Printable version of thread

Posted by: Tafty³³³ 21st August 2023, 11:02 AM

The serial-killer's sentencing is underway this morning.

*putting what she was found guilty of in spoiler tags as a caution because it is really disturbing - so read at own risk*

She was found guilty of attacking 13 babies, killing seven of them. Making her the most prolific serial killer of children in modern British history.

The former director of nursing who is said to have ignored warnings about her, has been suspended from her current role. Dr Ravi Jayaram is one of the consultant paediatricians who tried multiple times to raise concerns about her... he was forced to attend meditation with her and then apologise to her. Not only that but a retired nursing chief said she "didn't have enough information" to remove Lucy from the unit despite a 400% increase in deaths & 7 consultants raising serious concerns about her.

By far one of the most horrifying stories I've ever encountered. I hope she rots for eternity. I can't imagine she'll last a great length of time in prison before she's either in the prison hospital or the other way. However, she still has a level of power above the victims families as she was allowed to refuse to show up to court for her sentencing, meaning she gets to avoid hearing what they have to say about her, which I personally think is vile that that is even a thing?

How do you feel about the case? What does this tell us about the system and how she got away with it despite various concerns and evidence pointing towards it all so much sooner? Will there be "Corporate Manslaughter" charges, due to their negligence and refusing to investigate extremely serious accusations? Should she/criminals even be given the choice to avoid their sentencing hearing?

Posted by: Suedehead2 21st August 2023, 11:10 AM

She is almost certain to get a whole-life sentence, so there is no available sanction to force her to attend the sentencing. Therefore, there doesn't seem to be a lot that can be done.

The case is, indeed horrific. The enquiry announced by the government is currently not a statutory enquiry. That means that nobody can be compelled to attend and give evidence. I hope that will change.

One of the unanswered questions relate to the cases where she injected the babies with insulin. A normal insulin level is 200-300 units. These babies had levels of 4,500 units. I don't understand why the body that carried out the tests didn't contact the hospital immediately to alert them to these results. Instead, the alarm was only raised when one of the whistle-blowers was reviewing the evidence as part of the police investigation.

Posted by: Herbs 21st August 2023, 11:11 AM

What the families must have gone through…

Such a vile person. All those senseless murders and lives not lived - it is truly hearbreaking

I’ve read the emails that were exchanged and it’s clear Lucy was trying to avoid suspicion. The fact that such a big increase went in-investigated is shocking. I know it’s not the same but it reminds me of the Stephen Port case (further victims could have been saved if initial suspicions were looked into)

Posted by: Jessie Where 21st August 2023, 11:38 AM

I'd followed this case from the beginning and it's been harrowing. The trial painted a picture of a very sadistic individual who more than enjoyed the grief she was causing, needed to involve herself in it and experience as much as possible (as evidenced by the sympathy card, Facebook searches etc). Just horrible and unfathomable.

I hope those higher up who ignored concerns face very severe repercussions.

I'll be astonished if she isn't handed a whole life order, and that's exactly what she deserves.

Posted by: T Boy 21st August 2023, 11:45 AM

It truly is a disturbing case. It’s disconcerting to me also as the Countess is more or less my nearest hospital, at least on the English side of the border.

All speculation, but it seems to me that she very much played a personality and character to avoid suspicion and carry things out. Clearly she couldn’t fool everyone, but it does seem she played up to this ‘innocent white girlie her twenties’ image and could act the victim in order to get sympathy from those up top. I can’t even comprehend what she did and it’s disgusting she won’t attend the sentencing-which will surely be life. It feels like she is still playing the ‘I’m innocent’ card by appearing too distressed to attend-perhaps she should imagine how the parents of her victims feel? It has been reported throughout that she has claimed this whole thing has been a conspiracy against her and that she was being scape goated to cover up hospital failures.

Speaking of hospital failures, I do hope heads will roll there given how many times doctors were ignored or forced to apologise for her. It’s definitely a symptom of where we are as people these days that covering up for the sake of reputation was more important than patient safety and that those who rock the boat in the interest of what’s right are the ones who get punished. It happens in a lot of industries (well in our government specifically) so if one good thing could come from this it would be that hopefully that culture will change.

Posted by: Chez Wombat 21st August 2023, 11:51 AM

Sickening, hopefully rots in prison for life. I've said recently in another thread how horrifying Angels of Death can be and this is just about the worst thing that can be done.

Every manager or higher up that ignored warnings and victimised other staff for raising concerns has blood on their hands and they should all rightfully be punished, in some cases, manslaughter is an appropriate charge. It really is an utterly sad state of affairs that in company in this day and age, serious concerns are still brushed aside or not investigated properly. This is just about the most serious you can get and reputation should never, ever come into it. Not sure if it's a reflection of the state of the NHS currently or just that we haven't progressed as much as we'd like to think

Posted by: Jessie Where 21st August 2023, 12:06 PM

She has been given a whole life order!

