Lucy letby

[paddy no 11]

I didn't follow the case at the time as I thought this will be all too depressing

I recently read the new yorker article

For those that followed the case and read the articles do you have any doubts about the conviction

BTW, I am absolutely not saying she's innocent please don't get thick with me for posting

[Mikey Brown]

I had basically ignored this from the start because I don’t have the stomach for it. I was under the impression she had all but admitted it and was a clear-cut psychopath.

I wasn’t aware of the New Yorker article or the controversy around it not being available in the UK, which is kind of interesting in its own right.

This seems like a reasonable summary and certainly has me wondering what little information I’d even heard before going with the consensus and actively trying to ignore the story.

https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/05/impos ... ucy-letby/

[Puja]

Just read the New Yorker article (using the Onion Router) - it was a hell of a read. Obviously, it's important to remember that it was written with an agenda and a slant of its own, but it was powerful. I don't see how one can convict a nurse simply on the basis that "She was the one that was always there." Feels reminiscent of the recently overturned Folbigg case in Australia where a woman was convicted and spent 20 years in prison on the basis that the odds were against all four of her children having unexplained cot deaths.

Like you Mikey, I had assumed she was guilty from the press reporting. The notes in her diary were reported as if they were outright confessions - from the NY article, they read more like someone writing from deep depression and burnout struggling to cope with horrible turns in her job, rather than any admissions of culpability.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

I didn't follow the case, just saw the headlines which seemed to be conclusive.

If the New Yorker article is fair then it looks like a miscarriage of justice. Without solid evidence for any of the deaths being deliberately caused one would need much, much more statistical evidence. There seem to be 'reasonable doubts' about her guilt, and that's all it needs to acquit. Her defence team seem to have let her down too - not bringing any medical experts in to rebut the theories of the prosecution?

[paddy no 11]

One of the babies families has asked that the next trial to be televised for transparency so everyone can see how guilty she is. Hopefully it happens and removes doubt one way or the other

As looking in now the conviction seems very unsafe

[Son of Mathonwy]

One of the babies families has asked that the next trial to be televised for transparency so everyone can see how guilty she is. Hopefully it happens and removes doubt one way or the other

As looking in now the conviction seems very unsafe

There's zero chance that it'll be televised.

There's also, let's be honest, not much chance she can have a fair trial given the headlines every juror will have seen.

[paddy no 11]

One of the babies families has asked that the next trial to be televised for transparency so everyone can see how guilty she is. Hopefully it happens and removes doubt one way or the other

As looking in now the conviction seems very unsafe

There's zero chance that it'll be televised.

There's also, let's be honest, not much chance she can have a fair trial given the headlines every juror will have seen.

The defence will surely present a better case, any statistician would tear it apart surely. I mean a 3rd child with insulin "poisoning" being ignored?

[Sandydragon]

I had basically ignored this from the start because I don’t have the stomach for it. I was under the impression she had all but admitted it and was a clear-cut psychopath.

I wasn’t aware of the New Yorker article or the controversy around it not being available in the UK, which is kind of interesting in its own right.

This seems like a reasonable summary and certainly has me wondering what little information I’d even heard before going with the consensus and actively trying to ignore the story.

https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/05/impos ... ucy-letby/

Letby is appealing, which is why the article questioning her guilt isn't available in the UK as UK publications know that they will get a huge slap for potentially influencing those proceedings.

https://pa.media/blogs/fact-check/fact- ... l-reasons/

[Mikey Brown]

I'm not quite sure what to make of all that to be honest. It makes sense in a way but it feels a bit late for concerns about influencing public opinion, if that is even what it's suggesting.

Like Paddy I do want to stress this isn't me now jumping to the conclusion she's innocent, but it's hard not to be fascinated by how easily people are swayed. I was completely ignorant of most details in this case, and I'm not sure I can bring myself to dig in to it too much now, but I'd pretty much (blindly) accepted she was the latest Harold Shipman.

[Sandydragon]

Just read the New Yorker article (using the Onion Router) - it was a hell of a read. Obviously, it's important to remember that it was written with an agenda and a slant of its own, but it was powerful. I don't see how one can convict a nurse simply on the basis that "She was the one that was always there." Feels reminiscent of the recently overturned Folbigg case in Australia where a woman was convicted and spent 20 years in prison on the basis that the odds were against all four of her children having unexplained cot deaths.

