UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #35

[Tortoise]

I think the MSM is being absolutely irresponsible with this, giving mouthpieces to some absolute cranks. They aren't considering the damage this is doing to confidence in the justice system, including our most senior judges and barristers on both sides, esteemed experts used in the trial, harm to the victims' families, and undermining not only the jurors who served but those who are yet to serve in the future, in a world in which everyone and their dog can not only get a platform to express hateful and defamatory opinions but have them printed by MSM in a battle for clicks. I think it is inciting more of this kind of behaviour and they should be held to account, because it is contemptuous of court, the police and the CPS, and undermining the entire justice system, which is dangerous territory in the wrong hands. It is happening all over, with demonstrators outside courts in the US turning up and trying to interfere with jurors and legal process. IMO

 

[Eloise]

I think its a confluence of things... its a general refusal for people to believe that young, conventionally attractive women can be evil, especially in regards to child victims. I think if she was a nurse who was older, schlubbier, perhaps a man, nobody would have blinked an eye at the convictions and sentence received. But its also a general distrust these days of social institutions such as governments and courts; and, its a growing tendency for larger quantities of people to think there are conspiracies afoot. The mainstream media's skewing towards sensationalism for clicks rather than reporting investigated facts sure doesn't help. Also, I think very few people who actually sat through ALL the trial would think anything other than she deserves what she got; but these days it feels like very few people have the mental stamina for more than superficial, easily digested clickbait.

This post just all MOO

 

[ColourPurple]

I think all of those 'LucyIsInnocent' twitter accounts and FB profiles and TikTok's finally grew viral. It caught on and those who never followed the trial could read the cherry picked 'facts' and could then believe this poor young nurse was railroaded by the NHS.

I think it would be different if there were actually facts involved ( I note you used quotation marks for the word facts ) but those of us who followed the trial in great detail know that these theories are largely based on the twisting of truth, deliberate misinformation and in some cases full blown lies.

The people who are new to the story don’t realise this and think they are reading an accurate summary of events, but the ones who spread the misinformation in the first place do, and it all stems from the same tiny group of people who tried to intervene in the first trial and were warned for possible contempt of court.

The majority of people who followed the trial were satisfied with the result and moved on. The anonymity orders meant that there were none of the usual mainstream articles about the victims, their families and the impact LL’s crimes had on them. Add to that the reporting restrictions because of the retrial, and this created a vacuum, which on social media was filled by this small minority who had decided LL was innocent and did everything they could to spread the word.

Accuracy or honesty didn’t seem to be a priority and the focus appeared to be on increasing their numbers by any means necessary. One of the ringleaders’ social media account is full of claims that the police, the court and the senior doctors were all corrupt and that the judge was a “biased fool.” They also make claims that several medical experts deliberately lied in court and claim that LL witnessed a doctor euthanise a baby. The lies are frankly disgusting and it’s this same person who has been courting the press and spreading the word that LL is innocent and didn’t get a fair trial!

I won’t even get started on the source of the claims that the science was all wrong. I do still believe that at some point the people behind these stories will become the story, and people will wonder how the hell things got this far, but Jesus it’s frustrating to watch in the meantime!

 

[ColourPurple]

I think the MSM is being absolutely irresponsible with this, giving mouthpieces to some absolute cranks. They aren't considering the damage this is doing to confidence in the justice system, including our most senior judges and barristers on both sides, esteemed experts used in the trial, harm to the victims' families, and undermining not only the jurors who served but those who are yet to serve in the future, in a world in which everyone and their dog can not only get a platform to express hateful and defamatory opinions but have them printed by MSM in a battle for clicks. I think it is inciting more of this kind of behaviour and they should be held to account, because it is contemptuous of court, the police and the CPS, and undermining the entire justice system, which is dangerous territory in the wrong hands. It is happening all over, with demonstrators outside courts in the US turning up and trying to interfere with jurors and legal process. IMO

There’s also this weird assumption that people’s own opinions on something they admit they don’t know the full details about , are more important than the opinions of the jury who saw and heard every bit of evidence in a 10 month trial! This isn’t X factor , there was no public vote. The GBP don’t get to decide whether LL was guilty of not. That was the jury’s job!

