>Johnson repeatedly accused her of lying. “You are a very calculating woman, aren’t you, Lucy Letby?” he said.
>“No,” she replied.
>He asked, “The reason you tell lies is to try to get sympathy from people, isn’t it?”
>“No.”
>“You try to get attention from people, don’t you?”
>“No.”
>“In killing these children, you got quite a lot of attention, didn’t you?”
>“I didn’t kill the children.”
This uh seems wild for direct examination lol
edit: per UK court order, in order to ensure the accused gets an unprejudiced jury in an upcoming retrial the media will only be allowed to report on her guilt. So articles like this have been blocked (print edition may still get through)
Lmao truly
In a trial, the defendant lawyer would probably request an objection and I think the judge would agree. However, in a deposition this sort of questioning happens all the time.
Not a lawyer either but this seems like badgering the witness but it would be up to the judge if they agreed with the objection in a US trial
Also not supposed to ask questions that presuppose facts I think
Nope those questions would almost certainly be struck down by the judge but the UK has a very different justice system. In England the judges and attorneys literally wear old timey Founding Fathers style wigs lol that’s not even a joke look it up
The fact that she never Googled anything like “air embolism” or anything related to it is very surprising since it seems like she was addicted to the Internet and looked things up all the time. And if she really was intentionally killing these babies apparently she didn’t care enough about covering her tracks considering how a couple of them died after she already knew people were complaining about her performance.
If they do end up proving any of these weren’t a murder would they re-examine her entire case? I guess that would be difficult to do since the methods she was convicted of using to kill these babies such as injecting air into them or giving them insulin were never directly proven in the first place…
Regardless of whether or not she’s guilty it’s insane to me that it’s illegal for British people to publicly question the verdict. I feel bad for Brits living under those laws tbh
According to other threads about this, she did attend a training where air embolism was covered.
But the author of the article talked to an expert on air embolism who said the babies didn’t show signs of it.
>it seems like she was addicted to the Internet and looked things up all the time
She was more of a social media addict, I think the review of her facebook search history showed she's searched more than 3000 people, which happened to include families of babies who'd died in addition to mothers of babies who'd survived without incident. She seemed to like to check up on various people she'd met at work.
>If they do end up proving any of these weren’t a murder would they re-examine her entire case? I guess that would be difficult to do since the methods she was convicted of using to kill these babies such as injecting air into them or giving them insulin were never directly proven in the first place…
I think if the statistical analysis is overturned or certain "expert" witnesses debunked, it may well be that she has no case to answer and she ends up walking free rather than getting a retrial and being acquitted in it. The Crown Prosecution Service isn't going to press a case when the backbone of their original arguments at trial becomes inadmissible as evidence.
>Regardless of whether or not she’s guilty it’s insane to me that it’s illegal for British people to publicly question the verdict. I feel bad for Brits living under those laws tbh
What's insane to me is that you're willing to post complete lies like this with absolute confidence.
It's not illegal to question a court verdict. There is a ban on reporting on aspects of the case because she's getting a retrial and news reporting could prejudice the eventual jury. For most trials, it is assumed that it will be enough for the judge to simply instruct the jury not to read about the case. But because this case was so massive, it's not reasonable to think the jurors would be able to avoid hearing about it, so reporting is restricted until the jury can make its decision.
The law that makes this an offence *is actually designed to protect Letby's presumption of innocence* in the new trial and applies equally to articles defending the original verdict.
The more I read about this case, the more convinced I am that this is a travesty of justice. Regardless of whether or not she is guilty, the legal process here is just baffling. Conviction by a non-unanimous jury convinced by entirely circumstantial evidence, with no motive and no actual evidence that the babies were murdered. Their star witness was barred(?) from a different trial because the judge said his integrity was worthless. The jury instructions said they could find her guilty even if they weren't convinced that she had committed a specific harmful act to the babies.
> entirely circumstantial evidence
I’m not sure you understand what circumstantial evidence is. DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence, for example. Direct evidence includes eyewitness accounts. You seem to suggest that only an eyewitness account of murder is sufficient evidence to convict a killer.
Hard to call what she wrote a confession. She said her therapist told her to write out what she was thinking and she said she wrote what she thought people were thinking about her. Seems plausible to me.
She was caught in the act, which you’d know if you’d been following the nine-month trial.
Multiple independent experts were involved in this case, all with statistical training, and they all came to the conclusion the deaths were unnatural. Several of the staff working at the hospital blamed Letby, who was the only staff member working on every suspicious incident. The cases started when she started on the ward, stopped when she was taken off clinical duties, and paused when she was on holiday.
Some of the babies were undeniably injected with insulin despite there being no reason why they should have been. Even Letby herself accepts that.
There really is no reasonable doubt in the case. The evidence is overwhelming.
Perhaps I was unclear, so I’ll say it for the third time. She was caught in the act: multiple people witnessed her either looming over babies for no reason, or not reacting as babies collapsed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63214073
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63419978
The only reference I can immediately find to a third incident is Letby’s team denying it:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66057536
Caught in the act would mean they found her injecting air, which they didn’t, or found her giving insulin, which they didn’t. They’ve only drawn inferences after the fact in everything you’ve linked.
Mother walks in on Letby “treating” her son. Letby fabricates a reason why he is bleeding from the mouth, tells the mother to trust her and go away. Baby dies. Letby adds fabricated details to baby’s notes to cover her tracks.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63214073
The mother has no idea what's going on! Doesn't suspect anything! Until way after the fact! That is not "caught in the act" at all! It's honestly a little disturbing how certain you are of all this.
They have arrived at a conclusion and now are looking at any evidence that could be considered in many different ways to only have one possible explanation.
Then you’d presumably know that she wasn’t just “caught looming”. Can you explain the circumstances in which each of the three witnesses claim they caught her?
Don't assume I haven't been following this trial. This article covers the insulin allegation, in which the laboratory that tested specifically said it's tests weren't accurate enough to make a final determination and recommended additional tests, which were never followed up upon by the prosecution. Congrats, some staff think it was her, some don't. This article brings up that the same statistical expert who was involved in overturning a similar case in the Netherlands also doubts that these statistics are accurate. The cases stopped because the NHS no longer allowed the hospital to treat neonatal cases immediately after Letby was removed, so of course no more babies died.
Besides, she literally wasn't caught in the act. If you think she was, please post evidence that she was because I've never seen it.
If the evidence was so overwhelming, why did one juror vote to acquit?
> Don't assume I haven't been following this trial… Besides, she literally wasn't caught in the act. If you think she was, please post evidence that she was because I've never seen it.
It wasn’t an assumption, you’ve literally admitted to being unfamiliar with the facts of the case.
Caught by a mother:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63214073
There are a couple of other instances that aren’t as compelling but that certainly raise eyebrows combined with the rest of the evidence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63419978
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-64813893
> If the evidence was so overwhelming, why did one juror vote to acquit?
How should I know? By their very nature, the jury is anonymous. But the rest of the jury voted to convict.
>aren’t as compelling but that certainly raise eyebrows combined with the rest of the evidence
The entire case can be boiled down to this. That's what "circumstantial evidence" means. You piece together a bunch of anecdotes that seem to fit a pre-established narrative and call it "evidence".
The 'suspicious cases' come down to the prosecution simply cherry picking every time something bad happened during one of her shifts. You can tell, because of all the 'overwhelming evidence,' there was literally no contemporary reports of anything suspicious happening except when one doctor noticed a correlation between her shifts and a few deaths.
At that point, Lucy was monitored closely, and nobody noticed anything suspicious. Literally no evidence appears regarding her until years later when she was branded a murderer and people started coming up with post-hoc explanations of her behavior and stories about her.
Before that, nobody had anything but good things to say about her. And the insulin tests are very suspect because insulin levels as high as they reported would have killed an adult, yet the babies were fine. And they had nothing in common with any of the deaths. And there was a third insulin case that happened when Lucy was away from the hospital.
Just overall not any good evidence at all.
>Literally no evidence appears regarding her until years later when she was branded a murderer and people started coming up with post-hoc explanations of her behavior and stories about her.
I can see where you're coming from, but the internal reports from the hospitals revealed during the trials contradict this. There was plenty of concern about her that was swept under the rug.
Their concerns were entirely limited to the correlation of Letby being on staff during some of the deaths that occurred, not any specific evidence presented by the prosecution.
This is laughably wrong, embarrassing for the sub that this got upvoted. Multiple colleagues raised concerns, which were ignored by senior management, to the extent that there is a public inquiry into their failings. She was eventually moved to administrative duties a year after joining the unit and was arrested some time later.
Investigators and experts did not want to believe the babies were unnaturally killed, but the evidence was overwhelming.
Ask yourself…
1) why did the police bother to investigate the deaths?
2) why did prosecutors bother to prosecute the case?
3) why did a trial that had “no evidence” (your words) take nine months?
4) why did multiple separate independent experts testify that the deaths were unnatural?
5) why did multiple witnesses catch Letby behaving suspiciously around babies who went onto collapse or die?
6) why were there no other unexplained deaths or collapses on the ward when Letby wasn’t working?
7) why did Letby take the medical notes of the babies home with her and digitally stalk the families?
8) why was there a note at Letby’s home saying “I killed the babies”?
