Law Lucy Letby New Yorker Article

[Stuart0502]

https://web.archive.org/web/20240513112618/https:/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it

The article does a pretty good job of casting major doubts about every aspect of the prosecution case.

Cliffs;

There was a pattern of finger pointing and escalation in the neonatal unit that eventually led to the finger being pointed at Letby. According to hospital management the consultants "weren't as good as they thought they were".

According to a report at the time, the deaths were "not materially different from those which might be found in other neonatal units within the uk"

The insulin test that was used in the trial was "not fit for evidence in a criminal prosecution" according to an expert in the field.

The expert witness for the prosecution wasn't really an expert.

The air embolism theory is very theoretical. It's based off one study from 1989. There are other theories that the babies deaths could have been caused by bacteria, the neonatal ward was leaking sewage from the ceiling. A plumber testified that he was called to the hospital every week, for weeks on end.

There were 17 deaths during the time period in question. Letby was there for 9 of them. If she was a full time nurse who was regularly working overtime that doesn't sound like a massive coincidence.

The other allegations are that she apparently stood and watched over babies as they collapsed and that she confessed with written hand notes. The hand notes look to me like the incoherent ramblings of an individual with low self esteem. Doesn't look to me like something a killer would do.

So who can convince me that there is actually a smoking gun in this case?

 

[aunshi189]

If I click that link I might get arrested...

 

[llperez22]

without reading your article, I just did a quick wiki search of this case. Assuming what I read on wiki is true: She admits herself during trial (as well as every professional brought in to testify) that many of the kids were intentionally injected with insulin and murdered. She was overseeing all of them. She also twice had people walk in on her while an infant was in dire situations and both times she had done nothing about it and not reported it and was caught off guard when people walked in on her. And, according to prosecution, the smoking gun is that she had deliberately lied on and changed files and paperwork of her time overseeing the care of the infants so as to place her not at the scene of the crime. They found convincing evidence that it was her who changed all the files.

edit: and they found a hand written note stating "i killed them on purpose" and "im evil i did this"

 

[lsa]

"So who can convince me that there is actually a smoking gun in this case?"

Why is it our job to convince you that there is a smoking gun here?

 

[HereticBD]

So who can convince me that there is actually a smoking gun in this case?

Other than her evidence tampering and verbal and written confessions, it's gonna be pretty tough...

 

[Stuart0502]

"So who can convince me that there is actually a smoking gun in this case?"

Why is it our job to convince you that there is a smoking gun here?

You don't have to.

However, the UK courts are quite capable of making mistakes.

It's major news in the UK right now that hundreds of people running post offices were given faulty convictions because of faulty IT software.

 

[Stuart0502]

Other than her evidence tampering and verbal and written confessions, it's gonna be pretty tough...

Verbal confession?

In the note containing the apparent written confession she says "I've done nothing wrong" whilst simultaneously saying "you did this". There's no confession to poisoning to babies with insulin or injecting them with air. Perhaps she is low key acknowledging negligent practise but a sadist who would intentionally murder babies? There's nothing else to indicate sadism in her background.

 

[Mike Hagger]

I’m bored waiting for a flight so this peaked my interest and I read this:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it

My opinion is, she seemed to be mentally unstable after being present for the first babies deaths. I don’t think the written words are as conclusive as they seem without context. I also think there’s a lot of people in the medical community who seemingly disagree that she purposely killed these babies.

But one thing is for certain that hospital ought to be charged for major crimes. It’s apparent that ward was lacking in protocols which probably killed babies. Seems the staff commented as much but were ignored.

 

[A Very Serious Cat]

You don't have to.

However, the UK courts are quite capable of making mistakes.

It's major news in the UK right now that hundreds of people running post offices were given faulty convictions because of faulty IT software.

I only recently heard about that case, it's insane, people killed themselves after having their lives ruined being convicted as theives because if the software that people knew was faulty

 

[The Big Yin]

I've sure the jury who sat through 7 murder and 6 attempted murder trials back to back weren't as informed as that new yorker journalist

I've heard of pathetic men simping for jail birds, but a serial child killer?

 

[Stuart0502]

I've sure the jury who sat through 7 murder and 6 attempted murder trials back to back weren't as informed as that new yorker journalist

I've heard of pathetic men simping for jail birds, but a serial child killer?

Well the New Yorker does seem to have an ability to persuade more prominent experts to speak on the case than the defense team did for whatever reason.

For instance, they quote the author of the paper who the prosecution based their theory of the method of murder for babies on;

"An author of the paper Shoo Lee, one of the most prominent neonatologists in Canada, has since reviewed summaries of each pattern of skin discolouration in the Letby case and said that none of the rashes were characteristic of air embolism".

How can you say; "Your guilty of murdering babies in the manner described by Shoo Lee in his 1989 paper on air emoblism's" if Shoo Lee later comes out and effectively says "this description is bollocks".

 

[The Big Yin]

Well the New Yorker does seem to have an ability to persuade more prominent experts to speak on the case than the defense team did for whatever reason.

For instance, they quote the author of the paper who the prosecution based their theory of the method of murder for babies on;

"An author of the paper Shoo Lee, one of the most prominent neonatologists in Canada, has since reviewed summaries of each pattern of skin discolouration in the Letby case and said that none of the rashes were characteristic of air embolism".

