There’s a fairly obvious reason for that…
Nurse Lucy Letby - guilty of murdering 7 babies - whole life sentence
- Thread starter Raulduke
- Start date
There’s a fairly obvious reason for that…
Possibly the dumbest take I've read. Like, brain worms level of take.
I don't, I'm literally sharing an update from the Irish Times, not some Facebook group ffs.
What on earth....and I'm apparently the one who believes in conspiracies
It's becoming a bizarre cause célèbre in certain quarters.
'I've always had doubts': Sarah Vine gives her verdict on the conviction of Lucy Letby as she discusses the case with Peter Hitchens on the Mail's podcast The Reaction
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ction-Lucy-Letby-Peter-Hitchens-Reaction.htmlA few points:
1. The appearance of the accused very much can and does influence opinions, that is for sure. I agree completely with that.
2. Notwithstanding that, I can understand some scepticism, given that things can go wrong at a hospital dealing with sick people, and what can be caused by incompetence or negligence could be seen as a deliberate act by an individual. But a criminal trial is not the best vehicle to find out exactly what happened and why. An inquiry is much better.
3. I genuinely don't think her barristers did a great job at defending her, which is not to say she did not have a fair trial. But barristers will only do what they are told by a client, so this could be down to her instructions.
4. Letby being responsible for these deaths does seem the most likely conclusion. Since we cannot find out what the jury deliberations were we can never know what swayed them to a guilty verdict.
5. I do not know why (legally) she was tried for the most recent count of attempted murder. Harold Shipman was not tried for the other deaths after his conviction because he could not receive a fair trial as everyone knew he did it. As a matter of law, I don't see how a fair trial could be carried out here.
I agree with point 2 & 4, I think she was responsible in some way shape or form, so much evidence pointing towards that.
Outside of ghouls like Sarah Vine, several high profile medical professionals have raised concerns about the standard of evidence. From the statistics being minor outliers rather than defined trends, the cause of deaths, the autopsies etc.
I don't think trusted medical examiners or professionals whom have raised concerns, some from Canada, are doing so because she's "attractive", that's a wild reach in my opinion. Also, personal biases aside, she's not attractive. It's just a juxtaposition between someone looking "normal" and the heinous nature of the crime which is so jarring and creates disbelief.
I can understand how the press have ran with it but that's the gutter level journalism we have in this country. Once you fade out that noise and read the actual comms from medical people, it does raise questions and makes this horrific case more confusing.
I don't think those doctors who have raised questions about her guilt did so because she is attractive. But I think if she didn't look the way she did, or if she came from a different background, or had a different upbringing, then her case would not have been amplified in the way it was so that independent doctors and others started to ask questions in the way that it has.
It probably also explains why her behaviour wasn't questioned as it should be. People's preconceptions and prejudices of who is considered as a possible criminal plays a part here.
I don't think it's so much she's good looking but rather she just doesn't fit the profile of a serial killer. It's hard to accept that someone who looks like that could do it, and if you accept that you have to accept that basically anyone could do it. So in that respect I can see why people are finding it hard to accept and instead push the conspiracy theories.
Agreed
How strong is the evidence against Lucy Letby?
https://www.thetimes.com/article/ec...d?shareToken=83bef122c004733ce9849ead09d279bb
I don't mean this to be bait or anything - if she was brown, there would be no "conspiracies", far less people would be concerned and on recent events, it would probably set off riots.
Saying that, it is a technically difficult case. But it's a technically difficult case that has led to a whole life sentence. We're talking about seven dead babies, which is grave, but those sentences are given out in rare circumstances (although - again, caveat - getting less rare).
She has to be guilty, or we're talking about a significant miscarriage of justice.
Saying that, it is a technically difficult case. But it's a technically difficult case that has led to a whole life sentence. We're talking about seven dead babies, which is grave, but those sentences are given out in rare circumstances (although - again, caveat - getting less rare).
She has to be guilty, or we're talking about a significant miscarriage of justice.
Here are MD's special reports for Private Eye. The Eye is usually very dependable on its deep dives and while Phil Hammond (MD) is a bit of a publicity seeker he's no shitehawk and has a serious track record on stuff like this. Here's part of his twitter statement (full text in the tweet below):
"This case was not just won on the statistical and scientific evidence, which most sensible people now agree was remarkably thin, uncertain and very one-sided as presented in court. It was won largely by the conviction and credibility of seven consultants with over 100 years experience who had worked alongside Letby that she was deliberately harming babies. I initially agreed with them, as my instinct in cases of such uncertainty is to side with senior medical whistleblowers on the ground. And I suspect that’s what the jury did.
However, having investigated the matter as much as I can, I think the standard of science and statistics presented at the trial was not fit to be seen as evidence, and I don’t think deliberate harm was proven beyond reasonable doubt, which is why I think she should be allowed to appeal."
In the articles themselves Hammond makes quite a lot of salient, disquieting points.If only there had been some sort of "trial" where a legal expert could have defended her and called on some of these people to give their evidence.
It's precisely this lack of expert testimony presented on the behalf of Letby (despite there being plenty to go around) that Hammond feels calls the judgement into question. It's not beyond human understanding that she might have been let down by a shit lawyer.
