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

[Marantz4250b]

Ah I thought she said she didn't follow the trial, was memory recall. My bad.

I think that that's true as well. I don't have a reference but I seem to recall it being mentioned.

Personally, it seems reasonable that she didn't; it was a massive trial which lasted nine months, excluding the deliberations. It's unlikely that many people would have had the opportunity to follow it to a great extent, when you think about it. Even if she did have the opportunity I don't find it surprising that she didn't. I can't imagine if it were my best mate from school who was up for murder, let alone multiple murders of babies in a hospital.

 

[Telltale]

What is the current consensus on Letby? I confess that I have not kept up with that much after the trial.

It always made me pause that even with the bias of hindsight, Letby's history/background was apparently extremely normal. Most Angels of Death can mask in public, but their friends/family have stories: pathological lying, munchausen, narcissism, abuse etc etc.

Despite that, I came away from the trial fairly satisfied she must be guilty. I can't say I have a good feeling about it now. A few things trouble me.

One is that she is a convicted serial killer of tiny newborns. There is nothing lower. Yet I see these extremely respectable and upstanding experts, pediatricians and publications (Private Eye) putting their reputations on the line to say her verdict is unsound. How convinced would you have to be - to do that for someone like her?

The second is I remember hearing that the person who reviewed all the possible suspicions newborn deaths at the hospital, already knew Letby was a suspect. Which could on its own could unconsciously bias their findings. But not only that, when compiling their list of victims, it initially had one baby who died when Letby was not working. That baby was later removed.

If so, that suggests a structural flaw in how this case was investigated and presented that is so profound it cannot be allowed to stand.

But as I said, I've not followed closely enough since to know if I'm entirely off base or if there has been further developments.

 

[Marantz4250b]

What is the current consensus on Letby? I confess that I have not kept up with that much after the trial.

I came away fairly satisfied in her guilt. However I can't say I have a good feeling about it now. A few things trouble me.

One is that she is a convicted serial killer of tiny newborns. There is nothing lower or more reprehensible. Yet I see these extremely respectable and upstanding experts, pediatricians and publications (Private Eye) putting their reputations on the line to say her verdict is unsound. How convinced would one have to be to put your reputation in your field on the line for someone like her?

The second is I remember hearing that the person who reviewed all the possible suspicions newborn deaths at the hospital, already knew Letby was a suspect. Which could on its own could unconsciously bias their findings. But not only that, when compiling their list of victims, it initially had one baby who died when Letby was not working. That baby was later removed.

If so, that suggests a structural flaw in how this case was investigated and presented that is so profound it cannot be allowed to stand.

But as I said, I've not followed closely enough since to know if I'm entirely off base or if there has been further developments.

I can only speak for myself but, personally, she's guilty.

The vast majority of the posters here - those who followed the trial in any depth - also overwhelmingly believe that she's guilty.

Private Eye doesn't have as great a rep as people seem to think it does. Also bear in mind that it's a commercial entity and the headline "Lucy Lety Guilty" has less commercial value than, "Well educated, pretty blonde middle-class girl from a nice family unjustly banged up for life", or similar.

Dewi Evans is on record as saying (including under oath, I think) that he had not heard the name Lucy Letby until she was arrested. He'd been working on the case for many months by that point, I believe.

She's guilty. I'm not taking that opinion because it's a side I've decided on and am determined to stick to it, come what may. Quite the opposite. If there's evidence that she's been wrongly convicted of any of the offences she's been locked up for then I'm more than happy to change my mind.

The problem is that those who are convinced of her innocence consistently fail to look at the evidence and the circumstances in the round and simply pick away at singular points which in themselves are virtually meaningless. When you really look at what her supporters are doing it's clear that they are not following a proper investigative path; they've basically decided that she's innocent and are actively looking for points and "facts" to prove their case. They aren't looking at the evidence and asking where it leads them.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think that that's true as well. I don't have a reference but I seem to recall it being mentioned.