Posted by: T Boy 21st August 2023, 12:16 PM

Fully deserved. It’s sickening that she refused to present herself.

I think further investigations into the hospital management really need to be stepped up now. We need to hear why concerns were initially ignored.

Posted by: Tafty³³³ 21st August 2023, 01:05 PM

Excellent news!

But yeah, I do think the pressure needs to be put on the higher ups now. Those who glossed over how serious this was and was continually ignoring everything.

Posted by: Silas 21st August 2023, 01:16 PM

Speaking from personal experience, the Countess of Chester is one of the worst places I’ve ever had the misfortune to step into. Our family has absolutely nothing positive to say about anything or anyone connected to that dive. It doesn’t surprise me that too management acted like they did, their not fit to run a bath unsupervised. I hope all of them end up on manslaughter charges as this is defo not the only blood on their hands.

This hospital has directly or indirectly through negligence killed many people and there is a commie block in hell reserved for those responsible

Posted by: neill2407 21st August 2023, 09:55 PM

Reminds me of the Shipman case…absolutely shocking and terrible.

Posted by: Suedehead2 30th August 2023, 09:58 PM

The enquiry will now be a statutory one, so witnesses can now be obliged to attend. A sensible u-turn by the government.

Posted by: Tafty³³³ 15th September 2023, 06:02 PM

She is now (shock horror) appealing her convictions.

Vile woman.

(Also, there are literal people out there asking to free her because she was used as a "scapegoat"! JFC!)

Posted by: T Boy 15th September 2023, 06:13 PM

The woman is dangerous if she honestly believes she didn’t do it.

Posted by: crazy chris 15th September 2023, 09:32 PM

Some eminent legal people actually think her conviction was unsafe as it was all based on circumstantial evidence.

Posted by: T Boy 16th September 2023, 08:39 PM

The jury were quite thorough despite this. It’s not like they found her guilty of every charge.

Posted by: Suedehead2 16th September 2023, 09:38 PM

She has the right to seek leave to appeal. That is a fundamental part of a fair justice system. Whether a judge grants her permission to appeal is a different matter.

Posted by: Tafty³³³ 12th December 2023, 11:51 AM

Wait... why wouldn't she automatically be taken off the nursing register immediately when she was convicted for a crime within the nursing sector???? It's making no sense why this is going to be a 2 day trial when it should automatically be in place, no?

(Or am I genuinely missing something?)

Posted by: spiceboy 12th December 2023, 09:55 PM

Why waste tax payers money!? For a start she is NEVER getting out of jail to be a nurse again, and even if she did which hospital is EVER going to hire her!? Don't even bother striking her off just let her rot in jail for the rest of her life.

Posted by: Jessie Where 14th December 2023, 12:24 PM

It seems like an extremely pointless formality, but I think these quotes I've found in a BBC article try and make sense of it as best they can:

Also, my theory on why she's appealing her convictions is to try and save face with her parents who very obviously refuse to believe she's guilty.

Posted by: No Sleeep 14th May 2024, 01:00 PM

Very good article in The New Yorker with some new information. The media-led witch hunt against Lucy never sat right with me. Also I think it’s ironic that this article is inaccessible in the UK because of “contempt of court” laws (in case it “undermines” trust in the British justice system ) but newspaper headlines were already branding her an “evil baby killer” before she was convicted of anything. Whether you think she is guilty or not (I personally don’t believe she is), with a jury that was overheard saying they were convinced of her guilt from the start, it is impossible to say she had a fair trial. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the prosecution failed to deliver that.

Here’s the article if anyone wishes to read it:

https://archive.ph/AWpyz

Posted by: Jessie Where 14th May 2024, 01:24 PM

I followed this very closely from the beginning, and every article I read in the media before the verdict used the word "allegedly" as is required by law in a live court case. Are you able to provide a link to any headlines that branded her as such beforehand? They'd probably be sued megabucks for doing that, if they did!

Also, the contempt of court thing makes perfect sense as she has an upcoming re-trial next month for an attempted murder charge.

(I'll read the article later)

Posted by: No Sleeep 14th May 2024, 01:33 PM

I don’t think qualifying it with “allegedly” makes it any better. The tone of the reporting throughout the trial was very much that Lucy was guilty and evil and any dissenting opinions were strongly discouraged.

It’s a long one but I strongly encourage you to read the article if you’re convinced of her guilt. The British media is godawful - they would much rather have an “Angel of Death”, makes a much more interesting story than a number of mistakes made by an incompetent hospital.

Also following news coverage of a trial doesn’t make you an expert, no offence. It really reminds me of the Amber Heard case, people felt justified in their hatred of her because they had “watched the trial” when in actuality that had been manipulated by a very effective PR campaign

Posted by: Jessie Where 14th May 2024, 01:52 PM

It's a good job things like transcripts and court reports are available beyond the news coverage, isn't it? (No offence)

Posted by: Scene 14th May 2024, 03:07 PM

Jesus that’s more of an essay than an article! I read a bit but cannot read anymore right now.