Like you Mikey, I had assumed she was guilty from the press reporting. The notes in her diary were reported as if they were outright confessions - from the NY article, they read more like someone writing from deep depression and burnout struggling to cope with horrible turns in her job, rather than any admissions of culpability.

Puja

She was the sole member of staff on duty for 20 suspicious incidents, which stopped happening when she was removed from the maternity ward. There was no direct evidence that she administered any unnecessary drugs herself, although her testimony as a witness was very inconsistent.

Sometimes a jury will convict when there is circumstantial evidence (such as her diary) when combined with a defendant who seems evasive.

It was noted at the time, that there were significant issues with the hospital, its supervision and procedures. That is something which the defence did raise at the time unsuccessfully. I understand that her appeal is based on decisions the judge made during the trial, which she has previously unsuccessfully tried to appeal against.

Not every person who is convicted has the iron clad case put against them. It's 12 people on the jury who need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, during a very long trial where evidence will have been presented that we aren't party to. The jury weren't able to reach a verdict on one of the charges, but found her guilty on a dozen or so other charges.

Maybe she really is innocent and the New Yorker has a very valid point. Maybe she is as guilty as hell. Since I don't have all the facts, its difficult to be absolutely certain. But I'd also be wary of assuming innocence so quickly.

[Sandydragon]

I'm not quite sure what to make of all that to be honest. It makes sense in a way but it feels a bit late for concerns about influencing public opinion, if that is even what it's suggesting.

Like Paddy I do want to stress this isn't me now jumping to the conclusion she's innocent, but it's hard not to be fascinated by how easily people are swayed. I was completely ignorant of most details in this case, and I'm not sure I can bring myself to dig in to it too much now, but I'd pretty much (blindly) accepted she was the latest Harold Shipman.

Like many of our laws, this is very much a pre-social media thing (as I understand it) which of course is immediately made a mockery of by people using widely available tools. It is worth remembering that this was a very long trial with a lot of evidence provided, probably so as there wasnt one key bit of evidence that by itself was a slam dunk. The jury heard enough to convict her in a dozen counts, but to refuse to come to a verdict in one, which does suggest to me they were absolutely paying attention and taking their role very seriously.

[Puja]

Just read the New Yorker article (using the Onion Router) - it was a hell of a read. Obviously, it's important to remember that it was written with an agenda and a slant of its own, but it was powerful. I don't see how one can convict a nurse simply on the basis that "She was the one that was always there." Feels reminiscent of the recently overturned Folbigg case in Australia where a woman was convicted and spent 20 years in prison on the basis that the odds were against all four of her children having unexplained cot deaths.

Like you Mikey, I had assumed she was guilty from the press reporting. The notes in her diary were reported as if they were outright confessions - from the NY article, they read more like someone writing from deep depression and burnout struggling to cope with horrible turns in her job, rather than any admissions of culpability.

Puja

She was the sole member of staff on duty for 20 suspicious incidents, which stopped happening when she was removed from the maternity ward. There was no direct evidence that she administered any unnecessary drugs herself, although her testimony as a witness was very inconsistent.

Sometimes a jury will convict when there is circumstantial evidence (such as her diary) when combined with a defendant who seems evasive.

It was noted at the time, that there were significant issues with the hospital, its supervision and procedures. That is something which the defence did raise at the time unsuccessfully. I understand that her appeal is based on decisions the judge made during the trial, which she has previously unsuccessfully tried to appeal against.

Not every person who is convicted has the iron clad case put against them. It's 12 people on the jury who need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, during a very long trial where evidence will have been presented that we aren't party to. The jury weren't able to reach a verdict on one of the charges, but found her guilty on a dozen or so other charges.

Maybe she really is innocent and the New Yorker has a very valid point. Maybe she is as guilty as hell. Since I don't have all the facts, its difficult to be absolutely certain. But I'd also be wary of assuming innocence so quickly.

