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

[May72031]

I know it's The Mirror so shoot me now ...but ..apparently Letby has deluded herself she's getting out and the inmates are not happy ....what a shock she feels she will be set free ! Didn't think she was that type

Killer nurse Lucy Letby 'under 24-hour guard and checked on every 15 minutes'

Child killer Lucy Letby is said to be under 24-hour surveillance in prison, with guards checking on her every 15 minutes over fears she may be attacked by fellow inmates

www.mirror.co.uk

Good to see the Mirror say: "Despite overwhelming evidence presented at trial, Letby maintains her innocence."

There was overwhelming evidence, and the media shouldn't be shy in pointing that fact out.

 

[May72031]

Long story short she wasn’t dipping the tills. After a proper back office investigation, all the “suspicious” shortages started falling away as they could be explained, for various reasons but often down to poor systems and controls in the branch, insufficient staffing, proper procedures not being followed, and a handful of human errors.

Nice story, but this is the opposite of the Letby investigation. The investigation(s) found that the types of explanations you mention (insufficient staffing, procedures not being followed, etc.) could NOT explain the collapses and deaths at COCH.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Nice story, but this is the opposite of the Letby investigation. The investigation(s) found that the types of explanations you mention (insufficient staffing, procedures not being followed, etc.) could NOT explain the collapses and deaths at COCH.

Based on medical evidence from a hospital with selective record keeping?

 

[May72031]

Based on medical evidence from a hospital with selective record keeping?

What records are you referring to?

 

[Parker Knoll]

Jesus wept …. How many times ?
The case didn’t rest of the expert evidence of Dr Evan’s … the prosecution brought in numerous experts in every field.
I take it they are all charlatans as well ?

 

[Jules2021]

As to "fascination with death." It is not the evidence of being a serial killer, otherwise anyone on this forum or other media is in hot water, lol! What about death metal afficionados or goths? I know a lot and honestly, my response is "people just like this music or dress so", but unless a person tells you what exactly they are fascinated with, probably, not. I would follow some online groups starting with the word death and even more, with "crime", but mostly, because I try to understand more about suicides, for example.

How are any of those examples anywhere close to what Letby was alleged to be saying/doing? Colleagues have said she said things like "I can't wait to have my first death to get it out of the way". She also had to be removed from a grieving family because she kept bothering them. Another time she was heard saying "you'll never guess what happened" in an excited way about a baby death. And being all animated to make up a memory box. And that's just off the top of my head. This is all very strange behaviour that added up with the rest of the evidence really points to her guilt. There are textbook ways serial killers act and she showed that in spades.

She's an utter ghoul and I cannot for the life of me understand why some people can't see it. But again, it's most likely because you didn't follow the trial and see it all laid out. You are overly focused on the science which you think you can dissect piece by piece when a HUGE part of this trial was her own behaviour and the overall picture. It all pointed towards her.

About handover sheets: unless we know
why people collect notes, and there can be dozens of reasons, it is not even a collateral evidence of a crime. How?

Depends whether they're trophies or not doesn't it? It very much looks like they are. Especially the ones kept under her bed. They were obviously hugely important and personal to her to be in that place. Why would a nurse be so attached to handover sheets? That she's not supposed to even be taking home in the first place!

JMO

 

[Charlot123]

RSBM

20 years ago I worked in a bank that called internal fraud in to a branch because the management suspected a cashier was dipping the tills. It was all the same reasons, it’s always when she’s on shift, happens at lunch and break times, happens to other people’s tills as well as her own, never used to have this many shortages, she’s struggling for money. Blah blah.

Long story short she wasn’t dipping the tills. After a proper back office investigation, all the “suspicious” shortages started falling away as they could be explained, for various reasons but often down to poor systems and controls in the branch, insufficient staffing, proper procedures not being followed, and a handful of human errors.

It wasn’t a “conspiracy”. They firmly believed she was behind it. But she wasn’t. In fact she went on to work there for many years and was an exemplary member of staff.

It’s not that difficult to believe that people point the finger instead of looking at their own shortcomings. I don’t know why people convinced of Letby’s guilt are adamant that it is.

Only your situation is easier. The shortcomings can be corrected easier that with the hospital system.

One interesting fact

Lucy Letby: police and CPS handling of case raises new concerns about convictions

Exclusive: Letby’s barrister says application challenging verdicts is being prepared using expert medical evidence

www.theguardian.com

The Guardian reports that the police of Chester initially hired Jane Hutton, a professor of statistics at the University of Warwick, even signed an agreement, and then never used her.

