Jump to content

Lucy Letby - Nurse on trial for murdering babies.


numnuts

Recommended Posts

Before I forget to add this; it occurred to me that before Convid things were moving towards almost getting rid of trial by jury, and then during Convid it looked like that aim was one step closer? 

 

Regarding the trial of Lucy Letby something felt off for a lot of us. That gut feeling, especially after a whiff of the media coverage. 

 

Lucy not appearing for sentencing dominated the news headlines and the conversations on radio chat shows, which felt like a deliberate distraction. 

 

The basis for an appeal getting immediate attention in the Mail makes we wonder if this is leading to a pre planned problem, reaction, solution ... but what the goal might be I don't know yet. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Observations said:

Before I forget to add this; it occurred to me that before Convid things were moving towards almost getting rid of trial by jury, and then during Convid it looked like that aim was one step closer?

 

The court system is in tatters after convid, with delays and cases going on for years apparently. Which is always worse for genuine victims.  Then there were ill timed barrister strikes to exacerbate the delays. So it's like they are currently engineering it to become completely broken and unworkable so they can introduce a new system maybe? Perhaps they want a high profile miscarriage to prove or justify the unworkability ? Solution: A.I judges, probation and solicitors maybe 🤔 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Malbec said:

 

The court system is in tatters after convid, with delays and cases going on for years apparently. Which is always worse for genuine victims.  Then there were ill timed barrister strikes to exacerbate the delays. So it's like they are currently engineering it to become completely broken and unworkable so they can introduce a new system maybe? Perhaps they want a high profile miscarriage to prove or justify the unworkability ? Solution: A.I judges, probation and solicitors maybe 🤔 

 

I think that sounds like a 'good' idea. At the same time they could highlight the failings off the NHS, and make parents, and everyone else, scared of hospitals. 

 

I recall reading about A.I. marking school work, and scanning job applications. As someone who values human contact and decision making, I hate the thought of the computer says no!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Observations said:

Before I forget to add this; it occurred to me that before Convid things were moving towards almost getting rid of trial by jury, and then during Convid it looked like that aim was one step closer? 

 

Regarding the trial of Lucy Letby something felt off for a lot of us. That gut feeling, especially after a whiff of the media coverage. 

 

Lucy not appearing for sentencing dominated the news headlines and the conversations on radio chat shows, which felt like a deliberate distraction. 

 

The basis for an appeal getting immediate attention in the Mail makes we wonder if this is leading to a pre planned problem, reaction, solution ... but what the goal might be I don't know yet. 

 

7 hours ago, Malbec said:

 

The court system is in tatters after convid, with delays and cases going on for years apparently. Which is always worse for genuine victims.  Then there were ill timed barrister strikes to exacerbate the delays. So it's like they are currently engineering it to become completely broken and unworkable so they can introduce a new system maybe? Perhaps they want a high profile miscarriage to prove or justify the unworkability ? Solution: A.I judges, probation and solicitors maybe 🤔 

This 'rings true' for me. It is interesting that even those 'not awake' seem to be having strong 'intuitive' feelings about this case, and in particularly the lack of real proof and evidence. It is like a lot instinctively know that the rule of law and justice, was not met here, and of course 'justice', 'law' and 'trials' have and are a massive fabric of our history and reality, and part of the sense of 'safety' that the fabric of society is built upon. So it feels like a lot are having a visceral reaction to the sense of this verdict, not meeting the criteria of fairness, which affects us all. This time it is Lucy Letby, but it could be any of us, which I think is what is causing this reaction in many, even those 'not awake'. A lot of this is on the unconscious level of course. This is possibly why so many are fascinated by 'true crime'; we all want to try to understand the psychology of a killer, but we also read/watch these things to comfort ourselves in the knowledge that 'justice was served', so that we can retain (even unconsciously) a perception that law is fair and just. 

