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]

I

I think she went to Ibiza with friends. And to me, she seems to have had a reasonablely normal life outside work to be honest.

On the face of it she was totally normal and sociable. In fact she was clearly very social, I've known plenty of women who were no were near as social as she was. All of that, though, appears to have been with people she knew well and saw regularly. And most of it was quite tame compared to the likes of Ibiza. Doesn't seem to fit her personality at all.

But, again, she just seems to be a total puzzle, to be honest.

 

[JosieJo]

On the face of it she was totally normal and sociable. In fact she was clearly very social, I've known plenty of women who were no were near as social as she was. All of that, though, appears to have been with people she knew well and saw regularly. And most of it was quite tame compared to the likes of Ibiza. Doesn't seem to fit her personality at all.

But, again, she just seems to be a total puzzle, to be honest.

To be fair there are plenty of beautiful places in ibiza ...family resorts ...could be wrong but I doubt she was staying in San Antonio or clubbing in Ushuaia

 

[Sweeper2000]

To be fair there are plenty of beautiful places in ibiza ...family resorts ...could be wrong but I doubt she was staying in San Antonio or clubbing in Ushuaia

You know these places then JJ ?

 

[JosieJo]

I can only compare her to my daughters and people I know ..i consider ive been lucky with my daughters ..good jobs and sensible...but .she was early 20s at the time...my daughters would go out with older work colleagues for meals or celebrations..but on a whole every Friday or Saturday they would be in town or city in the usual bars or clubs till 3 in the morning..they went on girls holidays to party resorts abroad...if I'd asked them if they wanted to come to cockington for 2 weeks ..well I'd get a polite "erm no thanks" .....even though now in 30s will happily tag along to devon with the grandkids ....I know everyone is different but I just get a feeling about her.

 

[JosieJo]

You know these places then JJ ?

Personally definitely not

 

[Parker Knoll]

I can confirm I have been to Ushuaia !
It was however in 2012 when I had energy and could stay out past 9pm !
I’m with you Jo …. She’s an utter weirdo.

 

[Jules2021]

I think there was a reason she thought that she'd never marry.. I think she was a deeply troubled, emotionally damaged soul.

She 'seemed' to get on well with people, but when we look deeper at her txts and messages to co-workers---much of it was fake, and two-faced. It was a mask.

Beneath that mask was a very sick, twisted person. Anyone who could murder newborn babies, then go about their day and act as though things were just fine----

She had such hidden, sick secrets, and it took everything she had to just keep it all together everyday. So she knew she was never going to be someone's wife and the mother of their children.

Did she ever have an intimate relationship? I think everything was surface level.

Strangely enough, she had the same kind of relationship with her parents that Bryan Kohberger has with his.

BK spoke to his parents every day, for hours. He'd often begin calling his mom at 4 or 5 am---if she didnt answer he'd text his Dad and ask why they aren't answering. And he didnt have any phone calls from any other friends or relatives---just hours of calls with his Mom and Dad.

Lucy used to go on 2 week vacations, twice a year, with her parents. Every year. Never vacationed with anyone else, just Mom and Dad.

The creepiest thing about those vacations----On the day she'd leave work, to go on vacation, every time, a baby would collapse. Then during her vacation, no collapses would happen. But on the very day of her return, every time, a baby would collapse and/or die, as soon as Nurse Lucy returned.

I'm still on the fence over whether the "I'll never get married or have children" was down to the police investigation looming over her or something she was grappling with for a long time. It does seem awfully early to be giving up in that regard? Perhaps you are right though and she knew she was just so different to the norm. I don't think she's capable of having feelings for anyone else. I don't know if it's the same for other women but so much of attraction for me is emotional and having the feelings develop first before the attraction. I wonder if she never had that. Superficially she could be like "he's hot" but she was never going to fall in love because she's not capable of that. Plus a long-term relationship would get in the way of all her sick desires.

I think maybe she was very lonely, her parents miles away and no long-term relationship and any time she didn't get her own way it felt like a personal attack on her or like the world was against her and she had to "take back control" by attacking a baby. Then again she seemed to have planned to attack the triplets whilst she was on holiday so it can't all be about rage in the moment. IDK I'm just an armchair psychologist trying to decipher something that'll never make sense to any of us. I do find her character fascinating. I wish more criminologists would come out and give more insight tbh.

JMO

 

[JosieJo]

I'm still on the fence over whether the "I'll never get married or have children" was down to the police investigation looming over her or something she was grappling with for a long time. It does seem awfully early to be giving up in that regard? Perhaps you are right though and she knew she was just so different to the norm. I don't think she's capable of having feelings for anyone else. I don't know if it's the same for other women but so much of attraction for me is emotional and having the feelings develop first before the attraction. I wonder if she never had that. Superficially she could be like "he's hot" but she was never going to fall in love because she's not capable of that. Plus a long-term relationship would get in the way of all her sick desires.