That's the key point here - the New Yorker article is selling a narrative and, without having sat through the trial and sifted all the evidence, it's hard to tell how partial it's being in pursuit of that narrative. One would like to assume the UK court system is suitable for purpose.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Just read the New Yorker article (using the Onion Router) - it was a hell of a read. Obviously, it's important to remember that it was written with an agenda and a slant of its own, but it was powerful. I don't see how one can convict a nurse simply on the basis that "She was the one that was always there." Feels reminiscent of the recently overturned Folbigg case in Australia where a woman was convicted and spent 20 years in prison on the basis that the odds were against all four of her children having unexplained cot deaths.

Like you Mikey, I had assumed she was guilty from the press reporting. The notes in her diary were reported as if they were outright confessions - from the NY article, they read more like someone writing from deep depression and burnout struggling to cope with horrible turns in her job, rather than any admissions of culpability.

Puja

She was the sole member of staff on duty for 20 suspicious incidents, which stopped happening when she was removed from the maternity ward. There was no direct evidence that she administered any unnecessary drugs herself, although her testimony as a witness was very inconsistent.

Sometimes a jury will convict when there is circumstantial evidence (such as her diary) when combined with a defendant who seems evasive.

It was noted at the time, that there were significant issues with the hospital, its supervision and procedures. That is something which the defence did raise at the time unsuccessfully. I understand that her appeal is based on decisions the judge made during the trial, which she has previously unsuccessfully tried to appeal against.

Not every person who is convicted has the iron clad case put against them. It's 12 people on the jury who need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, during a very long trial where evidence will have been presented that we aren't party to. The jury weren't able to reach a verdict on one of the charges, but found her guilty on a dozen or so other charges.

Maybe she really is innocent and the New Yorker has a very valid point. Maybe she is as guilty as hell. Since I don't have all the facts, its difficult to be absolutely certain. But I'd also be wary of assuming innocence so quickly.

That's the key point here - the New Yorker article is selling a narrative and, without having sat through the trial and sifted all the evidence, it's hard to tell how partial it's being in pursuit of that narrative. One would like to assume the UK court system is suitable for purpose.

Puja

I think you have to assume that 12 people can come to a reasonable decision based on the evidence provided (noting some arguments over very complex fraud cases). The alternative is three judges? I don't think that the court set out to convict Letby, the proceedings are scrupulously fair. That doesn't mean that an innocent person can't be convicted, but my normal premise is to accept that our system of justice is a decent one and look at the outliers when they occur.

[Donny osmond]

Maybe she actually is guilty? I recognise that there has been a spare of state cover ups over the last... decades. Given the public nature of the trial here it seems hard to believe that is the case.

Letby loses attempt to appeal against baby convictions.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/art ... dApp_Other

[Mikey Brown]

Maybe she actually is guilty?

We don’t like that sort of talk here. We’re all convinced she’s innocent.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I think Sandy has said pretty much everything I wanted to say about not having heard the evidence and not assuming the jury didn't do their job. Particularly where there are mixed verdicts that is very rarely the case. I'd just add "the next Harold Shipman" is a good choice. Because no one saw him commit those murders. The evidence was statistical and circumstantial for Shipman as well.

[paddy no 11]

I think Sandy has said pretty much everything I wanted to say about not having heard the evidence and not assuming the jury didn't do their job. Particularly where there are mixed verdicts that is very rarely the case. I'd just add "the next Harold Shipman" is a good choice. Because no one saw him commit those murders. The evidence was statistical and circumstantial for Shipman as well.

Except he was an opium fiend knocking off geriatrics - big step up to murdering premature babies for no reason - not like for like

[Sandydragon]

I think Sandy has said pretty much everything I wanted to say about not having heard the evidence and not assuming the jury didn't do their job. Particularly where there are mixed verdicts that is very rarely the case. I'd just add "the next Harold Shipman" is a good choice. Because no one saw him commit those murders. The evidence was statistical and circumstantial for Shipman as well.

Except he was an opium fiend knocking off geriatrics - big step up to murdering premature babies for no reason - not like for like

But very similar in how the prosecution built a picture using a lot of evidence rather than just relying on one massive piece of evidence. The motives are different but the way the prosecution managed the case appears similar.

