Lucy Letby

[kkloo]

New thread as the last one has filled up.

I was really concerned to find out that she was frequently made to look like she was lying on the stand, when in reality she was confused - one of the examples of this was the wearing of pyjamas versus a leisure suit. The Netflix documentary confirmed that had been arrested in both, but made to sound like she had been lying

Barristers are very skilled at confusing people and making them sound like they are lying about minor points, when in reality they are confused and memory is very inaccurate and suggestible

Lee's task at the appeal court was to speak to how particular evidence was used in the first trial, not to review the cases, which he hadn't seen them.

The appeal court decided his evidence wasn't relevant, based on some fairly illogical observations. They've got things wrong before and they will do it again.

There is no way that legal aid would have funded experts of Lee's calibre to do a full review of the cases, and it's highly unlikely the court of appeal would have accepted these reviews, so Myers could never have proposed to use Shoo Lee to best effect at that point. Fortunately, Lee was moved to volunteer his services free of charge and to create a panel of other volunteers to help him. It is a really unusual situation - I think people underestimate just how eminent these experts are

Here's the link, he's updated the posts with the latest information on the withheld notes.

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby

Hmmm… mumsnet is a funny place.

Lucy Letby, who is young, blonde and pretty, and probably looks like the girl next door/someones daughter, can’t possibly be guilty, despite being convicted.

Micheal Jackson, on the other hand, who was a black man, and a bit odd looking, is guilty as sin, despite not having ever been convicted.

She’s innocent. I’ve read enough docs on the case to know this.

Look at some testimonies given against Michael Jackson and I’m sorry but he’s more likely to be guilty than not. That’s if he was black or white. Lucy Letby can’t help the way she looks or is.

What, you mean like Ravi Jayaram who gave conflicting testimony and has a crucial email floating about that contradicts what he said in court about "catching her red handed" - which he didn't ?

Mumsnet has eight million users. I'm sure many of them are interested in both cases, many in neither, many in one or the other.

The commonality is that in both cases, there are people who believe a court got things wrong. Courts do get things wrong, so it is reasonable to consider this.

Mumsnet is not atypical in having users who believe Lucy Letby's conviction is unsafe. Look at the comments under any recent newspaper article. Look at the editorial position of the Guardian, Observer, Telegraph, Mail on Sunday, Sun.

But most importantly, consider that Lucy Letby's case is unusual because the expert doubt has driven it. There's a good article on that here: https://theconversation.com/why-calls-to-review-lucy-letbys-case-are-so-different-from-other-miscarriage-of-justice-campaigns-239465 These experts, of course, are from a range of ethnicities and backgrounds. I don't see them all risking their reputations and wasting their time because a white British woman is the convict.

How does that make her guilty?

I think the misgivings grow with every passing scrutiny. It is becoming more plausible that she was a scapegoat to cover up major organisational failings. It's very very concerning.

Obviously there's a lot of strong feelings around this case and ill admit I haven't read much around it. I suspect there's reasonable doubt but please can someone tell me why she might have had all the hospital notes neatly filed away? It is forbidden to take these personal details away from the hospital. If I recall she said she accidentally put them in her pocket and forgot? Not plausible at all is it?

MJ paid $20 million to a family to make the court case go away. That’s not the actions of an innocent man.
Have yet to see anyone defending Prince Andrew as his mum paying off his victim has never been seen as anything other than an admission of guilt.

Handover "sheets" are not hospital records in the same way you think. Many nurses have said that they do get taken home in error. The Netflix documentary gave misinformation about this whole thing. I don't think keeping them in random bags in locations such as under the bed or in the garage constitutes "neatly filed". If you are genuinely interested in the case, there are plenty of resources online to explain why so many people, including legal and medical professionals are questioning the validity of the evidence and the conviction.

Seriously absolutely embarrassed for you. She had 250 in her possession. The notion that that’s normal for a nurse is just so far off the scale. Why are you so desperate for her to be innocent that you resort to mental gymnastics like this?

Because her evidence was so incredibly evasive and self serving. It was quite excruciating listening to the reconstruction of the cross examination (on the trial podcast). The extent to which she repeatedly lied and lied and when caught out, claimed not to be able to remember.

Anyway, she remains locked up so I am glad the families of the babies received justice and I feel bad for them having to witness this level of bullshit from people so desperate for her to be innocent.

Like Dr Jayaram who didn’t seem to “remember” that she’d called him for help with baby K…

…when his 2017 email (sent before the Police investigation) stated that she HAD done so, as revealed at Thirlwall in 2024.

He stuck to his “didn’t call” story at both trials! Is he a murderer @Glowingup?

@MistressoftheDarkSide

What, you mean like Ravi Jayaram who gave conflicting testimony and has a crucial email floating about that contradicts what he said in court about "catching her red handed" - which he didn't?

Exactly. See this one thing on it's own might not be enough to cast doubt on her convictions. But when you add up all the anomalies that have since occurred in the case, the veracity of the accusations against her seem less plausible.

No of course he’s not because he’s not being accused of murder and nobody has suggested that. When you are accused of murder and all your evidence is self serving and evasive there are various conclusions to be drawn from that. Very different to whether you think a witness is good or not.

There is nothing ‘lol’ about this case - you have said that twice now and your flippant and quite nasty attitude is telling.

You may have decided that her conviction is completely safe and not at all questionable (against mounting evidence to the contrary) but thankfully there are more objective and better informed people working on this to ensure that a miscarriage of justice has not occurred.

I hope you are not as resistant to new and relevant information if you ever serve on a jury.

We need a "truth machine" that can read brain waves and determine whether someone is lying or not.

It’s fairly normal - in my first year of working on the wards, I took my ward list home almost every day, sometimes to make sure that I didn’t forget to do something and sometimes as I just went home with it in my pocket. It is all anonymised and very boring list of jobs, such as TWOC, order X-ray or NBM etc. You have to write lots of reflections as part of training, so need to keep some patient details to write up cases. In Covid, huge parts of the NHS were working with patient details in their homes

“Good or not”?!

He (in my honestly held opinion) should have been prosecuted for perjury. That he hasn’t been is yet more evidence of how broken our justice system is.

just out of interest, which of the numerous miscarriages of justice that have been unearthed over the last 10-20 years do you agree were actually wrongful convictions?

They were all convicted (at least) once and undoubtedly their evidence looked “self-serving” to the juries that convicted them. Which, by your standard, means they must (eventually, after too many years of lost liberty) have been exonerated by mistake.

I’m not defending anyone. I am suggesting that there is growing evidence that her conviction is unsafe.

Why would you be content for her to be in prison if she didn’t kill those babies?

Can you give some examples of self serving or evasive answers at all?

What is self serving in this context? Denying killing children?

What is evasive? Not remembering details from 2-9 years ago? Responding "no comment" as advised by lawyers?

I'm not clear on why you think there was anything particularly surprising and incriminating in her answers, but you keep using these words

Of which only a handful mentioned babies included on the indictments. What is the explanation for the other 230-something handover sheets she had?

The only thing this is evidence of is Letby's hoarding impulse.

I can't remember how many handover sheets I accidentally took home. You start your shift, read the handover, and if there is something you might need to refer to later in your shift, you stick it in your pocket, and then 5 million other things happen, and you forget all about the handover sheet and the half a dozen other notes you scribbled on paper towels and shoved into your pocket.

I'm not a hoarder, so the handover sheets I took home either fell behind the washing machine after being rescued from my pocket and left on top of the washer to deal with later or were used as kindling for the garden incinerator.

Letby hoards paper, so her version of leaving it on top of the washer to deal with later was to shove them into various carrier bags around the house and forget about them.