So this raises a question:

Why was the PD initially planning to do the things by the book, like they should, and then it went haywire?

Did they receive orders to go forward with the case, no matter how weak?

Who did the orders come from?

 

[WaneLyrical]

What records are you referring to?

All the missing records. The rashes, the deliberate tube dislodgement, Baby F’s TPN bag, plumbing incidents. We don’t know what’s not been recorded, but we do know there was a reluctance to record things which might open the hospital up to liability, it’s been shown time and time again.

 

[joltz]

RSBM

20 years ago I worked in a bank that called internal fraud in to a branch because the management suspected a cashier was dipping the tills. It was all the same reasons, it’s always when she’s on shift, happens at lunch and break times, happens to other people’s tills as well as her own, never used to have this many shortages, she’s struggling for money. Blah blah.

Long story short she wasn’t dipping the tills. After a proper back office investigation, all the “suspicious” shortages started falling away as they could be explained, for various reasons but often down to poor systems and controls in the branch, insufficient staffing, proper procedures not being followed, and a handful of human errors.

It wasn’t a “conspiracy”. They firmly believed she was behind it. But she wasn’t. In fact she went on to work there for many years and was an exemplary member of staff.

It’s not that difficult to believe that people point the finger instead of looking at their own shortcomings. I don’t know why people convinced of Letby’s guilt are adamant that it is.

Cool story bro

 

[Sweeper2000]

Don't take this as more than it is but the 40x rate of tube dislodgement at lwh is not correct. Although actually trying to get what some say is the right statistic is difficult. Think it stands that the right one rather than being the expected 1% is actually 4% Although obviously feel free to correct if I didn't get that right.

BBC U-turn over 'false statistics' on Lucy Letby Panorama documentary

The documentary repeated discredited claims that when Letby worked as a nurse in Liverpool, the dislodgement of breathing tubes occurred at a rate 40 times higher than normal during her shifts.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[May72031]

All the missing records. The rashes, the deliberate tube dislodgement, Baby F’s TPN bag, plumbing incidents. We don’t know what’s not been recorded, but we do know there was a reluctance to record things which might open the hospital up to liability, it’s been shown time and time again.

You say we don't know what's not been recorded, but also state there are missing records... So, how do you know what "missing records" there are?

 

[May72031]

I'm not surprised Jane Hutton was not used. Seems she can't get basic facts right. About as useful as that other conspiracy theorist statistician - Richard Gill.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1956033409240662083

https://twitter.com/x/status/1956714401030881729

 

[Sweeper2000]

You say we don't know what's not been recorded, but also state there are missing records... So, how do you know what "missing records" there are?

that sounded way more like speculation to me. "There could be" although we wouldnt know what exactly was and there could be because one of the recommendations when the inspectors came in was that people needed to be more diligent when recording things or maybe its because they used the handtowels when they were resussing the baby. although we have absolutely no idea and i mean none what that means when it comes to the babies in the trial and i dont believe the paperwork was ever questioned or found lacking in that regard for them but you know could be.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I'm not surprised Jane Hutton was not used. Seems she can't get basic facts right. About as useful as that other conspiracy theorist statistician - Richard Gill.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1956033409240662083

https://twitter.com/x/status/1956714401030881729

can you or anyone make heads or tails of that? i struggled.

 

[Jules2021]

RSBM

20 years ago I worked in a bank that called internal fraud in to a branch because the management suspected a cashier was dipping the tills. It was all the same reasons, it’s always when she’s on shift, happens at lunch and break times, happens to other people’s tills as well as her own, never used to have this many shortages, she’s struggling for money. Blah blah.

Long story short she wasn’t dipping the tills. After a proper back office investigation, all the “suspicious” shortages started falling away as they could be explained, for various reasons but often down to poor systems and controls in the branch, insufficient staffing, proper procedures not being followed, and a handful of human errors.

It wasn’t a “conspiracy”. They firmly believed she was behind it. But she wasn’t. In fact she went on to work there for many years and was an exemplary member of staff.

It’s not that difficult to believe that people point the finger instead of looking at their own shortcomings. I don’t know why people convinced of Letby’s guilt are adamant that it is.

So how would YOU have investigated it? Leave her on the unit and see if she harms more babies? Your side keep poking holes in all the evidence but what we're left with is you basically saying no evidence is good enough. If it's not good enough I presume you want her out and working in another hospital? Because what other choice is there? You just seem utterly unable to consider that she may in fact be guilty.

