Nurse Lucy Letby Guilty

[puntingking]

I saw the netflix documentary last night and I think Lucy did do those things.

[catweazle]

I saw the netflix documentary last night and I think Lucy did do those things.

After the documentary, I also think she's guilty.  I'm always suspicious when suspects start answering " no comment" to pertinent questions. Letby was quite cooperative and talkative and then started off with the "no comments".

[puntingking]

After the documentary, I also think she's guilty.  I'm always suspicious when suspects start answering " no comment" to pertinent questions. Letby was quite cooperative and talkative and then started off with the "no comments".

+1 exactly this.

The journal note that reads "I did this, I am evil" was enough for me to think she was guilty of these crimes.

People that are adamant that she is innocent, there are a few. I am gobsmacked by these individuals. 

[Blackpool Rock]

+1 exactly this.

The journal note that reads "I did this, I am evil" was enough for me to think she was guilty of these crimes.

People that are adamant that she is innocent, there are a few. I am gobsmacked by these individuals. 

Unfortunately I think this is the way the world is going, people get their "News" and watch things pushing that she's innocent and there's been a miscarriage of justice on You Tube or wherever else on the internet and don't question it or that the person putting forward the case or "facts" is manipulating things for whatever reason

[puntingking]

Unfortunately I think this is the way the world is going, people get their "News" and watch things pushing that she's innocent and there's been a miscarriage of justice on You Tube or wherever else on the internet and don't question it or that the person putting forward the case or "facts" is manipulating things for whatever reason

and plus they think a Woman can never be this evil.... 

And so they refuse to believe a woman is able to do evil things like this 

[Vice Admiral]

The journal note that reads "I did this, I am evil" was enough for me to think she was guilty of these crimes.

A couple of days ago I wrote, "Although I have not followed the case as closely as some others, I have (for what it's worth) always felt a little uncomfortable about Lucy Letby's conviction."

However I have to say I have always found that note a big problem when it comes to considering whether Letby might be innocent, and attempts to explain it away not altogether persuasive.

I'm always suspicious when suspects start answering " no comment" to pertinent questions. Letby was quite cooperative and talkative and then started off with the "no comments".

Yes the “no comment” approach is always problematical.  I suppose that sometimes lawyers may advise a suspect whom they regard as easily confused or bullied to “plead the 5th”.  But the tactic never inspires confidence.

[juzz]

I am sure that lawyers think it is safer to advise a client to 'no comment', to reduce the risk of a stressed, perhaps less articulate, client being tied up in knots by an experienced police interrogator who is looking for a conviction - perhaps even more than the truth. I agree that 'no comment' never looks great though.

I cant comment specifically on the Letby case, but it is interesting to note the different opinions that the documentaries provoke. Clearly the narrative of the Netflix documentary portrays a definitely guilty conclusion, and like all good documentaries builds a strong case for that.  I wonder if the same team could build an equally strong case for an unsafe conviction?

[Blackpool Rock]

I am sure that lawyers think it is safer to advise a client to 'no comment', to reduce the risk of a stressed, perhaps less articulate, client being tied up in knots by an experienced police interrogator who is looking for a conviction - perhaps even more than the truth. I agree that 'no comment' never looks great though.

I cant comment specifically on the Letby case, but it is interesting to note the different opinions that the documentaries provoke. Clearly the narrative of the Netflix documentary portrays a definitely guilty conclusion, and like all good documentaries builds a strong case for that. I wonder if the same team could build an equally strong case for an unsafe conviction?

Yeah that's what I previously posted, it's all about how the same information / facts are put forward with bias / spin put on certain things

[Blackpool Rock]

and plus they think a Woman can never be this evil.... 

And so they refuse to believe a woman is able to do evil things like this 

Yet some of the most notorious serial killer cases involved man and woman "Teams" like Brady / Hindley; Fred and Rose West; Ian Huntley / Maxine Carr

I believe that cases involving women being more violent in society are on the increase over the last couple of decades but perhaps that's partly just down to more reporting

[Blackpool Rock]

A couple of days ago I wrote, "Although I have not followed the case as closely as some others, I have (for what it's worth) always felt a little uncomfortable about Lucy Letby's conviction."

However I have to say I have always found that note a big problem when it comes to considering whether Letby might be innocent, and attempts to explain it away not altogether persuasive.

Yes the “no comment” approach is always problematical.  I suppose that sometimes lawyers may advise a suspect whom they regard as easily confused or bullied to “plead the 5th”.  But the tactic never inspires confidence.

