Lucy Letby

[kkloo]

New thread as the last one has filled up.

I think we're all guilty of doing that. I genuinely don't remember what people have said would satisfy them. They keep banging on about medical evidence but I'm talking about IF there is a serial killer, how do you figure out who it is? What would LL have to be caught doing for someone to say "yes that was deliberate harm?" otherwise you could have Shoo Lee etc. saying there's a murderer and we're still no closer to figuring out WHO it was if we were to listen to some posters on here.

If there was evidence of children being harmed, then an investigation could consider how to pinpoint when this happened and that might certainly pin down a suspect. But the existing allegations of harm are vague as to timing and implausible in their mechanism. And Lee's panel didn't find harm (any more than the pathologists who examined the bodies). So it's all hypothetical.

@Firefly1987 I think the vast majority of us would be happy to just discuss the new developments as they happen, it's you who keeps bringing up the same things over and over.

They keep banging on about medical evidence but I'm talking about IF there is a serial killer

Do you mean a scenario where they 100% know that there has to be one because there is concrete evidence that there was murders and there is really is no other possible explanation?

Or are you talking about them believing there has to be one based on similar evidence to this case, where the causes of the collapses and deaths are disputed?

@kkloo yes I'm talking about if it was 100% fact there was a killer (although I still think our hypothetical serial killer would be able to find experts to disagree) then how do you go about finding out who it is if it's "just" circumstantial evidence to go on? Is it enough that they were there for all the suspicious deaths or not?

If there was medical evidence that murders happened, then using strong circumstantial evidence and correct statistics to help identify the killer is safe (as in Allitt's case, for example), but you cannot work backwards; you cannot use flimsy circumstantial evidence and incorrectly applied stats to identify a murderer and then start looking for evidence of murder. That leaves the investigation open to confirmation bias and runs the risk of fitting the evidence to the case.

Is it enough that they were there for all the suspicious deaths or not?

If "suspicious" is defined in part by "the suspect was there", as you did above, then most certainly not.

That makes sense, thanks.

Why is it taking so long ?

It is simple she was set-up, there was never any evidence, none, it is a farce, why not let her go home to live with parents while they figure out how to deal with everything else. They have wasted enough of this womans life to protect hopeless/lazy doctors and bosses, nothing can be done about the past but everyone can help her from now on.

No point in trying to cover it up anymore, 99 per cent of the country knows what happened. The only folk left saying she done it are involved in the witch-hunt or they cannot accept they were fooled by Dewi and his outrageous tall tales.

The CCRC is routinely very slow. But if leaks from the police investigation are to be believed, this really is becoming farcical.

Today's addition: after the first trial, where he could absolutely swear to the time of baby K's collapse, because he remembered looking at his watch, Dr Jayaram and the police realised the swipe data was wrong and that Lucy Letby wouldn't have been with the baby at that time.

Not to worry. "We can't change the data, but we can change the interpretation of it":

nitter.net/LucyLetbyTrials/status/2082349524245270705#m

Just saw all this come up on reddit.

I'm just waiting for the claims that it means nothing because Lucy Letby was in the building somewhere, sneaking around like a cartoon villain. And poor stressed doctors valiantly trying to save babies from a serial killer can't possibly be expected to provide accurate and consistent testimony for a court case....

Oh dear. I think we’re going to need a bigger thread…

There is no need for them to be slow it is obvious if i can work it out then anyone can.

Help her and her mum and dad, what has happened to them is absolutely shocking, why are the police not helping her or the government. Getting it wrong is one thing to ignore it and waste time when she is clearly innocent is absolutely disgraceful. Let her out today.

Letby's legal team really needs to go through all of Jayaram's testimony and fact-check it.

Is anything he said true?

Like I posted on the last thread, if this were a novel, the author would be accused of being too far-fetched to be believable.

Please could I ask out of interest- is anyone who was firmly in the guilty camp starting to have doubts?

