Lucy Letby guilty

[tamthebam]

10 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

You can apply this to anything. I don’t know why people, with little to no evidence or insight to justify it, continue to not only form such immovable beliefs on any subject, but shout very loudly about it at anyone who doesn’t share said belief.

I think you've summed up Steve Clarke's approach to the Scotland team selection 

[Wee-Bey]

 

[effeffsee_the2nd]

On 05/09/2024 at 09:03, VincentGuerin said:

I remember having a chat with the missus while this was on telly at the time of the first trial and the missus said from the beginning that she felt it all seemed off and that a lot of the "burn the f**king witch" people seemed to be backing themselves into a corner about it. It's hard to walk that back. Especially people who went big on it on social media.

I think we're seeing this now to an extent. It's a highly emotive case, but I think these things are best looked at coldly.

With what we know now, is there a reasonable doubt that she's guilty? I'd say yes.

I remember saying at the time, if she was indeed guilty, she MUST have a serious mental illness, because there is no other reasonable motive for this. For instance people will do absolutely horrific things ( including murdering children - see drug cartels)  either for financial gain, or out of fear for themselves or their families wellbeing. There isn't any suggestion of that here.

Has she undergone psychiatric assessments? I think that would be a good place to start

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

On 05/09/2024 at 11:25, Todd_is_God said:

You can apply this to anything. I don’t know why people, with little to no evidence or insight to justify it, continue to not only form such immovable beliefs on any subject, but shout very loudly about it at anyone who doesn’t share said belief.

Yep, you see it all the time.  I won’t say where I see it most..

Group-think over logical-think.

The group-thinkers are nearly always more zealous.

Edited September 9 by CarrbridgeSaintee

[Granny Danger]

On 05/09/2024 at 16:31, Jacksgranda said:

You must be my wife's brother...

I assume your wife is nothing like her brother.

 

 

 

Apart for the moustache obviously.

 

[velo army]

It was an alarming feature at the start of this thread with people calling her a monster. I just assumed she'd butchered them in cold blood. After seeing more about it I was more horrified that she'd been tried and convicted on probability on a Jessica Fletcher prosecution.

It's a really sad case.

[Sergeant Wilson]

4 hours ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

I remember saying at the time, if she was indeed guilty, she MUST have a serious mental illness, because there is no other reasonable motive for this. For instance people will do absolutely horrific things ( including murdering children - see drug cartels)  either for financial gain, or out of fear for themselves or their families wellbeing. There isn't any suggestion of that here.

Has she undergone psychiatric assessments? I think that would be a good place to start

I wouldn't have thought so, why would she.

"Why did you kill all the babies Lucy?

Felt like it.

Oh, I see, we'll crack on then."

[JS_FFC]

Is there a Centrist dad answer of "She probably did it but it's very dangerous to be chucking people in jail based entirely on circumstantial evidence"?

[GHF-23]

17 hours ago, JS_FFC said:

Is there a Centrist dad answer of "She probably did it but it's very dangerous to be chucking people in jail based entirely on circumstantial evidence"?

That's probably where I (not much of a centrist or a dad) would have come down on it before the recent developments. I'd say the case now is more "we can't really know if she did it, she may well have done, but the circumstantial evidence which convicted her appears to be materially questionable." 

There are always going to be cases where circumstantial evidence is all that is on offer. Take the Arthur's seat murder - other than her dying declaration, everything I recall from that case (I don't tend to follow true crime stuff but a family member was one of the officers involved) was circumstantial, and while unlikely her dying declaration could be mistaken. But I don't think anyone has a problem with that guy being in jail despite no person seeing him push her or forensics to that effect. 

The issue here is that when all you have is circumstantial evidence they have to be strong enough to hold up a narrative structure that shows an overwhelming probability.  When many of those individual elements suddenly appear to be made of sand it can all fall over pretty quickly. 

[GHF-23]

Letby was not working on the day the X-ray was taken and had not been on shift since before the baby was born - information the jury heard in her first trial. Letby’s former barrister Ben Myers also highlighted these details in his closing argument.

 

In his summing up the judge made clear to the jury this X-ray had been taken the day before Baby C collapsed, though he didn’t remind them Letby hadn’t been on shift. At appeal, the prosecution said Letby could have visited the hospital while off shift, but didn’t put forward any evidence that she was there

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c89l05e97vqo

 

[velo army]

I'm trying not to put on my tinfoil hat here. The fact that we now have medical experts expressing serious concerns about the way the evidence was presented in court is increasingly alarming. The fact that three judges have reviewed it and still been satisfied with her guilt is giving me pause. It can't merely be a case of a judicial circling of wagons can it?