Evidence in first Lucy Letby trial was incorrect, CPS admits
Door swipe data showing which staff entered and exited baby unit was ‘mislabelled’ until retrial, CPS says
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rst-lucy-letby-trial-was-incorrect-cps-admits
Evidence presented in the first trial of Lucy Letby showing which staff came in and out of the baby unit she worked on was incorrect, the Crown Prosecution Service has acknowledged.
The nurse was convicted last year of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six others at the Countess of Chester hospital in north-west England. Letby, the worst child serial killer in British history, is serving 14 whole-life sentences, meaning she will never be released from prison.
A retrial at Manchester crown court last month found the 34-year-old from Hereford guilty of the attempted murder of another child, known as Baby K.
During the retrial, Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, told the court that door-swipe data, showing which nurses and doctors were entering and exiting the intensive care ward, had been “mislabelled”.
The Crown Prosecution Service told the Telegraph that the discrepancy discovered was related to one door in the neonatal intensive care unit and that it had been corrected for the retrial.
A spokesperson for the Mersey-Cheshire Crown Prosecution Service said: “The CPS can confirm that accurate door-swipe data was presented in the retrial.”
---
Not a great look. You have to hope this is the only error. It obviously doesn't touch the expert evidence. I'm not sure whether the Court of Appeal were aware of this when dismissing the original appeal?
Door swipe data showing which staff entered and exited baby unit was ‘mislabelled’ until retrial, CPS says
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rst-lucy-letby-trial-was-incorrect-cps-admits
Evidence presented in the first trial of Lucy Letby showing which staff came in and out of the baby unit she worked on was incorrect, the Crown Prosecution Service has acknowledged.
The nurse was convicted last year of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six others at the Countess of Chester hospital in north-west England. Letby, the worst child serial killer in British history, is serving 14 whole-life sentences, meaning she will never be released from prison.
A retrial at Manchester crown court last month found the 34-year-old from Hereford guilty of the attempted murder of another child, known as Baby K.
During the retrial, Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, told the court that door-swipe data, showing which nurses and doctors were entering and exiting the intensive care ward, had been “mislabelled”.
The Crown Prosecution Service told the Telegraph that the discrepancy discovered was related to one door in the neonatal intensive care unit and that it had been corrected for the retrial.
A spokesperson for the Mersey-Cheshire Crown Prosecution Service said: “The CPS can confirm that accurate door-swipe data was presented in the retrial.”
---
Not a great look. You have to hope this is the only error. It obviously doesn't touch the expert evidence. I'm not sure whether the Court of Appeal were aware of this when dismissing the original appeal?
It's pretty concerning stuff like that can get through. Must admit, the high proportion of her champions being right wing blowhards makes me irrationally biased against her case.
me too, ive pointed out my issues with the evidence before, but i am somewhat troubled about the fact its become a cause celebre for the right wing - especially as there seems to be some semblance of culture war issues, i really dont want to be on the same page with the likes of Sarah Vine
Why the hell would this be a partisan issue?
Doesn't make sense to me either, earlier posts connoting to being "surprised" at her appearance.
Murder is an action propagated by a cause, appearances have little to no resonance over such actions.
What people ought to say is subjectively she doesn't appear to the fit the description of a pre-conceived bias they held in regard.
I guess it is a bit like MMR when all the same voices on the right decided to spread the autism hoax.
There are a few on the left also critical of this case, Owen Jones for one
This channel is run by someone who attended Manchester Crown Court daily and covered the case at the time. He says he will do a series countering the adverse publicity about the convictions
Mike Lynch planned to investigate Lucy Letby ‘injustice’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/25/mike-lynch-planned-to-investigate-lucy-letby-injustice/That's some plot twist.
Never been a fan of the Torygraph, but it's descent into extreme tabloidism needs to be more widely recognised. It's reputation as a newspaper of record needs expunging.
Good luck with that he just died in the med.
It's been like the DM on steroids for some time now. Rabidly right wing, near hysterically anti-left and dying to come all out in support of Farage, but daren't quite do it.
If you ignore its UK politics, Israel coverage and psychotic columnists, there are some decent articles, but not a patch on the Times or FT.
I cannot imagine what the parents of her victims go through each time they see an article like that.
Oh FFS! Continually platforming these people...
Genuinely wonder if any are thinking maybe we've got the wrong person here? Couldn't imagine the mental anguish it would put you through
I imagine they attended the 9 month trial so aren't ignorant of the evidence
But all these people/articles saying this and that was missed has to play mental games in your head you'd think as a parent?
It probably is distressing and concerning, rather than persuasive and sowing doubt about her guilt.
They sat through the actual evidence, not people talking bullshit online
Fair enough. They'd know alot more about the case than us
That's not to mention that they will know more naturally from being there at thetime, and have met her
I have noticed the Telegraph going hard at this story. Given their history with MMR, I can only assume their hatred of socialised medicine takes precedence over editorial common sense.
Some of this has got out of hand. It's not some vast conspiracy.
Bizarre how it’s seemingly turned into some sort of right wing conspiracy. Is it because it’s a white female?