Yeah whenever I watch any of these police programs where they show footage of an interview and the suspect starts doing the "No comment" I just sit and think it's a sure sign of guilt.
I can understand if someone thinks they are genuinely being stitched up but these cases must be relatively far and few between these days

[puntingking]

Yet some of the most notorious serial killer cases involved man and woman "Teams" like Brady / Hindley; Fred and Rose West; Ian Huntley / Maxine Carr

I believe that cases involving women being more violent in society are on the increase over the last couple of decades but perhaps that's partly just down to more reporting

Then there is the recent attack in Canada - Canada school shooting latest: ‘Female in a dress’ identified as suspect after nine killed and dozens injured

External Link/Members Only

Men have always been the problematic ones when it comes to committing violent crimes but I have no doubt notice a big rise in females criminals. 

[puntingking]

I am not sure why there seem to be a rise in female criminals though. 

[Blackpool Rock]

I am not sure why there seem to be a rise in female criminals though. 

One theory is the rise in equality and that years ago women didn't used to drink as much alcohol, man & woman would go out for the night, man got pissed and the woman stayed relatively sober so she could help keep him out of trouble and try to help him stagger home.

These days a lot of blokes stay relatively sober as the wife / GF gets pissed and can't control herself plus he wants to make sure she stays safe and can either carry her home or bundle her in a taxi etc

[Thephoenix]

Yeah whenever I watch any of these police programs where they show footage of an interview and the suspect starts doing the "No comment" I just sit and think it's a sure sign of guilt.
I can understand if someone thinks they are genuinely being stitched up but these cases must be relatively far and few between these days

If the girl's innocent we can't imagine the mental anguish she's been experiencing since the investigation started.
I'd say it's likely she's been prescribed various medications to help her cope.
In that state of mind and taking into account the complexity of the possible line of questioning, I would surely be recommending replies of 'no comment' if I was her legal representative.

[WASA38]

Then there is the recent attack in Canada - Canada school shooting latest: ‘Female in a dress’ identified as suspect after nine killed and dozens injured

External Link/Members Only

Men have always been the problematic ones when it comes to committing violent crimes but I have no doubt notice a big rise in females criminals. 

We now learn that the perpetrater was a biological male that had self-declared as a female.

[Thephoenix]

I am sure that lawyers think it is safer to advise a client to 'no comment', to reduce the risk of a stressed, perhaps less articulate, client being tied up in knots by an experienced police interrogator who is looking for a conviction - perhaps even more than the truth. I agree that 'no comment' never looks great though.

I cant comment specifically on the Letby case, but it is interesting to note the different opinions that the documentaries provoke. Clearly the narrative of the Netflix documentary portrays a definitely guilty conclusion, and like all good documentaries builds a strong case for that.  I wonder if the same team could build an equally strong case for an unsafe conviction?

Of course it does.
Cheshire police sold the footage to the highest bidder.
Apart from the money received, it strikes me that the force's motives for providing the footage is to reinforce their assumptions of guilt which appears to have been their line of enquiry from the outset.
They're still complaining  about the decision of the CPS not to proceed with any action on their recent submissions of further crimes by Letby.

Dr Steve Watts , Hampshire's former Asst Chief Constable has critised Cheshire Police for not challenging the narrative of consultants at the hospital, and not pursuing alternative lines of enquiry.
He compiled The College of Policing's core investigative directive which tells forces across the country to keep an open mind to avoid verification bias.
He said he followed the trial on a daily basis and kept thinking "when are they going to get to the evidence?", "and it never arrived".
"There's no evidence whatsoever".

[Thephoenix]

People that are adamant that she is innocent, there are a few. I am gobsmacked by these individuals. 

Yes there are a few.
Why are you gobsmacked by these experts?
Those listed in the article are just a few of the many legal , medical and statistical experts casting serious doubts on her conviction.
External Link/Members Only

[juzz]

Of course it does.
Cheshire police sold the footage to the highest bidder.
Apart from the money received, it strikes me that the force's motives for providing the footage is to reinforce their assumptions of guilt which appears to have been their line of enquiry from the outset.
They're still complaining  about the decision of the CPS not to proceed with any action on their recent submissions of further crimes by Letby.

Dr Steve Watts , Hampshire's former Asst Chief Constable has critised Cheshire Police for not challenging the narrative of consultants at the hospital, and not pursuing alternative lines of enquiry.
He compiled The College of Policing's core investigative directive which tells forces across the country to keep an open mind to avoid verification bias.
He said he followed the trial on a daily basis and kept thinking "when are they going to get to the evidence?", "and it never arrived".
"There's no evidence whatsoever".