 

So it does feel like this is a potential PRS scenario again. Every 'institution' and 'constitutional fabric of society' is being eroded and quickly, we should not be surprised that the court of 'law' is also being eroded. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BornFreeNowAgain said:

 

This 'rings true' for me. It is interesting that even those 'not awake' seem to be having strong 'intuitive' feelings about this case, and in particularly the lack of real proof and evidence. It is like a lot instinctively know that the rule of law and justice, was not met here, and of course 'justice', 'law' and 'trials' have and are a massive fabric of our history and reality, and part of the sense of 'safety' that the fabric of society is built upon. So it feels like a lot are having a visceral reaction to the sense of this verdict, not meeting the criteria of fairness, which affects us all. This time it is Lucy Letby, but it could be any of us, which I think is what is causing this reaction in many, even those 'not awake'. A lot of this is on the unconscious level of course. This is possibly why so many are fascinated by 'true crime'; we all want to try to understand the psychology of a killer, but we also read/watch these things to comfort ourselves in the knowledge that 'justice was served', so that we can retain (even unconsciously) a perception that law is fair and just. 

 

So it does feel like this is a potential PRS scenario again. Every 'institution' and 'constitutional fabric of society' is being eroded and quickly, we should not be surprised that the court of 'law' is also being eroded. 

 

Yes I watch loads of these types of programmes, both from the UK and especially the US who produce a vast quantity of them, many high quality where you get to hear from the police investigators, the prosecution and/or defence lawyers and the victims' families (and sometimes the victims if they survived). Also you often see police interviews and courtroom testimony. 

 

In the UK some good ones are 24 Hours in Police Custody or Police Suspect No. 1.  On American TV (which you can download here) some good ones are Accused, Guilty or Innocent, Murder Tapes, American Justice, Interrogation Raw and Accident, Suicide or Murder. I could list a few dozen more. I would recommend these types of programmes to anyone, you don't have to be interested in true crime per se. You learn so much about people watching these, and by learning about others we can also learn about ourselves I think. 

 

I find these sort of programmes fascinating, and one thing you soon learn is that nobody can be sure when someone else is lying. You often hear people say they can tell; even some police investigators believe this! Oh you can tell if they look down when you ask them a difficult question, it shows they are being evasive. Or they scratch their nose, can't keep eye contact, and so on. None of this is true at all. People can often LOOK guilty and turn out to be absolutely innocent (not just unproven guilt, but their actual innocence is proven categorically). And sometimes the ones who come across as entirely sincere, helpful, innocent etc. are guilty. Guilty people can sometimes even pass a lie detector test, and vice versa (which is why they are not allowed in court, they are unreliable - although apparently quite often correct nonetheless). 

 

Some of the cases I saw in American courts were really incredible, sometimes someone who just seems so obviously innocent early on ends up being guilty. There was one I remember where the person so sincerely pleaded their innocence that you would think nobody would disbelieve them (me included), but it turned out they were guilty and they later owned up to it as well. Some people are just incredibly good liars, they lie as easily as breathing. But suffice to say, nothing at all about Lucy Letby's behaviour when arrested, when interviewed by police or in court, proves anything either way about her guilt or innocence. That's all that really needs to be said about it. All the 'experts' saying otherwise are using pseudoscience and jumping to conclusions because it makes them look like they have some special wisdom and knowledge - they don't. 

 

In some of these investigations in America (and it does happen here too), the district attorney and all the police were 100% dead certain the accused was guilty, they laid into them in the interrogations, they treated them terribly, and later... it turned out they were dead wrong. And very tellingly, some of these cops DID NOT CARE they had got it so badly wrong, they were unrepentant. They were even angry that they'd been shown to be wrong, rather than being relieved they hadn't got an innocent person convicted. They hadn't learned to not be so sure to jump to conclusions in future, they hadn't learned to have any humility and that they might be wrong. 

 

I think the British justice system generally works quite well. It's these complex cases based on large amounts of circumstantial evidence, and science that the jury doesn't understand, that it comes up short. 

Edited by dirtydog
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2023 at 12:19 AM, Observations said:

 

I think that sounds like a 'good' idea. At the same time they could highlight the failings off the NHS, and make parents, and everyone else, scared of hospitals

It sounds slightly extreme, but would it go as far as putting women having (more) children?  All the recently publicised maternity ward scandals followed by LL being "every parents worst nightmare" may put them off, rather than opting for the doing it naturally at home option, for example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Murderers are "marketed" in a certain way by the press, such as being evil and cold blooded when it often isn't the case. It could be a stupid drunken argument gone wrong, the involvement of drugs, self defence gone to far, cumulative provocation or just stupidity. Some are obviously sadistic or psychotic, but not all of them. 

