Lucy letby

[Since1973]

What I am saying is the police investigated the deaths during Lucy letby shifts with a preconceived notion that she murdered them and probably didn't look too closely at babies she couldn't have murdered.

You are wrong.

Every death will have been looked at very closely - obviously some may have been deemed non suspicious due to the circumstances.

Do you think her defence team might just have been slightly interested in the babies that died that she could not have been involved with or responsible for?

Do you think the might have asked for all the information in relation to those deaths and other relevant deaths not subject of charge?

Do you thing the prosecution could just say - “Oh we are not interested in those deaths Letby could not have been involved” - That is not how it works

That will have been one of her potential lines of defence - another baby was potentially murdered and Letby could not have been responsible - Therefore there is another potential suspect.

Are you trying to say the cps don't make decisions that are wholly wrong. Horizon, for example?

I may be wrong here but I thought the Post Office conducted their own prosecutions and if the CPS were involved it was in very few cases. I’m my opinion one of the main reasons for Horizon was the CPS were not involved in all the prosecutions.

 

[FabioPorkpie]

A bit fed up with saying this, but I'll repeat it one more time. I think it's likely Lucy letby murdered those babies. Our burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Likely to be true is a long way from beyond reasonable doubt.

It should go without saying that she was already found guilty, which means the threshold for ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ was met in a court of law.

Your own threshold for ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is completely irrelevant, given you were not privy to all the evidence or details.

 

[Millbrook]

I may be wrong here but I thought the Post Office conducted their own prosecutions and if the CPS were involved it was in very few cases. I’m my opinion one of the main reasons for Horizon was the CPS were not involved in all the prosecutions.

The CPS were involved in a minority of cases, the exact number is difficult to ascertain.

I agree very strongly with your second sentence.

 

[Jonny Ingbar]

Of course they are. Based largely on what is presented to them by the police.

Are you trying to say the cps don't make decisions that are wholly wrong. Horizon, for example?

Blind faith in our judicial system would see a lot of innocent people stay in jail, it's why we have criminal reviews.

Perhaps a 22% funding cut since 2010 had damaged the judicial system.

What I am saying is the police investigated the deaths during Lucy letby shifts with a preconceived notion that she murdered them and probably didn't look too closely at babies she couldn't have murdered.

Was it a statistical cluster or murder? I don't know.

A bit fed up with saying this, but I'll repeat it one more time. I think it's likely Lucy letby murdered those babies. Our burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Likely to be true is a long way from beyond reasonable doubt.

I'd be interested to know whether your view is shaped by personal experiences, or not?

I worked extensively with the CPS, up to and including the Chief Crown Prosecutor for the NE and whilst there is always an exception to the rule, I always found it to be an organisation that was very consciously accountable to fairness, objectivity and legitimacy.

That's not 'blind faith', that's a real world experience and one that was never driven by 'narratives'.

 

[Redwurzel]

The Post Office cases seem to go something like this

PO to Postmaster - you owe us £20k and have previously made up difference of money you stole

Postmaster - I don't think I do

Post Office legal team : off to Court then - PO didn't need Crown Prosecution Service.

Postmaster Lawyer my client says the software is giving wrong figure and where evidence of stolen £20k

Post Office legal team - we don't to find the stolen money, PO software is 100% accurate and its show deficits. Your client has been stealing pensioners cash. To prove the software is accurate we will bring in an expert from Fujistu who made the software and maintains it.

Fujistu person: With hand on the Bible - our software is perfect.

Judge: Computer expert is the expert, conclusion Post Office master is a thief stealing in effect from little old ladies, off to Prison you disgusting person.

Courts appeared to just rubber stamp what the Post Office had internally decided in most instances.

The cases didn't even get questioned in the main media for about 12 years. Everybody believed what the court were doing was correct.

If anyone on here has said anything they would have been called a cranky believer in conspiracies or knows nothing about the cases or computers.

The CPS would not be involved on most cases, but the court processes would have been very similar. The prosecuting team using data from Horizon software which the defence team could not effectively challenge, if Fujistu swore their equipment was perfect. The defence team would need other witnesses from Fujistu to say the software was unreliable. The Post Office and Fujistsu has strong vested interests in 100% blaming Postmasters for their problems.

A possible issue with the Letby case is the NHS is in effect working with the prosecution example supplying selective statistics. Its in the NHS interests and NHS staff on the Unit interests for all the deaths to be due to a rogue serial killer.

I honestly don't know who or what caused the deaths, but have some doubts there were all the acts of one serial killer. The trial doesn't feel fairly balanced. Its lucky we don't have capital punishment because LL may have been hung by now.