Thanks for this. I think you are right.  I've done a bit of Googling and it looks like Cheshire Police aren't being as forthcoming as they could be on related FOI requests.

Overall, I think it very likely that there will be further challenges to these convictions in years to come.

[Thephoenix]

Thanks for this. I think you are right.  I've done a bit of Googling and it looks like Cheshire Police aren't being as forthcoming as they could be on related FOI requests.

Overall, I think it very likely that there will be further challenges to these convictions in years to come.

Suggestions of conflicts of interest.

[puntingking]

Yes there are a few.
Why are you gobsmacked by these experts?
Those listed in the article are just a few of the many legal , medical and statistical experts casting serious doubts on her conviction.
External Link/Members Only

I will have a look at this link later, but on her journal note it acted like a confession to me.
I will never be convinced that she is innocent. 

[puntingking]

We now learn that the perpetrater was a biological male that had self-declared as a female.

Yes, I have just heard this now. 

[puntingking]

Why are you gobsmacked by these experts?

Evidence that she did it - Kept babies names that died, typed the initials of baby names that died in her journal, lied about having a paper trimmer, answering their questions then suddenly turns to start saying "no comment", the deaths only happened when she was on shift and there are even more evidence.

Let me ask you a simple question - What is the evidence that she did not do it? 

[puntingking]

If the girl's innocent

but she is not   

[puntingking]

I would surely be recommending replies of 'no comment' if I was her legal representative.

She only started saying "no comment" half way through the conversation, before that she was answering their questions ordinary.

She only started to say "no comment" when she knew she have been caught and she can't do nothing else. 

[Jomoore]

Yes there are a few.
Why are you gobsmacked by these experts?
Those listed in the article are just a few of the many legal , medical and statistical experts casting serious doubts on her conviction.
External Link/Members Only

Thanks for providing that link.  It's clear that this is far from over yet.  Puntingking asks what evidence there is of her innocence: well to start with it is notoriously difficult to provide evidence of a negative, ie, that you didn't do something, that's why the burden is on the prosecution to show that you did.  Secondly, a lot of the evidence, such as there is, is coming under scrutiny.  Thirdly, juries convict based on what they've been told or shown; did they have access to everything that's available today? 

So like everyone else, I don't know whether she did or did not do what she's accused of, but it seems to me that the safety of the conviction is coming under huge doubt.

[scutty brown]

Thanks for providing that link.  It's clear that this is far from over yet.  Puntingking asks what evidence there is of her innocence: well to start with it is notoriously difficult to provide evidence of a negative, ie, that you didn't do something, that's why the burden is on the prosecution to show that you did.  Secondly, a lot of the evidence, such as there is, is coming under scrutiny.  Thirdly, juries convict based on what they've been told or shown; did they have access to everything that's available today? 

So like everyone else, I don't know whether she did or did not do what she's accused of, but it seems to me that the safety of the conviction is coming under huge doubt.

And that's why the second trial for the other cases won't happen: the authorities are scared of her being found not guilty on those as it would undermine the original trial verdicts

[Watts.E.Dunn]

Another disasier maternity hospital west sussex.

Yep they say, we could have done better, lessons will be learnt etc.. usuall bollix!..


External Link/Members Only

[Jomoore]

I've just come across this.  Peter Hitchens seems convinced of her innocence; I am not sure about that, but as I said above, the amount of doubt that is gathering surely questions the safety of the conviction?

External Link/Members Only

[maxxblue]

I've just come across this.  Peter Hitchens seems convinced of her innocence; I am not sure about that, but as I said above, the amount of doubt that is gathering surely questions the safety of the conviction?

External Link/Members Only

So does Sir David Davis MP, the former government minister (a quick search of google throws up lots of articles/interviews).

[Thephoenix]

I will have a look at this link later, but on her journal note it acted like a confession to me.
I will never be convinced that she is innocent. 

Never???
So much for jury service.

[Thephoenix]

Evidence that she did it - Kept babies names that died, typed the initials of baby names that died in her journal, lied about having a paper trimmer, answering their questions then suddenly turns to start saying "no comment", the deaths only happened when she was on shift and there are even more evidence.

Let me ask you a simple question - What is the evidence that she did not do it? 

That's not how justice works......I hope.

[puntingking]

Puntingking asks what evidence there is of her innocence: well to start with it is notoriously difficult to provide evidence of a negative, ie, that you didn't do

No its not 

[puntingking]

The reason why a lot of the British public think she is innocent is because they watch too much social media. 

