Lucy Letby (2)

[Oftenaddled]

Not only the second thread of course, but maybe with them filling so fast it is time to start numbering them?

The COA didn't say it was 99.99% air embolism.

It said

It was therefore consistent with, but not diagnostic of, air having been administered to Baby A and that Dr Marnerides identified the presence of an air bubble at post-mortem histology of the brain and lungs. He said that the presence of the air bubbles was highly suggestive of air embolus, although not conclusive.

This is why Shoo Lee's theories will never stand up to scrutiny.

When alternative explanations can be provided by experts and the evidence in court was not conclusive then there's a very real chance that this may be considered an unsafe verdict.
Shoo Lee and the panel don't actually need to prove it, they just need to shed enough doubt on the expert evidence that convicted her.

Jo Mcpartland has since revised their stance on that.

Who’s not a Facebook addict? When I was bored I used to look up clients (legal sec) especially the ones buying huge houses or said they worked in glam jobs, I was nosey! Lots of people hoard things like paper too.

It’s almost like the police or papers are saying despite the cuddly toys, pet cats, funny loving cards and trinkets, that she couldn’t have been nice at all, evil hidden deep Inside her, looking for hidden meanings when in reality she wasn’t that interesting, a bit boring even, hard working, had hobbies and friends but certainly didn’t have serial killers books or a devil worshiping shrine (they’d have reported on that!).

@Firefly1987 still making me lol.

@Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain these were her patients families! It's an abuse of trust. I mean more power to ya if during your worst time losing a family member you wouldn't mind some "nosy" nurse who was there when they died facebook stalking you to see "how you're doing".

I'm not sure how people can just declare she's almost certainly normal (despite all the evidence to the contrary) when I didn't think it was supposed to matter what she was like anyway. Chris Morris's entire reason for writing his book appears to be "she doesn't fit the serial killer profile"-oh well case closed then! This is a case of gullible people being taken in by a manipulative narcissist who masked as normal whilst committing the most heinous crimes imaginable.

People are nosy. [[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmpz1mxzd9o?app-referrer=deep-link www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmpz1mxzd9o?app-referrer=deep-link is another example of behaviour that is inappropriate but a long way from murder, and the fact that it’s multiple people is suggestive that it isn’t uncommon.

It's possible to object to a behaviour and also accept that it's common. The one doesn't preclude the other.

Can't see anything remotely funny in the past couple pages but glad something's giving you a laugh

This.

Letby should not have searched patients' families; I think we all agree on that, but your faux outrage is OTT @Firefly1987. Unless someone has a 3rd party add-on installed on their FB, which I'm not even sure exists, how would anyone know that their nurse has browsed their FB?

Also, no one, not even FB, forces you to post to the wider public. If you don't want strangers/ramdom nurses/the bloke behind the till at Starbucks to see what you're posting on FB, then don't make public posts.

Sorry, haven’t got used to how to quote on here yet but want to post my support for the posts by IonianNerveGrip and Frequency above

Agree about the faux outrage, especially from someone coming from Tattle where many have a special interest in prolific stalking.

I looked on there extremely rarely just to get a glimpse of what they were saying and how they were twisting the news stories coming out, and they knew everyones details, they were even stalking Dr U's wife. Also they do such much stalking on there that they seemed to have solved the mystery of why Lucy Letby looked up baby K so long after she died, God only knows who else they were looking up in all of the threads.

The Telegraph have picked up the Jayaram story.

https://archive.ph/jHVWN

I agree completely. It’s so hypocritical of the posters who come from Tattle and r/LucyLetby to criticise someone for being weird, odd, ‘iffy’ etc. when you consider the degree of online stalking that Tattle is infamous for and the extreme personal crusade driving the sub. I mean talk about pot/kettle.

I’m not even really on board with the idea she shouldn’t have been looking. It’s always been a free choice about how much personal information to put online and I think it’s human nature to have a look if something or someone pops into your mind. I never go on facebook any more but last week my daughter asked me to post something on instagram, which then asked me if I wanted to share to FB. I shared it, someone I worked with years ago liked it, I looked at her page and from there wondered about what had happened to a few other people and away we go…half an hour down a rabbit hole. It’s literally designed to draw you in and be addictive. I don’t believe all the po faced high and mighty MN posters who wouldn’t dream of having a look.

That is *very^ true re tattle

Thanks for posting the archived version.

Yes, thank you @kkloo awful to manipulate evidence in that way.