It looks increasingly likely that all the evidence has been viewed through the prism of her presumed guilt. If you look at her behaviour through the prism of someone who didn't take care of her own professional boundaries (doing too many shifts, seeking to add parents on facebook) then I'd say it also stacks up. She seemed a dedicated nurse and her behaviour isn't particularly consistent with those who murder children. 

[Boo Khaki]

3 hours ago, velo army said:

I'm trying not to put on my tinfoil hat here. The fact that we now have medical experts expressing serious concerns about the way the evidence was presented in court is increasingly alarming. The fact that three judges have reviewed it and still been satisfied with her guilt is giving me pause. It can't merely be a case of a judicial circling of wagons can it?

It looks increasingly likely that all the evidence has been viewed through the prism of her presumed guilt. If you look at her behaviour through the prism of someone who didn't take care of her own professional boundaries (doing too many shifts, seeking to add parents on facebook) then I'd say it also stacks up. She seemed a dedicated nurse and her behaviour isn't particularly consistent with those who murder children. 

I don't think you can just look at the trial events when considering her guilt or innocence.

There were senior clinicians at the hospital who felt there was something deeply amiss in the unit for months, yet they were basically bullied into silence by non-clinical hospital management who clearly didn't want attention drawn to the fact an inordinate number of babies, who weren't even in the most vulnerable cohort, were dropping dead unexpectedly. Now if this was a case of poor practice, poor sanitation, or just sheer coincidence, I'd expect that those clinicians, especially since nobody appears to be calling their competence or honesty into question, to petition for this to be investigated and corrected, but no, despite their best efforts they always came back to the same inescapable conclusion that someone was deliberately killing babies, hence why they ultimately ignored hospital management, and at the risk of their own careers, went over management's head and called the police in to investigate.

Now ok, it is theoretically possible that they were, somehow, mistaken, but I think that possibility is remote when they worked through the other possibilities and ultimately concluded that the deaths of the children could only be down to deliberate acts. People in that profession are not just going to jump straight to the conclusion that a fellow healthcare professional is killing patients, not without exhausting the far more feasible explanations beforehand, and nor do I think they would call in the police unless they were entirely satisfied this was the only remaining plausible explanation.

I suspect if, in the fullness of time, Letby's convictions are quashed on the basis of flawed/misrepresented evidence, then she may well still face trial again but with "proper" representation this time, although god knows how trial by jury would be possible given the media exposure. If she is not tried, or tried again and found to be innocent, then I still don't think that's the end of the story because someone is going to have to explain the deaths of these children, how it's possible that their deaths could be misinterpreted as murders, and why hospital management were so keen to dismiss the voices of senior clinicians on matter that they, themselves, had no professional background in. 

It's also worth noting that the police are still investigating Letby's tenure in earlier workplaces because this may not have been something unique to Countess of Chester, and it may not have started there.

[DiegoDiego]

49 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Now ok, it is theoretically possible that they were, somehow, mistaken, but I think that possibility is remote when they worked through the other possibilities and ultimately concluded that the deaths of the children could only be down to deliberate acts. People in that profession are not just going to jump straight to the conclusion that a fellow healthcare professional is killing patients, not without exhausting the far more feasible explanations beforehand, and nor do I think they would call in the police unless they were entirely satisfied this was the only remaining plausible explanation.

The other possibility is they were correct, but it wasn't Letby doing it. Or she was being manipulated or framed.

[Boo Khaki]

51 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said:

The other possibility is they were correct, but it wasn't Letby doing it. Or she was being manipulated or framed.

Yes, but then this involves the police investigating, concluding children were being murdered, and then apprehending completely the wrong person, which I can't see being a realistic possibility either because not only were all of the nurses shift patterns recorded, but multiple witnesses were able to recall precisely who was present and who was not for individual events. Surely if she was being manipulated or framed, this would be investigated before prosecution, or at the very least form part of her defence at trial even if the police could not find evidence of it.

I have suggested in conversation about this that I have a hard time believing that if Letby wasn't murdering children, then nobody else was either, because I don't accept that these deaths were just coincidences or down to environmental factors. Having said that though, I also struggle with the idea that someone was murdering children and the police investigation somehow managed to apprehend an innocent party while the true culprit evaded detection, because that would appear to involve not only police incompetence, but an enormous conspiracy between Letby's colleagues to lie, collude, and obfuscate the truth.

