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 #38

[marynnu]

you know I think there may be a grey area here, although not related to guilt. What if she wanted to be caught but not have to admit it? some aspect of a conscience that slips through, a voice that circles around in her mind. To me its just fitting for what seems a really mixed up person. Lots of stuff she did and the way she did it just made me think its so unusual. I can think of many instances where people would prefer to cling onto their self image rather than fully confront the issue. a fragmented and contentious mind. I dont think i ever got the impression of sadism from her seemed more like indifference to me which is weird.

I do think there is a part of some serial killers which wants to be stopped, in that they get so blatant it makes it almost inevitable. I'd say the murders of the triplets do that in Letby's case. Saying that, you might also argue that they just get overly confident & arrogant.
For me I think she is both sadistic and indifferent.

 

[katydid23]

I think my point was clear. The case need going through again as imo it was not conducting properly as is becoming clear now as senior management are now being arrested. It may be that she was guilty but the case has not been transparent.

The 3 were arrested because Lucy was murdering babies and these 3 managers were alerted to the suspicions about Letby, and they blocked any investigations of her, and reprimanded those who tried to get Letby off the clinic floor, and on to a desk job.

 

[katydid23]

I do think there is a part of some serial killers which wants to be stopped, in that they get so blatant it makes it almost inevitable. I'd say the murders of the triplets do that in Letby's case. Saying that, you might also argue that they just get overly confident & arrogant.
For me I think she is both sadistic and indifferent.

When one looks at that tragic case of the triplets, LL's actions and intentions are so obvious. She was out of control and wasn't even trying to be subtle. It blows my mind that the naysayers cannot see her guilt in those cases.

 

[katydid23]

I just still to this day struggle to comprehend that you suspect someone maybe murdering babies in your unit and you feel no one is listening to you in management and you still sit back and do nothing. I realise most don’t agree, but that is a harsh reality to comprehend, that most people value other things above doing the right thing.

This ^^ is great reasoning. First it was 'Lucy might be innocent, those arrogant doctors bullied her and scapegoated her."

NOW it is " those damned doctors didn't do enough to stop her!"

 

[katydid23]

Detectives investigating the former nurse Lucy Letby have passed evidence to prosecutors alleging she murdered and harmed more babies.

Lucy Letby alleged to have murdered and harmed more babies

CPS says it is considering more charges against former nurse after evidence from Cheshire police detectives

www.theguardian.com

This is interesting because we hear some people claiming that her prior convictions are 'unsafe' and 'everyone knows it, and they claim that further investigations will be on hold or shut down because of this uncertainty.

But instead, it seems like things are still rolling along, as before. IMO

 

[May72031]

This is interesting because we hear some people claiming that her prior convictions are 'unsafe' and 'everyone knows it, and they claim that further investigations will be on hold or shut down because of this uncertainty.

But instead, it seems like things are still rolling along, as before. IMO

Quite a few of them were saying "Letby will be freed very shortly."

Anyway, here's Nadine Dorries yapping that somebody is blocking her from visiting Letby.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1942443710077083958

 

[Marantz4250b]

If she thinks she's being "blocked" then why not just ask rather than writing an article about it? The article is paywalled so I can't tell whether she has been officially refused or simply hasn't had a response yet.

I have no idea how people get approved to a particular prisoners visiting list but six months for anything government related doesn't seem unreasonable to me, especially given the very high profile nature of the prisoner in question.

Edit: let's also not forget that there are still potential criminal charges against managers in the offing and Letby herself may be looking at additional charges soon. All very good reasons as to why they may not be too keen on her having a jailhouse tea party with a journalist, imo.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Here is the link for anyone who wants to read her drivel.

https://archive.is/NSzzv

 

[Marantz4250b]

Here is the link for anyone who wants to read her drivel.

https://archive.is/NSzzv

Link doesn't seem to want to work.

Edit: working now.

 

[marynnu]

Anyone who doesn't block Nadine Dorries needs to have a conversation with themselves.

 

[Anxala]

Link doesn't seem to want to work.

Works fine for me. I could reproduce it here but don't know if that's allowed?

To be fair, it's full of self-reverential nonsense from Dorries. You're really not missing anything.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Can you just IMAGINE how insufferable she would be if she does actually get a VO from her child murdering pet project ?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Works fine for me. I could reproduce it here but don't know if that's allowed?

To be fair, it's full of self-reverential nonsense from Dorries. You're really not missing anything.

I've read that now. There is literally not a single thing that's new in there at all!

And, once again, this article gives a false impression of how the police got involved:

It was made by one of the senior police officers in the Letby investigation, Det Supt Simon Blackwell, and he was explaining why Cheshire Police had launched their inquiries in the first place. 'You don't often hear of multiple child, baby, infant deaths, they are extremely rare . . . These things are far from routine. They're extreme, even nationally, internationally, very rare,' he said.

That implies that they got involved to investigate a cluster of potentially criminal events and landed on Lucy Letby as a result of their investigation. As we all know, that was never the case. The police were called in specifically because the doctors had concerns about LL.