What was even her defence in court? From what I remember there was a lot of evidence pointing to her and barely anything supporting her innocence.

Posted by: Liam sota 14th May 2024, 04:28 PM

This story irks me. Crime, psychology are things I have spent an unhealthy amount of time interested in, studying etc. This case is as clear as day and there is this weird growing agenda to paint a clearly evil person as a victim. I don't get where it's coming from or why people feel the urge to do this. It's just bizarre but it's not really a subject for peoples need for attention or clicks or whatever it is driving this stupidity. I would compare it a little bit to Alex Jones and the sandy hook being staged thing. It's just something some idiot starts and others for some reason follow and then almost delude themselves about it. It's just not based on reality. Yeah the coverage painted her as guilty because she was.

Posted by: No Sleeep 14th May 2024, 05:02 PM

I don’t know why you have the idea that this is some right-wing conspiracy plot trying to prove her innocent, it is in fact quite the opposite. Rachel Aviv is a respected, award-winning journalist, the New Yorker is about as high-quality and liberal outlet as you can get, and if you check the conversations on Twitter, the people questioning this conviction are far from “Alex Jones” as you can get - it’s people with PhDs, journalists who know how media manipulation works. I would argue the “she’s an evil baby killer” mob have more in common with Alex Jones personally, resorting to emotive language and shaming people rather than looking at the facts and evidence (or, lack thereof). Outlets like the Daily Mail have controlled the narrative of this and there has never been any balanced reporting on this case in the UK, it’s refreshing to see the New Yorker restore at least some sanity.

Posted by: Liam sota 14th May 2024, 06:01 PM

I didn't mention left or right wing. I brought up Alex Jones as this was a very obvious case of something that happened and tons of people following it and believing it didn't based off pretty much nonsense. Left wing or right wing means nothing people believing nonsense is a human trait. As for this kind of case if we were to talk left or right wing then yeah I would expect more left wing people to defend it they are more likely to be defend evil people in this way. You just have to look at some human rights lawyers or some people on death row who have committed heinous crimes and some left wing do-gooder will be trying to free them.

I don't really subscribe to anything you said at all but it's more interesting what is the motivation behind these people this journalist this theory? Even yourself? What is the real agenda there? Surely these people are not so feeble they are going against reality because they deem it a right wing witch-hunt to convict a baby killer? That really would be pathetic. You never know with American journalists some of them are pretty woeful a lot of nepotism goes on there. I wonder why it's even reached America it's just not something I'd expect them to know much about. I feel like I'm missing something entirely.

There's cases like OJ Simpson you could get someone off in a technicality or trying to create doubt but why would anyone want to do that for a serial baby killer? It's just very peculiar.

There would have to be the mother of all coincidences multiple times for her not to be responsible. She fits the psychological profile. He actions were very consistent with how such a person would act, several different staff members had raised concerns about her specifically. Everything is so obvious and yet SOME people will latch onto the fact there is no complete smoking gun(which you don't need here) you need video proof of her doing it to be convinced? If that's all that will convince you then there is no way you will ever see her as guilty but that's not how the law works. If there are really people shallow enough to be inclined to have sympathy for a baby killer because the daily mail were against her then you can only roll your eyes at that.

Posted by: T Boy 14th May 2024, 06:15 PM

I didn’t know whether to bother posting as I’m sure some people will accuse me of being too close to the case to be unbiased even though my link is extremely tenuous.

But in recent months, I have become friends with one of the doctors who first suspected her guilt. He has never spoken of it and I would never ask him, he doesn’t even know that I know. I only know because I recognised him from television interviews last Summer. He comes across as a man of great integrity and an absolute professional. I fully trust him in these matters. I also teach children who come from families affected by her actions. I simply cannot entertain any idea that she’s innocent.

The jury were quite thorough. They didn’t even find her guilty of every charge, only the ones where the evidence was quite overwhelming. From my recollection, the media only began declaring her a murderer once she was found guilty of being one. I don’t know why so many people, including doctors in the hospital, would put so much effort into setting her up. If anything the management, who would have a great interest in setting her up as a scapegoat should they require one, did more than they needed to in order to support her and hush it all up.

Posted by: No Sleeep 14th May 2024, 10:18 PM

By all accounts she is the exact opposite psychological profile of a serial baby killer, can you provide any evidence to the contrary?

It may be the “mother of all coincidences”, but did you know the prosecution misrespresented the facts by leaving out the instances where Lucy wasn’t present for a baby’s death in the ward? Or that the death rate only dropped afterwards because they stopped caring for babies who were already in such a dire condition?

This is a woman’s life we’re talking about, so yes I think due diligence should have been done and more solid evidence should have been presented to warrant 14 life sentences.