JMO

 

[WaneLyrical]

So how would YOU have investigated it? Leave her on the unit and see if she harms more babies? Your side keep poking holes in all the evidence but what we're left with is you basically saying no evidence is good enough. If it's not good enough I presume you want her out and working in another hospital? Because what other choice is there? You just seem utterly unable to consider that she may in fact be guilty.

JMO

I’ve already previously made my position clear in exactly what I’d need in order to conclude she was guilty.

I am not on anyone’s “side”. I don’t believe there is any case to answer, that’s been my position since opening statements, and remains the position to this day.

I had a real good go at convincing myself she was guilty when the verdicts came in. I posted on here. Said I would respect the jury verdict in any event. That didn’t work out too great.

You ever tried to convince yourself she’s innocent?

Anyone?

 

[Sweeper2000]

why not just look at the evidence and conclude from that? was what i did and the jury. also true that no viable counter story to the prosecutions has been made as of yet, with dr lee's still going through the processes. i think some people may be waiting to hear what the machine has to say on that matter and then we can go from there. thats a medical debate and maybe out of the reach of layfolks understanding and maybe ebst to refrain from forming an opinion on the matter for the sake of not going down rabbitholes but from what i do understand its not a particularly strong argument.

i for one would like an answer as to why no counter medically informed opinion was presented at the first trial, i dont think we ever heard why that was so must assume one couldnt be provided. All Dr M Hall said was he thought the health/condition of some of the babies had been overstated. i also expected other medical opinions on the evidence provided as they are complex, more or less from day one but trust the courts to have a better understanding of how to process such information.

 

[Jules2021]

I’ve already previously made my position clear in exactly what I’d need in order to conclude she was guilty.

I am not on anyone’s “side”. I don’t believe there is any case to answer, that’s been my position since opening statements, and remains the position to this day.

I had a real good go at convincing myself she was guilty when the verdicts came in. I posted on here. Said I would respect the jury verdict in any event. That didn’t work out too great.

You ever tried to convince yourself she’s innocent?

Anyone?

Can you summarise what you'd need? It's a long thread and I took a break for a while. So basically you don't respect the jury verdict even though you said you would?!

I was on this site way before the trial where many conversations were had and a lot of us if I remember thought she was probably not guilty back then. I know I did. But the evidence to the contrary was overwhelming once the trial started. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong about something, I mean I'd love to say I was wrong. No one wants there to have been any murders or babies harmed deliberately. How can I convince myself of something that is so clearly false...

 

[Sweeper2000]

RSBM

20 years ago I worked in a bank that called internal fraud in to a branch because the management suspected a cashier was dipping the tills. It was all the same reasons, it’s always when she’s on shift, happens at lunch and break times, happens to other people’s tills as well as her own, never used to have this many shortages, she’s struggling for money. Blah blah.

Long story short she wasn’t dipping the tills. After a proper back office investigation, all the “suspicious” shortages started falling away as they could be explained, for various reasons but often down to poor systems and controls in the branch, insufficient staffing, proper procedures not being followed, and a handful of human errors.

It wasn’t a “conspiracy”. They firmly believed she was behind it. But she wasn’t. In fact she went on to work there for many years and was an exemplary member of staff.

It’s not that difficult to believe that people point the finger instead of looking at their own shortcomings. I don’t know why people convinced of Letby’s guilt are adamant that it is.

"shortcomings" a part of i think Dr Breary's testimony was that after much reflection and thought on the subject he and maybe others couldn't come up with a reasonable explanation on why some of the babies went the way they did and specifically why they didn't respond to treatment the way they should have. this i think was probably the first inkling of something being wrong, if you exhaust all possible options looking for an answer excluding human action you would then naturally include it to see if that explains the previously unexplained and it did explain it.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

The jury reached their verdict of Guilt based on a prosecution that presented expert forensic and medical opinions to ultimately satisfy guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. By contrast, it appears her legal defenders were not able to successfully present reasonable doubt to the extent it could sway or overcome the minds of those jury members.

We are not the jury. As it stands now, the jury has spoken as to her guilt and we aren't here to second guess them.

IIRC, The Court of Appeal has turned down both her appeal of the original trial and of the retrial. Should an appeal to the Criminal Cases Review Commission be successful and they send the case back to the courts, we can then see on what basis and discuss it then.

Please move on from speculating about her innocence when, as it is now, Lucy Letby is Guilty and sentenced based on a Guilty verdict that stands unless / until it doesn't as found by the judiciary.