The fact that somebody who has read a biased summary of events is not convinced “beyond reasonable doubt” that LL is guilty is frankly irrelevant. And why do they keep using the term “beyond reasonable doubt”? Aside from the fact that it’s now been replaced by “sure” in UK courts, it has never been the case that everybody in the country needed to be convinced “beyond reasonable doubt” of somebody’s guilt. It was always only the jury.

ETA that’s not to say that there can’t ever be miscarriages of justice, but a conviction will never be overturned just because some uninformed random member of the public wasn’t convinced beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Dotta]

But its also a general distrust these days of social institutions such as governments and courts; and, its a growing tendency for larger quantities of people to think there are conspiracies afoot. The mainstream media's skewing towards sensationalism for clicks rather than reporting investigated facts sure doesn't help.

This.

Distrust.

That is exactly what I think is happening.
I 100% agree with your post.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

I might think the only reason these experts are putting so much emphasis on the stats and chart is due to hearing somewhere "it was key" when actually it was only very very briefly a part of the evidence. There was much more emphasis placed on her falsification of med notes. I would like to see any of the experts contest the case files of Baby E as easily one of if not the strongest bits of evidence against her.

 

[SolVic]

Wow, these people are desperate.

 

[Marantz4250b]

There’s also this weird assumption that people’s own opinions on something they admit they don’t know the full details about , are more important than the opinions of the jury who saw and heard every bit of evidence in a 10 month trial! This isn’t X factor , there was no public vote. The GBP don’t get to decide whether LL was guilty of not. That was the jury’s job!

The fact that somebody who has read a biased summary of events is not convinced “beyond reasonable doubt” that LL is guilty is frankly irrelevant. And why do they keep using the term “beyond reasonable doubt”? Aside from the fact that it’s now been replaced by “sure” in UK courts, it has never been the case that everybody in the country needed to be convinced “beyond reasonable doubt” of somebody’s guilt. It was always only the jury.

ETA that’s not to say that there can’t ever be miscarriages of justice, but a conviction will never be overturned just because some uninformed random member of the public wasn’t convinced beyond reasonable doubt.

I agree entirely.

A "respectable" media organisation needs to start countering the absolute Muppets who are stoking this rubbish.

It's down to entitlement, I think. People have been indoctrinated with the idea that they have "rights" to essentially say what they like, whenever they like and that everyone has to "respect" their opinions and give them the same weight as everyone else's. They then feel entitled to be aggrieved and offended when that doesn't happen.

Sorry, but you don't get to have your opinions respected over and above a whole slew of people who have actually read all the facts and have spent months, and in some cases years, of investigating what the real facts of this case are.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Wow, these people are desperate.

Interesting David Davis has one doctor willing to provide a different diagnosis, however it is only one doctor as of yet. We also have the entire prosecutions team backing Dr Evans.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Interesting David Davis has one doctor willing to provide a different diagnosis, however it is only one doctor as of yet. We also have the entire prosecutions team backing Dr Evans.

The thing is, though, has this doctor seen all the medical notes relating to these babies? I'd very much doubt he has as these are confidential. He's only recently taken up this Crusade so I doubt that he'll have secured all the relevant permissions and transfers of information sufficient to make medical diagnoses.

I'd find it even more unlikely that this doctor has seen them when you ask why on earth would the babies parents give permission to someone who was trying to overturn the convictions of their child's murderer?

Doctors are hardly in short supply and their professional standards seem to be highly variable, to say the least. Lets not forget that there are doctors out there who were pushing the myth that Covid doesn't exist and suchlike. So until we hear a lot more about this doctor and his medical reasonings I don't think his/her opinions are of any relevance what so ever.