It wouldn’t be the first miscarriage of justice similar to this, even in this country. Sally Clark was convicted after an “expert” witness misrepresented facts by claiming there was a 1 in 73 million chance of her two babies both dying of SIDS. She won her appeal but died of alcoholism 4 years later. It seems that when a woman is deemed to be a “baby murderer”, emotions run very high and logic goes out the window.

Posted by: My... WAP?? 14th May 2024, 10:37 PM

As has been alluded to in other comments, people are bound to try and pick holes and form their own theories in a case where there is no absolute 'smoking gun' piece of evidence presented, forgetting that in law if the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming enough it holds the same weight. She was fairly convicted based on the evidence presented, as T Boy points out this didn't even extend to all of the charges brought which pretty conclusively tackles the 'jury bias' argument.

Women who kill on more than one occasion are rare but when they do their victims are often the very young.

Instead of embarking on a chase to create doubt about the safeness of the conviction, what really needs to be focused on as a result of in the wake of this case is getting to the root of how she was allowed to go on doing it and implementing institutional measures in response to that. Yes a large part of that does involve hospital departments being overworked, understaffed and underfunded, unfortunately the chances of seeing real change on the horizon where that is concerned look bleak right now.

Posted by: No Sleeep 14th May 2024, 10:47 PM

From the article:

There are some pretty big holes to pick in this case. The “air embolism” theory is just that, a theory, because the doctors at the hospital couldn’t come up with any other explanation and one found one paper on Google . Nevermind that the author of that paper themselves has came out and said it’s a “mistake” to consider that as a cause of death simply because they can’t think of any other.

And these assumptions are what the prosecution’s entire case relied on:



It really shouldn’t be about your emotions in this case it should be about whether there is undeniable evidence of this woman’s guilt. They have nothing more than hearsay from a bunch of doctors whom suspicion would have fallen upon if we weren’t all too busy crucifying Lucy

Posted by: Jessie Where 15th May 2024, 07:57 AM

Let's look at two pieces of evidence in isolation; the sympathy cards she sent on the day of the funeral and the Facebook searches for bereaved parents.

Does this not paint a picture of an individual who wants to be a part of and experience the grief and horror she was causing as much as possible?

Unless of course you really buy her explanation that REPEATEDLY searching on Facebook for families of the victims on occasions like the anniversary of their passing, Christmas day etc is a "normal pattern of behaviour" (in which case I have some magic beans you might be interested in buying).

This is basically her digitally returning to the scene of the crime, which is actually a common behaviour in serial killers.

I didn't want to believe it was true or possible she did this either, but there came a point in the trial where I realised beyond any doubt in my mind that she is a hideous sadist who not only got a thrill from murder but also immersing herself in the families' grief as much as she possibly can. That's the conclusion I drew regardless of whichever news outlet reports on it whichever way.

Posted by: Scene 15th May 2024, 08:09 AM

I totally forgot about these points!

If there really has been an unfair trial then LL should be granted a retrial but I'm struggling to see beyond her guilt. So many things add up and if the hospital really were to blame, there would be people in-the-know who would be speaking up rather than letting an innocent woman be branded a serial killer and rotting in prison.

Posted by: No Sleeep 15th May 2024, 08:18 AM

You’re framing this as something very sinister but plenty of people who work in medicine have said that’s a very normal thing for them to do in their private time after a tragedy. They also found no suspicious google searches or anything on her computers, don’t you think if she was really stalking the families digitally to bask in it she would’ve left more of a digital footprint?

Also I’m not surprised more people aren’t defending her because the ones that have have had their lives ruined. Nobody wants to be associated with a “baby murderer”, you can’t even have a debate about this anywhere without being shamed for defending an “evil baby killer”. The ones who did who the New Yorker interviewed requested anonymity because of what it would do to their career if they were seen questioning her conviction. The power of groupthink and peer pressure

Posted by: No Sleeep 15th May 2024, 12:23 PM

Posted by: Liam sota 15th May 2024, 01:13 PM

I read the article just to check if I was missing something. It was very slimy journalism. It was attempting to be persuasive rather than anything. If you hadn't heard of the case you could easily be persuaded especially if American.

However the angle was almost like a lawyer trying to seed doubt than anything real. She essentially tried to paint a picture of a circus unit underfunded with incompetence running wild and mistakes being made left right and centre.

One example she gave was someone using google to look up how to do something trying to paint the idea clueless staff were unsure how do things. Everybody knows doctors/GP’s/etc often use google to check or verify things or even refresh their own memory, it’s actually considered good practice. An underfunded unit doesn’t mean a nefarious employee cannot exist within it? If anything it would be a lot easier to commit such crimes in a chaotic unit like this, a well funded military unit would not leave the opportunity for someone to commit such crimes repeatedly. Anyway.