Agree that overdoing it on Facebook is a. very common and b. not indicative of someone being a murderer.

The huge numbers of healthcare professionals searching the nhs records of Preston Davy, Nicola Bulley and the victims of the Southport murders are far worse since they are strictly prohibited from accessing health data of people who aren’t their patients but I doubt they’re murderers either.

Those cases were very interesting, in a worrying way. NHS clinicians must know full well what the consequences can be and yet they still did it in work, on work time and computers. It seems quite common for people not to be able to help themselves, even when it's genuinely against the rules and the people concerned would've had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Neither of which applies to public social media profiles that people can access outside of their working lives.

That’s so risky as well, they know their access can be seen, or they should know. Do we assume they’re all psychologically unhealthy that their compulsion was so strong they were willing to risk their jobs and prosecution? Or were they inquisitive and thoughtless?

Yes and their curiosity is actually illegal and a criminal offense, Lucy Letby’s Facebook curiosity is not illegal.

More and more evidence is being exposed which proves this was an unsafe conviction, it’s a disgrace how long it is taking to review the new evidence.

Yes, very good point that their activity was illegal as well as prohibited professionally and the access they had via nhs records was to a huge amount of confidential and sensitive data.

I really don't understand how anyone can be so confident that these convictions are in any way safe after the door swipe debacle. This is part of the alleged mountains of circumstantial evidence "proving" Lucy Letbys presence at every critical incident. It is fundamentally flawed from an evidential point of view, and Jayarams accounts cannot be relied upon. This alone should form the basis of grounds for appeal.

You can't just wave it away as an "oops" moment given the gravity of the case.

I will always believe the re-trial for Baby K was motivated in part by wanting to deflect from the alarms being sounded overall. It actively hindered investigation using the cloak of "the law" and reporying restrictions. She already had a formidable sentence, why was it necessary to hammer home another? And I believe the judges instructions need to be scrutinised as well. In what world is it "justice" to convict someone because of previous convictions and without evidence of a mirderous act?

Maybe I'm wrong, but in other cases after the fact it has been revealed that defendents had "form" or previous convictions that were never alluded to in court because it may bias a verdict. I appreciate that the high profile of this case posed a problem in that regard, but surely the instructions should have included a warning to analyse the individual case of Baby K based on available evidence alone?

And people are surprised when the screaming of "stitch up" starts? It all seems to be a massive own goal.

And if these leaks turn out to be the tip of an iceberg, I suspect there's going to be a dearth of available lifeboats to save certain careers.

A lot of it was about kicking Letby as much and as hard as possible. It was the same when Keir Starmer started making noises about forcing criminals to listen to their sentences. It isn’t about justice in any way, it’s about appeasing a baying mob.

Agreed. I'm also pretty certain searching patients on FB is not strictly prohibited by the NHS.

Their social media policy is long and varies slightly from Trust to Trust and role to role, but I don't ever remember seeing anything about looking people up on FB/SM, and I've skimmed through a few of them from different roles when helping people establish if they can post X, Y, or Z to promote their charity/health club, etc.

There's a massive section on what you can post on FB and how you can interact with the public, but nothing at all about what you can search. After all, how would it be found out? Letby's social media use was discovered by the police during an investigation. I know every single one of you on this thread has searched for things you'd rather the police not find and publish to mainstream media.

You argue that searching patients and their families falls under the broad catchall "social media must be used professionally," but you could also argue that searching for people and catching a snapshot of their lives is what FB was created for; therefore, using at such is not unprofessional.

The act of searching on social media / the internet is in itself neutral. It is information placed willingly in the public domain. If there is no nefarious action following such searches, no reacting, commenting, threats etc then ascribing motive is very much a "length of a piece of string" exercise.

Also FB has tight privacy settings one can utilise, which I currently implement myself.

If this case hadn't happened, no-one would ever have been the wiser. Once again it's an exercise in building purely circumstantial events into something to bolster the prosecutions case and deflect from the medical evidence.

Yes agree on the retrial and probable motivation behind it. It’s true also that normally previous convictions are not allowed to be disclosed and the trial being based on the relevant evidence. I was mystified by why the judge was allowed to say what he did. Then when you add the unprecedented sentencing which I believe no one has come up with a justification for. It all looks very witch hunty and vindictive doesn’t it. I find it completely baffling how serious people were persuaded by such an absolute crock quite frankly. It was a train wreck.