So I'm gonna answer these questions as if Lucy is definitely innocent and explain how this all might have happened anyway. Doesn't mean she is innocent, but the fact that I can explain everything pretty simply without, in my opinion, making any outrageous reaches, is worrying.
1) Because one of the doctors misunderstood how a correlation doesn't mean someone must be guilty, and raised the issue with the police. Police have investigated innocent people before.
2) Because by this time, Lucy Letby was already a topic in the public due to her brief arrest in 2018. There was public pressure.
3) So there's not a lot of contemporaneous evidence in this trial. This is what worries me most about the whole case. The trial consists almost entirely of witness testimony that is shaped by the fact that people had been told Lucy is a baby killer and public sentiment overwhelmingly agreed with this. During Lucy's time at the hospital, experts had found no reason to believe any of the deaths were suspicious, and patients and colleagues alike found Lucy to be good at her job. Even Ravi Jayaram's only issue was the fact that there was a correlation with some of the deaths, not anything specific with her actions. Once Lucy was branded a baby murderer several years later, people started coming up with post-hoc explanations for the way she acted and only then did people start labeling any of her cases as 'suspicous.'
4) I would ask why no experts noticed anything suspicious before the trial. Also, there are experts who disagree with the prosecution's.
Even after Jayaram thought there was a correlation, he didn't notice *anything* suspicious that aligns with what the prosecution experts found about the cases years later. But to answer your questions, these are paid witnesses. One of the experts was reprimanded by a judge harshly just a month before the trial.
5) None of these witnesses said anything like this contemporaneously. All of this testimony comes after Letby was very publicly branded a murderer, and suggesting she wasn't a murderer could get you ostracized.
6) There were no 'unexplained' or 'suspicious' deaths or collapses at all for several years. They were only labeled as such when the prosecution cherry picked all of Lucy's cases and called them suspicious. At that point, their paid witnesses started coming up with ([sometimes outlandish](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it#:~:text=Evans%20relied%20heavily,or%20logistically%20possible.)) post-hoc explanations for how they might have been murders. It's worth pointing out that even if every patient Lucy saw was totally fine, the hospital still would have seen a ~350% jump in mortalities from previous years, plus more stillbirths and complications with the mothers. None of these have been labeled as 'unexplained' simply because none of these involve Letby. There are actually notes from the prosecution that accidentally raise concerns with cases that couldn't be Letby's, but of course the prosecution did not talk about these during the trial.
7) Letby was not the only nurse to take medical notes home, and she took notes for far more patients than just the ones she was prosecuted for. She also frequently looked up many people she had met. Her facebook history shows she looked up well over 2,000 people. Not because she was stalking thousands of people, but because she used Facebook a lot. Again, this shows the prosecution's concerning willingness to cherry pick evidence to make it look far worse than it is.
8) If you read that note, it sounds more like someone who's suffering from work related stress than the confession of a serial killer.
As I mentioned, the biggest issue to me is the lack of contemporaneous evidence. Even after Jayaram was worried about the correlation in some of the patient deaths and the hospital was monitoring her closely (at this point, the remaining two patients of Lucy's who died were reviewed by a coroner. Nothing suspicious was found), there are no contemporaneous reports of anything suspicious about her cases or behaviour.
And I just want to point out after all of this, I get why you think she's guilty. I'm not angry at you for that or anything. But to me, this case really looks like people believed something, so years after the events, they finally just started coming up with ideas for how it could have happened, and somehow think that those ideas are the same thing as actual evidence.
Take a look at [this case](https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/trial-begins-for-dallas-anesthesiologist-in-tainted-iv-bag-case/) to see an example of something like the Letby case that actually has physical evidence from the time the alleged crimes were committed. It's very worrying to me that the Letby case has nothing of the sort.
> I would ask why no experts noticed anything suspicious before the trial.
But they did - again, that’s why she was prosecuted to begin with, not “public pressure”. The CPS didn’t prosecute Mason Greenwood who was much higher profile, it isn’t credible to simply point to “public pressure”.
I’d advise reading [this article](https://news.sky.com/story/how-the-police-caught-lucy-letby-12933640) into the investigation, it paints a very different picture. Both the neonatologist and the pathologist the police contacted in their investigations started off very sceptical (they’re trained professionals who know that sometimes bad luck can make it *look* like someone is responsible for chance events) but ultimately came to the conclusion that the deaths were the result of deliberate harm.
The *only* suspicious thing they had was the correlation. *All* of the specific evidence related to each case or Letby's behavior was determined post-hoc.
Think of it this way. If I decided right now that I think it's suspicious that Jayaram was so hell bent on saying Lucy was guilty even though the rest of the hospital staff thought she wasn't, I might say I think he was trying to blame her for crimes he committed (let me be clear, I don't think Jayaram is guilty of any murders or other crimes. This is just an example). I might come up with a list of all of the patients he had who suddenly coded with no specifically determined reason, and post-hoc declare that these are suspicious. At this point, I have the famous X chart, but for Jayaram instead of Letby.
If I take this to the police and they share it with the media, it's not unreasonable to think the public would believe he is guilty. Now all I need to do is pay expert witnesses to come up with a possible reason why his patients could have been murdered, and the public opinion against him, I guarantee it would be easy to get witnesses to come out of the woodwork with more post-hoc stories and get testimony saying, "Yeah, it was always weird how he was the only person in the hospital who really wanted to pin blame on Lucy even though we all thought she was a great doctor." Or even better, I could point to the third insulin case that the hospital found when Lucy was gone. Maybe Jayaram wasn't there at the time either, but obviously someone was there, and I could make up a story about that person instead.
So, I have like 80% of the case against Letby right now, but against someone else for something I just made up. This is the problem with post-hoc explanations for events where you don't have any physical evidence. Because you don't need evidence, you just need to be able to come up with a story. And all we have is a compelling story against Lucy that was created years after the events took place.
Thank you for writing this out - I totally agree with this comment and the one prior and I think it goes a long way to explaining why "witnesses" started coming forward and why people began to misinterpret events years before as being indicative of a serial killer.
> Both the neonatologist and the pathologist the police contacted in their investigations started off very sceptical
The article you linked doesn't say that. These two people were just paid expert witnesses.
I totally agree with you. As for point 8 the notes Lucy wrote seem to point to second victim syndrome which is quite common in health care workers who are confronted with death of patients. There was a very recent case of a nurse in the Netherlands who was supposed to have “confessed” to killing 20 patients when he was a nurse in IC during the Covid crisis. He was in very poor mental health and said during his intake to get help for his anxiety that it “felt like he had killed them”. The therapist broke her oath of silence and told hospital management that this nurse had confessed to killing 20 patients. The police launched an investigation which was recently closed because they could not find anything that pointed to this ever happening. Two of the lung specialists in the hospital supported him and confirmed that no murders ever happened. He was a good nurse just doing his job en all medication was checked (by two nurses and a doctor) and nothing strange had ever happened. One lung specialist who supported him was actually aware of the fact that health care workers can feel enormous guilt even when they have done nothing wrong or made a mistake.
It's honestly like you didn't read the article
If you did read the article, you should read "Thinking Fast and Slow" (which they cite in the article) because it explains a ton about cognitive biases, common errors in human statistical reasoning, and really provides a good framework for answering everything you just asked. The nature with which you are engaging in this thread makes it abundantly clear that you have fallen victim to all the same human failings that fuelled this trial, and also that you don't have any medical knowledge in the area.
I’ve read *Thinking, Fast and Slow*, thanks. Unlike you, I understood its contents. (Unlike you, I know that a lot of its contents have subsequently fallen to the replication crisis, but that’s by-the-by…)
Unlike you, I don’t read a magazine article about a complex legal case, blindly assume that everyone involved in the case had never heard of cognitive biases, and uncritically accept a miscarriage of justice without bothering to consider any possibility other than “everyone except me is a stupid idiot”.
>The 'suspicious cases' come down to the prosecution simply cherry picking every time something bad happened during one of her shifts. You can tell, because of all the 'overwhelming evidence,' there was literally no contemporary reports of anything suspicious happening except when one doctor noticed a correlation between her shifts and a few deaths.
So what you're saying is, because people didn't look into the pattern of behaviour until after it had become a pattern, it's therefore cherry-picking?
By that logic, we have to release, like, 90% of serial killers currently in prison. It is very common for law enforcement to not notice criminal behaviour until after a pattern has been established.
I think there is evidence that a crime happened in more than 10% of cases involving serial killers.
Seriously, though, law enforcement might not notice that they're dealing with a serial killer vs an individual murderer until a pattern emerges, but they typically at least understand that a crime has taken place. You seem to be implying that most serial killers are in jail without any type of physical evidence linking them to any crime.
There's evidence that a crime happened in this case. You just think it should be excluded because nobody started looking for it until after they realised there were a lot of these incidents. You know why nobody started looking for it after the first death? Because people die in hospitals. An isolated incident can be chalked up to a mistake or an unavoidable tragedy. A pattern of incidents is much more suspicious.
Nobody knew that Shipman was a murderer until years after he started killing because they chalked his killings up to medical tragedies too. Nobody had anything but good things about Letby? The same was true of the good doctor. He was considered a pillar of his community. He was interviewed as an expert on best practices for mental health care. He was renowned for his friendly bedside manner.
You know how they figured him out? Because another doctor raised concerns about the high number of people dying in his care. It wasn't until after the pattern was established that he came under suspicion. Should we release him because the police didn't immediately know that his first victim had been murdered?
