Lucy Letby

[kkloo]

New thread as the last one has filled up.

@Oftenaddled the mental gymnastics 😆the handover sheets mean nothing, the post it note means nothing, but posters have diagnosed her with a hoarding disorder in an effort to try and explain it. It's hardly like her house was cluttered with stuff she never threw away. It's only things directly connected to her victims she kept.

No, the police removed thousands of documents from her house, @Firefly1987 , and obviously only a small proportion of that was used in her trial. It's in their own documentary.

I do love gymnastics, though 🤸

some serial killers leave actual bodies buried in their own houses

Even after knowing for a year they're under investigation, and the body is as easy to move/hide/destroy as paper?

By the way, if the 230 handover sheets reflect undetected attempted murders, then most of these attempts failed (there weren't nearly that many deaths). Who keeps mementos of their failures?

Of course with your narrative, substandard care means nothing, the fact that doctors were often going around clueless and not noticing that babies were very unwell means nothing, the fact that the coroner was previously shocked at how many mistakes they could make in this hospital means nothing, the fact that worldwide experts are looking at Dewis conclusions and saying 'what!?!?' means nothing, and then you're telling other people that they're the ones doing mental gymnastics because they don't think things like taking home some handover sheets is proof of murder..

It's almost like being compelled to furnish your house with the interior of the hospital.

If she had made sewage drip from the ceiling, like in her hospital, I'd believe that.

But let's say the hoarding was intentional and reflected an unhealthy obsession with work. What's the rational connection to murder? Lots of people are unhealthily obsessed with their work, and the vast majority of those don't commit murder.

People do odd things, It's not anywhere even close enough to serial killer odd.

Also have you ever heard about Lucia De Berk? A nurse convicted of killing patients who was later exonerated? Did you hear what they found when they searched her home?
She had diary entries which the prosecution said showed she was obsessed with death, she had also tried to burn those diaries. She had written in them on the days patients died that she had given in to her compulsions.
She had a lot of books on crimes and murders.
She had stolen books, medicine and patient files.

On top of that she had forged documents in order to qualify for medical training, and in court a psychologist testified that she was theatrical, narcissistic, aggressive and suffering from a personality disorder, and de Berk replied 'that sounds like me'

But yet she was later exonerated, being odd doesn't prove murder,

@Daygloboo Besides all that, Lucia de Berk was also a prostitute. Daniela Poggiali, another wrongly convicted nurse, took selfies with corpses. Which is to say, even much odder things than hoarding handover sheets are not reliable predictors of guilt.

He added: "With the benefit of hindsight, would that have made a difference to the outcome? I don't think so. The events that occurred to these babies were events that occurred after they were born.

as above!!
she will never ever let out.

What did Shoo Lee say please, and how was he wrong?

If you are relatively new to all of this you need to be aware that here, as in elsewhere online, not all arguments are equal. The people posting about concerns with the evidence have read extensively, both the original trial reporting and further articles, reports and insights from many many credible and credentialed experts who say that the medical evidence used in the trial is basically rubbish. That the chief medical expert witness made up modes of attack to fit the prosecution narrative, some of which he no longer agrees with himself even though she’s in prison based on that evidence. Plus there were major problems with the way the evidence was collected, there are multiple disclosure failures etc etc. These people who tend to believe there has probably been a miscarriage of justice are generally concerned because the issues with the British justice system and the NHS could affect anyone living in the UK, not because they are true crime fans or personally affiliated with LL.

The people arguing against a review of the evidence ignore everything those experts have said, never offer a critical analysis and cannot support their current position other than by ridiculing and attacking the eminent experts who are raising the alarm. It’s unclear whether they read anything other than a couple of sites where anything new and concerning is routinely debunked and ridiculed, without critical analysis, and where no questioning is tolerated. They frequently misrepresent new reports in order to create a straw man to argue. They are generally intellectually dishonest. Their motivation is less clear.

So I would say don’t flip flop between arguments on MN, read the many linked articles and make up your mind on the evidence.

I'm not too sure on LLs conviction after reading the New Yorker article (was it banned in this country or did I imagine that??)
However, if new evidence has come to light then that should surely be grounds for an appeal? I'm not a legal or medical expert. The NHS seems to be above criticism so LL could well be the convenient scapegoat for sub-optimal care.

Do you mean you think that problems in pregnancy and labour never affect children's health later on?