 

[Sweeper2000]

The thing is, though, has this doctor seen all the medical notes relating to these babies? I'd very much doubt he has as these are confidential. He's only recently taken up this Crusade so I doubt that he'll have secured all the relevant permissions and transfers of information sufficient to make medical diagnoses.

I'd find it even more unlikely that this doctor has seen them when you ask why on earth would the babies parents give permission to someone who was trying to overturn the convictions of their child's murderer?

Doctors are hardly in short supply and their professional standards seem to be highly variable, to say the least. Lets not forget that there are doctors out there who were pushing the myth that Covid doesn't exist and suchlike. So until we hear a lot more about this doctor and his medical reasonings I don't think his/her opinions are of any relevance what so ever.

Agreed. I doubt he knows the med files to any great depth. Dr marnerides was top level and Dr bohin, one other doctor with a different opinion doesn't mean much imo. Lol Dr Hall was another top level doctor and for the defence and even he didn't say he disagreed with the prosecutions experts.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I seem to have a difference of opinion to many of you posting on here. I’m not convinced people are actually fighting to state Lucy Letby is innocent, but rather there are additional issues that should/ could have been picked up, that are potentially ongoing. If those matters had been raised during the trial or investigation they would be being considered now and the overall quality of SCBU care would potentially improve. Instead every failing that occurred on that unit whilst LL was working there has been attributed to just one person. Only recently post trial, our local scbu released figures showing a steady increase of deaths over the last 10 years. Some of this old be attributed to increased treatment whilst pregnant, leading to better outcomes post birth, but all those people who are suggesting the statistics and the deaths need to be further looked into (many scbu nurses themselves) are not necessarily doing it to clear LL, but in the hope that additional failings that potentially occurred during that period aren’t swept under the carpet.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I seem to have a difference of opinion to many of you posting on here. I’m not convinced people are actually fighting to state Lucy Letby is innocent, but rather there are additional issues that should/ could have been picked up, that are potentially ongoing. If those matters had been raised during the trial or investigation they would be being considered now and the overall quality of SCBU care would potentially improve. Instead every failing that occurred on that unit whilst LL was working there has been attributed to just one person. Only recently post trial, our local scbu released figures showing a steady increase of deaths over the last 10 years. Some of this old be attributed to increased treatment whilst pregnant, leading to better outcomes post birth, but all those people who are suggesting the statistics and the deaths need to be further looked into (many scbu nurses themselves) are not necessarily doing it to clear LL, but in the hope that additional failings that potentially occurred during that period aren’t swept under the carpet.

That is absolutely not what is going on here, imo. These commentators, and the articles which seem to be being churned out almost daily now, are unashamedly trying to call her guilt into question and are implying - and sometimes outright alleging - that she is a victim of a litany of wrongful convictions at the hands of a system which is at best incompetent and at worst corrupt to the point that she was fitted up.

To repeat, once again, this trial, and her subsequent convictions, were not founded on statistics and probabilities. They were based on medical evidence, her attendance at all of these incidents and her behavior surrounding the patients and their families.

Also her falsifying of medical records, taking home 257 handover sheets and a whole slate of other stuff.

LL's defence team could have raised any issues they chose to raise (within reason) but in the event they chose to raise very little at all. They even had their own expert witness lined up but decided not to call him. There is only one reason you come to that decision!

 

[Ruthbullock]

That is absolutely not what is going on here, imo. These commentators, and the articles which seem to be being churned out almost daily now, are unashamedly trying to call her guilt into question and are implying - and sometimes outright alleging - that she is a victim of a litany of wrongful convictions at the hands of a system which is at best incompetent and at worst corrupt to the point that she was fitted up.

To repeat, once again, this trial, and her subsequent convictions, were not founded on statistics and probabilities. They were based on medical evidence, her attendance at all of these incidents and her behavior surrounding the patients and their families.

Also her falsifying of medical records, taking home 257 handover sheets and a whole slate of other stuff.

