Lucy Letby guilty

[btb]

Another irregularity in this case. 

Evidence in first Lucy Letby trial was incorrect, CPS admits | Lucy Letby | The Guardian

[Thistle_do_nicely]

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby.pdf

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby-2.pdf

interesting. Didn't know that the defence hadn't really relied on medical experts/medical reports. It's short, but there's enough there to leave me wondering if 99 percent certainty / "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been met...

"ONE hallmark of the justice system is that you don’t have to offer any defence – expert or otherwise – and it is entirely down to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Letby and her barrister Ben Myers KC did not call their single expert witness to give evidence, secure in the knowledge that the evidence against her was largely circumstantial, and perhaps mindful that the prosecution had six expert witnesses and seven consultant paediatricians who were united in believing her to be guilty because it seemed the most plausible explanation for the spate of sudden and unexplained collapses. Myers did a very competent job challenging the prosecution witnesses. But the glaring weakness in the process was that the jury only heard expert evidence from one side. MD can make no judgement either way as to the guilt or innocence of Lucy Letby, but the way expert witnesses are used – or not used – in criminal trials with complex and uncertain science is simply not fit for purpose and risks miscarriages of justice. It should be mandatory for the jury to hear expert witnesses from both sides or – better still – it should be a duty of, say, the Royal Colleges and Royal Statistical Society to provide a team of the best, current expert witnesses on behalf of the court, not paid or employed by one side or the other. This is vital for justice to be done and to be seen being done."

 

[RH33]

MD used to be decent insight but mid COVID and on his coloums been bit weird. Stopped reading them.

[Gnash]

The questioning of the evidence used to convict Letby has become mainstream: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39k44n8j1mo

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

Despite their mostly very good investigative journalism (they were onto the Post Office scandal years ago) , Private Eye were completely hooked in by the MMR vaccine/autism hoax, so I would be wary of anything they have to say regarding the Letby case.

[welshbairn]

29 minutes ago, Sherrif John Bunnell said:

Despite their mostly very good investigative journalism (they were onto the Post Office scandal years ago) , Private Eye were completely hooked in by the MMR vaccine/autism hoax, so I would be wary of anything they have to say regarding the Letby case.

Surprised I didn't know about that, guess they kept it quiet on HIGNFY.

[btb]

Heather Mills - Mrs. Mcartney II - Shurely Nott?

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Surprised I didn't know about that, guess they kept it quiet on HIGNFY.

 

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, btb said:

Heather Mills - Mrs. Mcartney II - Shurely Nott?

 

Whoever it was didn't have a leg to stand on with that story. 

[RH33]

1 hour ago, Sherrif John Bunnell said:

Despite their mostly very good investigative journalism (they were onto the Post Office scandal years ago) , Private Eye were completely hooked in by the MMR vaccine/autism hoax, so I would be wary of anything they have to say regarding the Letby case.

MD is verging on conspiracy theory but and has been for while. Lost himself during COVID. 

[VincentGuerin]

I don't usually get too pulled in by these stories.

But this is a really remarkable case, and what seemed cut and dried is starting to look much less so.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/03/i-am-evil-i-did-this-lucy-letbys-so-called-confessions-were-written-on-advice-of-counsellors

[hk blues]

14 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

I don't usually get too pulled in by these stories.

But this is a really remarkable case, and what seemed cut and dried is starting to look much less so.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/03/i-am-evil-i-did-this-lucy-letbys-so-called-confessions-were-written-on-advice-of-counsellors

I'm unsure on this - being advised to write down her thoughts on paper as therapy doesn't mean they weren't her actual thoughts.  

[VincentGuerin]

7 minutes ago, hk blues said:

I'm unsure on this - being advised to write down her thoughts on paper as therapy doesn't mean they weren't her actual thoughts.  

I think the point i that that element of it makes it hard for anyone to be sure either way.

I have no idea if she's guilty or not. But I think there's enough of a "maybe not" forming for people to be a bit concerned about it.

She wrote things that look like a confession, but she also wrote things saying she did nothing wrong. This is an erratic and stressed mind. Hard to make a clear call on that.