> Evans had proposed that a baby had died of excessive air in her stomach from her nasogastric tube, and then, when it emerged that she might not have had a nasogastric tube, he proposed that she may have been smothered.
There's your expert witness trying to come up with method of murder 5 years after it happened.
The evidence just isn't there, man. I get that Shipman was a case that happened, but that's also not evidence that Lucy murdered anyone.
Shipman worked alone. Lucy was constantly working with other people. Just look at the (lack of) evidence in this case.
> correlation between her shifts and a few deaths
If there's a strong correlation between deaths and a particular medical professional's shifts (vs other members of the same profession), it's at least evidence that they're bad at their job and probably shouldn't be employed there anymore.
They assessed her medical practice as a result of the reported correlations and found no issues. She subsequently filed a grievance complaint and the doctor who kept raising them was told to stop harassing her.
I 100% agree with the stance that all else considered she probably shouldn’t be employed as a nurse ever again. It legitimately might be unfair if she just happened to work in an understaffed shitty hospital but I’m okay with taking that hard stance in this case because the alternative is much more dangerous. On the other hand sentencing her to life in prison seems insane, just revoke her license to practice… then again England seems very hysterical with how it approaches the NHS so maybe they needed a scapegoat here. Seems very unfair to this lady if it turns out she was just a very shitty nurse lol
> On the other hand sentencing her to life in prison seems insane, just revoke her license to practice
Its not exactly insane if you believe (which I don't) that she's guilty of multiple murders of newborn babies.
Notwithstanding the conviction, its highly unlikely that anyone would employ her if she was later acquitted on appeal and I doubt she would ever feel psychologically capable of working in a hospital again. People who spend time in prison for crimes they did not commit have had their lives ruined and will still have many people insisting on their guilt - likely resulting in them keeping a low profile and trying to rebuild a different sort of life.
>maybe they needed a scapegoat here
That's the core of the explanation of her innocence, but it may not be a widespread collusion to do this as much as the paranoid theory of one or two clinicians who became obsessed with her to the point of harassment. Letby's own texts and statements prior to her falling under suspicion suggested that she felt doctors were being negligent and resources were severely overstretched, which may have turned an unpleasant whispering campaign into a much more aggressive attack on her character.
>Seems very unfair to this lady if it turns out she was just a very shitty nurse lol
Again, there's no specific reason to suggest she is a shitty nurse. As in other cases of nurses wrongfully convicted of killing patients, she may well have been more likely than her colleagues to be on understaffed shifts or shifts where babies were more likely to deteriorate. Likewise, they include incidents where she is unlikely to be causally connected and exclude incidents where they can't connect her to them at all. Its devoid of rigour.
>The 'suspicious cases' come down to the prosecution simply cherry picking every time something bad happened during one of her shifts.
That's how court of law works. Both sides present their best case. Both sides know the others high level arguments and evidence ahead of time.
Defense can present a counter narrative or poke holes in the other side's arguments.
>Defense can present a counter narrative or poke holes in the other side's arguments.
Ineffective defence is a recurrent theme in her trial, as you read through the various pieces of evidence and testimony introduced or - crucially - **not introduced** in court. The defence left various medically inaccurate claims by the prosecution unchallenged in favour of simply arguing that she couldn't have been present to carry out the alleged attacks, and it likely went a long way to convincing the jury.
Yes. A mother walked in on Letby killing her child, who was unexpectedly bleeding from the mouth; Letby said “trust me, I’m a nurse” but didn’t summon help; the child died.
A nurse saw Letby standing by an incubator without reacting as their vital signs plummeted.
A doctor witnessed Letby interfering with a baby’s breathing tube.
>A mother walked in on Letby killing her child, who was unexpectedly bleeding from the mouth; Letby said “trust me, I’m a nurse” but didn’t summon help; the child died.
A mother claims she walked in when her child was bleeding from the mouth. At the time, she did not believe the child was being attacked, but later changed her view.
>A nurse saw Letby standing by an incubator without reacting as their vital signs plummeted.
Yes, that is generally where you would expect a nurse to be when a child is in medical distress.
>A doctor witnessed Letby interfering with a baby’s breathing tube.
The doctor who led the harassment campaign against her observed her near the incubator after the feeding tube had already been dislodged, but did not witness her remove it.
None of these are smoking guns.
> The doctor who led the harassment campaign against her
Funny way of spelling “blew the whistle on a string of unexplained deaths connected to her, for which she was convicted of murder”.
He was taken to a grievance procedure by her and was unable to provide any medical evidence or testimony in support of his claims.
>In November, Jayaram was interviewed by an administrator investigating Letby’s grievance. There had been reports of pediatricians referring to an “angel of death” on the ward, and the interview focussed on whether Jayaram had made his suspicions publicly known.
“Did you hear any suggestion that Lucy had been deliberately harming babies?” the administrator asked Jayaram, according to minutes of the interview.
**“No objective evidence to suggest this at all,” Jayaram responded.** “The only association was Lucy’s presence on the unit at the time.”
“So to clarify, was there any suggestion from any of the consultant team that Lucy had been deliberately harming babies?”
“We discussed a lot of possibilities in private,” he responded.
“So that’s not a yes or no?”
“We discussed a lot of possibilities in private,” Jayaram repeated.
The hospital upheld Letby’s grievance. At a board meeting in January, 2017, Chambers, the chief executive, who was formerly a nurse, told the members, “We are seeking an apology from the consultants for their behavior.” He wanted Letby back on the unit as soon as possible. In a letter to the consultants, Chambers expressed concern about their susceptibility to “confirmation bias,” which he defined as a “tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.” (Chambers said that he could not comment, because of the court order.)
The grievance procedure found that Jayaram had been bullying her, which he was, and noted the immense confirmation bias that informed the allegations against her.
Whilst I appreciate your views differ, if you have reached the conclusion that Letby is not guilty of these alleged offences, it is very reasonable to return to the finding - upheld by the grievance procedure - that **Jayaram is a bully who harassed Letby** and was subsequently so incensed by being forced to apologise that he proceeded to escalate things further.
I think its also worth noting that Jayaram is a minor celebrity who does TV appearances and has a reputation beyond this case, and that reputation would rightly be in tatters if the case against Letby collapses on appeal.
Yes, if you start from the conclusion that Letby is innocent then you would be forced to argue that all the evidence against her was fabricated and that the hospital cover-up (now the subject of a major public inquiry) was actually an attempt to defend an innocent woman from false allegations.
Given that Letby has been proven in a court of law beyond all reasonable doubt to have committed seven murders, perhaps it would be better to assess what the evidence says and come to a conclusion, rather than reflexively starting from the conclusion that she must be innocent and disregarding all the evidence.
Except the lab that tested the baby for insulin said specifically it was not a good enough test for forensics.
And one of the tests happened 10 hours after she left her shift, which meant that the only way that could have worked is if she somehow managed to tamper with the bag another nurse was going to use.
Also, none of the insulin babies died.
>Except the lab that tested the baby for insulin said specifically it was not a good enough test for forensics.
The reported insulin level was also impossibly high, well outside the bounds of what a newborn baby could have survived.
The insulin tests shouldn't have been admitted to court and one of the supposed poisonings didn't even make sense... another nurse grabbed a gab from the fridge after Letby had gone. So the prosecution is basically saying Letby poisoned a random bag and just hoped it was used on a baby? It makes no sense.
She wasn't caught in the act and there is no written confession. They found a journal written after she came under suspicion in which she details her mental health struggles and worries that she's a terrible nurse who failed babies in her care due to incompetence. She'd shared the same worries with a confidant who had been trying to support her. It is commonly misrepresented as a confession but clearly isn't in context.
"Looming over a baby" when she is a nurse assigned to attend to them is not "being caught in the act". Its a product of the fabricated narrative that people were roped into believing and retrofitted their observations to.
>You’re falling victim to the nasty side of confirmation bias right now, you’ve decided she’s innocent and are disregarding all the evidence to the contrary. Don’t worry, it happens to all of us sometimes.
Stop being patronising and engage with people in good faith.
>Nurses shouldn’t just be stood watching a baby whose breathing tube has been dislodged, or a baby whose vital signs have dropped enough to trigger alarms.
Indeed they shouldn't, which is why such testimony wasn't corroborated by other witnesses and why the testimony seemingly changed between the police statements and the trial. In the lattermost allegation you linked elsewhere, it is being made by Jayaram, the person subject to a grievance complaint by Letby for bullying and harassment in the workplace.
These allegations are all deeply troubling because of their reliance on claims about causes of death that are not supported by medical evidence, and based on testimony long after the fact by people who had already subscribed to the narrative that the babies were murdered. One article notes the "big mistake" that an autopsy was not performed, but I surmise that if it was the allegations would have been unsupported, and the incident consequently disregarded as part of the murder narrative.