@Firefly1987You are absolutely clutching, thanks for the laugh though.

Here’s hoping you never get called onto a jury.

I've seen on here people saying there is wilful ignorance being applied here.

I don't think it is wilful. I think it's plain ignorance.
As one of my teachers used to say: If you don't understand 3D, you will always see in 2D - because the concept of 3D is so much beyond their headspace they can't see it.

Or as a very basic point. I've played tennis against a beginner, and won with them hardly getting a shot over the net and heard them saying that we had such a hard game and they wanted to play again to see if they could win. That had no concept of how much better I could play.
Whereas the person who I normally won about 6-2 6-3 would have happily said that I was much better than them and they'd never win. Because they had more knowledge of the game, they could see that I was holding back and if they'd upped their game, I would too.

We've been shown that:

1. No understanding of basic statistics
2. No understanding of science
3. No understanding of how scientific research/papers work
4. No understanding of reasonable doubt
5. Inability to remember - they've made the same points over and over again despite them being answered again and again
6. Inability to reason
7. Inability to consider anything that shakes their fixed opinion

But I don't think it's being done in bad faith; I think it is genuinely that they have no understanding of these things so they assume that what they were told first is correct rather than having the ability to question it.

So however patiently and carefully people try to explain, they will never move from their position because they haven't got the ability, and the ability to admit they don't understand scares them - because then they have to admit how little they understand, which is why when faced with logic and understanding they lash out with "baby killer" and insults like that.

However I do applaud those that are still answering the same remarks over and over again, because it's important for anyone new finding the thread that they can see that what was said at trial is disputed by experts - who know what they're talking about.

It is interesting how desperately some want to believe she is a murderer of babies. I was on the Tattle thread during the trial: at the time I was leaning towards her guilt but even then the absolute glee and malicious delight in when she was found guilty was uncomfortable to say the least.

The whole thing has always made me feel rather tainted, somehow.

Tainted is a good word. I try despetately hard to keep my snippiness under control on these threads because I like to try and be mindful that people made of flesh and blood with their own issues and challenges sit on the other side of the screen and have a right to their own opinion. I actually reported one of my own comments on the last thread because I stooped as childishly as some other posters do, and I worried about how it might impact them. I am a card carrying overthinker and apparently have a masters in masochism. But that's on me.

The patience and restraint shown by so many knowledgeable posters is admirable and a constant source of aspiration to me.

My huge sticking point, and what pushes my buttons the most, is the absolute refusal to go back to the medical evidence, combined with the salacious glee around the piss poor circumstantial evidence. The blinkered attitude to all the procedural fubars from start to finish, which means frankly, that anyone who gets caught up in the legal system cannot count on a fair trial at a dangerous level, especially if it depends on expert medical evidence.

And realising that despite a horrible number of MOJs around this sort of evidence, it seems sod all lessons have been learned. Given all the technological advances now available, it seems ludicrous that we still depend solely on a doughty veteran of dubious motive to pronounce such gems as "the baby died" repeatedly as proof of murder without testing robustly the mechanism in a court of law.

This has probably been raised across the many threads but revalidation for nurses and midwives was introduced by the NMC on 1 April 2016 and as a former HCP I know from experience that a change to how you are professionally regulated will naturally change the records you retain/notes you draft at home so you can comply.

I actually worked for the NMC at that time and it was a Big Deal- lots of nurses/midwives were concerned about how to complete the process appropriately, what to evidence/how to evidence, whether there would be enough time and support from management when they had extremely busy and stressful roles.

I was also asked to provide information to a nurse for her revalidation records when she’d helped care for my son when he was admitted with sepsis as a baby- she jotted the conversation down on a bit of paper and put it in her pocket as she’d grabbed a few minutes to have the conversation (and she was brilliant so I was very happy to help).

Also as a former health care professional when I was extremely busy and under pressure I ended up with notes/records at home which obviously wasn’t ideal but is fairly commonplace from my experience. Same with the Facebook trawling- I didn’t do it as I wasn’t on Facebook in my early career but colleagues did (again not right- but it did happen).