Overall I get the impression she timed it deliberately to coincide with her upcoming court stuff knowing it’d be embargoed in the UK to attract more weight to this notion it was some of stitch up by the powers that be. Some woman who probably had ideas to be a universally respected journalist making groundbreaking stories instead has not really gone too far, times ticking and she has used this case to try and win herself a Pulitzer. The actual reality that there is 99.999% chance Lucy did it and there are families of the victims etc who will have to witness all these crackpots and dull contrarians jump on it and give sympathy to someone who has caused such pain is so repugnant. Maybe they think Casey Anthony should be the norm or something.

I’ve seen a lot of people say “not a safe conviction” or “Not beyond a reasonable doubt” I can only attribute this to their own stupidity. I think anyone saying this is insulting their own intelligence. You have to overlook so much evidence, so many testimonies, so much logic to even begin to have a doubt and if you’re doing that then you’re looking to do that. There was no doubt for the judge or jury or the vast majority of people who payed attention to the case and the trial. No doubt at all for me. I think allowing a baby killer to be found not guilty based on a 0.01% chance is a lot more unsafe in reality because what kind of society rewards criminals and punishes families of victims which is essentially what these people are wanting here.

In general sure journalists should be tackling difficult subjects but to approach a case like this and do what that woman has attempted is really quite ugly and hopefully people don’t forget this and begin to really understand what she tried to and how she tried to do it.

Posted by: No Sleeep 15th May 2024, 01:17 PM

The New Yorker is far from “slimy journalism”

It’s ironic that you try to insult my intelligence. You’re acting like no jury has ever gotten anything wrong before. I already cited the Sally Clark example earlier. You seem to be relishing in this so I won’t be replying any further.

Posted by: No Sleeep 15th May 2024, 10:15 PM

“Slimy journalism”, the New Yorker article is certainly not.

Posted by: Liam sota 24th May 2024, 10:54 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9773l3qzl4o

Not really sure what to think about this. I think there should be some kind of finality and denying an appeal just looks bad even though I get the procedure. A direct retrial doesn't seem fair but a 10-1 verdict being denied an appeal raises questions. Everything should be public at this point.

Posted by: No Sleeep 24th May 2024, 03:26 PM

I think her defence lawyer is just extremely incompetent.

Posted by: Jessie Where 24th May 2024, 03:48 PM

I mean, to be fair a lot of the details haven't been made public so we don't actually know.

However there are very specific and narrow grounds for appeals to be granted (which she clearly doesn't meet) - otherwise every Tom, Dick & Harry would be appealing their guilty verdicts within 5 minutes.

Posted by: Liam sota 24th May 2024, 04:00 PM

Yes but also you could just get unlucky, I do think a lot of people should have an automatic right to appeal. In cases that a juror had to leave and a lot of verdicts were 10-1 especially. Obviously this is a complex case with a lot of people you don't want to put through a trial again and it'll take forever BUT given the potential for a huge miscarriage of justice I think just ruling out an appeal completely doesn't seem right. If the evidence is strong enough and she is guilty surely she will be found guilty again and that will be the end of it

Posted by: Liam sota 2nd July 2024, 02:32 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98q74dn91do found guilty on another attempted murder

Posted by: Jessie Where 2nd July 2024, 05:00 PM

15th whole life order coming her way on Friday

Posted by: hinterland 2nd July 2024, 06:01 PM

good news. would love to see what the person I saw on this forum who thinks she’s innocent has to say about this lol

Posted by: Jessie Where 3rd July 2024, 09:52 AM

In other good news, the sentencing remarks from the previous trial (which she refused to attend) have been read out in court and she's been forced to listen to them this time.

Posted by: Liam sota 3rd September 2024, 05:50 PM

There has been a lot of interesting developments surrounding this. I am conflicted as it’s hard to believe she is innocent but the evidence of guilt is seemingly becoming more and more problematic

Posted by: crazy chris 3rd September 2024, 06:09 PM

Was reading Ex Tory minister David Davis is convinced of her innocence. Several eminent Dr's have written to him giving plausible medical reasons for all the deaths she's accused of causing.

Posted by: Jessie Where 3rd September 2024, 09:46 PM

Please don't tell me we're taking DAVID DAVIS of all people seriously here

There's a common misconception that circumstantial evidence is somehow 'bad' or poor quality evidence. This is not true - it's perfectly valid in court, it's often used in murder cases to secure convictions. It doesn't mean what a lot of the public take it to mean, that it isn't "proper" evidence. The literally thousands of pieces of evidence over a trial taking more than nine months convinced a jury that she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of seven murders and six attempted murders (and a seventh attempted murder by a separate jury).

For what it's worth, I never viewed the handwritten notes as a "confession" per se - but more the probable only real glimpse we'll ever get into her mind/psyche. But again, it was one very small piece of a very big puzzle.

I believe anyone who honestly thinks this will amount to anything substantial will be waiting a very long time (i.e. forever).