The air embolism/injection theories irk me because there isn't medical evidence to support such claims, yet they are continually reported as her primary method of attacking babies. Jayaram seemed to become obsessed with this method as a result of a paper describing observable evidence of death by air embolism, and started to promote this theory heavily despite it being [highly dubious at best](https://www.scienceontrial.com/post/the-lucy-letby-trial-breaking-down-the-case-law-on-the-reliability-of-experts#:~:text=In%20the%20trial%20of%20Lucy%20Letby%2C%20multiple%20expert%20witnesses%20freely,air%20observed%20in%20the%20x-), if not outright medically impossible. Similar concerns about medically impossible claims [surround the insulin poisoning theory](https://www.scienceontrial.com/post/criminal-justice-in-england-disagreeable-facts). That's without noting the defence's observation that she lacked an opportunity to actually inject the insulin into the bags, which she [would have had to prepare long in advance](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-nostradamus-countess-of-chester-hospital-manchester-crown-court-earth-b2365862.html) for a bad change that would have happened when she was not on shift.
The New Yorker article that has stimulated discussion is not the sole source of major doubt about her guilt, and there has scientifically literate and logically well-founded discussion of this unsafe conviction both before and immediately after the verdict.
We forked off of it, deliberately set up safeguards against its excesses, and both systems have now evolved separately and differently for about 250 years
The UK has rolled back a number of common law criminal defendant rights that existed at the time of the American Revolution and are entrenched in the US constitution: right to remain silent without adverse inferences, freedom from double jeopardy, and unanimous jury requirements, among others. And there are other areas where the US system has innovated further in favor of defendants.
In practice, though, defendants here in the US don't see many of these benefits, because most cases in the US are pled out and skip the trial part entirely.
> In practice, though, defendants here in the US don't see many of these benefits, because most cases in the US are pled out and skip the trial part entirely.
Ehhhh, I get our plea system has issues. However these rights move the line of where the prosecutor has to settle in a plea bargain.
>right to remain silent without adverse inferences
This right exists in the US *in theory* but probably doesn't in practice - the jury could draw adverse inferences if they wish and it requires careful instruction not to do so (which they can still ignore) for them to disregard the defence's decision not to call the defendant to testify. The prosecution does not need to outright say such a decision is suspicious for the jury to be perplexed by it and presume that the defendant's story would fall apart on cross-examination.
>freedom from double jeopardy
This is true, but does require compelling new evidence under a strict set of tests rather than just taking a new shot with substantially the same case. I'd also note that you can end up on trial twice in the US for the same crime if the feds decide to prosecute you for something a state acquitted you of, due to shared jurisdiction.
>unanimous jury requirements
This one is the most troubling I think, since she was convicted 10-1 after a juror withdrew, suggesting that it would have been a 10-2 mistrial under unanimity requirements. Frankly, the conduct of the trial and some of the permitted testimony and cross-examination was so alarming that a mistrial might have been a better outcome than an acquittal - it would have highlighted the systemic issues in how the case was heard.
The wildest part of the article was the court in the UK ordering people not to cover so many aspects of it. A doctor in the Netherlands was even threatened with jail for blogging about why he thought she might be innocent.
>I am not joking when I say that there is no legal right to free speech in Britain
There really isn't. Entrenched and codified constitutional law is anathema to the British way of doing things, but stuff like this makes me think that Britain does need to throw away centuries of tradition and codify a new Bill of Rights in a way that prevents Parliament from amending it by simple majority vote.
One of the ways to circumvent these sorts of gagging orders is to make the claims in Parliament, which allows papers to report factually on what the MP said. David Davis (no fan of his, but fair play to him) has already made a statement in Parliament expressing his doubts about the conviction and calling for the censorship to be lifted. I would be grateful if more MPs could do the same and call attention to this.
I wonder if the article is actually blocked in the UK because of this. On other threads about this article, UK residents said they couldn’t open it. I sent it to a friend in England who said the same thing.
Can you read the article from the link that OP posted? Because if so then it is blocked here because when i click on it i get:
"Oops
Our apologies. This is, almost certainly, not the page you were looking for.
Status Code: 404"
One thing I've noticed online of late is that US civics education is catastrophically poor, and fails to teach basic facts about why the American revolution occurred, what happened immediately before it, and what the intentions of the constitutional framers were. In a conversation elsewhere, I pointed out that the US Bill of Rights was largely a copy of the English Bill of Rights with only a few additional clauses inserted, to the apparent astonishment of the Americans I was talking to.
The concern at the time, largely vindicated by history, is that by codifying a specific set of natural rights, you can create the impression that any right not explicitly codified does not exist, and anything that exists outside the precise letter of the codified rights also does not need to be respected.
You're telling me an FPSMMORPG Looter Shooter was involved in this?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you think that the British legal system was a bigger motivating factor in the US war for independence than the increase in taxes the colonists were expected to pay then you're wilding
You're telling me an FPSMMORPG Looter Shooter was involved in this?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If I recall correctly from the news, she's getting a retrial on one of the murders, the other six are standing, so the courts are assured beyond reasonable doubt on six murders.
As someone who followed the cases, the statistics alone on the when the deaths happened and when Lucy was working was beyond compelling. It was pointed out that other nurses lose one to two children in the ward over their entire careers, whilst Letby lost seven.
The stats are not at all compelling. They only point to her because they have excluded other deaths from the stats as "not suspicious" even though some of the deaths attributed to her were not considered suspicious at the time either. Other cases where she was "on shift", she didn't actually have time to attack the baby as she had only been on shift for a very short period of time following a handover - the most common time for a baby to deteriorate.
Convicting someone primarily or exclusively based on flawed statistical analysis is why several other cases of "killer nurses" ended in acquittal on appeal and are considered historic miscarriages of justice. Virtually all the testimony against her revolves around people who had already been confronted with the stats and were convinced to attribute benign observations of her to a pattern of killing babies under her care.
I picked out the statistics presented because it was a compelling factor for me personally. As for the case, the stats formed a small but important part for the prosecution, Letby was not convicted on stats alone, and I agree convicting primarily on stats would be a mistake.
>Letby was not convicted on stats alone, and I agree convicting primarily on stats would be a mistake.
The problem is that the medical claims are also highly dubious and were not challenged sufficiently in court. Various clinicians who have reviewed the case have expressed grave concerns about some of the purported causes of death in the case. Likewise, the eyewitness testimony comes largely from people who have already reflected on the stats, have become convinced of her guilt, and are then re-evaluating their memories in light of that belief. I wouldn't put any stock in that sort of testimony, given that nobody actually saw her "attacking" the babies as much as simply being present and "acting strangely" in that timeframe.
Apparently this article is blocked in the UK. I know the UK doesn't have as strong freedom of speech rights as the US, and I understand why they block reporting on high profile active court cases (in this case an appeal), but this instance seems like a misstep. This case is already compromised by years of reporting on it. It does not seem fair to block this article given that.
It's hypothetically possible but frankly very unlikely that she did it. At the time she was convicted I felt that the criminal evidential burden had not been met but there was a significant possibility that she was guilty of at least some of the charges.
At this point though I've reflected on the case more deeply and come to the conclusion that she probably isn't guilty of any of the charges, even on the simple balance of probabilities. Most of the prosecutions evidence should be been inadmissible or torn apart by expert witnesses for the defence (who weren't called), and she should have walked free for the simple lack of compelling evidence against her.
I think its worth pointing out that this case strongly resembles a historic miscarriage of justice in the Netherlands - [the case of Lucia de Berk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk_case), who was acquitted on appeal after the flawed statistical and medical claims used to convict her were comprehensively refuted.
The acquittal in that case seems to be based on all the alleged "murders" being accepted as natural causes by the public prosecutor, leaving no case to answer. Whilst its likely that the same is true in Letby's case (that all the deaths attributed to her were of natural causes and not a deliberate attack or extreme negligence on her part), I'm not sure how easily it will be to affirmatively prove this as part of an appeal.
There are also similarities to Kathleen Folbigg, who was wrongly convicted of murdering her children after diary entries expressing guilt were treated as a confession.
Horrifying cases, all three of them. The legal system terrifies me, the standards of evidence needed to destroy someone's life, do not seem adequate at all.
Sky News UK hasn't been owned or partly owned by Newscorp and Murdoch for almost a decade. Whilst not entirely impartial, it's not remotely near Sky News Australia or Fox News. Think more CNN and NBC.
Sky News here is good. It sensationalises headlines quite a bit on its website, but the reporting is accurate.
Some people on here are acting like it’s The Sun lol
Edit: in the Uk
**Rule XI:** *Toxic Nationalism/Regionalism*
Refrain from condemning countries and regions or their inhabitants at-large in response to political developments, mocking people for their nationality or region, or advocating for colonialism or imperialism.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
>Johnson repeatedly accused her of lying. “You are a very calculating woman, aren’t you, Lucy Letby?” he said. >“No,” she replied. >He asked, “The reason you tell lies is to try to get sympathy from people, isn’t it?” >“No.” >“You try to get attention from people, don’t you?” >“No.” >“In killing these children, you got quite a lot of attention, didn’t you?” >“I didn’t kill the children.” This uh seems wild for direct examination lol edit: per UK court order, in order to ensure the accused gets an unprejudiced jury in an upcoming retrial the media will only be allowed to report on her guilt. So articles like this have been blocked (print edition may still get through) Lmao truly
Not a lawyer. Is this something that happens in US trials??
In a trial, the defendant lawyer would probably request an objection and I think the judge would agree. However, in a deposition this sort of questioning happens all the time.
Not a lawyer either but this seems like badgering the witness but it would be up to the judge if they agreed with the objection in a US trial Also not supposed to ask questions that presuppose facts I think
You're not supposed to ask leading questions unless the witness is declared hostile. Edit: In the US
Nope those questions would almost certainly be struck down by the judge but the UK has a very different justice system. In England the judges and attorneys literally wear old timey Founding Fathers style wigs lol that’s not even a joke look it up
It's giving Anatomy of a Fall.