 

I'm not suggesting someone who has potentially harmed a child or innocent baby hasn't got something severely wrong with them, but until you actually speak to them (adult murderers) it's hard to get a feel for someone, what they've allegedly done, their version of events and the like. 

 

Obviously, a jury will get that feel during the course of their evidence (if they give it during the trial).  But not all witnesses / Defendants comes across well in the artificial Court situation. Even if you had done nothing wrong and you were a witness who saw something over the road, you would probably be nervous or apprehensive about speaking in court.  

 

LL was criticised (in the media) for stock phrases such as "it was just a normal pattern of behaviour for me".  And for her lack of emotion when talking about the babies that had died but appearing emotional when the Dr appeared behind a screen (WTF) to give evidence. Not sure why the Doctor, a qualified medical professional would need a screen, but that may have affected the jury's interpretation of LL.  Qere tehy having an affair? I'm not sure if that came out in the trial or wasn't allowed to be printed in the press or soemthing, but maybe that impacted on the fall guy/ scapegoat situation for LL if she was threatening to out him, or got a bit obsessive and stalker ish maybe? 

 

Thats an example of us (Joe public) forming an opinion about her being a heartless bitch based on media reporting. Whereas if we were physically they we would possibly form a different opinion. 

 

The files under the bed and the notes, again could look indictative of covering her tracksuit or hiding workout, but some people try and have their shit together at work then take stuff home they shouldn't, breach data rules.  Maybe she was a bit of a weird stalker, or sort of nosey gossipy type looking.people up on Facebook etc. But a lot of it has been twisted by the media.  

 

Also if they were genuinely overworked and understaffed, with consultants barely popping round once a day (as I noticed when staying on neonatal ward) then there may well have been fuck ups due to the mis-management and mistakes get made whrn the staffing conditions aren't fair or in line with what they should be - ratio wise etc.  Maybe she took a file home after re writing it as she realised she hadn't recorded some events? Or something like that. 

 

Be interesting to see what legal support she has with her next steps, if she has the inclination to consider an appeal . 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Malbec said:

Murderers are "marketed" in a certain way by the press, such as being evil and cold blooded when it often isn't the case. It could be a stupid drunken argument gone wrong, the involvement of drugs, self defence gone to far, cumulative provocation or just stupidity. Some are obviously sadistic or psychotic, but not all of them. 

 

I'm not suggesting someone who has potentially harmed a child or innocent baby hasn't got something severely wrong with them, but until you actually speak to them (adult murderers) it's hard to get a feel for someone, what they've allegedly done, their version of events and the like. 

 

Obviously, a jury will get that feel during the course of their evidence (if they give it during the trial).  But not all witnesses / Defendants comes across well in the artificial Court situation. Even if you had done nothing wrong and you were a witness who saw something over the road, you would probably be nervous or apprehensive about speaking in court.  

 

LL was criticised (in the media) for stock phrases such as "it was just a normal pattern of behaviour for me".  And for her lack of emotion when talking about the babies that had died but appearing emotional when the Dr appeared behind a screen (WTF) to give evidence. Not sure why the Doctor, a qualified medical professional would need a screen, but that may have affected the jury's interpretation of LL.  Qere tehy having an affair? I'm not sure if that came out in the trial or wasn't allowed to be printed in the press or soemthing, but maybe that impacted on the fall guy/ scapegoat situation for LL if she was threatening to out him, or got a bit obsessive and stalker ish maybe? 

 

Thats an example of us (Joe public) forming an opinion about her being a heartless bitch based on media reporting. Whereas if we were physically they we would possibly form a different opinion. 

 

The files under the bed and the notes, again could look indictative of covering her tracksuit or hiding workout, but some people try and have their shit together at work then take stuff home they shouldn't, breach data rules.  Maybe she was a bit of a weird stalker, or sort of nosey gossipy type looking.people up on Facebook etc. But a lot of it has been twisted by the media.  