I think maybe she was very lonely, her parents miles away and no long-term relationship and any time she didn't get her own way it felt like a personal attack on her or like the world was against her and she had to "take back control" by attacking a baby. Then again she seemed to have planned to attack the triplets whilst she was on holiday so it can't all be about rage in the moment. IDK I'm just an armchair psychologist trying to decipher something that'll never make sense to any of us. I do find her character fascinating. I wish more criminologists would come out and give more insight tbh.

JMO

Yes I remembered a lot of discussion around I'll never marry / have children..was it not before she knew police were involved.? ...and why would she not have those things dud to a hospital investigating?

 

[Jules2021]

@JosieJo I think she mentioned police investigation on the post it though? I can't remember when it's supposed to be from.

 

[marynnu]

Yes I remembered a lot of discussion around I'll never marry / have children..was it not before she knew police were involved.? ...and why would she not have those things dud to a hospital investigating?

You're right. When questioned she said something along the lines of nobody wanting her because she'd been taken off the unit, or some such nonsense. Nothing to do with the police.

 

[Tortoise]

Letby had top-notch defence representation. Everything that needed to be said about Dr Evans was said at trial, you can be assured. IMO

 

[rvlvr]

Dr Hammond in Private Eye (issue 1648) writes:

Many more deaths and collapses occurred during that time period, but it was entirely left to a single prosecution expert, Dr Dewi Evans, to determine what was suspicious and what was not suspicious, without any objective definition or independent corroboration.

Evans initially identified 10 more suspicious events than appeared on the final chart shown to the jury, but when it transpired Letby was not present for them, they were removed. A classic example of selection bias to promote the prosecution argument.

It does seem extraordinary to me that this one man wielded so much power and influence. Not only to put forward cases where he believed crimes had occurred, but to also then withdraw cases when he changed his mind? On what criteria was any of this based? Who reviewed his work? What if some suspicious incidents that he later withdrew were indeed suspicious? How would we ever know, with no one ‘marking his homework’?

(I tried to find a ‘reputable’ ‘MSM’ source to corroborate this but it seems the papers are too busy doing hard hitting journalism regarding Lucy Letby’s weight gain and junk food eating habits to cover such a trivial issue.)

 

[JosieJo]

Dr Hammond in Private Eye (issue 1648) writes:



It does seem extraordinary to me that this one man wielded so much power and influence. Not only to put forward cases where he believed crimes had occurred, but to also then withdraw cases when he changed his mind? On what criteria was any of this based? Who reviewed his work? What if some suspicious incidents that he later withdrew were indeed suspicious? How would we ever know, with no one ‘marking his homework’?

(I tried to find a ‘reputable’ ‘MSM’ source to corroborate this but it seems the papers are too busy doing hard hitting journalism regarding Lucy Letby’s weight gain and junk food eating habits to cover such a trivial issue.)

It's obvious to me that an expert would want to see ALL notes of all babies that collapsed and died in the timeframe...then take a quick look at all the notes and whittle them down to "potentially suspicious " incidents...only then by examining every detail such as x rays ...blood work ..parent communication. ..and other defence experts in specialised fields would you come to the final number of suspicious events
To me seems perfectly normal and in fact shows a fair system rather than just looking at the cases the consultants on unit worried about

 

[Tortoise]

If incidents weren't ultimately deemed suspicious, they weren't deemed suspicious. Maybe they were suspicious, but the police/prosecution could gather no evidence to prove she was there. Or maybe they weren't suspicious events but they initially flagged up every single event involving a baby who did have a suspicious collapse or death, for further witness interview or more information to explain it. Maybe Letby chose victims who did have a history, to cover their ultimately suspicious collapses/deaths.

If it's true, it debunks the other myth that frequently circulates amongst deniers of her guilt, that Dr Evans knew who was on shift.

These unreliable writers don't have the answers, only have half a story (if they can be believed), didn't follow the trial so have huge gaps in their knowledge, and the investigation is ongoing with possible future charges in the pipeline, so the prosecution witnesses can't talk about it.

It transpired during the trial, that Letby would go into the unit in her time off, without swiping in. They know that because she texted a friend that she had done just that, to visit baby G, when she wasn't on shift. The prosecution only knew that from her text, not from other evidence. Someone had buzzed her in or held the door for her. The prosecution is not going to make a case without evidence to show a jury, but it doesn't detract from evidence that was used, by the jury, to convict her of multiple murders and attempted murders.

 

[JosieJo]

Dr Hammond in Private Eye (issue 1648) writes:



It does seem extraordinary to me that this one man wielded so much power and influence. Not only to put forward cases where he believed crimes had occurred, but to also then withdraw cases when he changed his mind? On what criteria was any of this based? Who reviewed his work? What if some suspicious incidents that he later withdrew were indeed suspicious? How would we ever know, with no one ‘marking his homework’?

