Lucy Letby Case #77

[Weebles Wobble]

Throughout this case people have looked at the young, blonde, smiling nurse and declared it impossible for her to be a baby murderer and therefore discounted all the evidence. It started with some of the hospital staff and then moved to the truthers.

It's also rare for a woman to be a serial killer. We don't want to believe that a young woman, in a position of trust, was actively murdering defenceless babies.

I have no doubt in my mind that she's guilty, but that's after following all the discussion here and watching the court room YouTube videos (especially the transcripts).

 

[King Seagull]

A number of people have been grumbling about convicted serial killer nurses for many years - namely statisticians. Now added to this we have a variation on Missing White Woman Syndrome - none of the previous nurse killers had this wider appeal - noone was really interested in the other murderers. The statisticians were preparing for this even before the trial - they published a paper on nurse serial killers before the trial which they sent to the prosecution and defence but which seems to have been ignored. During the trial this group of statisticians were warned by the police over potential contempt of court - they've whipped up hysteria over the case. Added to this we have a populist movement that grew during COVID which frames things in terms of "the people" vs state/establishment/doctors/experts. It's a perfect storm.

I think one of the first identified healthcare serial killers (and one of the early 'modern' serial killers) was a nurse called Jane Toppan. She confessed a sexual motive to her crimes as she was a sexual sadist.

I think Letby enjoyed causing physical and mental pain. I don't think her house's proximity to the children's graveyard was coincidental and I think the notes about not being good enough were spiteful rage, especially after we heard about her struggles qualifying. I don't understand why statisticians are caping for her (unless it's just Richard Gill) as stats weren't a huge pillar of the prosecutions case.

 

[Tofino]

Tony Kent is a barrister and has pointed out Davis is referring to Mark McD as a KC when he isn’t one.

No surprise this error of fact is irrelevant to Letby fans as they try to argue it with a barrister. Rather than question how an MP who has supposedly spent months investigating the case and attended the conference would make such an error. But they don’t care for actual facts do they? They just believe whatever they read on Twitter or the telegraph that fits their own bias.

 

[Pulltheotherone]

I quote Justice Thirwell … it’s just “ noise “ and disgraceful noise I might add, there is also a world of difference between a barrister and a KC however long they have been at the bar - they have made KC for a reason.
The issue will be and it’s only one of many is that at some point they will have to give a reason why no experts were called. It’s been covered in the JM book that they instructed them but didn’t call them in the end as the likelihood was that they would agree with the prosecution.
That’s going to be awkward.

 

[Tofino]

I quote Justice Thirwell … it’s just “ noise “ and disgraceful noise I might add, there is also a world of difference between a barrister and a KC however long they have been at the bar - they have made KC for a reason.
The issue will be and it’s only one of many is that at some point they will have to give a reason why no experts were called. It’s been covered in the JM book that they instructed them but didn’t call them in the end as the likelihood was that they would agree with the prosecution.
That’s going to be awkward.

Did they say in the book how many experts they did instruct? I think I heard two but that was possibly just speculation. Hall is the only one complaining about not being called

I thought McD’s response to the question as to why the experts weren’t called to testify was telling. He said he hadn’t asked so didn’t know. He’s either lying, or he hasn’t asked because he already knows the answer. Either way, I would expect him to have had a full run down with Myers over the case as a sort of handover although happy to be corrected if this doesn’t really happen when you instruct someone new, and they are expected to start from scratch.

 

[tay65]

There's another very long article in The Guardian on line about Letby. Will it never end.

 

[Tofino]

There's another very long article in The Guardian on line about Letby. Will it never end.

Very pro-Letby article. Repeated claims the external reviews didn’t find deliberate harm. But they weren’t looking for it, weren’t aware there were concerns about a member of staff, stated the reviews were not forensic and many were still unexplained

They’ve directly named Dr B too.

Did like Dewi’s response at the end of the article. Not clear if this is a response to this article or a previous one they’ve done.

 

[sebanna]

Very pro-Letby article. Repeated claims the external reviews didn’t find deliberate harm. But they weren’t looking for it, weren’t aware there were concerns about a member of staff, stated the reviews were not forensic and many were still unexplained

They’ve directly named Dr B too.

View attachment 3327303 q


Did like Dewi’s response at the end of the article. Not clear if this is a response to this article or a previous one they’ve done.

View attachment 3327304 q

I hope Dr Brearey is busy talking his solicitor, he's been treated terribly. Accused of accidentally killing a baby and then allowing a nurse to go to prison. The evidence shows this to be untrue.

 

[Apostate]

Did they say in the book how many experts they did instruct? I think I heard two but that was possibly just speculation. Hall is the only one complaining about not being called

Dr Hall and another paediatrician. Also a pathologist, a radiologist and an expert in insulin. Not mentioned in the book a Chartered Statistician was also hired.

 

[Tofino]

Dr Hall and another paediatrician. Also a pathologist, a radiologist and an expert in insulin. Not mentioned in the book a Chartered Statistician was also hired.

So they had pretty much the same as the prosecution. Same professions too. Funny only one of them is speaking out.

 

[Apostate]

So they had pretty much the same as the prosecution. Same professions too. Funny only one of them is speaking out.

Yeah the book says apart from Hall they all largely agreed with the prosecution case. Dr Hall was the one who might have been called but wasn't. Dewi Evans said that following the pre-trial meeting of experts for both sides (including Dr Hall) he knew that no witnesses would be called to refute his evidence.

 

[Pulltheotherone]

Just dug out the pages from JM’s book

 

[Tofino]

Just dug out the pages from JM’s book

So from that alone there is collectively at least ten experts. And they were all in agreement bar one. Yet they still question if the defence experts were good enough, biased, or afflicted by group think.