 

Also if they were genuinely overworked and understaffed, with consultants barely popping round once a day (as I noticed when staying on neonatal ward) then there may well have been fuck ups due to the mis-management and mistakes get made whrn the staffing conditions aren't fair or in line with what they should be - ratio wise etc.  Maybe she took a file home after re writing it as she realised she hadn't recorded some events? Or something like that. 

 

Be interesting to see what legal support she has with her next steps, if she has the inclination to consider an appeal . 

 

 

 

Apparently it isn't unusual for staff to take notes home, they aren't supposed to but it isn't evidence of guilt in itself. I think if I was a sadistic serial killer under investigation and I had stuff at home which could make me look guilty, I would be disposing of it ASAP, not leaving it there for the police to find. 

 

About her behaviour and the way she spoke to people, like some of the families didn't like her manner, thought she said some inappropriate things etc. - like I think one of them was they were spending some final moments with their dying or dead child and she tried to hurry them along. On the face of it, this sounds terrible. But what does it mean? I remember what I was like when I was her age at the time (25) and I cringe at some of the stupid things I said or did. This is one of the reasons I think she might not be guilty or at least not fully criminally culpable - in the latter case she might have done some inappropriate things but not out of cold calculated malice but because she was a bit thick or stupid if that makes sense. 

 

I used to be like that. I would say or do things and people would look at me as if to say, 'did you just say that? Why did you say or do that stupid thing.' And then the penny would drop for me, as I was a bit slow, and I would realise oh no I shouldn't have said or done that. It's like autism. You don't pick up on social cues or behave appropriately, and don't realise it. I have improved a lot since then but it taught me to think carefully about how I come across to people so I don't make any more faux pas and embarrass myself or others (or offend others, even worse). And sometimes at work I would do the wrong thing in the course of my work, make a stupid mistake, and then need to have it corrected. It is embarrassing to look back. I was a bit of a late developer and I think Lucy MIGHT have been the same. This means she might have said or done some wrong things but not have grasped what she was doing. And having a sometimes less than ideal bedside manner isn't unheard of among medical professionals after all, some doctors aren't the best in that regard either. 

 

Her behaviour while giving evidence proves she isn't a cold heartless person or she wouldn't have shown such emotion at hearing the voice of the doctor she used to be friends with. This was a painful reminder of the happy life she used to have and which she would have known she is likely never going to have again. Who wouldn't be tearful at that moment? And her answers about things being a normal pattern of behaviour, or another thing she was criticised for, giving yes or no answers to some questions, all of that is ridiculous to me. People are reaching and being intent on reading things into it which just aren't there. Those sort of bland answers are what you are told to give in court, especially if asked a binary question, you should answer yes or no, not say more than you've been asked for. If the barrister wants more then they should rephrase their question. 

 

edit - although when I say rephrase the question, I don't mean like this: (I found this post on another forum)

 

Quote

I saw a reallllllly interesting account from someone who was in court during her cross examination. I'll see if I can find a link. He basically said that whilst she kept this softly spoken, very clinical demeanour throughout, there was ONE brief moment when she snapped at the Barrister cross examining her.
The Barrister mentioned one of the victims' mother's name (wasn't said on this person's video obviously). So he said:
"Victim X's mother has quite an unusual name, doesn't she?
Letby: "Er, yeah..."
Barrister: "Yeah quite long & confusing...Wouldn't you say?"
Letby: "Yes........."
Barrister: "Quite uncommon and different, isn't it?"
Then Letby snapped "YES!!!!!!!" and apparently dropped character and glared at the barrister with what this guy described as a look of evil.

 

In a US court, after the prosecutor asked questions like that then the defence attorney would have objected and said 'asked and answered' and the judge would have told the prosecutor to move on. 

 

If you ask anyone the same question in very slightly different ways repeatedly, with the intent to wind them up, especially someone in a highly stressful position, they are probably going to snap aren't they? But apparently this means you have the 'look of evil'. People just see what they want to see sometimes, don't they? 