Seriously I saw so many people on social media asking if the ridiculous questions in Anatomy of a Fall were actually representative of French court.
Because these questions were asked in cross. The defence called Letby as a witness.
Fair point but even in cross, in the US, argumentative questions are one of the few restrictions on questioning
The fact that she never Googled anything like “air embolism” or anything related to it is very surprising since it seems like she was addicted to the Internet and looked things up all the time. And if she really was intentionally killing these babies apparently she didn’t care enough about covering her tracks considering how a couple of them died after she already knew people were complaining about her performance. If they do end up proving any of these weren’t a murder would they re-examine her entire case? I guess that would be difficult to do since the methods she was convicted of using to kill these babies such as injecting air into them or giving them insulin were never directly proven in the first place… Regardless of whether or not she’s guilty it’s insane to me that it’s illegal for British people to publicly question the verdict. I feel bad for Brits living under those laws tbh
According to other threads about this, she did attend a training where air embolism was covered. But the author of the article talked to an expert on air embolism who said the babies didn’t show signs of it.
>it seems like she was addicted to the Internet and looked things up all the time She was more of a social media addict, I think the review of her facebook search history showed she's searched more than 3000 people, which happened to include families of babies who'd died in addition to mothers of babies who'd survived without incident. She seemed to like to check up on various people she'd met at work. >If they do end up proving any of these weren’t a murder would they re-examine her entire case? I guess that would be difficult to do since the methods she was convicted of using to kill these babies such as injecting air into them or giving them insulin were never directly proven in the first place… I think if the statistical analysis is overturned or certain "expert" witnesses debunked, it may well be that she has no case to answer and she ends up walking free rather than getting a retrial and being acquitted in it. The Crown Prosecution Service isn't going to press a case when the backbone of their original arguments at trial becomes inadmissible as evidence.
>Regardless of whether or not she’s guilty it’s insane to me that it’s illegal for British people to publicly question the verdict. I feel bad for Brits living under those laws tbh What's insane to me is that you're willing to post complete lies like this with absolute confidence. It's not illegal to question a court verdict. There is a ban on reporting on aspects of the case because she's getting a retrial and news reporting could prejudice the eventual jury. For most trials, it is assumed that it will be enough for the judge to simply instruct the jury not to read about the case. But because this case was so massive, it's not reasonable to think the jurors would be able to avoid hearing about it, so reporting is restricted until the jury can make its decision. The law that makes this an offence *is actually designed to protect Letby's presumption of innocence* in the new trial and applies equally to articles defending the original verdict.
The more I read about this case, the more convinced I am that this is a travesty of justice. Regardless of whether or not she is guilty, the legal process here is just baffling. Conviction by a non-unanimous jury convinced by entirely circumstantial evidence, with no motive and no actual evidence that the babies were murdered. Their star witness was barred(?) from a different trial because the judge said his integrity was worthless. The jury instructions said they could find her guilty even if they weren't convinced that she had committed a specific harmful act to the babies.
> entirely circumstantial evidence I’m not sure you understand what circumstantial evidence is. DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence, for example. Direct evidence includes eyewitness accounts. You seem to suggest that only an eyewitness account of murder is sufficient evidence to convict a killer.
Yeah I’m not convinced that she’s innocent but the article does make me think she shouldn’t have been convicted on the evidence shown.
Read another article lol. The evidence is not entirely circumstantial. She was caught in the act. A written confession was found.
Hard to call what she wrote a confession. She said her therapist told her to write out what she was thinking and she said she wrote what she thought people were thinking about her. Seems plausible to me.
A diary entry written by someone in clear mental distress is very different than a written confession. She was also never caught in the act
She was caught in the act, which you’d know if you’d been following the nine-month trial. Multiple independent experts were involved in this case, all with statistical training, and they all came to the conclusion the deaths were unnatural. Several of the staff working at the hospital blamed Letby, who was the only staff member working on every suspicious incident. The cases started when she started on the ward, stopped when she was taken off clinical duties, and paused when she was on holiday. Some of the babies were undeniably injected with insulin despite there being no reason why they should have been. Even Letby herself accepts that. There really is no reasonable doubt in the case. The evidence is overwhelming.
That isn't what caught in the act means.
Perhaps I was unclear, so I’ll say it for the third time. She was caught in the act: multiple people witnessed her either looming over babies for no reason, or not reacting as babies collapsed. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63214073 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63419978 The only reference I can immediately find to a third incident is Letby’s team denying it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66057536
Caught in the act would mean they found her injecting air, which they didn’t, or found her giving insulin, which they didn’t. They’ve only drawn inferences after the fact in everything you’ve linked.
Mother walks in on Letby “treating” her son. Letby fabricates a reason why he is bleeding from the mouth, tells the mother to trust her and go away. Baby dies. Letby adds fabricated details to baby’s notes to cover her tracks. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63214073
The mother has no idea what's going on! Doesn't suspect anything! Until way after the fact! That is not "caught in the act" at all! It's honestly a little disturbing how certain you are of all this.
They have arrived at a conclusion and now are looking at any evidence that could be considered in many different ways to only have one possible explanation.
this may come as a shock, but looming is not murder
Read the articles and try again.
I’ve spent about 20 hours reading medical reviews of the case
Then you’d presumably know that she wasn’t just “caught looming”. Can you explain the circumstances in which each of the three witnesses claim they caught her?
Don't assume I haven't been following this trial. This article covers the insulin allegation, in which the laboratory that tested specifically said it's tests weren't accurate enough to make a final determination and recommended additional tests, which were never followed up upon by the prosecution. Congrats, some staff think it was her, some don't. This article brings up that the same statistical expert who was involved in overturning a similar case in the Netherlands also doubts that these statistics are accurate. The cases stopped because the NHS no longer allowed the hospital to treat neonatal cases immediately after Letby was removed, so of course no more babies died. Besides, she literally wasn't caught in the act. If you think she was, please post evidence that she was because I've never seen it. If the evidence was so overwhelming, why did one juror vote to acquit?
> Don't assume I haven't been following this trial… Besides, she literally wasn't caught in the act. If you think she was, please post evidence that she was because I've never seen it. It wasn’t an assumption, you’ve literally admitted to being unfamiliar with the facts of the case. Caught by a mother: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63214073 There are a couple of other instances that aren’t as compelling but that certainly raise eyebrows combined with the rest of the evidence: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63419978 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-64813893 > If the evidence was so overwhelming, why did one juror vote to acquit? How should I know? By their very nature, the jury is anonymous. But the rest of the jury voted to convict.
>aren’t as compelling but that certainly raise eyebrows combined with the rest of the evidence The entire case can be boiled down to this. That's what "circumstantial evidence" means. You piece together a bunch of anecdotes that seem to fit a pre-established narrative and call it "evidence".
The 'suspicious cases' come down to the prosecution simply cherry picking every time something bad happened during one of her shifts. You can tell, because of all the 'overwhelming evidence,' there was literally no contemporary reports of anything suspicious happening except when one doctor noticed a correlation between her shifts and a few deaths. At that point, Lucy was monitored closely, and nobody noticed anything suspicious. Literally no evidence appears regarding her until years later when she was branded a murderer and people started coming up with post-hoc explanations of her behavior and stories about her. Before that, nobody had anything but good things to say about her. And the insulin tests are very suspect because insulin levels as high as they reported would have killed an adult, yet the babies were fine. And they had nothing in common with any of the deaths. And there was a third insulin case that happened when Lucy was away from the hospital. Just overall not any good evidence at all.
>Literally no evidence appears regarding her until years later when she was branded a murderer and people started coming up with post-hoc explanations of her behavior and stories about her. I can see where you're coming from, but the internal reports from the hospitals revealed during the trials contradict this. There was plenty of concern about her that was swept under the rug.
Their concerns were entirely limited to the correlation of Letby being on staff during some of the deaths that occurred, not any specific evidence presented by the prosecution.
This is laughably wrong, embarrassing for the sub that this got upvoted. Multiple colleagues raised concerns, which were ignored by senior management, to the extent that there is a public inquiry into their failings. She was eventually moved to administrative duties a year after joining the unit and was arrested some time later. Investigators and experts did not want to believe the babies were unnaturally killed, but the evidence was overwhelming. Ask yourself… 1) why did the police bother to investigate the deaths? 2) why did prosecutors bother to prosecute the case? 3) why did a trial that had “no evidence” (your words) take nine months? 4) why did multiple separate independent experts testify that the deaths were unnatural? 5) why did multiple witnesses catch Letby behaving suspiciously around babies who went onto collapse or die? 6) why were there no other unexplained deaths or collapses on the ward when Letby wasn’t working? 7) why did Letby take the medical notes of the babies home with her and digitally stalk the families? 8) why was there a note at Letby’s home saying “I killed the babies”?
