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]

Anyone know anything about the david Carrick ex met Police wrongun case? I'd be interested to see if the two are of similar sums in terms of evidential weight, however I'd bet a pretty penny none would as vehemently back him the way people are doing for the aesthetically desirable letby.

It's a strange thing but it always seems to be multiple murderers who are the subjects of the adoration of a mass of disaffected strange types who collectively set off on a misguided crusade to set them free.

I don't think I've ever heard of campaigns to quash the convictions of multiple rapists, serial child abusers, drug gang kingpins, people smugglers and those who run slavery gangs, etc, etc. It's always the serial murderers.

Even when people seem to accept their guilt and aren't trying to free them they're constantly delugining them with letters of admiration, requests for visits and even marriage proposals.

When it comes to serial murderers, a certain section of society seem to have a built-in off switch for their ability to make rational decisions and to conduct themselves according to social norms. Peter Sutcliffe used to get hundreds of letters a year; Charles Manson's face was all over the place for decades; Ted Bundy had legions of supporters; Myra Hindley had a ton of people trying to get her out almost from day one and she spent her entire life lying and minimising her actual role in the killings.

 

[Dotta]

It's a strange thing but it always seems to be multiple murderers who are the subjects of the adoration of a mass of disaffected strange types who collectively set off on a misguided crusade to set them free.

I don't think I've ever heard of campaigns to quash the convictions of multiple rapists, serial child abusers, drug gang kingpins, people smugglers and those who run slavery gangs, etc, etc. It's always the serial murderers.

Even when people seem to accept their guilt and aren't trying to free them they're constantly delugining them with letters of admiration, requests for visits and even marriage proposals.

When it comes to serial murderers, a certain section of society seem to have a built-in off switch for their ability to make rational decisions and to conduct themselves according to social norms. Peter Sutcliffe used to get hundreds of letters a year; Charles Manson's face was all over the place for decades; Ted Bundy had legions of supporters; Myra Hindley had a ton of people trying to get her out almost from day one and she spent her entire life lying and minimising her actual role in the killings.

Serial killers attract fans
because of a complex mixture of psychological, social, and media-driven factors
that transform them into
- what psychologists call - "celebrity monsters".

(Serial killers
are frequently portrayed in media as both monstrous figures and celebrities.
Books are written about them.
Films/documentaries/podcasts are made.
They appear in "entertainment" Media.)

They attract the public's fascination
and become "pop culture icons".

Unfortunately

Why Serial Killers Become Media Celebrities

Why are so many people fascinated by serial killers?

www-psychologytoday-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[Sweeper2000]

It's a strange thing but it always seems to be multiple murderers who are the subjects of the adoration of a mass of disaffected strange types who collectively set off on a misguided crusade to set them free.

I don't think I've ever heard of campaigns to quash the convictions of multiple rapists, serial child abusers, drug gang kingpins, people smugglers and those who run slavery gangs, etc, etc. It's always the serial murderers.

Even when people seem to accept their guilt and aren't trying to free them they're constantly delugining them with letters of admiration, requests for visits and even marriage proposals.

When it comes to serial murderers, a certain section of society seem to have a built-in off switch for their ability to make rational decisions and to conduct themselves according to social norms. Peter Sutcliffe used to get hundreds of letters a year; Charles Manson's face was all over the place for decades; Ted Bundy had legions of supporters; Myra Hindley had a ton of people trying to get her out almost from day one and she spent her entire life lying and minimising her actual role in the killings.

I associate it more with the whole notoriety kinda thing tbh. They might see them as kinda a big deal rather than the twisted deformed reality they actually are. Doubtless a weird weird mindset. Even Ian watkins was able to maintain a level of support from strangers. That math doesn't math to me even remotely.

An attraction or draw towards rather than a revulsion. So weird.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I've just had a thought. Remember Dr Lee and Co saying they hadn't looked at the evidence presented at trial? Does that then mean that if someone had seen her injecting via the IV then the baby collapsing then they still would have had come up with the same theories on the cause of declines and deaths?