Posted by: My... Bratwurst! 3rd September 2024, 10:18 PM

It seems people just have trouble wrapping their head around the fact that a mountain of circumstantial evidence holds equal weight to a single piece of smoking gun evidence in legal proceedings.

Posted by: Liam sota 3rd September 2024, 10:42 PM

I really don’t see how it won’t? You have a substantial number of credible and influential and powerful people all raising serious concerns with one huge source of guilt now seemingly being completely void. It’s hard to see how it doesn’t lead to something. If we put aside thinking innocent or guilty and just stick to reasonable doubt there is no way this is a safe conviction at this point.

Posted by: Jessie Where 4th September 2024, 11:00 AM

It's important to note this is something that's been alleged in the Guardian (and a "sources say" citation at that), which other publications have since decided to run with.

If you really think that'll amount to something, then I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Posted by: Liam sota 4th September 2024, 01:58 PM

The theme is just constant.

For example the BBC ran an article 6 days ago focused more around the statistic element and forensic/toxicology - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39k44n8j1mo.amp

Both experts they interviewed had a similar conclusion which was there is clear doubt

So when you combine that with the problems surroundings this confession narrative it’s when it all seems very flimsy.

I notice Owen Jones just tweeted this could be the biggest miscarriage of justice



You have now two Conservative former ministers David Davis & Nadine Dorris both pretty adamant that she’s innocent not just doubt although I’m very skeptical on going that far.

The equivalent case in Holland where it was overturned and she was freed Richard Gill a scientist and statistician led that cause and he is one of the main people saying Lucy should not have been found guilty in this case too. There are not just a few contrarians or conspiracy theorists these are often either credible or influential people.

The main things that convinced the average person have all been misleading.

It was a big point of persuasion to the public that babies stopped dying after she was suspended. But the ward was downgraded meaning they no longer took severely ill babies so that really meant this point was irrelevant.

The other was the confession which now appears like therapy work writing every thought down including those of others said about you making that largely redundant of any wrongdoing.

The insulin point where she was presented with evidence that proved it was murder so she agreed it was murder but just denied it was her however now various experts dispute this evidence meaning it might not have been murder at all.

And the statistics obviously where it was presented as she was on duty for every incident when they actually just didn’t include the incidents she wasn’t around for which is entirely misleading and changes everything.

Without these four things nearly everybody sure she’s guilty probably wouldn’t be.

Then we have the case that this is Britain with very sketchy police and a very suspect CPS with a history of scandals and abusing the law in one way or another. The CPS already admitted making mistakes over the swipe cards - https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lucy-letbys-options-appeal-after-33512463.amp

The post office scandal is one which typifies the UK system. Guilty pleas of innocent people taken as proof that their terrible methods were correct until the truth finally came out. The recent riot stuff has been very sketchy too. Putting people’s names and faces out before any guilt, not giving people bail, railroading people into guilty pleas with flimsy charges, stating they’re criminals before any charges it’s all sketchy to make a larger point. Did they just think she’s guilty then throw whatever they could find, get friendly ‘experts’ to find some cause and try to convince a jury of ignorant people on these complex issues to go along with it?

This article in the independent covers it all very well https://archive.is/2024.09.03-084137/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/could-lucy-letby-be-innocent-david-davis-b2605657.html

What’s interesting is apparently they’re busy with another case where some guy spent years in jail for a rape he didn’t commit



It costs 100k to get full court transcripts in the UK. Why is it so expensive? It’s a crazy archaic system sometimes. I fail to see how she can be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I still think she’s guilty but that’s just my opinion, someone can’t be locked up for life on the balance of opinions, the proof is simply not strong enough.

Posted by: Calum 4th September 2024, 02:44 PM

Two politicians maintaining her innocence - two rotted pensioners that barely have a leg of their own to stand on and spew nonsense on a daily basis and likely with zero intelligence other than their gut feelings - is hardly solid foundation for that being the case. I find it really absurd that people keep bringing their names up like their opinion holds any more gravitas than that of any member of the public, whether it's for her being innocent or guilty.

Posted by: crazy chris 4th September 2024, 03:26 PM

Yes but it's not as good as say DNA, fingerprints,, cctv, witnesses etc etc. You can't tell me that it is. Look at the Bamber case. That was all circumstantial too but many people think the sister did it in a psychotic episode but I think Jeremy's as guilty as sin.

Posted by: crazy chris 4th September 2024, 03:28 PM

It's usually some new evidence or something that wasn't presented clearly enough to the jury or a procedural failure in court.

It's a mighty big co-incidence if she didn't do it. Not just one death but all those and she was with them either before or at time of death.

Posted by: Suedehead2 4th September 2024, 03:35 PM

For leave to appeal, there needs to be new evidence. If there was evidence available to the defence that they chose not to present, that isn't good enough. Whether that is fair is a separate issue.

Posted by: No Sleeep 4th September 2024, 03:57 PM

It’s certainly not fair if the validity of the evidence that initially secured the conviction has since been called into question.