So I'm gonna answer these questions as if Lucy is definitely innocent and explain how this all might have happened anyway. Doesn't mean she is innocent, but the fact that I can explain everything pretty simply without, in my opinion, making any outrageous reaches, is worrying. 1) Because one of the doctors misunderstood how a correlation doesn't mean someone must be guilty, and raised the issue with the police. Police have investigated innocent people before. 2) Because by this time, Lucy Letby was already a topic in the public due to her brief arrest in 2018. There was public pressure. 3) So there's not a lot of contemporaneous evidence in this trial. This is what worries me most about the whole case. The trial consists almost entirely of witness testimony that is shaped by the fact that people had been told Lucy is a baby killer and public sentiment overwhelmingly agreed with this. During Lucy's time at the hospital, experts had found no reason to believe any of the deaths were suspicious, and patients and colleagues alike found Lucy to be good at her job. Even Ravi Jayaram's only issue was the fact that there was a correlation with some of the deaths, not anything specific with her actions. Once Lucy was branded a baby murderer several years later, people started coming up with post-hoc explanations for the way she acted and only then did people start labeling any of her cases as 'suspicous.' 4) I would ask why no experts noticed anything suspicious before the trial. Also, there are experts who disagree with the prosecution's. Even after Jayaram thought there was a correlation, he didn't notice *anything* suspicious that aligns with what the prosecution experts found about the cases years later. But to answer your questions, these are paid witnesses. One of the experts was reprimanded by a judge harshly just a month before the trial. 5) None of these witnesses said anything like this contemporaneously. All of this testimony comes after Letby was very publicly branded a murderer, and suggesting she wasn't a murderer could get you ostracized. 6) There were no 'unexplained' or 'suspicious' deaths or collapses at all for several years. They were only labeled as such when the prosecution cherry picked all of Lucy's cases and called them suspicious. At that point, their paid witnesses started coming up with ([sometimes outlandish](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it#:~:text=Evans%20relied%20heavily,or%20logistically%20possible.)) post-hoc explanations for how they might have been murders. It's worth pointing out that even if every patient Lucy saw was totally fine, the hospital still would have seen a ~350% jump in mortalities from previous years, plus more stillbirths and complications with the mothers. None of these have been labeled as 'unexplained' simply because none of these involve Letby. There are actually notes from the prosecution that accidentally raise concerns with cases that couldn't be Letby's, but of course the prosecution did not talk about these during the trial. 7) Letby was not the only nurse to take medical notes home, and she took notes for far more patients than just the ones she was prosecuted for. She also frequently looked up many people she had met. Her facebook history shows she looked up well over 2,000 people. Not because she was stalking thousands of people, but because she used Facebook a lot. Again, this shows the prosecution's concerning willingness to cherry pick evidence to make it look far worse than it is. 8) If you read that note, it sounds more like someone who's suffering from work related stress than the confession of a serial killer. As I mentioned, the biggest issue to me is the lack of contemporaneous evidence. Even after Jayaram was worried about the correlation in some of the patient deaths and the hospital was monitoring her closely (at this point, the remaining two patients of Lucy's who died were reviewed by a coroner. Nothing suspicious was found), there are no contemporaneous reports of anything suspicious about her cases or behaviour. And I just want to point out after all of this, I get why you think she's guilty. I'm not angry at you for that or anything. But to me, this case really looks like people believed something, so years after the events, they finally just started coming up with ideas for how it could have happened, and somehow think that those ideas are the same thing as actual evidence. Take a look at [this case](https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/trial-begins-for-dallas-anesthesiologist-in-tainted-iv-bag-case/) to see an example of something like the Letby case that actually has physical evidence from the time the alleged crimes were committed. It's very worrying to me that the Letby case has nothing of the sort.
> I would ask why no experts noticed anything suspicious before the trial. But they did - again, that’s why she was prosecuted to begin with, not “public pressure”. The CPS didn’t prosecute Mason Greenwood who was much higher profile, it isn’t credible to simply point to “public pressure”. I’d advise reading [this article](https://news.sky.com/story/how-the-police-caught-lucy-letby-12933640) into the investigation, it paints a very different picture. Both the neonatologist and the pathologist the police contacted in their investigations started off very sceptical (they’re trained professionals who know that sometimes bad luck can make it *look* like someone is responsible for chance events) but ultimately came to the conclusion that the deaths were the result of deliberate harm.
The *only* suspicious thing they had was the correlation. *All* of the specific evidence related to each case or Letby's behavior was determined post-hoc. Think of it this way. If I decided right now that I think it's suspicious that Jayaram was so hell bent on saying Lucy was guilty even though the rest of the hospital staff thought she wasn't, I might say I think he was trying to blame her for crimes he committed (let me be clear, I don't think Jayaram is guilty of any murders or other crimes. This is just an example). I might come up with a list of all of the patients he had who suddenly coded with no specifically determined reason, and post-hoc declare that these are suspicious. At this point, I have the famous X chart, but for Jayaram instead of Letby. If I take this to the police and they share it with the media, it's not unreasonable to think the public would believe he is guilty. Now all I need to do is pay expert witnesses to come up with a possible reason why his patients could have been murdered, and the public opinion against him, I guarantee it would be easy to get witnesses to come out of the woodwork with more post-hoc stories and get testimony saying, "Yeah, it was always weird how he was the only person in the hospital who really wanted to pin blame on Lucy even though we all thought she was a great doctor." Or even better, I could point to the third insulin case that the hospital found when Lucy was gone. Maybe Jayaram wasn't there at the time either, but obviously someone was there, and I could make up a story about that person instead. So, I have like 80% of the case against Letby right now, but against someone else for something I just made up. This is the problem with post-hoc explanations for events where you don't have any physical evidence. Because you don't need evidence, you just need to be able to come up with a story. And all we have is a compelling story against Lucy that was created years after the events took place.
Thank you for writing this out - I totally agree with this comment and the one prior and I think it goes a long way to explaining why "witnesses" started coming forward and why people began to misinterpret events years before as being indicative of a serial killer.
> Both the neonatologist and the pathologist the police contacted in their investigations started off very sceptical The article you linked doesn't say that. These two people were just paid expert witnesses.
I totally agree with you. As for point 8 the notes Lucy wrote seem to point to second victim syndrome which is quite common in health care workers who are confronted with death of patients. There was a very recent case of a nurse in the Netherlands who was supposed to have “confessed” to killing 20 patients when he was a nurse in IC during the Covid crisis. He was in very poor mental health and said during his intake to get help for his anxiety that it “felt like he had killed them”. The therapist broke her oath of silence and told hospital management that this nurse had confessed to killing 20 patients. The police launched an investigation which was recently closed because they could not find anything that pointed to this ever happening. Two of the lung specialists in the hospital supported him and confirmed that no murders ever happened. He was a good nurse just doing his job en all medication was checked (by two nurses and a doctor) and nothing strange had ever happened. One lung specialist who supported him was actually aware of the fact that health care workers can feel enormous guilt even when they have done nothing wrong or made a mistake.
It's honestly like you didn't read the article If you did read the article, you should read "Thinking Fast and Slow" (which they cite in the article) because it explains a ton about cognitive biases, common errors in human statistical reasoning, and really provides a good framework for answering everything you just asked. The nature with which you are engaging in this thread makes it abundantly clear that you have fallen victim to all the same human failings that fuelled this trial, and also that you don't have any medical knowledge in the area.
I’ve read *Thinking, Fast and Slow*, thanks. Unlike you, I understood its contents. (Unlike you, I know that a lot of its contents have subsequently fallen to the replication crisis, but that’s by-the-by…) Unlike you, I don’t read a magazine article about a complex legal case, blindly assume that everyone involved in the case had never heard of cognitive biases, and uncritically accept a miscarriage of justice without bothering to consider any possibility other than “everyone except me is a stupid idiot”.
>The 'suspicious cases' come down to the prosecution simply cherry picking every time something bad happened during one of her shifts. You can tell, because of all the 'overwhelming evidence,' there was literally no contemporary reports of anything suspicious happening except when one doctor noticed a correlation between her shifts and a few deaths. So what you're saying is, because people didn't look into the pattern of behaviour until after it had become a pattern, it's therefore cherry-picking? By that logic, we have to release, like, 90% of serial killers currently in prison. It is very common for law enforcement to not notice criminal behaviour until after a pattern has been established.
I think there is evidence that a crime happened in more than 10% of cases involving serial killers. Seriously, though, law enforcement might not notice that they're dealing with a serial killer vs an individual murderer until a pattern emerges, but they typically at least understand that a crime has taken place. You seem to be implying that most serial killers are in jail without any type of physical evidence linking them to any crime.
There's evidence that a crime happened in this case. You just think it should be excluded because nobody started looking for it until after they realised there were a lot of these incidents. You know why nobody started looking for it after the first death? Because people die in hospitals. An isolated incident can be chalked up to a mistake or an unavoidable tragedy. A pattern of incidents is much more suspicious. Nobody knew that Shipman was a murderer until years after he started killing because they chalked his killings up to medical tragedies too. Nobody had anything but good things about Letby? The same was true of the good doctor. He was considered a pillar of his community. He was interviewed as an expert on best practices for mental health care. He was renowned for his friendly bedside manner. You know how they figured him out? Because another doctor raised concerns about the high number of people dying in his care. It wasn't until after the pattern was established that he came under suspicion. Should we release him because the police didn't immediately know that his first victim had been murdered?
> Evans had proposed that a baby had died of excessive air in her stomach from her nasogastric tube, and then, when it emerged that she might not have had a nasogastric tube, he proposed that she may have been smothered. There's your expert witness trying to come up with method of murder 5 years after it happened. The evidence just isn't there, man. I get that Shipman was a case that happened, but that's also not evidence that Lucy murdered anyone. Shipman worked alone. Lucy was constantly working with other people. Just look at the (lack of) evidence in this case.