[paddy no 11]

I think Sandy has said pretty much everything I wanted to say about not having heard the evidence and not assuming the jury didn't do their job. Particularly where there are mixed verdicts that is very rarely the case. I'd just add "the next Harold Shipman" is a good choice. Because no one saw him commit those murders. The evidence was statistical and circumstantial for Shipman as well.

Except he was an opium fiend knocking off geriatrics - big step up to murdering premature babies for no reason - not like for like

But very similar in how the prosecution built a picture using a lot of evidence rather than just relying on one massive piece of evidence. The motives are different but the way the prosecution managed the case appears similar.

I get that. But was the way the case was presented completely biased? And just to repeat no motive in letbys case

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Except he was an opium fiend knocking off geriatrics - big step up to murdering premature babies for no reason - not like for like

But very similar in how the prosecution built a picture using a lot of evidence rather than just relying on one massive piece of evidence. The motives are different but the way the prosecution managed the case appears similar.

I get that. But was the way the case was presented completely biased? And just to repeat no motive in letbys case

There was no motive in Shipman's case either, other than he quite liked killing. You speak as though there'a motive for most mass murderers beyond that.

And as Sandy said, the point is they used exactly the same sort of evidence.

And I really don't get what you understand what you mean about biased. Wtf do you think the prosecution case is? It's designed to convict. The prosecution have an obligation to provide defence with exculpatory evidence so if there was any in the Letby case they'd have provided it.

Generally I trust juries. Letby is not a case that even has a whiff about it to me. It's not like Bulsara where they'd clearly picked up the local weirdo and had bollocks all evidence.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The BBC2 programme about Andrew Malkinson's wrongful conviction and 17 years in prison (despite DNA evidence firstly not linking him to the crime, then later linking someone entirely different to the crime) was pretty powerful.

[Sandydragon]

A different court and jury has found Letby guilty of another attempted murder in 2016. There is less chance of 2 separate juries being responsible for a miscarriage of justice.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Plenty of doubts remain. The defence seem to have done a poor job in the original trial. Some of the points which should have been raised were not allowed in the retrial because the defence didn't bring them up the first time.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/art ... s-question

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Plenty of doubts remain. The defence seem to have done a poor job in the original trial. Some of the points which should have been raised were not allowed in the retrial because the defence didn't bring them up the first time.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/art ... s-question

No doubts to anyone who heard all the evidence, or she'd have been found not guilty. The nature of a trial is contentious evidence on both sides. I get that it's easy to forget that if you haven't been involved in them. It really isn't uncommon to have a trial with experts in disagreement. The jury then disentangles it with the help of counsel and the judge.

At the retrial the defence can call whatever evidence that is admissible that it wants. It isn't affected by what was called at the first trial. That is to be distinguished from the evidence that the Court of Appeal would be prepared to hear. They won't usually hear any evidence that was reasonably available at the trial.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Plenty of doubts remain. The defence seem to have done a poor job in the original trial. Some of the points which should have been raised were not allowed in the retrial because the defence didn't bring them up the first time.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/art ... s-question

No doubts to anyone who heard all the evidence, or she'd have been found not guilty. The nature of a trial is contentious evidence on both sides. I get that it's easy to forget that if you haven't been involved in them. It really isn't uncommon to have a trial with experts in disagreement. The jury then disentangles it with the help of counsel and the judge.

At the retrial the defence can call whatever evidence that is admissible that it wants. It isn't affected by what was called at the first trial. That is to be distinguished from the evidence that the Court of Appeal would be prepared to hear. They won't usually hear any evidence that was reasonably available at the trial.

I've been on a jury. It's clear that people are very swayed by their natural sympathies, what they have in common with the accused or the victim(s).

The first trial didn't have experts in disagreement because the defence didn't call any experts to challenge the prosecution.

It's not clear from the article what experts, if any, were called for the retrial. However, given the 100% media coverage of Letby as a baby killing monster, it's hard to see how the jury in the retrial could have been unbiased. You have before you a serial killer of babies and are being asked if she attempted to kill another one. The result will make no difference to her sentence anyway. And a verdict of not guilty will leave the parents with a feeling that justice wasn't done. Is the verdict really a surprise?