Edited September 4 by VincentGuerin

[btb]

The Grauniad seems to be drip-feeding these articles,  are there any more to come?

I'm increasingly in the "not beyond all reasonable doubt" category and await the day she turns up in the Compo Faces thread.

Edited September 4 by btb

[welshbairn]

Not sure of the source for this, lifted from another forum.

Quote

The shift rota data

 

A graph shown to the jury, which has Letby present at 25 collapses and deaths relating to all 17 alleged victims in the first trial, has been widely discredited by statisticians, according to The New Yorker and others. They say it is flawed because it excludes events relating to babies not on the indictment and covers too narrow a time frame.

But Dr Evans insists this is a misinterpretation of why and how the chart was created. He says all the cases he evaluated — apart from that of Baby L, the second child poisoned with insulin — were looked at 'blind,' months before the name 'Lucy Letby' was disclosed to him around the time of her first arrest in July 2018.

Crucially, Dr Evans says Cheshire police did not put together the shift graph until he had identified cases of suspected 'inflicted harm.' Only when officers cross-checked those events with staff on duty did the striking pattern of Letby's presence at every one emerge. Other deaths on the unit were not part of the Prosecution case because they were not suspicious, Dr Evans says, and not because Letby wasn't present."

 

[invergowrie arab]

4 hours ago, hk blues said:

I'm unsure on this - being advised to write down her thoughts on paper as therapy doesn't mean they weren't her actual thoughts.  

That's not how the burden of proof works.

[hk blues]

20 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

I think the point i that that element of it makes it hard for anyone to be sure either way.

I have no idea if she's guilty or not. But I think there's enough of a "maybe not" forming for people to be a bit concerned about it.

She wrote things that look like a confession, but she also wrote things saying she did nothing wrong. This is an erratic and stressed mind. Hard to make a clear call on that.

I get all of that.

That 2nd last sentence is telling, assuming it's correct which it seems to be.  Perfectly sane, stable and sound-minded people simply don't carry out such crimes but it seems Lucy Letby wasn't.  Saying that, that doesn't mean, in itself, she carried out those crimes but it doesn't mean she didn't.

[GHF-23]

On 21/03/2023 at 11:23, Cheese said:

I think it's more of a case that you can't lift up a rock near any of this countries institutions without all manner of horrible stuff crawling out and people furiously trying to stamp the rock back down.

This was quoted in from another thread early in this conversation and summed up my thoughts at the time. Still does, but I'd say it's pretty 50/50 which institution we're talking about now.

The "concerned senior consultants" who were so sadly not believed in the original reporting, and the defence brief, starting to look a biiiiiiit less upstanding as well.

20 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

I think the point i that that element of it makes it hard for anyone to be sure either way.

I have no idea if she's guilty or not. But I think there's enough of a "maybe not" forming for people to be a bit concerned about it.

She wrote things that look like a confession, but she also wrote things saying she did nothing wrong. This is an erratic and stressed mind. Hard to make a clear call on that.

I always thought this about the notes. Having gone through a really hard time and got counselling (nothing as bad as babies dying under my care tbf) a few years back, I was given a similar exercise to do. You write down the things you think about yourself, the negative self talk you have, the things you think other people think of you. Having done nothing wrong I'd hate for those scribbled notes to be read as proof of something one day.

What's been interesting is some people who you'd think know better covering their ears to all this coming out. I think some folk jumped over their generally lib positions on criminal justice due to how horrific the "crimes" were and now have to double down to justify their "I'd like her to get eaten alive by dogs" feelings. 

[VincentGuerin]

28 minutes ago, GHF-23 said:

What's been interesting is some people who you'd think know better covering their ears to all this coming out. I think some folk jumped over their generally lib positions on criminal justice due to how horrific the "crimes" were and now have to double down to justify their "I'd like her to get eaten alive by dogs" feelings. 

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.

[EvilScotsman]

2 hours ago, 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.

People in general seem to be completely incapable of accepting that they might be wrong about something or to have made a mistake.

[Todd_is_God]

2 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

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.

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.