Posted by: Jessie Where 4th September 2024, 08:00 PM

She would've had months/years to go through that piece of evidence with her defence lawyer, and even all those times in court when it was asked what prompted her to write it, are you suggesting it didn't ONCE occur to her to say "oh yeah, actually my therapist encouraged me to write that"?

Seriously, pull the other one. If you believe that, I've got some magic beans you might be interested in buying.

Posted by: No Sleeep 4th September 2024, 08:32 PM

We already know you’re never going to reevaluate your opinion on this

Posted by: Jessie Where 4th September 2024, 08:44 PM

And?

I mean, likewise but I'm still allowed to participate in the discussion and I wouldn't try and suggest you're not.

Posted by: Suedehead2 4th September 2024, 09:42 PM

If the defence questioned the validity of the evidence in the trial, they could now challenge the judge's decision. If they didn't raise any objection, I don't think there is anything they can do. Again, the issue of whether that is right is a separate argument.

Posted by: Liam sota 5th September 2024, 08:04 AM

Let’s use a hypothetical right. Let’s say a gang has committed a heinous crime. This gang is well connected and has a lot of power. Two witnesses are coming forward to say they saw this gang at the scene of the crime etc etc. Members of this gang tell these witnesses it will not be good for you if you testify against us, they eventually don’t testify and the gang gets found not guilty. We can all see that was witness intimidation that likely affected the verdict.


Now in Lucy’s case there were two nurses who going to testify on her behalf. Stated she was a quiet great nurse who loved kids, worked hard never showed any bad signs and was bullied by other staff because she was quiet. That the units were a mess and understaffed etc. Both of these nurses were told by the NHS don’t testify it won’t be good for you or your career etc and both ended up not testifying.

Does that not seem like a problem to you guys?

https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/20/claim-nhs-hospital-told-nurse-dont-give-evidence-lucy-letby/

This is just further indication that the jury did not get both sides of the story which is imperative in making the correct call at the end

Posted by: hinterland 5th September 2024, 08:12 AM

i have very few words for the people both on this thread and on social media who seem to have so much energy to exert in defending this child murderer when common sense points to her ruining so many parents lives. no words really

Posted by: Liam sota 5th September 2024, 05:31 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3d93kpkl83o There we go

Posted by: Calum 5th September 2024, 05:38 PM

There we go what? Application to appeal can be denied by the CCRC, and I wouldn't be surprised if that happens here.

Posted by: No Sleeep 5th September 2024, 06:01 PM

If she isn’t eligible for an appeal then I can’t think of anybody who would be

Posted by: T Boy 5th September 2024, 06:04 PM

Most likely because you haven’t obsessed over other cases like you have this one.

Posted by: No Sleeep 5th September 2024, 06:08 PM

You don’t know me at all. God forbid you have to deal with someone with a differing opinion

Posted by: T Boy 5th September 2024, 06:11 PM

I’m stating my own opinion, why is that an issue for you?

Posted by: No Sleeep 5th September 2024, 06:14 PM

You assuming that I’m obsessed with this case when in reality I only think about it when it’s in the news and get reminded of how infuriatingly stupid the British public can be And the stubbornness of people who refuse to even consider the possibility that they may be wrong about something.

Posted by: Liam sota 5th September 2024, 06:16 PM

Too many influential people involved on her behalf now. I don’t even know how you get a fair retrial, ultimately I think she’ll be free with the next two years maximum and it’ll be a very interesting fallout. Obviously it’s pretty messed up for the parents either way. But you can’t allow someone to rot in prison who clearly has big doubt over their guilt. It’s one of those cases that will be talked about for a long time. Did she really do it? We may never know.

Posted by: T Boy 5th September 2024, 06:32 PM

Just my opinion, chillax.

Posted by: No Sleeep 5th September 2024, 06:37 PM

I’m fine it’s the people clutching their pearls at the defence of an “evil baby killer!!” because The Sun told them so that I’m worried about

Posted by: T Boy 5th September 2024, 06:46 PM

That’s lovely, I’m more concerned about how the families of those poor babies are feeling.

Posted by: Chez Wombat 5th September 2024, 07:08 PM

Enough please, let's stick to debate and not bickering or the thread will be locked.

I would advise caution on jumping to conclusions or hinting at conspiracies at all unless there is substantial evidence and the case builds. Notes that can be interpreted many ways aren't enough.

Posted by: No Sleeep 5th September 2024, 07:11 PM

I don’t think it’s fair to brand it a conspiracy when people are only questioning the strength of the evidence.

Posted by: Suedehead2 5th September 2024, 08:34 PM

Referring a case to the CCRC proves nothing. Andrew Malkinson will be able to tell you why. As I said before, leave to appeal generally requires new evidence. Alternatively, the defence would need to show that a judge made an incorrect ruling or misled the jury in the summing up. So, if the defence challenged the validity of a piece of evidence and the judge ruled that it was valid, the defence could demand a retrial if they could demonstrate that the judge's ruling was incorrect. If the defence didn't challenge the validity of the evidence, that path to allowing an appeal doesn't apply.