Edited by dirtydog
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dirtydog said:

 

Apparently it isn't unusual for staff to take notes home, they aren't supposed to but it isn't evidence of guilt in itself. I think if I was a sadistic serial killer under investigation and I had stuff at home which could make me look guilty, I would be disposing of it ASAP, not leaving it there for the police to find. 

 

About her behaviour and the way she spoke to people, like some of the families didn't like her manner, thought she said some inappropriate things etc. - like I think one of them was they were spending some final moments with their dying or dead child and she tried to hurry them along. On the face of it, this sounds terrible. But what does it mean? I remember what I was like when I was her age at the time (25) and I cringe at some of the stupid things I said or did. This is one of the reasons I think she might not be guilty or at least not fully criminally culpable - in the latter case she might have done some inappropriate things but not out of cold calculated malice but because she was a bit thick or stupid if that makes sense. 

 

I used to be like that. I would say or do things and people would look at me as if to say, 'did you just say that? Why did you say or do that stupid thing.' And then the penny would drop for me, as I was a bit slow, and I would realise oh no I shouldn't have said or done that. It's like autism. You don't pick up on social cues or behave appropriately, and don't realise it. I have improved a lot since then but it taught me to think carefully about how I come across to people so I don't make any more faux pas and embarrass myself or others (or offend others, even worse). And sometimes at work I would do the wrong thing in the course of my work, make a stupid mistake, and then need to have it corrected. It is embarrassing to look back. I was a bit of a late developer and I think Lucy MIGHT have been the same. This means she might have said or done some wrong things but not have grasped what she was doing. And having a sometimes less than ideal bedside manner isn't unheard of among medical professionals after all, some doctors aren't the best in that regard either. 

 

Her behaviour while giving evidence proves she isn't a cold heartless person or she wouldn't have shown such emotion at hearing the voice of the doctor she used to be friends with. This was a painful reminder of the happy life she used to have and which she would have known she is likely never going to have again. Who wouldn't be tearful at that moment? And her answers about things being a normal pattern of behaviour, or another thing she was criticised for, giving yes or no answers to some questions, all of that is ridiculous to me. People are reaching and being intent on reading things into it which just aren't there. Those sort of bland answers are what you are told to give in court, especially if asked a binary question, you should answer yes or no, not say more than you've been asked for. If the barrister wants more then they should rephrase their question. 

Great post and some real truth bombs in there. Being socially awkward is not a crime, if it was I would be serving multiple life sentences 😀. There can be many reasons as you point out about what is construed as Letby's inappropriate behaviours. It could be due to any number of things; aspergers, social awkwardness, stress, being aware that staff are watching her or bullying, or simply she was doing too many shifts. And that brings me to the statistics used in the prosecution, how much of her being on shift was down to her doing over-time covering for the fact that the hospital was short-staffed and LL lived close to the hospital, was single and had no kids and because of living in close proximity probably found doing extra shifts easier than someone who had to commute? None of this appears to have been used in the defence, which of course may mean that even allowing for that analysis, they couldn't come up with a reasonable doubt scenario. 

 

We all know people who are awkward, even a bit 'socially retarded'. I worked with one supervisor who was loved by many, but bullied others and she was often saying such inappropriate things. It shows that people are both 'good and bad' and people can always come out of the woodwork from either side to say that person was an angel or the devil-incarnate. 

 

When I was 20-25 I was telling friends they should ban smoking, should have a DNA database that forced people into it, and other crazy stuff that I now look back on and think, who the hell was that guy? 25 is young for such responsibility, especially working in a team that seems to have been poorly managed, was understaffed, and had other major issues, as well as possible bullying. 

 

Of course she may still be guilty, but at least give her a fair defence. I truly hope as @Malbec  says, Letby gets a chance to appeal and have a defence team that gets out of 2nd gear. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of three main news stories today, alongside the immediate sacking of police following accusations, and an Mp's resignation and cabinet reshuffle ... the lion's share of the news is fully occupied with Lucy Letby ... and the most petty BS that we ave come to expect ... dear oh dear;

 

Should we drag prisoners into the dock ?