 

[Laughing]

I'd be interested to know whether your view is shaped by personal experiences, or not?

I worked extensively with the CPS, up to and including the Chief Crown Prosecutor for the NE and whilst there is always an exception to the rule, I always found it to be an organisation that was very consciously accountable to fairness, objectivity and legitimacy.

That's not 'blind faith', that's a real world experience and one that was never driven by 'narratives'.

No not based on personal experience.

Not sure why you would assume that. It's probably fair to assume that the judiciary from top to bottom are poorer now than they were a decade ago based on the funding cuts.

We do see, too regularly, that our legal system makes mistakes.

I would be much more interested in those that accept there isn't questions to answer in this particular case and the reasons. It seems to me that the argument was, she was found guilty so let's not bother. Unfortunately history proves that notion horribly wrong.

 

[Laughing]

It should go without saying that she was already found guilty, which means the threshold for ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ was met in a court of law.

Your own threshold for ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is completely irrelevant, given you were not privy to all the evidence or details.

It's irrelevant to the court. So why bother with the discussing at all? As I posted above that notion has been proven wrong time and time again.

 

[Laughing]

You are wrong.

Every death will have been looked at very closely - obviously some may have been deemed non suspicious due to the circumstances.

Do you think her defence team might just have been slightly interested in the babies that died that she could not have been involved with or responsible for?

Do you think the might have asked for all the information in relation to those deaths and other relevant deaths not subject of charge?

Do you thing the prosecution could just say - “Oh we are not interested in those deaths Letby could not have been involved” - That is not how it works

That will have been one of her potential lines of defence - another baby was potentially murdered and Letby could not have been responsible - Therefore there is another potential suspect.



I may be wrong here but I thought the Post Office conducted their own prosecutions and if the CPS were involved it was in very few cases. I’m my opinion one of the main reasons for Horizon was the CPS were not involved in all the prosecutions.

Wasn't aware of this. Not sure it changes the argument that our judiciary get stuff wrong and their reluctance to reopen cases.

The rest of you do you not suppose are a little meaningless in the context of the discussion. Clearly I am doubtful of how meticulous the case was conducted and the evidence used. I thought that was clear.

 

[Millbrook]

I would be much more interested in those that accept there isn't questions to answer in this particular case and the reasons. It seems to me that the argument was, she was found guilty so let's not bother. Unfortunately history proves that notion horribly wrong.

There is also the other side to it. Why do people think there are questions to be answered based on bits of information spouted by individuals who (mostly) weren't at the trial.
Richard Baker KC said at the opening of the inquiry;

“The complexity of the opening of this inquiry demonstrates the depth of analysis that is required to understand the events of the Countess of Chester hospital. This is not an issue to express casual opinions about.

“There is, however, some measure of relevance in this background noise … it reveals a common and basic cognitive bias as a society, we are too quick to make judgments based upon first impressions. We idolise or demonise those who fit our own stereotypes. We prefer our monsters to look like monsters, to be easy to identify and to be far removed from ourselves.

“It creates a profound cognitive dissonance when monsters do not fit a stereotype. It is sometimes hard to accept that evil can be banal. The cognitive biases of individuals who see a young woman working in a caring profession and cannot conceive of a darkness that may lay beneath the surface are easy to understand, but we should not be so naive.

“To be successful, a serial killer must hide in plain sight.

“In her opening, Rachel Langdale KC remarked upon the respect that so many patients expressed towards Harold Shipman, who they regarded as a diligent and caring doctor until, that is, the truth was known. We can add to that list many other superficially charming or apparently normal individuals who were later revealed to be monsters.''

Well before he said this I questioned where I was coming from and recognised I was guilty of what he said in the third para. Sub consciously I hoped there was mismanagement at the hospital rather than believe a nurse could murder babies. It doesn't mean I have swung the other way but we have very little grasp of how much information was put before the jury.

One other thing worth considering is that the Court of Appeal did not just consider the grounds for appeal but reviewed a lot of the evidence in coming to their decision.

 

[Redwurzel]

Millbrook - I certainly believe anyone in theory can be a serial killer, i.e. not be male loners, living in isolation etc. Women in the caring profession do have halo around them, but its the same for the NHS too people find it hard to believe some of the things that go on.

Once someone gets their photo and name on the front pages of the papers etc, they are going to struggle to get a fair hearing especially when the tabloid type press can hold of any of their details. People do lap it up and a sort of mob fever takes over.