Posted by: hinterland 5th September 2024, 10:22 PM

or maybe they think she's an 'evil baby killer' because they believe the evidence they've been presented with indicates she's guilty?

I don't understand you preaching 'the stubbornness of people who refuse to even consider the possibility that they may be wrong about something' when you're acting exactly the same as you described others lol

Posted by: Jessie Where 6th September 2024, 09:52 AM

What a stupid thing to say. Even though I may not have agreed with your points, I could've at least respected them but you've undone any semblance of credibility you may have had with that.

Posted by: No Sleeep 6th September 2024, 03:05 PM

I mean, the very next post after that kind of proves my point:



Nobody can have a serious discussion about the fact that a woman’s life may have been ruined by a witch hunt based on flimsy evidence without breaking out the emotive language to shame anyone who questions it. She’s a pariah and it’s social suicide to be seen as ”defending” her so people aren’t willing to look at this from an unbiased perspective.

Posted by: My... Bratwurst! 6th September 2024, 03:18 PM

Erm how is that using emotive language to shame people? Whatever happens, whatever piece of evidence gets analysed or even overturned, those parents have still lost their babies. That's a fact.

Posted by: spiceboy 6th September 2024, 04:57 PM

I think this highlights why the media shouldn't be allowed to publish anything about a case until the defendant is found guilty. If they are using the "biased" headlines that could have (and probably did) influence the jury it shows that all prosecution cases should be private, especially for those who are innocent and are found innocent but still have their lives ruined.

I do want to state I don't believe for a moment she is innocent based on what I have seen and read of the case.

Posted by: Jessie Where 6th September 2024, 05:04 PM

Juries are always told explicitly that they should not read about or research the case outside the courtroom.

Posted by: T Boy 6th September 2024, 05:16 PM

Well actually my comment was to remind people about the real victims of this situation. I don’t really like seeing people seemingly getting excited about proving people wrong and stating that people are ‘stubborn’ and ‘unbelievably stupid’ because they disagree with you-within the same breath as saying people can’t handle a different opinion.

The fact is, whatever happened, these families have suffered and will continue to do so-more so if this is dragged out. Quite honestly, if the convictions ever were overturned, I’d honestly still believe her guilt. All that will have changed is that they wouldn’t be able to say for definite that she killed them-or didn’t kill them. Hospitals wouldn’t touch her. Not even her parents coming in for a meeting would get her back into the medical profession. It’s highly likely her life would not be worth living should she be released.

And we clearly don’t all just believe what the media tells us. Otherwise we’d all be supportive of these appeals right now.

Posted by: Liam sota 6th September 2024, 05:33 PM

On the jury thing there was a crazy story I don’t know if you guys saw it. Basically someone called to say a juror was in a shop and was overheard saying they made up their mind on her ages ago. The judge investigated and decided the shop owner had a grudge against the juror because their partner was assaulted by them or something like that. Just another bizarre thing about this - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13594473/amp/How-malicious-phone-call-collapsed-serial-baby-killer-Lucy-Letbys-trial-guilty-murdering-seven-newborns.html

The new episode of the daily mail podcast on this is probably the fairest thing you’ll find about all the new information. The barrister they got on who’s attitude was ‘you haven’t read the appeals remarks and you’re all ignorant armchair detectives’ nevertheless was still pretty fair in what he said.

What’s interesting is finances are a big problem here. The state had unlimited funds almost while she relied on legal aid which often doesn’t pay enough for the best experts and given that in mind it might be why the defense never really called any. But that’s hard to really dig into. It’s all speculation. Even her new defense barrister seems amateur to me, his twitter is unimpressive to say the least. As per usual the justice system is more about finances than justice, I’m sure if she was rich she wouldn’t be in prison right now.

Posted by: crazy chris 6th September 2024, 05:34 PM

I'd guess that if she ever did get released she'd need a new identity as her life would be in danger from vigilantes who were convinced she was guilty. She'd have to go under an alias to another continent probably. I heard on good authority that Sion Jenkins refused a new identity when he was released, saying he'd done nothing wrong. Step-daughter Billie- Jo, 14 was bludgeoned to death. Still gets people shouting things at him in the street. Many do believe he still did it. Barry George moved to Ireland.

Posted by: spiceboy 6th September 2024, 08:10 PM

I don’t believe for a second they don’t read them, and cases like that one how do you avoid it? Even my grandmother who doesn’t watch any news and read the papers called her the heartless baby killer, she knew of Lucy.

While I don’t think it’s the case here at all, she was never going to be able to live a normal life again after if found innocent after all that publicity. I truly think there should be no media coverage of crimes until after guilty verdicts.