Yet nobody on that side of the debate has any concerns about McDonald using two colleagues as his main experts? If anyone wants a real life example of confirmation bias and group think they really need look no further than the Letby club.

And even her solicitor isn’t good enough? You can tell which parts Coffey wrote

Honestly sometimes I feel like I live in an alternate universe when it comes to this case. This thread keeps me sane.

 

[AllieBee]

I hope Dr Brearey is busy talking his solicitor, he's been treated terribly. Accused of accidentally killing a baby and then allowing a nurse to go to prison. The evidence shows this to be untrue.

I really hope he sues every single person who has mentioned his name on X.

 

[followthedolphin]

Did they say in the book how many experts they did instruct? I think I heard two but that was possibly just speculation. Hall is the only one complaining about not being called

I thought McD’s response to the question as to why the experts weren’t called to testify was telling. He said he hadn’t asked so didn’t know. He’s either lying, or he hasn’t asked because he already knows the answer. Either way, I would expect him to have had a full run down with Myers over the case as a sort of handover although happy to be corrected if this doesn’t really happen when you instruct someone new, and they are expected to start from scratch.

It’s not likely that Myers would have any contact with McDick re: handover at all. That just doesn’t happen. Once instructions are given to a new counsel, the papers are parcelled up ( if they’re physical files) subject to any costs which may be outstanding to the original representative. I imagine it’s all electronic anyway now. Yes- he’s got to read it all from scratch. I can’t imagine BM wanting to give him the time of day anyway tbh. They’re not intellectual equals by any stretch- it’s hardly an association you’d want to foster

 

[Tofino]

It’s not likely that Myers would have any contact with McDick re: handover at all. That just doesn’t happen. Once instructions are given to a new counsel, the papers are parcelled up ( if they’re physical files) subject to any costs which may be outstanding to the original representative. I imagine it’s all electronic anyway now. Yes- he’s got to read it all from scratch. I can’t imagine BM wanting to give him the time of day anyway tbh. They’re not intellectual equals by any stretch- it’s hardly an association you’d want to foster

That’s interesting thank you. I guess then it’s probably not dissimilar to your average person switching solicitors on more minor matters but I think maybe I was naive thinking criminal defence might work together more. Especially as it was initially announced Myers was still working on Baby K appeal at the time and then McD on CCRC. But I think Myers is definitely done now isn’t he?

What I would give to know Myers inner thoughts on all of this!!

Tbh I didn’t even realise until Letby’s case that defendants will mainly deal with the solicitor and the solicitor instructs a barrister and the barrister doesn’t see their client much. I got the impression even McD has seen very little of Letby.

 

[Pulltheotherone]

Yes you are right - the solicitor is running the case day to day per se to get it to trial ( doing all the donkey work )
BM will have seen her in conference in custody or on zoom with the instructing solicitor many times before the original trial kicked off to take her instructions and advised the solicitor what needed to be done by way of witnesses/experts/plumbers so it was ready for trial.
I had heard originally somewhere in the MSM that BM was still involved in some capacity but nothing recently and after this week who could say tbh !
I wouldn’t expect zero interaction between the two of them on handover on a case like this but if there is no legal aid then he would be doing everything here on in FOC but how much time he would want to give to this now after being on the case for this long would be up to him.
He’s suffered enough !

 

[Danica Catrick]

Unfortunately he’s made it quite clear he’s not going away until they get a retrial. Sigh.

But it makes me wonder what the strategy is. He is obviously aiming for Dr E first. Because they NEED him removed as he was a witness on every case apart from baby K (which she still has a life order for so even if they were successful, she still would not be walking free). It’s the quickest way for them to meet their goal. Which is why they are so aggressive about him.

However the only other two babies they have ‘official’ defence reports for are C and O so far, if I understood correctly. So are they going to ask to appeal them and if they say no, try again with another two? Because if you take all of them at the same time you only get one shot with one set of judges, as opposed to multiple shots with different judges? Learn what the legal response is to each one before submitting the next? Adjust as you go?

I feel like it shouldn’t be allowed - like vexatious litigation. Maybe it isn’t, I’m purely speculating. But no doubt he has a strategy. Yesterday was part of it.

The strategy appears to be to fling as much mud as possible and hope some of it sticks. If they actually had anything they'd be appealing through the proper channels, not holding a press conference. I'd be so embarrassed if I was associated with this shambles.

 

[Apostate]

That’s interesting thank you. I guess then it’s probably not dissimilar to your average person switching solicitors on more minor matters but I think maybe I was naive thinking criminal defence might work together more. Especially as it was initially announced Myers was still working on Baby K appeal at the time and then McD on CCRC. But I think Myers is definitely done now isn’t he?

I'm not sure if he may represent her at the appeal - usually you have a KC when it's murder but may be another. McDonald did represent Michael Stone in court but that was for his judicial review against the CCRC - I haven't heard of him being the lead barrister when dealing with murder convictions.

 

[craftypudding]

I really hope he sues every single person who has mentioned his name on X.

Could there be any scope that they could be trying to goad him to do that? It would be a civil case for libel because it is recorded media I assume. If there is some legal technicality whereby Dr B didn't win, they would then crow that it proves something, which it wouldn't.

Am thinking of Depp v Heard and the previous UK case, which was Depp v The Press. The reason Depp lost the UK case is because (my understanding so could be wrong) what the judge was considering (because you don't get a jury for libel), was, was the newspaper entitled to believe that what they had been told by Amber was true and print it because that is a defence I think - if you really believe it and the court judges that a reasonable person would also believe it based on being told the same things.

I suppose I am crediting them with scheming intelligence that they may not possess.

I hope the police charge her for more soon.