The investigation of Lucy Letby on Netflix

[TheRozzers]

Anyone watched it yet? It’s a really excellent documentary with loads of footage of her police interviews.

You see the police asking her questions about those ‘confession’ notes.

I won’t put spoilers in the OP but I’d love to hear what others made of her responses.

Mid way through I thought she’s 💯 guilty but by the end I’m really not sure. A lot points to her being innocent.

I feel for the parents of those babies so much, the uncertainty must be horrendous 😞

Court of appeal also rejected Andrew Malkinsons appeal twice and the CCRC failed to refer his case a further two times despite the existence of DNA evidence that conclusively exonerated him at least 10’years before his eventual release. It would be nice to think that the courts don’t make mistakes…

Unless you've been in the situation where you've been accused of something like that and falsely locked up then you have no way of knowing how you would or wouldn't react.

But it is 100% normal behaviour to care more about yourself and what you lost rather than the victims in that situation, to the point where I would highly doubt that it has EVER happened that in that situation that a person falsely accused was more upset about the other people involved than they were about the injustice that they had experienced

The only time it may happen would be if you were falsely accused of killing your own child or something like that, because obviously that loss would be your own loss, but aside from that, the normal reaction is to care more about yourself.

Dismissing it as the 'man she fancied' is very simplistic, they clearly had some kind of flirtation going on and he definitely lied about her when he applied for anonymity, it might not be that she cried because she fancied him but the sense of betrayal from someone you were close to, someone who knew you, who lied about you to distance himself from you, that would be very upsetting to think that that person who you were close to believed that about you, when you knew it wasn't true.

This is dismissive. It wasn’t about a ma she fancied or a room. It was about a life lost and that’s LLs life as well as the babies.

But in any event, she might be a complete tool of a person; selfish, rude, hostile and mean. I don’t think she is, but she might be. Her character is not on trial, though. The only relevant question is whether she murdered the babies or not.

In case it helps, she cried over the babies too, including in court - the footage you are seeing is selective (and obviously there is none from the time when babies actually died)

I find it very interesting that the prosecution tried to pretend she didn't. It shows they knew it would prejudice the jury against her. They knew she was heavily medicated of course, and anxious. It was a very manipulative stance.

Image to load - quick sample of reports of Lucy Letby crying

I think the thing that’s emerged time and again in cases where there has been a miscarriage of justice is that it’s nigh on impossible to get the courts to admit a mistake might have been made.

The sort of ‘well the jury found her guilty, so she is’ thoughts are echoed in their attitudes and that’s very worrying to me, because mistakes and errors of judgment do happen, coincidences occur and new evidence emerges.

not Repeatedly and his case is very different from LL - one single incident - forensic evidence that pointed away from him - his case will only make the ccrc more thorough and the court of appeal were right to reject his earlier appeals - there was no DNA evidence or new suspect at the time

failing horrifically once does not equal always will - it’s not logically sound to say they will get LLs wrong

I don’t think anyone is arguing that the prisons are full of wronged individuals.

But this particular case is hugely concerning and goes beyond Letby and her guilt, which doesn’t undermine the horrors of it for her or for the families of the babies who died.

It has exposed a level of corruption in the backbones of British society - our policing, our judicial system, the NHS, the press. And every single one of us needs this held properly to account.

If Letby is guilty, this needs to be proven, once and for all, to remove the questions surrounding this case.

If she is not then it is self explanatory.

I'm not hugely familiar with the case but my understanding is that they found out about the evidence not long after refusing the second appeal, and refused to look into it for cost reasons.

Being upset about the babies who lost their lives and fighting for your freedom are two different things. Assuming innocence, you can feel upset about the babies and also upset about being unfairly locked up. It's not an either/or. I think anyone faced with being locked up for the rest of their days would have their mind mostly taken up with that, since there would be nothing they could do at that point to bring the babies back.

At the point at which your freedom is hanging in the balance, for the rest of your days, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would be more upset about the babies than the imminent loss of freedom that's bearing down on them like an unending dark night. I mean, good for you if you really think that in such a situation, you would really be less upset about that than the babies, but somehow I highly doubt it.

I would be very surprised if the prisons are "full" of wronged individuals, considering that there's DNA evidence and that the entire country is blanketed by cameras. I think most criminals are exactly where they're meant to be. I'm sure there are some who are wrongly convicted, but I don't think it's common.

Yes they didn’t investigate thoroughly enough

not sure about the timing though

this case is very different to LLs

Without wishing to sound belligerent, did you read my post? I said that no one is arguing the prisons are full of wronged individuals; ergo, I imagine most in prison deserve to be there.

But courts do get things wrong, and as such, there should be a transparent and a rapid response to matters when they happen. It’s already been a year since the press conference, and more and more emerges every day but still, silence.