I do think it's a possibility that one, or more, of the children who died or collapsed did so for entirely coincidental reasons, and Letby has been "unfortunate" enough that they fit within her pattern of killing, so she's been done for an attack or murder that was no such thing, but I don't believe that can explain away every death, and every time a baby suddenly took a turn for the worse or collapsed.

I think what this really comes down to is that Letby, on the face of it, presents as such an unlikely candidate for a serial killer that a lot of people are really going above and beyond to try and find something that soothes their belief that something just isn't "right". I think a lot of people would have felt the same about Beverley Allitt, indeed, that's self-evident given the number of "did she do it?" type documentaries made about her.

Personally, I see it as no more complicated than; If you are convinced babies are being murdered in that unit, then you determine where the evidence points, and then you can figure out motivation and psyche of the killer later once they are apprehended. There is no legal necessity to determine or explain motive, only to prove fact. I think it's still confusing people that she was ruled fit and able to stand trial, and that is discordant with perceptions of how disturbed she must be to commit these crimes in the first place. It's frequently the case that some of the most reprehensible killers spend years or decades in the care of psychiatry and it still never comes to, or can agree upon, any satisfactory conclusions about who and what they are. No doubting they were serial killers though.

[GHF-23]

2 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

Yes, but then this involves the police investigating, concluding children were being murdered, and then apprehending completely the wrong person, which I can't see being a realistic possibility either because not only were all of the nurses shift patterns recorded, but multiple witnesses were able to recall precisely who was present and who was not for individual events. Surely if she was being manipulated or framed, this would be investigated before prosecution, or at the very least form part of her defence at trial even if the police could not find evidence of it.

I have suggested in conversation about this that I have a hard time believing that if Letby wasn't murdering children, then nobody else was either, because I don't accept that these deaths were just coincidences or down to environmental factors. Having said that though, I also struggle with the idea that someone was murdering children and the police investigation somehow managed to apprehend an innocent party while the true culprit evaded detection, because that would appear to involve not only police incompetence, but an enormous conspiracy between Letby's colleagues to lie, collude, and obfuscate the truth.

I do think it's a possibility that one, or more, of the children who died or collapsed did so for entirely coincidental reasons, and Letby has been "unfortunate" enough that they fit within her pattern of killing, so she's been done for an attack or murder that was no such thing, but I don't believe that can explain away every death, and every time a baby suddenly took a turn for the worse or collapsed.

I think what this really comes down to is that Letby, on the face of it, presents as such an unlikely candidate for a serial killer that a lot of people are really going above and beyond to try and find something that soothes their belief that something just isn't "right". I think a lot of people would have felt the same about Beverley Allitt, indeed, that's self-evident given the number of "did she do it?" type documentaries made about her.

Personally, I see it as no more complicated than; If you are convinced babies are being murdered in that unit, then you determine where the evidence points, and then you can figure out motivation and psyche of the killer later once they are apprehended. There is no legal necessity to determine or explain motive, only to prove fact. I think it's still confusing people that she was ruled fit and able to stand trial, and that is discordant with perceptions of how disturbed she must be to commit these crimes in the first place. It's frequently the case that some of the most reprehensible killers spend years or decades in the care of psychiatry and it still never comes to, or can agree upon, any satisfactory conclusions about who and what they are. No doubting they were serial killers though.

I think you could well be absolutely right here. But you should be fair, doubts here are nothing to do with not believing she was personally capable of killing these babies. It's based on a series of experts queueing up to say this all doesn't make sense for reasons as diverse as, to give a few examples, "that's not how that test works", "that's not how those children would most likely have died", "that's not how statistics work" and most recently "she was not working at any point between the baby's birth and the x-ray which the prosecution claims shows the cause of death connected to her." There are others saying it is not implausible that the children died through no foul play. In addition, a lot of the details which have come out about the conduct of court case cause a severe sucking of the teeth, and the evidence of a sort of admission of guilt we have since found was part of a therapeutic exercise. Where you're right is there's not been sufficient coverage to show that these doubts are pervasive of the entire scope of deaths. From what I can tell the doubts over specific methods are contested very broadly though. 

I think it's fair enough to still be convinced of her guilt. But it's not being truthful to describe the doubts arising now as due to some unwillingness to see someone like her as a killer. I think it's natural for people to see what amounts to a flood of doubt about the material facts of a case coming to light and to react accordingly. 