LL's defence team could have raised any issues they chose to raise (within reason) but in the event they chose to raise very little at all. They even had their own expert witness lined up but decided not to call him. There is only one reason you come to that decision!

I haven’t doubted her guilt, nor has my post- which perhaps suggests from your reply you are struggling with some unconscious bias. My knowledge from friends who are scbu nurses and my own personal opinion make me believe there were also underlying failures that allowed this to happen which are being covered up. The aspect I have always questioned in this case, which is gaining momentum for investigation, is where were all the other staff? What were they doing, these are highly staffed units often with more nursing/ doctors in the unit than patients, yet despite all the suspicions over an extended period of time, they seem incognito repeatedly. You do not have to believe LL is innocent, in fact you can be completely convinced of her guilt and still question what occurred in that unit- and this is what the 27 unnamed proffesional people are attempting to do.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I haven’t doubted her guilt, nor has my post- which perhaps suggests from your reply you are struggling with some unconscious bias. My knowledge from friends who are scbu nurses and my own personal opinion make me believe there were also underlying failures that allowed this to happen which are being covered up. The aspect I have always questioned in this case, which is gaining momentum for investigation, is where were all the other staff? What were they doing, these are highly staffed units often with more nursing/ doctors in the unit than patients, yet despite all the suspicions over an extended period of time, they seem incognito repeatedly. You do not have to believe LL is innocent, in fact you can be completely convinced of her guilt and still question what occurred in that unit- and this is what the 27 unnamed proffesional people are attempting to do.

Even just within the trial there were doctors, who are more qualified, walked in thought something was strange and then walked away- that doesn’t sit right with me. Why were they suspicious and not monitoring more, gathering more evidence- asserting their authority. These weren’t niave teenagers who went to HR with a gripe and should have done nothing more, they were more trained assertive adults.
The paediatrician said that around the time of Child A's inquest he and a group of clinicians highlighted to hospital bosses the "association we had seen with an individual being present in those situations and, how do I say diplomatically, being told we really should not really be saying such things and not to make a fuss".
ETA: child A they had suspicions

Lucy Letby trial hears how doctor raised concerns but was told 'not to make a fuss'

Dr Ravi Jayaram, a paediatrician at the Countess of Chester Hospital, also said the unusual skin discolouration of Letby's first alleged victim, a baby boy known as Child A, "didn't fit with anything I had ever seen".

news.sky.com

 

[Ruthbullock]

Perhaps an article from the British medical association will allow you to hear why professionals aren’t just accepting the verdict as the end of the trial

Letby disaster epitomises flaws in NHS

The tragic events of the Lucy Letby case show the urgent need for an independent regulator for non-clinical managers

www.bma.org.uk

 

[DianaWW]

I definitely agree that there were failings at the hospital, and that is what the inquiry is for. IMO it is part of how she was able to carry on for as long as she did, and I hope that management are held accountable.

However, the hospital failings did not cause those babies to die. Every hospital across the country has problems at the moment, the NHS is a mess. But that does not cause otherwise healthy babies to die, in the case of baby O, from a liver injury comparable to what is seen in a high impact traffic collision.

The hospital was a shambles. And LL is a murderer. Both of those thing are true IMO.

 

[DianaWW]

Perhaps an article from the British medical association will allow you to hear why professionals aren’t just accepting the verdict as the end of the trial

Letby disaster epitomises flaws in NHS

The tragic events of the Lucy Letby case show the urgent need for an independent regulator for non-clinical managers

www.bma.org.uk

This is exactly what the inquiry is for.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Hopefully sharing again- this is the article that started all the doubt again and it raises many valid points

Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence

Exclusive: Doubts raised over safety of convictions of nurse found guilty of murdering babies

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ruthbullock]

This is exactly what the inquiry is for.

It is, but it is also the reason people are coming out of the wooodwork- the posts on here when you read through them (and I have watched and waited for days before posting) all imply this is about changing the verdict and no one should be giving this information space on the news- but that just isn’t true, it does need questioning for so many reasons.