 

[Ruthbullock]

These people want to try and discredit anything and everything. The baby E case is a big issue because there was zero issues with the baby before Letby took charge and Letby acknowledged this herself. We also know she was lying and the mother strongly disagreed with Letbys version of events. I don't think baby E in particular is ever going to look good for Letby. The phone records is another red herring. It seems the tactic is to throw as much misinformation as possible to give some doubt because it gets to the point where it becomes much harder to discern the facts and truth from the huge mass of misinformation. The phone records idea is BS


JMO

The issue is it could easily be clarified since the trial by the police who still seem to want to share information and could easily clarify misinformation and it hasn’t been. So it may have been the accurate timings- in which case all the medical professionals notes were wrong, or the phone records shared at trial were wrong. One of them, it has been shown through the inquiry, is inaccurate- does it matter as per guilt or innocence, perhaps not- the issue it has generated for many is the quality and reliability of evidence put forwards in court.

 

[Ruthbullock]

The midwife's notes from 8 pm say nothing about a screaming baby with blood streaming from his mouth. If she had been told that she would have gone to the nursery and checked it out.

The mom had twin preemie boys in the hospital. Obviously mom had things to discuss with the midwife. The notes said it was about deterioration and medication concerns. I don't think the 8 pm convo was about the 'bleeding from his mouth' incident.

Any chance you can hunt a link down for this? I have had a look and can’t find it, although that’s not to say it doesn’t exist- there’s just so much to search through.

 

[Ruthbullock]

This, very much this!

I can't recall much specific detail on here or in any of the reports about precise timings of the phone calls at the time she was on trial.

The jury heard every single word of the evidence presented. They had iPads containing all of the evidence bundles. They had ample opportunity to ask for any clarification they wanted during their deliberations.

I have no idea as to why people keep labouring these points - points which they do not have any background on other than some somewhat sketchy media reports. As you point out this doesn't seem to have been a contentious point at trial so why is it being brought up now?

Because if the earlier timeline is accurate with regards the phone calls, the later deterioration and phone calls aren’t accurate- people seem to keep glazing over the fact that one or the other is wrong-. The only timeline that roughly fits (and it’s still not perfect) with the mums testimony is if she was an hour wrong at the start, then it fits with the midwife telling her the baby was struggling and to contact her husband and him arriving to support his wife and baby at the hospital. Changing the phone times doesn’t suddenly exonerate Letby, but it highlights issues with the evidence in the trial and the weight they were given. We had to accept the earlier phone call timing was accurate, but when they delved deeper in the inquiry, in order to do so, we had to disregard the actual deterioration and sad death as that didn’t tally with the later phone call to ask her husband to attend, or the midwife’s notes and recollection. Things which should have been discussed at trial, but weren’t.

 

[Ruthbullock]

No, I don't think it matters. Although the more individual complaints they receive they might take more notice I suppose.

Why is her barristers stance and actions so important to you that you now wish to encourage everybody to put in professional complaints about somebody? If what he was doing was so inappropriate- the CCRC would have said something by now, as would the many legal publications in the UK.

 

[marynnu]

I associate it more with the whole notoriety kinda thing tbh. They might see them as kinda a big deal rather than the twisted deformed reality they actually are. Doubtless a weird weird mindset. Even Ian watkins was able to maintain a level of support from strangers. That math doesn't math to me even remotely.

An attraction or draw towards rather than a revulsion. So weird.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Thats about right lmao "have you ever done anything you regret" lol

 

[Parker Knoll]

Why is her barristers stance and actions so important to you that you now wish to encourage everybody to put in professional complaints about somebody? If what he was doing was so inappropriate- the CCRC would have said something by now, as would the many legal publications in the UK.

It’s nothing to do with the CCRC or legal publications to police whether his actions are inappropriate and say anything.
They are entitled to make their own complaints to the Bar Council if they like as they are the only body that can regulate him.

 

[Marantz4250b]

It’s nothing to do with the CCRC or legal publications to police whether his actions are inappropriate and say anything.
They are entitled to make their own complaints to the Bar Council if they like as they are the only body that can regulate him.

Someone needs to regulate him - big time!

The way he is conducting himself is an utter insult to what is probably the longest standing, and respected, system of justice the world has ever seen. He is an absolute disgrace, quite frankly.