Edited Tuesday at 19:08 by GHF-23

[Boo Khaki]

What concerns me is the number of experts coming forward suggesting that the reason none of this was contested at her trial is simply because nobody is willing to put their reputation on the line, and go into a court providing opinion on this or that for the Defence, when it might later be used to discredit them or insinuate they are quack. Clearly that shouldn't be the case, but then, there are also people saying that no matter the question, you will be able to dredge up experts espousing wholly opposing and conflicting views, so perhaps citing experts shouldn't be considered the definitive authority on matters of fact in the first place.

I think what I'm trying to say, is I don't know how much credence we should give a relatively small number of experts contesting the prosecution case when it's entirely plausible that there at least as many, if not more, who believe the prosecution case is perfectly cogent and are not jumping up and down about it because they believe there's nothing to contest. Surely that would just result in a professional shit-flinging contest.

 

[hk blues]

19 hours ago, velo army said:

I'm trying not to put on my tinfoil hat here. The fact that we now have medical experts expressing serious concerns about the way the evidence was presented in court is increasingly alarming. The fact that three judges have reviewed it and still been satisfied with her guilt is giving me pause. It can't merely be a case of a judicial circling of wagons can it?

It looks increasingly likely that all the evidence has been viewed through the prism of her presumed guilt. If you look at her behaviour through the prism of someone who didn't take care of her own professional boundaries (doing too many shifts, seeking to add parents on facebook) then I'd say it also stacks up. She seemed a dedicated nurse and her behaviour isn't particularly consistent with those who murder children. 

The jury will have heard the evidence day-by-day and will naturally have been influenced by what evidence went before - that's how trials work.  The same would go for those working with her as suspicions rose as the 'coincidences' built up.  For sure, some of her behaviours may be indicative of no more than a dedicated nurse but the jury didn't buy that.

We can but have faith that the prism of guilt developed over time rather then being the case from the outset.  

 

[The DA]

I caught a few minutes of Radio 4's File on 4 programme on the Letsby case in the car. It sounded interesting and even-handed so I think I'll listen to it on sounds later.

[GHF-23]

15 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

What concerns me is the number of experts coming forward suggesting that the reason none of this was contested at her trial is simply because nobody is willing to put their reputation on the line, and go into a court providing opinion on this or that for the Defence, when it might later be used to discredit them or insinuate they are quack. Clearly that shouldn't be the case, but then, there are also people saying that no matter the question, you will be able to dredge up experts espousing wholly opposing and conflicting views, so perhaps citing experts shouldn't be considered the definitive authority on matters of fact in the first place.

I think what I'm trying to say, is I don't know how much credence we should give a relatively small number of experts contesting the prosecution case when it's entirely plausible that there at least as many, if not more, who believe the prosecution case is perfectly cogent and are not jumping up and down about it because they believe there's nothing to contest. Surely that would just result in a professional shit-flinging contest.

 

I must have missed them saying they didn't want to come forward at the time, would it not be more the case that it's unwise to comment on a live case? It seems a number of experts were consulted by the defence, who decided not to use them as it would be counterproductive to their acceptance of the argument that there had to be a massive murderer working on the ward. This seems, in retrospect, a slightly batshit decision. 

I don't think it's really relevant or helpful to speculate on the proportion of experts who may or may not support the prosecution's presentation of evidence. Rather, we should consider the qualifications of those who are in fact commenting on the case, and those don't seem to be being questioned anywhere that I have seen.

It should not be a goal of criminal justice to prevent a professional shit-flinging contest, and if the outcome is an understanding that the way expert opinion is used within the courts is not fit for purpose then so be it. If it is found to be to the contrary, that is to the good as well because it doesn't seem to be in much doubt, despite the judicial and prosecutorial services doing what British institutions do best when challenged, that there are some questions to be answered and confidence should be restored.

You mentioned in your initial post that you can't just use the trial events to determine guilt or innocence. Well that is what people are questioning. You can base your own opinion on her guilt or innocence on whatever you like, and in fact there are vanishingly few people saying she is outright innocent as they recognise their personal views don't really count. But the trial and evidence presented to it, rather than the opinions of some clinicians (who, were one to view it in a contrary way, could be seen as protecting their own position and reputation as the service they were supposed to be running failed) playing Scooby Doo and the politics of a health organisation, is the key point people are questioning because that is what is fundamentally important. Respectfully, I think by not seeing that you might be engaging in the sort of motivated thinking that you are ascribing to other people. 

[Barry Ferguson's Hat]

No smoke without fire.