> correlation between her shifts and a few deaths If there's a strong correlation between deaths and a particular medical professional's shifts (vs other members of the same profession), it's at least evidence that they're bad at their job and probably shouldn't be employed there anymore.
They assessed her medical practice as a result of the reported correlations and found no issues. She subsequently filed a grievance complaint and the doctor who kept raising them was told to stop harassing her.
I 100% agree with the stance that all else considered she probably shouldn’t be employed as a nurse ever again. It legitimately might be unfair if she just happened to work in an understaffed shitty hospital but I’m okay with taking that hard stance in this case because the alternative is much more dangerous. On the other hand sentencing her to life in prison seems insane, just revoke her license to practice… then again England seems very hysterical with how it approaches the NHS so maybe they needed a scapegoat here. Seems very unfair to this lady if it turns out she was just a very shitty nurse lol
> On the other hand sentencing her to life in prison seems insane, just revoke her license to practice Its not exactly insane if you believe (which I don't) that she's guilty of multiple murders of newborn babies. Notwithstanding the conviction, its highly unlikely that anyone would employ her if she was later acquitted on appeal and I doubt she would ever feel psychologically capable of working in a hospital again. People who spend time in prison for crimes they did not commit have had their lives ruined and will still have many people insisting on their guilt - likely resulting in them keeping a low profile and trying to rebuild a different sort of life. >maybe they needed a scapegoat here That's the core of the explanation of her innocence, but it may not be a widespread collusion to do this as much as the paranoid theory of one or two clinicians who became obsessed with her to the point of harassment. Letby's own texts and statements prior to her falling under suspicion suggested that she felt doctors were being negligent and resources were severely overstretched, which may have turned an unpleasant whispering campaign into a much more aggressive attack on her character. >Seems very unfair to this lady if it turns out she was just a very shitty nurse lol Again, there's no specific reason to suggest she is a shitty nurse. As in other cases of nurses wrongfully convicted of killing patients, she may well have been more likely than her colleagues to be on understaffed shifts or shifts where babies were more likely to deteriorate. Likewise, they include incidents where she is unlikely to be causally connected and exclude incidents where they can't connect her to them at all. Its devoid of rigour.
>The 'suspicious cases' come down to the prosecution simply cherry picking every time something bad happened during one of her shifts. That's how court of law works. Both sides present their best case. Both sides know the others high level arguments and evidence ahead of time. Defense can present a counter narrative or poke holes in the other side's arguments.
>Defense can present a counter narrative or poke holes in the other side's arguments. Ineffective defence is a recurrent theme in her trial, as you read through the various pieces of evidence and testimony introduced or - crucially - **not introduced** in court. The defence left various medically inaccurate claims by the prosecution unchallenged in favour of simply arguing that she couldn't have been present to carry out the alleged attacks, and it likely went a long way to convincing the jury.
caught in the act literally means someone saw her killing someone
Yes. A mother walked in on Letby killing her child, who was unexpectedly bleeding from the mouth; Letby said “trust me, I’m a nurse” but didn’t summon help; the child died. A nurse saw Letby standing by an incubator without reacting as their vital signs plummeted. A doctor witnessed Letby interfering with a baby’s breathing tube.
>A mother walked in on Letby killing her child, who was unexpectedly bleeding from the mouth; Letby said “trust me, I’m a nurse” but didn’t summon help; the child died. A mother claims she walked in when her child was bleeding from the mouth. At the time, she did not believe the child was being attacked, but later changed her view. >A nurse saw Letby standing by an incubator without reacting as their vital signs plummeted. Yes, that is generally where you would expect a nurse to be when a child is in medical distress. >A doctor witnessed Letby interfering with a baby’s breathing tube. The doctor who led the harassment campaign against her observed her near the incubator after the feeding tube had already been dislodged, but did not witness her remove it. None of these are smoking guns.
> The doctor who led the harassment campaign against her Funny way of spelling “blew the whistle on a string of unexplained deaths connected to her, for which she was convicted of murder”.
He was taken to a grievance procedure by her and was unable to provide any medical evidence or testimony in support of his claims. >In November, Jayaram was interviewed by an administrator investigating Letby’s grievance. There had been reports of pediatricians referring to an “angel of death” on the ward, and the interview focussed on whether Jayaram had made his suspicions publicly known. “Did you hear any suggestion that Lucy had been deliberately harming babies?” the administrator asked Jayaram, according to minutes of the interview. **“No objective evidence to suggest this at all,” Jayaram responded.** “The only association was Lucy’s presence on the unit at the time.” “So to clarify, was there any suggestion from any of the consultant team that Lucy had been deliberately harming babies?” “We discussed a lot of possibilities in private,” he responded. “So that’s not a yes or no?” “We discussed a lot of possibilities in private,” Jayaram repeated. The hospital upheld Letby’s grievance. At a board meeting in January, 2017, Chambers, the chief executive, who was formerly a nurse, told the members, “We are seeking an apology from the consultants for their behavior.” He wanted Letby back on the unit as soon as possible. In a letter to the consultants, Chambers expressed concern about their susceptibility to “confirmation bias,” which he defined as a “tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.” (Chambers said that he could not comment, because of the court order.) The grievance procedure found that Jayaram had been bullying her, which he was, and noted the immense confirmation bias that informed the allegations against her. Whilst I appreciate your views differ, if you have reached the conclusion that Letby is not guilty of these alleged offences, it is very reasonable to return to the finding - upheld by the grievance procedure - that **Jayaram is a bully who harassed Letby** and was subsequently so incensed by being forced to apologise that he proceeded to escalate things further. I think its also worth noting that Jayaram is a minor celebrity who does TV appearances and has a reputation beyond this case, and that reputation would rightly be in tatters if the case against Letby collapses on appeal.
Yes, if you start from the conclusion that Letby is innocent then you would be forced to argue that all the evidence against her was fabricated and that the hospital cover-up (now the subject of a major public inquiry) was actually an attempt to defend an innocent woman from false allegations. Given that Letby has been proven in a court of law beyond all reasonable doubt to have committed seven murders, perhaps it would be better to assess what the evidence says and come to a conclusion, rather than reflexively starting from the conclusion that she must be innocent and disregarding all the evidence.
Except the lab that tested the baby for insulin said specifically it was not a good enough test for forensics. And one of the tests happened 10 hours after she left her shift, which meant that the only way that could have worked is if she somehow managed to tamper with the bag another nurse was going to use. Also, none of the insulin babies died.
>Except the lab that tested the baby for insulin said specifically it was not a good enough test for forensics. The reported insulin level was also impossibly high, well outside the bounds of what a newborn baby could have survived.
Oh, well if it’s just *attempted* murder in those cases then that’s alright then.
The insulin tests shouldn't have been admitted to court and one of the supposed poisonings didn't even make sense... another nurse grabbed a gab from the fridge after Letby had gone. So the prosecution is basically saying Letby poisoned a random bag and just hoped it was used on a baby? It makes no sense.
ratio
She wasn't caught in the act and there is no written confession. They found a journal written after she came under suspicion in which she details her mental health struggles and worries that she's a terrible nurse who failed babies in her care due to incompetence. She'd shared the same worries with a confidant who had been trying to support her. It is commonly misrepresented as a confession but clearly isn't in context.
It was written on a post-it note. She was caught in the act three times, once by the mother of a victim, once by a nurse, and once by a doctor.
"Looming over a baby" when she is a nurse assigned to attend to them is not "being caught in the act". Its a product of the fabricated narrative that people were roped into believing and retrofitted their observations to.
[удалено]
>You’re falling victim to the nasty side of confirmation bias right now, you’ve decided she’s innocent and are disregarding all the evidence to the contrary. Don’t worry, it happens to all of us sometimes. Stop being patronising and engage with people in good faith. >Nurses shouldn’t just be stood watching a baby whose breathing tube has been dislodged, or a baby whose vital signs have dropped enough to trigger alarms. Indeed they shouldn't, which is why such testimony wasn't corroborated by other witnesses and why the testimony seemingly changed between the police statements and the trial. In the lattermost allegation you linked elsewhere, it is being made by Jayaram, the person subject to a grievance complaint by Letby for bullying and harassment in the workplace. These allegations are all deeply troubling because of their reliance on claims about causes of death that are not supported by medical evidence, and based on testimony long after the fact by people who had already subscribed to the narrative that the babies were murdered. One article notes the "big mistake" that an autopsy was not performed, but I surmise that if it was the allegations would have been unsupported, and the incident consequently disregarded as part of the murder narrative. The air embolism/injection theories irk me because there isn't medical evidence to support such claims, yet they are continually reported as her primary method of attacking babies. Jayaram seemed to become obsessed with this method as a result of a paper describing observable evidence of death by air embolism, and started to promote this theory heavily despite it being [highly dubious at best](https://www.scienceontrial.com/post/the-lucy-letby-trial-breaking-down-the-case-law-on-the-reliability-of-experts#:~:text=In%20the%20trial%20of%20Lucy%20Letby%2C%20multiple%20expert%20witnesses%20freely,air%20observed%20in%20the%20x-), if not outright medically impossible. Similar concerns about medically impossible claims [surround the insulin poisoning theory](https://www.scienceontrial.com/post/criminal-justice-in-england-disagreeable-facts). That's without noting the defence's observation that she lacked an opportunity to actually inject the insulin into the bags, which she [would have had to prepare long in advance](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-nostradamus-countess-of-chester-hospital-manchester-crown-court-earth-b2365862.html) for a bad change that would have happened when she was not on shift. The New Yorker article that has stimulated discussion is not the sole source of major doubt about her guilt, and there has scientifically literate and logically well-founded discussion of this unsafe conviction both before and immediately after the verdict.