 

" It's about addressing the balance for the victim's family "

 

" We're not even allowed to write anything in the impact statement "

 

" We can't (just) drag them in " 

 

" Life prisoners have quite a comfortable life in prison ... It isn't like they've got nothing to lose (privileges) " 

 

" The man who murdered Zara is still appealing his sentence "

 

" We've got to compel (them) not drag (them) "

 

" It's about the victims " 

 

Presenter to guests who are family members of past victims; 

 

" You both have a link through dreadful circumstances "

 

( Stir it up, and drag out all the emotions?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Useyournous said:

Just to add a bit on LLs reported 'poor bedside manner', during my husbands illness there have been about two members of medical staff who have not put their foot in it or been downright blunt! One a nurse and another a registrar - the rest have been awful!

Yes, that is my limited experience of hospital staff too. A lot of bullying, backstabbing and an hierarchical structure that breeds it all. Thankfully I have very limited dealings with hospitals but when I have, I have always been struck by the energy/dynamic.

 

It is yet another of life's myths and strange dichotomy's where you ask a lot of people about how caring hospital staff are, and a lot will say they don't care, but for some reason at the same time, there is an unconscious belief that these people are caring, which fuels the shock when cases like this Lucy Letby case crop up. The same dichotomy happens with Politicians and Media; most know they cannot be trusted, yet cannot conceive of the possibility of an actual conspiracy. Strange reality we live in. It is almost as if we all cling to the idealist (and perhaps historical reality) when the proof is all around us in present reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2023 at 6:03 AM, BornFreeNowAgain said:

Yes, that is my limited experience of hospital staff too. A lot of bullying, backstabbing and an hierarchical structure that breeds it all. Thankfully I have very limited dealings with hospitals but when I have, I have always been struck by the energy/dynamic.

 

It is yet another of life's myths and strange dichotomy's where you ask a lot of people about how caring hospital staff are, and a lot will say they don't care, but for some reason at the same time, there is an unconscious belief that these people are caring, which fuels the shock when cases like this Lucy Letby case crop up. The same dichotomy happens with Politicians and Media; most know they cannot be trusted, yet cannot conceive of the possibility of an actual conspiracy. Strange reality we live in. It is almost as if we all cling to the idealist (and perhaps historical reality) when the proof is all around us in present reality. 

Couldn't agree more. Shipman was able to get away with what he did because of the patients idolising him. In the times when we saw GPs I would come out and say "he was lovely" as if I was relieved because they are a bit scary like our old headteacher and it's a relief they didn't scold me. I didn't come out saying "He diagnosed me and I think he got it right". The way medical staff are put on pedestals, especially after Convid you would think they were saving lives and not getting paid for it! Surgeons are a glorified car mechanic but psychopath enough to cut people's body open. 😂 It's just as difficult to fix a car correctly. Yet, as you point out, we are all moaning about them being callous and abrupt when we get home.

 

Just to add a bit about the need for justice for the parents. They are between a rock and a hard place becuase which is better, knowing your child was murdered by a nurse or knowing they died due to sh*t care? I think I would have wanted to be left to think the baby was too ill but they did what they could. It's a massive can of worms.

Edited by Useyournous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Useyournous said:

Couldn't agree more. Shipman was able to get away with what he did because of the patients idolising him. In the times when we saw GPs I would come out and say "he was lovely" as if I was relieved because they are a bit scary like our old headteacher and it's a relief they didn't scold me. I didn't come out saying "He diagnosed me and I think he got it right". The way medical staff are put on pedestals, especially after Convid you would think they were saving lives and not getting paid for it! Surgeons are a glorified car mechanic but psychopath enough to cut people's body open. 😂 It's just as difficult to fix a car correctly. Yet, as you point out, we are all moaning about them being callous and abrupt when we get home.

 

Just to add a bit about the need for justice for the parents. They are between a rock and a hard place becuase which is better, knowing your child was murdered by a nurse or knowing they died due to sh*t care? I think I would have wanted to be left to think the baby was too ill but they did what they could. It's a massive can of worms.

“When a doctor does go wrong he is the first of criminals" - Sherlock Holmes.