 

[Baileyboo]

Because if the earlier timeline is accurate with regards the phone calls, the later deterioration and phone calls aren’t accurate- people seem to keep glazing over the fact that one or the other is wrong-. The only timeline that roughly fits (and it’s still not perfect) with the mums testimony is if she was an hour wrong at the start, then it fits with the midwife telling her the baby was struggling and to contact her husband and him arriving to support his wife and baby at the hospital. Changing the phone times doesn’t suddenly exonerate Letby, but it highlights issues with the evidence in the trial and the weight they were given. We had to accept the earlier phone call timing was accurate, but when they delved deeper in the inquiry, in order to do so, we had to disregard the actual deterioration and sad death as that didn’t tally with the later phone call to ask her husband to attend, or the midwife’s notes and recollection. Things which should have been discussed at trial, but weren’t.

There may have been two phone calls to Dad, one from mum's phone at 10:52 and a second from the maternity phone after 11:32, he may have confused the two. There isn't a record of the calls between NNU and maternity other then what is documented in the notes.

 

[joltz]

The issue is it could easily be clarified since the trial by the police who still seem to want to share information and could easily clarify misinformation and it hasn’t been. So it may have been the accurate timings- in which case all the medical professionals notes were wrong, or the phone records shared at trial were wrong. One of them, it has been shown through the inquiry, is inaccurate- does it matter as per guilt or innocence, perhaps not- the issue it has generated for many is the quality and reliability of evidence put forwards in court.

How are either the medical records shared at trial or drs notes wrong?

 

[Sweeper2000]

Some mildly interesting news.

"Dr John Gibbs, one of the first consultants to raise alarms about Letby at the Countess of Chester Hospital, retired from the NHS and later studied theology in preparation for ordination."

Doctor who helped convict Lucy Letby now training to become priest - Premier Christian News | Headlines, Breaking News, Comment & Analysis

Dr John Gibbs, one of the first consultants to raise alarms about Letby at the Countess of Chester Hospital, retired from the NHS and later studied theology in preparation for ordination.

premierchristian.news

 

[Sweeper2000]

Some semi important news that I didn't see posted before.

"Lady Justice Thirlwall previously announced she hoped her findings from the inquiry into the events at the Countess of Chester Hospital would be released this month. She later revised that estimate to early next year."

Lucy Letby public inquiry report further delayed

A report examining neonatal nurse Lucy Letby's crimes is now expected to be published "after Easter".

www.bbc.com

 

[Sweeper2000]

Some aggravating news.

"Letby’s legal team has cited complaints made by several families in Guernsey to raise questions about Dr Bohin’s credibility as part of an appeal bid."

EXPLAINED: Why is a Guernsey doctor at the centre of the Lucy Letby appeal? - Bailiwick Express News Jersey

The lawyers of convicted child killer Lucy Letby have raised doubts over the credibility of a Guernsey doctor who was a key witness in her trial. Letby is a former neonatal nurse who was convicted in 2023 of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill more between 2015 and 2016 while working...

www.bailiwickexpress.com

 

[Parker Knoll]

Some pretty definite news

She’s going nowhere.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Forgive me if my memory doesn't serve but I can't remember I'd we had been over this or if indeed its even accurate?

"At one point, the court examined a document detailing her social activities during the killing spree. It revealed she and Dr A had travelled to London together for the day, with messages between them showing love heart emojis as they arranged to meet. However, during the questioning, she seemed to let slip that she HAD A "BOYFRIEND".

"[Colleague] was a married man, it's not a relationship at all it's a friendship," she stated, before confessing that she did have a boyfriend at this time. It wasn't clarified if this was the same person and no previous partners were brought up during the trial."

Lucy Letby's mystery 'boyfriend' and flirty texts with married doctor exposed

Lucy Letby was convicted of murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit, but to most people she met, she seemed like a normal woman with a good job and an active social life

www.mirror.co.uk

There is a faint bell ringing somewhere but cannot recall adequately.

 

[Parker Knoll]

IIRC she flip flopped on the stand on this.
Sometimes she protested that he was just a friend and sometimes she allowed NJ KC to refer to him as her boyfriend without contradicting him.
The tears and histrionics would suggest to me that something was going on or had gone on.
JMO