They were wrong to reject it in fact. The eye witness evidence was unreliable and the witnesses were criminals whose records were not disclosed to the defence. He was still innocent and wrongly convicted all that time whether the rules say he should have been referred or not.

it is equally not logically sound to suggest, as you appear to do, that they are infallible. There are loads of miscarriages of justice in various areas I’ve just happened to mention Malkinson because it’s so egregious and so obvious that he was failed but there are lots of similar cases with all kinds of different failings; non disclosure, corrupt police officers, forced confessions and on and on.

Right at the start of the prog, the police tell her to get up and get dressed. But they end up taking her away in her dressing gown. Why?

Yeah, her saying goodbye to her cat was quite telling. She knew she might not see it again. And why were she and her cats staying at her parents?

I'd never doubted her guilt. It's the taking home trophies (discharge sheets) and looking up the families on facebook. She enjoyed it.

MONSTER! Remember at least once she didn't even have the decency to come into the dock.

And her parents annoy me.

None of that is evidence of murder though. And here lies the issue.

Not saying at all they are infallible exactly the opposite

I just don’t agree that LLs case is one of them

That’s what bothers me. Andrew Malkinson was tarred as a horrible violent rapist for 2 decades just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and he isn’t the only one by any means. If you read up on his case you can see how he initially was completely open with the police and trusted fully that he would be exonerated because of course he knew he didn’t do it and then gradually it dawns on him that he is trapped in a nightmare where no one cares about the truth. He’s clearly such a nice man when you see him interviewed and just completely broken now. The blanket assumption that the courts can’t be wrong has to be open to question.

I took her "flatness" in the interviews as her being medicated and just resigned to what was happening. Don't forget, this investigation went on for years. At some point, she will have become resigned to the fact that no one believed anything she said and everything she said would be twisted, as evidenced by the female officer who said she had to be lying because she didn't remember exactly what she'd been doing on x day, three years ago.

The door swipe data was useless. I've worked in a few hospitals/care settings as a carer and in IT. In all of them, tailgating through doors was a big issue. It is human nature to be polite and helpful. If someone asks you to hold the door, 9 out of 10 people would do it. Plus, there are always areas in hospitals where you can swipe in one door and leave by an unsecured door.

We used to run regular cybersecurity tests in the last hospital I worked in. Allowing people to tailgate through doors was an area the staff never passed on if it was a member of staff they knew and rarely passed on if it was a stranger with an ID badge, despite regular emails reminding people not to open doors, even for colleagues. We once had a cybersecurity specialist tailgate his way into a ward, unplug a PC, and carry it back to the IT office, via the carpark outside, without being challenged. All he had to say was, "IT sent me."

Anyone literally anyone, could have been on that ward at any time. Letby could have swiped in one door, left by another door, and gone home to bed, and still be in the ward according to the door swipe data.

Yes. If you just browse miscarriages of justice since 1970, you find all sorts of causes and problems, but of course they were all initially convicted. This list is not even complete and has hundreds

https://evidencebasedjustice.exeter.ac.uk/miscarriages-of-justice-registry/the-cases/case-search/

The CCRC has referred almost 900 cases back to the Court of Appeal since it was founded in the 1990s. They will all have been convicted by a jury convinced of the evidence, and except in rare circumstances, they will all have failed at their first request to the Court of Appeal.

It happens. We have a system to investigate it. Whatever you think of Lucy Letby's innocence or guilt, the fact that a jury found her guilty or the Court of Appeal refused her application just aren't arguments against the possibility of a miscarriage of justice

She is FACTUALLY guilty imho.

Whether she has been proven guilty in LAW is not for me to say. But certainly taking paperwork home and stalking the families online IS admissible circumstantial evidence, otherwise it wouldn't have been allowed to be heard at trial.

And enough circumstantial evidence can prove a case.

(The opposite to "circumstantial evidence" is eyewitness evidence which is notoriously unreliable anyway. It's not true that circumstantial evidence is always weak evidence)

I have lost ZERO sleep over her being in jail. The only Q for me is JUST HOW MANY babies she killed.

She was, imho, an inadequate silly immature girl* who liked a bit of drama in her life and to feel important and got addicted to it.

*eg the stuffed animals, the childish diary and being dependent on her parents

After seeing what happened with OJ Simpson, and some more-recent cases like Karen Read, I think many juries are thick as shit.

Yes she’s already been convicted and that’s how it stands

circumstantial evidence becomes cumalitive and it’s very powerful as I understand it and isn’t negative

@PithyViewer I used to work in the court system. Very few jurors even take many notes whilst listening. I think we vastly overestimate how competent they are.

Think how thick the average person in the street it - half of people are thicker than that!

OJ wasn’t the juries fault - they would have been guided in how to make their decision - that was a complete fuck up by then police that got him off - the shoes - the glove!

we all know it was him