I don't understand why those who are adamant that new evidence is ignored and they are correct in their assertions that LL is guilty as they followed the trial at the time, like it's some kind of 'gotcha'. All they did was read salacious reporting during the trial, they weren't sitting there day after day in the courtroom hearing it all first hand. They were fed a narrative

Don't they realise that so much more information has come about since, so many people - who are knowledgable, from all different walks of life are questioning that trial? We now have all of the trial to look at plus all the extra knowledge but they refuse to even look

I don't understand how they can dismiss everything that has come about since the trial - evidence given has since been totally debunked, witnesses have definitely lied on the stand, 'evidence' framed to fit LL, experts changing their minds, ludricrous methods of murder or attack that haven't been seen anywhere else, terrible conditions on the ward, and the flimsy circumstantial evidence that just means she might have been a bit odd

It doesn't mean she is innocent but it certainly means many aspects were wrong, it has gone way past a reasonable doubt so the conviction can't be safe.

My recommendation for anyone relatively new to this is to read, if they haven’t already, the Court of Appeal judgment - https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf

I expect that oftenaddled will appear soon to point out all the things that the judges got wrong, but it provides a useful summary of what was covered in the main trial. It also discusses Dewi Evans’s suitability as an expert witness. There have been quite a lot of sweeping or misleading statements made on this thread about what did or didn’t happen, and this document might help clarify.

And then in relation to the evidence that we are told has emerged since her convictions, what I would say is that as things stand none of this has been tested within a formal process. There are very very few people who are both qualified to cross-examine the science and who are also in possession of all the relevant facts of these cases, so until I can be sure that has happened I’m not going to have blind faith that the new evidence trumps the evidence that convicted her just because some scientists fanfared as ‘best in the world’ say so.

However, and for what it’s worth, one person who would fall into the category of qualified in (some of) the science and in possession of the facts is Michael Hall, the defence’s medical expert, and we know he has said that there are a number of things in the expert panel report which in his view are not correct or were already considered at trial.

Finally, just to top it all off and really rile a few people up, here’s my vibes-based bit - I do not trust Mark McDonald (LL’s new lawyer), I think he’s a showman and only about his media profile and wanting to be seen as some sort of heroic warrior for justice. I do not think he’s a good lawyer and I am dubious that he has served his international panel as well as he could. My suspicion is that he may not have given them everything they need to properly make their assessments (either wilfully or through incompetence). But I guess we will see, once the CCRC make their decision.

And then in relation to the evidence that we are told has emerged since her convictions, what I would say is that as things stand none of this has been tested within a formal process. There are very very few people who are both qualified to cross-examine the science and who are also in possession of all the relevant facts of these cases, so until I can be sure that has happened I’m not going to have blind faith that the new evidence trumps the evidence that convicted her just because some scientists fanfared as ‘best in the world’ say so

This is an emotional argument not a rational one, as evidenced by your “fanfared as”. They objectively are among the most highly qualified and credentialed experts in the world, and they have no axe to grind. They have the same medical notes that Evans based his hypotheses on and have concluded that other explanations were not only possible but more likely. We all know that this evidence has not yet been cross examined in court.

However, and for what it’s worth, one person who would fall into the category of qualified in (some of) the science and in possession of the facts is Michael Hall, the defence’s medical expert, and we know he has said that there are a number of things in the expert panel report which in his view are not correct or were already considered at trial

This is a dishonest representation of his position. He has stated that he believes that she didn’t have a fair trial. He is definitely publicly on the MOJ side and he was there.

Finally, just to top it all off and really rile a few people up, here’s my vibes-based bit - I do not trust Mark McDonald (LL’s new lawyer), I think he’s a showman and only about his media profile and wanting to be seen as some sort of heroic warrior for justice. I do not think he’s a good lawyer and I am dubious that he has served his international panel as well as he could. My suspicion is that he may not have given them everything they need to properly make their assessments (either wilfully or through incompetence). But I guess we will see, once the CCRC make their decision

Your entire argument is vibes based.

I don't understand this argument that expert opinion must be tested in a court of law for it to be believable. The only people qualified to "test" medical evidence are the experts themselves, not a jury, not a judge, and not a lawyer.

Dewi Evans has been roundly ridiculed in the medical field since reporting restrictions were lifted to the point where he himself has admitted much of what he testified to was incorrect (that alone should be grounds for an immediate retrial, imo). Letby was convicted of harming five babies via overfeeding/air down the NG tube, which the prosecution now admits never happened/isn't possible. If this isn't concerning to you, I have serious doubts about your level of basic comprehension.