It's that innate trust people have in doctors and nurses. In the US, doctors get their medical training in colleges sponsored by Big Pharma. It's quite common for three or four pharma reps to visit a doctor's office each week, each carrying a big case of samples. Doctors are provided with holidays, golf clubs, high-end restaurant meals, and many other perks. The more influential the doctor, the better the perks. Quite how this plays out for patient health is a vexed question with no apparent consensus.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

She has asked for permission to appeal her conviction. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66823777

 

This is a good write-up about the profound flaws in the prosecution. 

 

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/11/lucy-letby-must-be-allowed-an-appeal/

 

Is this thread the best place to continue discussion of Lucy Letby moving forwards or is this forum only intended for newer news?

Edited by dirtydog
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Anti Facts Sir changed the title to Lucy Letby - Nurse on trial for murdering babies.
  • 2 weeks later...

Today Monday 25th September

Talk Radio TV

 

Peter Hitchens, on his weekly half hour conversation at 11 till 11.30 am

 

Lucy Letby 

 

Peter mentioned two reporters / websites, with ongoing investigations. 

 

Peter said he’s thought very carefully about it, and that he may be attacked for it, although he is used to that, but if she IS innocent someone has to be the person to discuss it. 
 

Peter also said there was a very similar case in another country, also with a lady named Lucy, who was exonerated.


Presenter Kevin O Sullivan ends the section by asking his listeners, “do you think she could be innocent?” … “The evidence against her is circumstantial, there is no direct evidence.”
 

I’ll have to listen to the whole half hour on ‘catch up’. He also discusses Brand, King Charles, Climate, Ukraine, HS2. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

… Continued from previous post …

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12552809/peter-hitchens-lucy-letby-not-guilty.html

 

PETER HITCHENS: I wish someone else would ask this: What if Lucy Letby is not guilty?

 

The Mail on Sunday

 

“ So now I must ask: What if Lucy Letby is not guilty? Actually I very much wish somebody else in the national media would raise this. I have enough enemies as it is. But it looks as if it falls to me. Would it be bearable if her conviction was mistaken? This young woman has been condemned to die in prison. She has, since her conviction, been subjected to some very severe public condemnation …”

 

“ … Some relish the possibility that the condemned person may be persecuted by his or her fellow inmates. I find this attitude distressing and contrary to Christian teaching, but it is common and those who wish for it will very likely get their way. “
 

Edited by Observations
Added further quote
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2023 at 6:38 PM, Useyournous said:

Just to add a bit about the need for justice for the parents. They are between a rock and a hard place becuase which is better, knowing your child was murdered by a nurse or knowing they died due to sh*t care? I think I would have wanted to be left to think the baby was too ill but they did what they could. It's a massive can of worms.

 

Or, perhaps, an as yet to be identified doctor.

Edited by numnuts
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some things I have read about which are strange 

Some babies have died when she isn’t on shift 

She has nursing colleagues who worked with her who believe she was innocent who were maybe scared out of being a witness on her behalf.

Why did the managers of the hospital protect her for so long when senior doctors raised the alarm?

Her witness that was called to trial was a plumber as there were leakages in the plumbing system of the new ward dripping effluent or god knows what onto the ward which may have caused illness and infection etc 

Edited by Dagon44
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The justice system seems to believe people are like robots, you can have them sit as jurors for ten long excruciatingly boring months listening to testimony which would make most of us lose the will to live, so tedious it would be day after day after day. But that they would also pay keen attention to every word, every day, and reach a fair and reliable conclusion. Who would believe that? But we're supposed to. 

 

By the time the defence had the chance to put its case on, the jury would have already resented the hell out of being there. She's obviously guilty, let's just get on with deciding the verdict. Oh what's this? Oh no, now we have to listen for months more while the defence puts on its case. ZZZZzzzz... I am not listening. I want to go home. The thing that is preventing me going home is..... Lucy Letby and her defence. Blah blah blah. Most people have the attention span of a gnat. 

 

Consciously or unconsciously some of the jury at least are going to vote to convict just because they are fed up of being there for so long. Lucy Letby is why they had to endure such an ordeal, and now they have the chance to punish her. Guilty. 

Edited by dirtydog
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...