Personally, it seems reasonable that she didn't; it was a massive trial which lasted nine months, excluding the deliberations. It's unlikely that many people would have had the opportunity to follow it to a great extent, when you think about it. Even if she did have the opportunity I don't find it surprising that she didn't. I can't imagine if it were my best mate from school who was up for murder, let alone multiple murders of babies in a hospital.

That brings it back. Was the documentary not sure which one but was a fair while back. IF I remember correctly she was wearing a lab coat and she is talking about when she heard the verdict at work on the radio. Here's the big if, I remember her saying she couldn't follow the trial because she was working at the time. Fair enough really isn't it, was kind if a full time job keeping track of it by itself. As you say as well the contents not important to her it's the result.

 

[Sweeper2000]

What is the current consensus on Letby? I confess that I have not kept up with that much after the trial.

It always made me pause that even with the bias of hindsight, Letby's history/background was apparently extremely normal. Most Angels of Death can mask in public, but their friends/family have stories: pathological lying, munchausen, narcissism, abuse etc etc.

Despite that, I came away from the trial fairly satisfied she must be guilty. I can't say I have a good feeling about it now. A few things trouble me.

One is that she is a convicted serial killer of tiny newborns. There is nothing lower. Yet I see these extremely respectable and upstanding experts, pediatricians and publications (Private Eye) putting their reputations on the line to say her verdict is unsound. How convinced would you have to be - to do that for someone like her?

The second is I remember hearing that the person who reviewed all the possible suspicions newborn deaths at the hospital, already knew Letby was a suspect. Which could on its own could unconsciously bias their findings. But not only that, when compiling their list of victims, it initially had one baby who died when Letby was not working. That baby was later removed.

If so, that suggests a structural flaw in how this case was investigated and presented that is so profound it cannot be allowed to stand.

But as I said, I've not followed closely enough since to know if I'm entirely off base or if there has been further developments.

Still guilty. There was no viable counter narrative to the prosecutions and there still isn't. There is a process in motion atm about getting new medical opinion added (the macdonald conference) and that's her best bet as far as anything goes and has gone. We've actually been through it a fair bit on here before and in a recent documentary with Judith morits I believe it was stated allot of what was said had actually been discussed at the first trial anyways. So its already been discounted in allot of opinion. We will have to wait and see. There is also allot of verified talk about possible new charges and that means allot as well.

In honesty I thought the lack of anything including her character preceding the first charges was remarkable as well but perhaps that will be discounted with the new charges. I may also state she was so young even when under first suspicion that maybe nothing had really surfaced in that regard as well.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Just watched that thing from Dawn her friend. I don't think it is quite as accurate as a broader range of opinions would say. She says "the softest, kindest person she knows" but nothing of the coldness or the detachment noted by many. I from afar and not blinded by my own personal feelings would put credence to those accounts.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I was watching a video by Kyle Hill, the science bloke on YT, the other day and was meaning to get round to mentioning it as some of what he said in it relates here. Really clever guy.

It was about how conspiracy theories essentially corrupt people's thinking when lots of people only have a passing knowledge or interest in a subject. It was specifically about getting to the moon and the claim that it was impossible as the Van Allen belts would have killed the astronauts. I won't link it here as it's mostly off topic but right near the start (at 01:18) he addressed the question that the usual justification for most of these theories is given as "Well, we're just asking questions" to which he said:

No. No, they are not just asking questions. The just asking questions routine is a way to intentionally weaponise ignorance by constantly asking basic questions that are hard to answer in real time. Like how did we get to the Moon….answer it in five seconds! ​

There was more to it than that but It really was a brilliant statement and deserves an award in itself, in my opinion. Watch it, it was excellent.

This is, imo, just what we're seeing here and with all of the conspiracy theories out there from JFK, to secret alien technology obtained from crashed flying saucers and everything in between. People "ask questions" they know can't be answered in short-form and use that as justification as to why they're right and why the people actually educated in the subject are either wrong or in on the scam.

We had a ten month trial at huge public cost, a retrial over several weeks of one count and two appeals. It is disingenuous to now start arguing over specific, isolated, points out of context of all the other evidence that convicted her.