She also bangs on about "statistics" and implies that the chart with work shifts on one axis and collapses on another amounted to bad statistical analysis. It's not a chart of stats - it's just a chart of coinciding events and proved nothing other than whether she was on shift when the incidents happened. The jury was allowed to give as much gravity to that as it chose to, or not, as the case may be. It was a simple statement of fact.

ND makes a valid point about these types of cluster not being as rare as the police implied in that quote but without a lot more context it's difficult to comment. The police investigate crimes, not bad practice or incompetence so, yes, from a police point of view, what was happening at the COCH probably was extremely rare from their viewpoint.

She is also wrong when she mentions the baby who died at "another hospital" and makes a big deal of that - well, yes, that's because LL had already done what she had done and the damage was done.

Same old rubbish regurgitated as if it's something new.

 

[Parker Knoll]

“ same old rubbish regurgitated as if it’s something new “ is ringing APPEAL bells to me M !

 

[Marantz4250b]

“ same old rubbish regurgitated as if it’s something new “ is ringing APPEAL bells to me M !

What grounds does she have, though? There's nothing new in anything that is being put forward.

 

[Parker Knoll]

That’s what I mean …. That sums up her appeal to the CCRC perfectly.

 

[marynnu]

I've read that now. There is literally not a single thing that's new in there at all!

And, once again, this article gives a false impression of how the police got involved:

It was made by one of the senior police officers in the Letby investigation, Det Supt Simon Blackwell, and he was explaining why Cheshire Police had launched their inquiries in the first place. 'You don't often hear of multiple child, baby, infant deaths, they are extremely rare . . . These things are far from routine. They're extreme, even nationally, internationally, very rare,' he said.

That implies that they got involved to investigate a cluster of potentially criminal events and landed on Lucy Letby as a result of their investigation. As we all know, that was never the case. The police were called in specifically because the doctors had concerns about LL.

She also bangs on about "statistics" and implies that the chart with work shifts on one axis and collapses on another amounted to bad statistical analysis. It's not a chart of stats - it's just a chart of coinciding events and proved nothing other than whether she was on shift when the incidents happened. The jury was allowed to give as much gravity to that as it chose to, or not, as the case may be. It was a simple statement of fact.

ND makes a valid point about these types of cluster not being as rare as the police implied in that quote but without a lot more context it's difficult to comment. The police investigate crimes, not bad practice or incompetence so, yes, from a police point of view, what was happening at the COCH probably was extremely rare from their viewpoint.

She is also wrong when she mentions the baby who died at "another hospital" and makes a big deal of that - well, yes, that's because LL had already done what she had done and the damage was done.

Same old rubbish regurgitated as if it's something new.

She'd probably had a few, to be fair.

 

[Anxala]

She'd probably had a few, to be fair.

As we concluded earlier in the thread, LL continues to attract the brightest and the best. Oh yes!

Back in the real world, what is comical, for want of a more appropriate term, is the disconnect between those who continue to support the 'miscarriage of justice' narrative and the nature of the people they use to back that narrative up. The lack of discrimination! The way they blindly latch onto what the objective amongst us can see as predominantly visible-from-the-moon, money-grabbing, click-baiting opportunists with failure (so much failure!) behind them and no purpose in mind other than finding a new way to have a new re-invented payday courtesy of and amongst the gullible.

 

[Ruthbullock]

This ^^ is great reasoning. First it was 'Lucy might be innocent, those arrogant doctors bullied her and scapegoated her."

NOW it is " those damned doctors didn't do enough to stop her!"

Perhaps stop reading social media random posts and then posting as though it was said on this forum , rather than grouping me in with your theory and then making out that I have said that whilst quoting my post? FYI- I have always believed the doctors didn’t do enough and that will never change, even if Letby is found guilty of more charges. I never said, ever that I believed she was innocent and she was scapegoated. I do however believe for transparencies sake the evidence should be relooked at, as an awful lot was shared after the trials through the inquiry and it casts doubts on what was originally portrayed.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I've read that now. There is literally not a single thing that's new in there at all!

And, once again, this article gives a false impression of how the police got involved:

It was made by one of the senior police officers in the Letby investigation, Det Supt Simon Blackwell, and he was explaining why Cheshire Police had launched their inquiries in the first place. 'You don't often hear of multiple child, baby, infant deaths, they are extremely rare . . . These things are far from routine. They're extreme, even nationally, internationally, very rare,' he said.

That implies that they got involved to investigate a cluster of potentially criminal events and landed on Lucy Letby as a result of their investigation. As we all know, that was never the case. The police were called in specifically because the doctors had concerns about that.

Do you realise your own post agrees with the journalist, yet you post as though you disagree?

The next paragraph states

“I knew Det Supt Blackwell's claim to be inaccurate. A cluster of deaths is, sadly, not unusual. Why had the police seemed to decide so swiftly that the Chester cluster between June 2015 and June 2016 was the work of a serial killer? I then watched the actual video which had been put out when Lucy was convicted in August 2023 (and later removed owing to reporting restrictions).“

The quote was from their own documentary on tv- this was the police’s claim, not the journalists.