How can you say; "Your guilty of murdering babies in the manner described by Shoo Lee in his 1989 paper on air emoblism's" if Shoo Lee later comes out and effectively says "this description is bollocks".

I was an actual senior investigating officer for UK murder cases. I did this for around 6 years.

Prosecution cases against murder suspects are enormous - usually half of the material never even gets heard inside the actual courtroom. The defence have months, maybe even years to find experts who can rebuke CPS proposed medical experts.

Most UK murder trials are 2-3 weeks long. Hers was 10 months. I'm 100% certain that jury heard more evidence than some new yorker journalist, who mentally cannot comprehend that a semi attractive nurse is capable of killing babies.

The fact you use the term defence team proves you know very little about the UK criminal justice system and how robust it is

 

[Stuart0502]

I was an actual senior investigating officer for UK murder cases. I did this for around 6 years.

Prosecution cases against murder suspects are enormous - usually half of the material never even gets heard inside the actual courtroom. The defence have months, maybe even years to find experts who can rebuke CPS proposed medical experts.

Most UK murder trials are 2-3 weeks long. Hers was 10 months. I'm 100% certain that jury heard more evidence than some new yorker journalist, who mentally cannot comprehend that a semi attractive nurse is capable of killing babies.

The fact you use the term defence team proves you know very little about the UK criminal justice system and how robust it is

I don't deny that I know very little of legal procedure, my background is in science not law. I do take it with a pinch of salt when guys tell me their credentials on sherdog though.

There are people working within the criminal justice system who have doubts about this case;

 

[idrankyourbeer]

the new yorker lmao

 

[The_Renaissance]

She 100% did it. She gives off massively disturbing vibes. Why she did it fuck knows. Predators gravitate towards professions that give them access to their prey. I'd hazard a guess She was severely abused as a child and hates the innocence and purity newborns have. "I'm gonna show you what I was shown". The abused becoming the abuser is a tale as old as time. See most serial killers as an example.

 

[Loiosh]

"So who can convince me that there is actually a smoking gun in this case?"

Why is it our job to convince you that there is a smoking gun here?

 

[aries]

without reading your article, I just did a quick wiki search of this case. Assuming what I read on wiki is true: She admits herself during trial (as well as every professional brought in to testify) that many of the kids were intentionally injected with insulin and murdered. She was overseeing all of them. She also twice had people walk in on her while an infant was in dire situations and both times she had done nothing about it and not reported it and was caught off guard when people walked in on her. And, according to prosecution, the smoking gun is that she had deliberately lied on and changed files and paperwork of her time overseeing the care of the infants so as to place her not at the scene of the crime. They found convincing evidence that it was her who changed all the files.

edit: and they found a hand written note stating "i killed them on purpose" and "im evil i did this"

Also she was the ONLY nurse on duty at some point with EVERY single baby who died in care. And she was clever, using a different method of killing each time. She also made glib comments numerous times to many of the parents after the babies died and kept souvenirs of many of the deaths. That's not normal behaviour and the jury recognised that to convict her 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

 

[aries]

She 100% did it. She gives off massively disturbing vibes. Why she did it fuck knows. Predators gravitate towards professions that give them access to their prey. I'd hazard a guess She was severely abused as a child and hates the innocence and purity newborns have. "I'm gonna show you what I was shown". The abused becoming the abuser is a tale as old as time. See most serial killers as an example.

She had a loving family upbringing. Her parents if anything were over-protective. She was childless, lived alone apart from two cats, was acutely aware of her status and had trouble forming long-lasting relationships. Maybe it was deep-rooted envy and a murderous sadistic streak that led her to destroy the lives of happy couples having a child?

 

[The Big Yin]

I don't deny that I know very little of legal procedure, my background is in science not law. I do take it with a pinch of salt when guys tell me their credentials on sherdog though.

There are people working within the criminal justice system who have doubts about this case;

You can take whatever pinch of salt you want. The two things I learned in my 2 decades of UK policing were

- The odds are always stacked in favour of the suspect

- When you are considering medical and forensic evidence, there's always some expert willing to argue either side of the case - often for money or publicity.

 

[Stuart0502]

Also she was the ONLY nurse on duty at some point with EVERY single baby who died in care. And she was clever, using a different method of killing each time. She also made glib comments numerous times to many of the parents after the babies died and kept souvenirs of many of the deaths. That's not normal behaviour and the jury recognised that to convict her 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Source on her using a different method of killing each time? The sentence is for the murder of 7 babies. So if what you are saying is true there should be 7 different methods of murder.

Also if she was the only person who was there, how do you explain this daily mail article from 2017;

"Police investigate the deaths of 15 babies in a single year at the Countess of Chester hospital"

Police investigating baby deaths at Countess of Chester Hospital

Cheshire Constabulary confirmed the probe will focus on the deaths of eight babies but will also review seven further deaths, as well as six non-fatal collapses.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Hint: There were many more deaths that occurred when she wasn't there in a neonatal unit

"Melanie and Patrick Robinson's son, Noah, died following catalogue of blunders"