poor woman who was actually doing her job and should have repercussions for their part and actions involved in this case.

I feel she has been extremely wronged here. It seems as though it’s all going to come to light anyways. Poor woman has had her life completely ruined, as even if she is proved innocent she will always be known as the baby killer.

Saying that about her first death sounds normal. She knows its going to be horrible so best experience it, so it becomes easier and she can learn to detach

No idea if she is guilty or even if there are any murders. The main medical evidence has been discredited so the conviction is unsafe. She needs a retrial or to be released if there is no evidence that she is guilty or murders have occured. You can't keep someone in prison because of the 'feels'. She is definitely an unusual character but there needs to be actual evidence of her guilt.

Yes. And she would certainly expect to see some over the course of her career. She had yet to have her intensive care specialist training, but she would have known that involved placements at large NICUs. She did end up seeing two deaths during her training at Liverpool, which is what you'd expect at a hospital that would normally see more than one infant death a week.

During the Thirlwall Inquiry, you had a couple of more junior nurses say they were happy to step back and let her help at critical moments because they hadn't experienced neonatal deaths before, and she had. If she planned to specialise in NICU care, she did need to get experience and learn to handle such events as well as possible.

Yes If anything, there's less reputational risk to speaking out at a trial as a hired defence expert than to offering your services free of charge because you believe that an existing murder conviction is unjust. The first is doing a paid job that someone has to do. The second is really putting your head above the parapet.

Presumably none of this experts could predict what the prosecution would claim at a trial that hasn't happened yet, so there is no sense in blaming them for not speaking out before or - due to contempt of court laws - during the trial. And many were in countries where this simply wasn't in the news anyway.

No, I was responding to a post that you made to me at 6:40 today in which you wrote “I quite rightly pointed out that saying she’s innocent doesn’t make it true”. I therefore had to highlight the fact that I did not state that she is innocent. If you wished to argue with someone who did state that then you should have responded to them rather than me.

This is the post to which I was responding a few minutes ago.

We'll have to agree to disagree there.

Jamie Varley was openly telling people he had dark thoughts, it was all brushed off. We need to start listening to what people in charge of the vulnerable are saying.

@DrRylandGrace I assume you can see the quote history? This is where you decided to jump in. I was not speaking with you. You took offence and decided to push your agenda.

Tell me where I said CCRC were beyond reproach? Tell me where I disagreed with you. I didn’t. I said the CCRC were looking into it and they were the only ones (at this moment) who can call a retrial.

You have argued where there was no
argument.

I know right, imagine trying to take the moral high ground when you're actually defending someone who killed and harmed multiple more babies. The cases actually have a lot of similarities ie-both in professional jobs working with children, no prior criminal record or concerns, weren't caught on CCTV or witnessed, made disturbing comments that just get brushed off, have never admitted guilt-nearly all the excuses they use for Letby you could also apply to Varley and Mcgowan-Fazakerley.

Who knows, some experts could come out in a years' time claiming they're actually innocent and there's another very plausible explanation.