(I tried to find a ‘reputable’ ‘MSM’ source to corroborate this but it seems the papers are too busy doing hard hitting journalism regarding Lucy Letby’s weight gain and junk food eating habits to cover such a trivial issue.)

Two other expert witnesses "marked his homework" and reviewed his work
Then of course there were the numerous other specialist professors who looked at his work on certain babies and testified in court

 

[Parker Knoll]

Exactly this.

Dr Evan’s wasn’t some lone voice here hell bent on bringing Letby down on just a hunch.

Professor Arthurs, Kinsey, Hindmarsh, Bohin, Stivaros were experts in this case joined by Dr Marnerides and Kenney were also called for the Prosecution.
They were also intending to call neonatologist Martin Ward Platt but he sadly died before the trial.

Certainly looks to me that the “ power and influence wielded “ wasn’t held solely by Dr Evans here at all.

 

[rvlvr]

If incidents weren't ultimately deemed suspicious, they weren't deemed suspicious. Maybe they were suspicious, but the police/prosecution could gather no evidence to prove she was there. Or maybe they weren't suspicious events but they initially flagged up every single event involving a baby who did have a suspicious collapse or death, for further witness interview or more information to explain it. Maybe Letby chose victims who did have a history, to cover their ultimately suspicious collapses/deaths.

You must see that this is a deeply unsatisfactory and dangerous way of doing things though? Your maybes are theories and possibly/likely correct but ultimately nothing here refutes the argument that these suspicious incidents were discounted simply because Letby wasn’t on shift? It shouldn’t be difficult for anyone to provide a different conclusion to the one put forward by Dr Hammond and yet evidently it is - should a case like this arise in future it’s surely imperative that lessons are learned and it doesn’t play out this way.

 

[Tortoise]

You must see that this is a deeply unsatisfactory and dangerous way of doing things though? Your maybes are theories and possibly/likely correct but ultimately nothing here refutes the argument that these suspicious incidents were discounted simply because Letby wasn’t on shift? It shouldn’t be difficult for anyone to provide a different conclusion to the one put forward by Dr Hammond and yet evidently it is - should a case like this arise in future it’s surely imperative that lessons are learned and it doesn’t play out this way.

Everything comes down to the quality of evidence. If a prosecution doesn't pass a high threshold it's out. Since we only have half a story, not the reason why these cases were not pursued, or who determined they were not to proceed (doctors or police), it's all guesswork and not worthy of dissecting without the full picture. It's just pot-stirring by people who already demonstrated an agenda, IMO.

In the case of a serial killer, for instance Peter Sutcliffe, or Fred West, if the police had multiple other victims but no tie to these perpetrators, they are not just going to bung in all the unsolved murders in the region, to see if they can get a conviction.

You are judging decisions made without knowing the why or the who. Do you know for a fact that Dr Evans made these decisions? Why jump to 'lessons should be learned' without knowing the full facts?

It's dangerous reporting by unscrupulous individuals, undermining the justice system, jumping on the bandwagon of fraudulent innocence projects, IMO.

 

[Marantz4250b]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

The incidents that LL wasn't involved with are irrelevant. People bring them up in order to desperately bring "statistics" into the mix because they like to claim that she was convicted largely on that basis. In reality nothing statistical was ever used in evidence against her. It's an attempt to cloud the waters and gaslight people into believing that she was railroaded into a life sentence for whatever nefarious reasons people care to dream up.

The only things of relevance are the events she was charged over. Nothing else is remotely relevant and her supporters saying otherwise are wrong.

This subject will inevitably drift onto the matter of the shift rota and why every death and collapse wasn't on it; obviously, that was done that way because they aren't relevant. The chart showed nurses on duty against the incidents she was charged with. People claiming that it should have shown every incident, including those she wasn't charged with or that it should have shown every member of staff, nurses, doctors even down to the porters and the plumber are equally wrong. In fact, if it had shown those people we all know that her name would still be the only one linked to every one and her supporters would, I am sure, claim that it was unfair because far more people being shown on it would make her look even more guilty!

To reiterate, she's guilty. She's never getting out. She will die in prison. Everyone knows this. Even her most fervent supporters know this deep down they just won't admit it to themselves.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Dr Hammond in Private Eye (issue 1648) writes:



It does seem extraordinary to me that this one man wielded so much power and influence. Not only to put forward cases where he believed crimes had occurred, but to also then withdraw cases when he changed his mind? On what criteria was any of this based? Who reviewed his work? What if some suspicious incidents that he later withdrew were indeed suspicious? How would we ever know, with no one ‘marking his homework’?

(I tried to find a ‘reputable’ ‘MSM’ source to corroborate this but it seems the papers are too busy doing hard hitting journalism regarding Lucy Letby’s weight gain and junk food eating habits to cover such a trivial issue.)

A court over the course of ten months. One of the longest criminal trials in British history.

Then another one did on a retrial.

And two appellate courts!