The new reports by Lee on air embolism and Lee's sign were "tested" by peer reviews, i.e they were tested by people with the means to understand the evidence put to them. Ditto Chase and Shannon's paper on C-Peptide levels in neonates.

With regard to Evans' suitability as an expert, another Judge wrote to Justice Goss to implore him not to allow Evans to testify, branding evidence he gave at other trials to be "worthless," lacking in balance and outside of his area of professional expertise. Do you understand how rare it is for a Judge not involved in a case to take these steps? It is unheard of. Never happened before. Again, if this doesn't worry you, I question your ability to comprehend basic information.

Yes, the judges got a great deal wrong.

Here is a question. How did they come up with the causes of death they list for the children? Why did they set some prosecution expert opinions aside and adopt others?

Where is there a smidgen of evidence that Mark McDonald didn't give the expert witness panel all information? What is it you have seen anywhere that leads you to assert this? I have only ever seen this said by people who don't like their conclusions.

Vibes are all very well, and of course we may take any position we like, on vibes. The Court of Appeal document has a nice calm, settled vibe because it is a selective summary of the trial it reflects on. For this reason, it seems coherent and people like to point to it. But selective it is; and in places illogical to an extent that shows that its creators aren't thinking scientifically.

Separately on Michael Hall, because it's an interesting question.

You often see the complaint that some of the defence witness's findings have already been tested in court, as if this means the panel was wrong to publish them. You need to think about what you are saying here.

Hall's point on some of the expert witness's findings already having been discussed at trial is true. Nobody denies this. It would be odd if they hadn't - plenty of the problems with the children's conditions and treatment were all too apparent. Hall's point and worry was that this may be an obstacle to using these conclusions in appeal.

That's technically possible, but an appeal permits the use of new argument (and could be granted on many grounds). There will be no problem using these reports in any retrial: the conduct of the first trial doesn't prevent that. But who would have wanted the expert panel to construct arguments that didn't overlap with anything said in court, as if they were playing a game instead of looking for children's causes of death?

Hall's other concerns are about cases where he can't see where the experts got some (significant but inessential) information. But these are also cases where he was missing information. In the case of baby O, that's the obstetrics notes, of course. We now know the opinion of the panel draws on specific obstetric expert opinion on what is available, so I'm sure that would reassure him. We have also learned, after he made these comments, that he thinks he was not given some key results from baby O's records.

Similarly with baby I, where he commented that certain information wasn't found at post-mortem, we had later newspaper reports revealing that it had. In any case, what he disputes are not the causes of death, or the assertion that these were natural deaths, but details on which the panel opinion doesn't rely. All a storm in a teacup which I'm sure would be resolved in the full reports

I don't understand this argument that expert opinion must be tested in a court of law for it to be believable. The only people qualified to "test" medical evidence are the experts themselves, not a jury, not a judge, and not a lawyer.

Okay. Wow.

Letby was convicted of harming five babies via overfeeding/air down the NG tube, which the prosecution now admits never happened/isn't possible. If this isn't concerning to you, I have serious doubts about your level of basic comprehension.

Have you got a source for this admission by the prosecution?

With regard to Evans' suitability as an expert, another Judge wrote to Justice Goss to implore him not to allow Evans to testify, branding evidence he gave at other trials to be "worthless," lacking in balance and outside of his area of professional expertise. Do you understand how rare it is for a Judge not involved in a case to take these steps? It is unheard of. Never happened before. Again, if this doesn't worry you, I question your ability to comprehend basic information.

Again, can you share this letter with us? Or do you mean the judgment of Jackson LJ? The CoA judgment addresses this - the criticisms were based on a false premise.

Of course science isn't tested in court. That's why scientific textbooks aren't updated to match verdicts. It's why the sun didn't trundle off to rotate the earth after Galileo yielded to the inquisition.

A jury attempts to apply scientific principles explained by experts to a particular scenario to make a judgement about guilt or innocence. Their judgement can only be as reliable as the principles they are offered and their understanding of them. Nobody seriously thinks this is the way to establish scientific truths.

There's a useful summary in a recent Private Eye of Dr Evans's retreat from the prosecution position over time, so it is he rather than the prosecution, to be precise, who has made these statements. Bizarrely, he actually called on the police, the CPS and the prosecution team to set the record straight and admit their errors last year - that's where he felt he was taking unnecessary heat. Obviously that's not the sort of thing they do!
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby-30.pdf