I don't have a lot of confidence in Courts of Appeal, at times it reminds me of referees and VAR. Many injustices of the past went to Court of Appeal and the same wrong verdicts were given, especially where the appeal is soon after the first trial. Think of all the wrong IRA bombing convictions.

 

[Laughing]

There is also the other side to it. Why do people think there are questions to be answered based on bits of information spouted by individuals who (mostly) weren't at the trial.
Richard Baker KC said at the opening of the inquiry;

“The complexity of the opening of this inquiry demonstrates the depth of analysis that is required to understand the events of the Countess of Chester hospital. This is not an issue to express casual opinions about.

“There is, however, some measure of relevance in this background noise … it reveals a common and basic cognitive bias as a society, we are too quick to make judgments based upon first impressions. We idolise or demonise those who fit our own stereotypes. We prefer our monsters to look like monsters, to be easy to identify and to be far removed from ourselves.

“It creates a profound cognitive dissonance when monsters do not fit a stereotype. It is sometimes hard to accept that evil can be banal. The cognitive biases of individuals who see a young woman working in a caring profession and cannot conceive of a darkness that may lay beneath the surface are easy to understand, but we should not be so naive.

“To be successful, a serial killer must hide in plain sight.

“In her opening, Rachel Langdale KC remarked upon the respect that so many patients expressed towards Harold Shipman, who they regarded as a diligent and caring doctor until, that is, the truth was known. We can add to that list many other superficially charming or apparently normal individuals who were later revealed to be monsters.''

Well before he said this I questioned where I was coming from and recognised I was guilty of what he said in the third para. Sub consciously I hoped there was mismanagement at the hospital rather than believe a nurse could murder babies. It doesn't mean I have swung the other way but we have very little grasp of how much information was put before the jury.

One other thing worth considering is that the Court of Appeal did not just consider the grounds for appeal but reviewed a lot of the evidence in coming to their decision.

Unfortunately nurse serial killers have been convicted in quite recent history.

I take the points you raise. Not sure how common that bias actually is in reality.

 

[Redwurzel]

Many convicted postmasters didn't look like thieves and criminals, but most of the general public accepted they were after their trials - of course in reality 99% were not real criminals, but once a prison uniform is put on someone its not easy to get off.

Our justice system should do everything it can to establish the truth, its too adversary for my liking, so one side does everything they can to win and vice versa - truth and justice can become more secondary issues. One example is when say the Police have information that would help establish the truth but they hide it from the judge and the jury and are allowed to.

I believe In the Lucy Letby case some of the statistics relevant to finding the truth were not disclosed or not disclosed to begin with. NHS provided the prosecution with statistics that put LL in the worst light hence independent experts (not involved in the case) have later spoken up. KCs on podcasts may say its up to the defence team to challenge these statistics, but that's all hindsight. At the time the defence team may not have the statistical expertise or may not have had alternative statistics (as the source is the NHS Hospital, who has a vested interest in prosecution).

 

[Millbrook]

Many convicted postmasters didn't look like thieves and criminals, but most of the general public accepted they were after their trials - of course in reality 99% were not real criminals, but once a prison uniform is put on someone its not easy to get off.

Our justice system should do everything it can to establish the truth, its too adversary for my liking, so one side does everything they can to win and vice versa - truth and justice can become more secondary issues. One example is when say the Police have information that would help establish the truth but they hide it from the judge and the jury and are allowed to.

I believe In the Lucy Letby case some of the statistics relevant to finding the truth were not disclosed or not disclosed to begin with. NHS provided the prosecution with statistics that put LL in the worst light hence independent experts (not involved in the case) have later spoken up. KCs on podcasts may say its up to the defence team to challenge these statistics, but that's all hindsight. At the time the defence team may not have the statistical expertise or may not have had alternative statistics (as the source is the NHS Hospital, who has a vested interest in prosecution).

The case did not hinge on the statistical evidence.

 

[The Card Cheat]

Lucy Letby: Experts raise doubts about medical evidence presented in court

Doctors and scientists' concerns contribute to speculation about the safety of the nurse's convictions.

www.bbc.co.uk

More experts come forward to cast doubt over the evidence.

 

[ForssAwakens]

However, neonatologist Dr Michael Hall - who has spoken publicly about his concerns before, and has written to the chair of the public inquiry - told the BBC: “There are a number of possible explanations for there being excess gas there.”

Dr Hall, who was consulted by the defence but never called to give evidence, said it is likely to have been caused by the respiratory support the baby was receiving and said the X-ray suggested there was a bowel obstruction.

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.