If you were previously on the fence about Lucy Letby’s guilt, have the Thirlwall findings swayed you either way?

[KwellsBells]

I personally have always thought she is guilty, and even more so since the report findings were published.

YABU - still on the fence/ still believe she is innocent

YANBU - she’s guilty

Most of those reasons make her look guilty as sin.

The judge wouldn't allow the defence to defend each theory separately.

Why does an innocent woman need to do this?

The expert couldn't refute all of the theories put forward in that they would have to say that some were feasible.

Well yeah. Hardly a ringing endorsement for her innocence.

The defence didn't have any experts suitable.

Hard to believe

LL wouldn't agree to the defence putting any experts forward.

Maybe ask yourself why she was so scared of putting experts forward

If you were pro LL's inncence you could say exactly the opposite.
The truth is that it only makes her look guilty/innocent depending on your view.

If you take a step back you can see both sides for how this would look.

But we don't know the reasons and although LL wpould have the final say we don't know how she was advised on this.

You'll need to ask them.

They've already explained why.

I was wondering what your theory was on it.

Because they disagreed with the other doctors. Like the coroner failing to detect murder till it became obvious what was going on. She was protected for far too long and allowed to continue. Dont forget Shipman got away with possibly hundreds of murders before he was caught, I'm convinced she's guilty. You're convinced she's innocent. So we disagree. People often do. I don't need to argue about her guilt. She is a convicted murderer and is in prison.

I didn't ask you to argue about her guilt and I fully accept that people disagree on guilt or innocence so I'm not sure what all of that was about....

I just asked a question about what your theory was about them speaking out now. So it seems your answer is that they disagree.

So you know now that many disagree and are willing to put their names out there and also many have prepared reports for the CCRC to try to help her get a rertrial, so it's odd to still try to use the fact there was no experts at trial as proof she can't be defended, because by the looks of things, if there is a retrial then it looks like the prosecution side who are going to struggle to bring experts, not the defence.

I don't think it has anything to do with the way someone looks at the case. They're just all very telling reasons in themselves as to her guilt. I doubt that Ben Myers advised her to not have any medical experts whilst thinking his client was innocent. He probably had a very good idea she's not. Even if he did advise her on it, she could go against him. That's most likely what she did when she took the stand because I doubt he told her that was a good idea.

Big if.

What about Dewi Evans' reasons for his evidence helping send an innocent woman down for life? He just pretended there were murders did he, for the pay out? Because that's believable.

We know that dewi has form for making the evidence fit the crime and that he was never an impartial expert.

All of this is just your opinion, and shouldn't be put forward as being a fact.

@FrippEnos would you like Letby to be freed and reinstated? Would you let her care for your baby?

I see the usual gang are back defending her! I’d bet my house that none of them would want her looking after their own baby!!!

And yet, one minute before this post you had literally just said “We know that dewi has form for making the evidence fit the crime and that he was never an impartial expert”!

Yes, I would and yes I would. With the obvious caveat that I didn’t tend to hand my babies over to strangers, if somehow a parallel world could exist where I was aware what she’d been accused of but the investigation went no further and she was still practicing as a nurse.

I am quite satisfied that she would present no risk.

This is where people over-emphasise the personal.

I want convictions to rely on logic and science, not hyperbole, guesswork and bluster. This has nothing to do with my hypothetical babysitting choices.

I've no reason to think Lucy Letby wouldn't have been a suitable babysitter back in day, but whether she is mentally fit for the role now, I couldn't possibly know.

I don't see that her being reinstated is relevant enough to discuss. Let's assume she's cleared of all crimes tomorrow. It's still not happening.

For one thing, she lost her NMC registration. There's a process to be restored, but it's not something that happens automatically even if the reason you were initially struck off is a wrongful conviction. Which is the only sensible way, when you think about it. Just because you were the victim of an injustice doesn't mean that injustice hasn't had an impact on you, and maybe that impact means you can't be a clinician any more.

You have to show that you've kept up to date with practice, explain how you plan to do any updating you need and also state how you plan to get back into practice. She's apparently got PTSD, been in prison for years and couldn't go anywhere near a hospital ward or clinical settings because weirdos and rubberneckers would flood the place. There's just no way she's going to meet those criteria.

I'd be amazed if returning to nursing was something Letby would ever consider. It's not a possibility that needs to be considered, imo.

That would be due to the letter sent by another judge stating that.

But you do you.

😬

Probably not but then she was determined to come back to the unit when 7 consultants all thought she was a serial killer. Didn't seem to really faze her. But the point still stands-it's a hypothetical question, and some people are trying to avoid answering it.

She hasn't even got an appeal yet. And has been turned down twice already. Yet here we are debating on whether she might return to nursing. She is a convicted seial killer. Let's not get too ahead of ourselves.

@Viviennemary you're right-we could just as well say exoneration isn't a possibility we need to consider while we're at it. Never mind returning to nursing.
She's got absolutely no chance of either.

regardless of whether she murdered any babies or not, are you seriously saying you’d let her look after your child after the reports of the cold and callous way she interacted with various parents?! You’re crackers.

Probably not but then she was determined to come back to the unit when 7 consultants all thought she was a serial killer. Didn't seem to really faze her. But the point still stands-it's a hypothetical question, and some people are trying to avoid answering it.

These things aren't comparable.

Even in the most favourable hypothetical exoneration circumstances (immediate and with all convictions quashed) the practical obstacles would make return to nursing implausible. However much she wanted to. She wouldn't be in charge of whether she got restored to the register, that isn't how the NMC process works.

(sorry, quote function ate the post!)

There was no letter sent by another judge (I think you may be getting confused about the LJ Jackson judgment). But you do you.