Only Lucy Letby knows the truth anyway but I am certain (as I can be) that she is guity. 

[puntingking]

Never???
So much for jury service.

I swap the word never to - Possibly not. 

I will have a look at this link later, but on her journal note it acted like a confession to me.
I will possibly not be convinced that she is innocent. 

[puntingking]

I do believe that the subject of Lucy Letby will be talked about for many more months and possibly years. 

[catweazle]

I do believe that the subject of Lucy Letby will be talked about for many more months and possibly years. 

Only until the next Fred West/Harold Shipman/Steve Wright comes along.

[Vice Admiral]

There is a long review by Helen Rumbelow in yesterday’s Times Saturday Review of a book by Sue Black with the title An Expert Witness: Forensic Science on Trial.

Black, now 65, is "one of the world's most esteemed forensic anthropologists", whose work has transformed the application of forensic science.  She is now President of St John’s College, Oxford and a member of the House of Lords.  All in all, she’s hardly likely to be the kind of person to be jumping on bandwagons or supporting half-baked theories.

Here are three paragraphs about the Lucy Letby case that appear in the book review:

In her analysis the British court system can still be too reliant on expert witnesses arrogantly peddling pseudoscience or lawyers mysteriously failing to seek the advice of the right discipline. She is damning about the trial of the former nurse Lucy Letby. Given its “vague wisps of evidence”, she wonders if the Crown Prosecution Service “should ever have taken the case to court”. She suggests the judge “could have considered dismissing it on the basis of how thin the evidence was”.

She is further astonished that statisticians were never brought to court by the defence to explain the probability of deaths in an overworked ward of extremely ill babies. Many credible scientists, she writes, question the initial premise of the charges on this analysis. “Why the defence chose the strategy they did is almost unfathomable,” she writes. “The jury did not hear alternatives that would perhaps have better equipped them to make up their minds based on balanced information.”

She adds: “I would count myself among those observers who question whether Lucy Letby did have a fair trial.”

Letby gets a lot of “May she rot in hell!" treatment from people who are not in a position to understand the complexities of the case but are wholly convinced of her guilt.  However the alternative possibility is almost equally horrifying – that an innocent woman is likely to spend the rest of her life in prison, while traduced as one of the great “monsters” of our age.

[Stevelondon]

Let me ask you a simple question - What is the evidence that she did not do it? 

That would be an interesting way to conduct trials.

Just let the police pick anyone walking down the street and stick him/her in the dock.
“Prove you didn’t do it then” 😂

[Blackpool Rock]

That would be an interesting way to conduct trials.

Just let the police pick anyone walking down the street and stick him/her in the dock.
“Prove you didn’t do it then” 😂

So go back to how it used to be when the police just needed "A body" and to get this sorted ASAP, we haven't got anyone a week on so he'll do as we know he has form for similar stuff and this just makes up for stuff he previously got away with 

[Doc Holliday]

All in all, she’s hardly likely to be the kind of person to be jumping on bandwagons or supporting half-baked theories.

Maybe ... maybe not? Professionals are not immune.

She is of course promoting her book. If her views on the LL case were supportive of the process and verdict, would you have read the review and posted such here? 

[Vice Admiral]

Maybe ... maybe not? Professionals are not immune.
She is of course promoting her book. If her views on the LL case were supportive of the process and verdict, would you have read the review and posted such here? 

The piece in the Times was a book review, not an interview.  No "promotion" was going on.  The reviewer chose to mention Sue Black’s views on the Letby case.  The three paragraphs I quoted were the only ones that referred to Letby during the course of a long review.

And, no, of course I wouldn't have posted here if Sue Black had supported the Letby verdict.  I did so because I have always felt uncomfortable about it, as are a number of highly reputable experts in the field; and I thought Black’s opinion provided valuable reinforcement. 

My views of course carry no more weight than any other amateur opiner.  But those of people like Sue Black do.

[puntingking]

Letby gets a lot of “May she rot in hell!" treatment from people who are not in a position to understand the complexities of the case but are wholly convinced of her guilt.  However the alternative possibility is almost equally horrifying – that an innocent woman is likely to spend the rest of her life in prison, while traduced as one of the great “monsters” of our age.

People only think she is innocent because she is a woman, I doubt they would think about her twice if she was a man. 

Women are capable of doing bad things as well don't you know.

[JRWK]

People only think she is innocent because she is a woman, I doubt they would think about her twice if she was a man. 