From a legal stand, I think it is far too much of a mess and for that reason I dont think it can be a safe conviction. I think a lot of people on here have made reasonable points along those lines. Do I think she is guilty ( not thinking now in the sense in which that word is applied in law) yes,I still think she is. I believe that far too much has been revealed which points to a very disordered, disturbed mind and that she is an extremely sly, manipulative person. I do not believe she was just someone under stress. I think the fact that she always seemed to want to be around the drama of that particular ward,regularly doing extra shifts etc. says a lot. If you look at other healthcare killers from the past, a common theme is the stimulation they get from people being very sick and collapsing and them.being around the drama. . . I also think the kept notes, the scribblings and the apparent over-involvement with certain families is very creepy. I dont think this is a person who broke down due to the stress. I think it's a person with a deeply complex personality..A narcissist who couldnt bear to be wrong or not be at the centre of things, and who carried a well concealed resentment and hatred. So yes, I think she should be released because of the pig's ear of a case. But no I would not want her within a country mile of me if I ever got sick in a hospital. If I am completely wrong, then I am sorry. but I find her obsessive and creepy to the point of it being pathological in the extreme. But, yes, I think she should be released. Paradoxicsl I know.

Unfortunately she is a convicted killer on 15 whole life terms so letting her out can only be done by the courts. The CCRC need to present a recommendation to the Court of Appeal who could then release her on bail pending a hearing, assuming the recommendation is that there were no murders, or possibly a retrial. But we are a long way from that.

I don't want to comment on her family, but there is enough factual information for me to think they might have been quite controlling. This may or may not be working in her favour now.

I also wanted to say that premature babies having collapsed lungs is incredibly common. My DSD had a collapsed lung, caused by being extremely premature and the oxygen treatment she underwent in intensive care. She was 6 months in the NICU and then two years on oxygen therapy and bottles at home.

There is nothing suspicious about any of the babies having collapsed lungs.

Not one single point relates to the scientific evidence around the actual so-called murders.

Where does this cod psychologising leave you if there were no murders?

Ofcourse they have doubts they know she is completely innocent.

But they are embarrassed about getting this totally wrong.

I do not really understand why right or wrong or who said what is so important anymore, who cares, shes innocent get her out of jail and try to help her.

She was convicted by the most obvious witch-hunt any of us have ever seen or hopefully will see, it was a farce, a joke, a shambles, people involved should be embarrassed by their behaviour. They are a disgrace.

I could not care less about procedure, rules, previous cases or whatever, it is time to help this woman the case has been ripped apart by people that know their stuff... get her out let her live with her family on a tag whatever it takes stop punishing a completely innocent woman for crimes that we now know never happened.

I agree. But I don't see how it can be done.

@ByAzureMentor I don't disagree with the sentiment, but it could set a very dangerous precedent that could be exploited by some who are guilty. We need to follow due process, as frustrating and damaging to Letby as that is, if she is innocent, which is looking more and more likely by the day.

I dont think it's 'cod psychologising' to have an 'ick 'reaction to what has been reported of her personality. I wasn't saying that should have been used in the trial. I've learnt that much on here and am willing to admit that. I'm just saying I find her weiird enough to have serious doubts about her innocence, and I think I'm allowed to have an opinion on that. I'm not the trial judge so you dont need to worry sbout it. I'll tell you what, if I were in hospital and I found out some healthcare professional I'd engaged with was looking me up on FB months later, I'd be bloody freaked out. Certain standards are expected of healthcare professional and she seems to have crossed a load of lines. I wouldnt want someone treating me who seemed to display such a poor work- life balance either. Whether she has done what she is accused of or not, I dont think she should ever have been employed as a nurse. She doesnt seem.remotely suitable to me.

I do actually think given the sheer amount of evidence to suggest that those who helped convict her were not truthful there is an argument for her being released on a strict licence while it is looked into further.

I know, it won’t happen. But it should.

I dont understand Evans saying the notes weren't relevant. My baby was really poorly at 4 months old and when he was admitted to hospital the staff wanted to know everything about the pregnancy and birth in case there any links.