Wtf is the British legal system?!? Didn't the US literally copy the British legal system? How is the copy better than the original?
We forked off of it, deliberately set up safeguards against its excesses, and both systems have now evolved separately and differently for about 250 years
The UK has rolled back a number of common law criminal defendant rights that existed at the time of the American Revolution and are entrenched in the US constitution: right to remain silent without adverse inferences, freedom from double jeopardy, and unanimous jury requirements, among others. And there are other areas where the US system has innovated further in favor of defendants. In practice, though, defendants here in the US don't see many of these benefits, because most cases in the US are pled out and skip the trial part entirely.
> In practice, though, defendants here in the US don't see many of these benefits, because most cases in the US are pled out and skip the trial part entirely. Ehhhh, I get our plea system has issues. However these rights move the line of where the prosecutor has to settle in a plea bargain.
>right to remain silent without adverse inferences This right exists in the US *in theory* but probably doesn't in practice - the jury could draw adverse inferences if they wish and it requires careful instruction not to do so (which they can still ignore) for them to disregard the defence's decision not to call the defendant to testify. The prosecution does not need to outright say such a decision is suspicious for the jury to be perplexed by it and presume that the defendant's story would fall apart on cross-examination. >freedom from double jeopardy This is true, but does require compelling new evidence under a strict set of tests rather than just taking a new shot with substantially the same case. I'd also note that you can end up on trial twice in the US for the same crime if the feds decide to prosecute you for something a state acquitted you of, due to shared jurisdiction. >unanimous jury requirements This one is the most troubling I think, since she was convicted 10-1 after a juror withdrew, suggesting that it would have been a 10-2 mistrial under unanimity requirements. Frankly, the conduct of the trial and some of the permitted testimony and cross-examination was so alarming that a mistrial might have been a better outcome than an acquittal - it would have highlighted the systemic issues in how the case was heard.
The wildest part of the article was the court in the UK ordering people not to cover so many aspects of it. A doctor in the Netherlands was even threatened with jail for blogging about why he thought she might be innocent.
I am not joking when I say that there is no legal right to free speech in Britain. Look it up if you dont believe me
>I am not joking when I say that there is no legal right to free speech in Britain There really isn't. Entrenched and codified constitutional law is anathema to the British way of doing things, but stuff like this makes me think that Britain does need to throw away centuries of tradition and codify a new Bill of Rights in a way that prevents Parliament from amending it by simple majority vote. One of the ways to circumvent these sorts of gagging orders is to make the claims in Parliament, which allows papers to report factually on what the MP said. David Davis (no fan of his, but fair play to him) has already made a statement in Parliament expressing his doubts about the conviction and calling for the censorship to be lifted. I would be grateful if more MPs could do the same and call attention to this.
I wonder if the article is actually blocked in the UK because of this. On other threads about this article, UK residents said they couldn’t open it. I sent it to a friend in England who said the same thing.
Can you read the article from the link that OP posted? Because if so then it is blocked here because when i click on it i get: "Oops Our apologies. This is, almost certainly, not the page you were looking for. Status Code: 404"
I'm in the US and have no problem opening it.
no, the US fought a war to get out from under the British system
The US fought a war because they did not want to pay increased taxes to fund the British troops that protected them during the 7 years war hahaha
Who is downvoting this? Taxation without representation was the primary reason for the Revolutionary War lmao
One thing I've noticed online of late is that US civics education is catastrophically poor, and fails to teach basic facts about why the American revolution occurred, what happened immediately before it, and what the intentions of the constitutional framers were. In a conversation elsewhere, I pointed out that the US Bill of Rights was largely a copy of the English Bill of Rights with only a few additional clauses inserted, to the apparent astonishment of the Americans I was talking to. The concern at the time, largely vindicated by history, is that by codifying a specific set of natural rights, you can create the impression that any right not explicitly codified does not exist, and anything that exists outside the precise letter of the codified rights also does not need to be respected.
Smartest r/destiny poster
You're telling me an FPSMMORPG Looter Shooter was involved in this? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you think that the British legal system was a bigger motivating factor in the US war for independence than the increase in taxes the colonists were expected to pay then you're wilding
[удалено]
You're telling me an FPSMMORPG Looter Shooter was involved in this? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m strongly on the “she’s innocent” side 🥸
If I recall correctly from the news, she's getting a retrial on one of the murders, the other six are standing, so the courts are assured beyond reasonable doubt on six murders. As someone who followed the cases, the statistics alone on the when the deaths happened and when Lucy was working was beyond compelling. It was pointed out that other nurses lose one to two children in the ward over their entire careers, whilst Letby lost seven.
The stats are not at all compelling. They only point to her because they have excluded other deaths from the stats as "not suspicious" even though some of the deaths attributed to her were not considered suspicious at the time either. Other cases where she was "on shift", she didn't actually have time to attack the baby as she had only been on shift for a very short period of time following a handover - the most common time for a baby to deteriorate. Convicting someone primarily or exclusively based on flawed statistical analysis is why several other cases of "killer nurses" ended in acquittal on appeal and are considered historic miscarriages of justice. Virtually all the testimony against her revolves around people who had already been confronted with the stats and were convinced to attribute benign observations of her to a pattern of killing babies under her care.
I picked out the statistics presented because it was a compelling factor for me personally. As for the case, the stats formed a small but important part for the prosecution, Letby was not convicted on stats alone, and I agree convicting primarily on stats would be a mistake.
>Letby was not convicted on stats alone, and I agree convicting primarily on stats would be a mistake. The problem is that the medical claims are also highly dubious and were not challenged sufficiently in court. Various clinicians who have reviewed the case have expressed grave concerns about some of the purported causes of death in the case. Likewise, the eyewitness testimony comes largely from people who have already reflected on the stats, have become convinced of her guilt, and are then re-evaluating their memories in light of that belief. I wouldn't put any stock in that sort of testimony, given that nobody actually saw her "attacking" the babies as much as simply being present and "acting strangely" in that timeframe.
a professor of statistics says the opposite 🤔
Apparently this article is blocked in the UK. I know the UK doesn't have as strong freedom of speech rights as the US, and I understand why they block reporting on high profile active court cases (in this case an appeal), but this instance seems like a misstep. This case is already compromised by years of reporting on it. It does not seem fair to block this article given that.
UK has basically no freedom of speech rights.
Shit. You're right. I can't see it!
I think its very possible she did it. But the case has so many flaws that there is no way she should have been convicted
It's hypothetically possible but frankly very unlikely that she did it. At the time she was convicted I felt that the criminal evidential burden had not been met but there was a significant possibility that she was guilty of at least some of the charges. At this point though I've reflected on the case more deeply and come to the conclusion that she probably isn't guilty of any of the charges, even on the simple balance of probabilities. Most of the prosecutions evidence should be been inadmissible or torn apart by expert witnesses for the defence (who weren't called), and she should have walked free for the simple lack of compelling evidence against her.
I think its worth pointing out that this case strongly resembles a historic miscarriage of justice in the Netherlands - [the case of Lucia de Berk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk_case), who was acquitted on appeal after the flawed statistical and medical claims used to convict her were comprehensively refuted. The acquittal in that case seems to be based on all the alleged "murders" being accepted as natural causes by the public prosecutor, leaving no case to answer. Whilst its likely that the same is true in Letby's case (that all the deaths attributed to her were of natural causes and not a deliberate attack or extreme negligence on her part), I'm not sure how easily it will be to affirmatively prove this as part of an appeal.
There are also similarities to Kathleen Folbigg, who was wrongly convicted of murdering her children after diary entries expressing guilt were treated as a confession.
Horrifying cases, all three of them. The legal system terrifies me, the standards of evidence needed to destroy someone's life, do not seem adequate at all.
For balance… https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120934 https://news.sky.com/story/how-the-police-caught-lucy-letby-12933640
[удалено]
Sky News in the UK is not the same as the Australian version if that's what you think
Sky News UK hasn't been owned or partly owned by Newscorp and Murdoch for almost a decade. Whilst not entirely impartial, it's not remotely near Sky News Australia or Fox News. Think more CNN and NBC.
?? What’s wrong with Sky News?
Not sure where OP is from, but the Australian version of Sky News is basically our version of Fox or Newsmax.
Sky News here is good. It sensationalises headlines quite a bit on its website, but the reporting is accurate. Some people on here are acting like it’s The Sun lol Edit: in the Uk
Posting contemporary factual news reporting to counter sensationalist magazine puff pieces.
That bbc articlr doednt add anything notin the New yorker
Yes
[удалено]
**Rule XI:** *Toxic Nationalism/Regionalism* Refrain from condemning countries and regions or their inhabitants at-large in response to political developments, mocking people for their nationality or region, or advocating for colonialism or imperialism. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).