Women are capable of doing bad things as well don't you know.

I personally don't think she is guilty .. we are too quick to listen to so called 'experts' when there is no direct proof
Just look at Andrew Malkinson as an example

[Jerboa]

I also watched the Netflix doc the other month, and it sure looked like it was a PR broadcast for Cheshire police.

[MLawro93]

Regardless of the innocent/guilty debate, there sure are many people who are profiting off this case. This really has become another grift

[Doc Holliday]

The piece in the Times was a book review, not an interview.  No "promotion" was going on.  The reviewer chose to mention Sue Black’s views on the Letby case.  The three paragraphs I quoted were the only ones that referred to Letby during the course of a long review.

Yes I know it was a Times book review as I read your post which clearly said this. I did not suggest it was an interview.

There is a long review by Helen Rumbelow in yesterday’s Times Saturday Review of a book by Sue Black with the title An Expert Witness: Forensic Science on Trial.

However submitting a request for a Times/Sunday Times book review, is very much part of promoting a book, which is why authors/publicists apply. It carries significant weight and prestige.

Times reviewers are considered independent of publishers etc but the final publshed reviews are subject to the editorial policy and commercial interest of the media group. This is where the issue arises.

Sue Black herself is approaching the end of what has undoubtedly been a very remarkable, successful and interesting career. I understand her latest book is the final part of her memoirs. I believe her to be genuine and of good character. She chose to write in the book about her genuine and justified concerns regarding the Lucy Letby trial. My perception is that her comments comprised a very small component of the book and which you appear to agree with also.

However the high profile LL topic, is likely to be of much broader interest to readers, than the rest of her memoirs and is therefore emphasised.

I don't have access to the Times, so may I ask what was the headline and opening paragraph of the review?

[Vice Admiral]

I don't have access to the Times, so may I ask what was the headline and opening paragraph of the review?

The heading for both the print and online versions of the review was: “The macabre world of Sue Black – a justice warrior in scrubs”.

The sub-heading for the print version was: “The writer and academic is on a mission to improve the standard of forensic science in criminal trials, driven by the courage of one young victim”.

The sub-heading for the online version was: “Did Lucy Letby have a fair trial? In An Expert Witness, the writer and academic is on a mission to improve the standard of forensic science in criminal trials”.

The opening paragraph of the review read: “Let us start with the emerging field of penis identification. Sometimes I feel ashamed of the unwholesome interest I have in Sue Black’s work, but mostly the shame is overwhelmed by my awe for the difference a magnificent human being can make, furthering science for the cause of truth, decency and justice.”

[Doc Holliday]

The heading for both the print and online versions of the review was: “The macabre world of Sue Black – a justice warrior in scrubs”.

The sub-heading for the print version was: “The writer and academic is on a mission to improve the standard of forensic science in criminal trials, driven by the courage of one young victim”.

The sub-heading for the online version was: “Did Lucy Letby have a fair trial? In An Expert Witness, the writer and academic is on a mission to improve the standard of forensic science in criminal trials”.

The opening paragraph of the review read: “Let us start with the emerging field of penis identification. Sometimes I feel ashamed of the unwholesome interest I have in Sue Black’s work, but mostly the shame is overwhelmed by my awe for the difference a magnificent human being can make, furthering science for the cause of truth, decency and justice.”

Many thanks for that 

To be fair to the Times (unlike other publications) only the online version contains the 'clickbait' in the headline 

[Thephoenix]

The whole thing's a mess.

Lucy Letby's legal team is currently pursuing a challenge through The  Criminal Cases Review Commission which is reviewing her case for a potential miscarriage of justice.
Prosecution expert witnesses have been discredited and the evidence of carpetbagger Dr Dewi Evans has been highly contested.
Cheshire police have also been strongly criticised.

In the meantime the publication of the long awaited Thelwall Inquiry has been delayed again until September at the earliest.
The inquiry was set up to investigate how 'killer nurse' Lucy Letby was able to commit her crimes at The Countess of Chester Hospital.
Inquests have been paused.
The CPS refused to bring further changes submitted by Cheshire police.

All that can't be a surprise as if The CCRC decide there's sufficient new evidence to return the case back to Court Of Appeal, the whole thing falls apart.

At least in the meantime, the hospital unit that was operating beyond it's skills and capacity - one that was understaffed and suffering from low morale, lacking the expertise to deal with babies with serious needs, and operating in a tired building, struggling with a superbug and with sewage backing up into it's rooms has now been completely demolished and replaced by a new state of the art Women and Children's Building.