Given the lengthy trial of Lucy Letby and the number of crimes she was accused of committing, can we really take seriously the claims, even from experts in the field, that there is simply no evidence Lucy committed any crimes?
Given the lengthy trial of Lucy Letby and the number of crimes she was accused of committing, can we really take seriously the claims, even from experts in the field, that there is simply no evidence Lucy committed any crimes?
100% not the place for it, I agree.
You can't argue it's a hobby like botany or birdwatching and you can't argue it's something that directly affects the neurodivergent. Neonatal deaths are important yes but most people with autism don't want biological kids anyway.
Two points to make here ...
1) Whilst the topic is clearly not about neuro divergence, it is obviously something that the original poster wished to discuss here. Things that happen in life/the world affect everyone, including those who are neurodiverse.
2) Your stat about "most" people with autism not wanting children??!!
And could be upsetting for some here. The whole topic is quite triggering. No one knows what each of us has been through in this life. Always be kind is my motto.
I don’t think we are all complicit. There are investigations. There is a judicial system to deal with it. Us talking about it here, throwing opinions about, solves nothing.
Valid point.
I’m not completely against talking about topics unrelated or barely related to Autism (I enjoy that this is a safe place to vent about local politics without fear of retribution), but I do agree that there is a point where we may need to prioritize what is appropriate to discuss.
Generally, my reaction to topics that I find irrelevant or improper on here is to just avoid them all together.
Agree. Far too many threads on here now have very little connection to autism or even a remote link to neurodivergence. I'm not against political or topical discussion, I mean, Reform have basically said they hate us and want to take our PIP payments, but this is a thread that realistically has no constructive reason to be here. You can't argue it's a hobby like botany or birdwatching and you can't argue it's something that directly affects the neurodivergent. Neonatal deaths are important yes but most people with autism don't want biological kids anyway.
I do not believe that she was innocent. I think there would be too many coincidences. Whilst some experts have said natural causes, there are others that say the deaths couldn't have been caused by natural causes. Too many staff had raised concerns that were kept quiet by management for me to believe she was innocent. There were certainly failings on the part of the hospital that have allowed there to be doubt surrounding this case but everything I have read suggests she is guilty. The fact that two experts have withdrawn from her defence team would suggest to me they don't really believe she is innocent. She had also written notes about having killed them which is very odd if she was innocent.
We are never truly going to know. But hopefully the results of the recent inquest will ensure that nothing like this happens again and if any problems were to occur, the evidence is right there and not debatable. I can't imagine what the poor families of those babies have been through.
I’m just expressing my opinion. I’m not looking to debate it.
I agree its an upsetting subject and the events were appalling regardless of Letby's guilt or innocence, but if we don't talk about controvercies, especially potential miscarriages of justice, then we're all complicit in injustice, just be being silent.
What do you feel are appropriate subjects for NAS members to talk about?
I agree. It is a very sensitive topic.
I’m not sure this is an appropriate subject for NAS. Perhaps it’s the wording, but it comes across as debating whether Lucy Letby is innocent or guilty. Given that we’re talking about babies who died, I personally don’t think this is something that should be debated or speculated about here. Just my opinion
This many deaths would be very unusual. I have worked in a special care baby unit for nearly 30 years, it is very unusual.
Very interesting, indeed…
If there has been a miscarriage of justice, then the effect it must be having on the families of those babies must be awful. I get that they don't want the case looked at again, as, as far as they're concerned they've got justice and can start moving on. But I'd still want to know the right person/s were being held responsible. Given the failing state of maternity services all over the country, then its quite possible that the bsbies died from natural causes or complications from birth?
Lucy Letby is a very interesting case.
1) If guilty (i.e. she did actually deliberately harm babies) then she's in the right place, and justice has been done.
2) But, what if she didn't actually harm any babies?
I'm not giving a view either way, I actually think both are possible.
Imagine being a juror deciding that case though ... You've got persuasive lawyers on both sides arguing points 1 and 2, and the quandary for them (ignoring the evidence before the Court for a moment) must have been palpable.
In addition, there's been long standing staff shortages and many other well publicised issues in maternity care. With that there'll undoubtedly be senior management not wanting the narrative to have been poor care, resulting in 'excessive' baby deaths. Lucy deliberately harming them, whilst harmful to their reputation, is perhaps the better narrative (again, I'm not saying she's innocent)
For the families of the babies that died, that in itself must be devastating. Families always want answers, and Lucy's conviction will no doubt have provided that. But let's just come back to point 2 for a moment ... What if she didn't do it?? Imagine being in that position (I say that with a literal take on {IF} she actually wasn't responsible for deliberately harming babies)
There are many things at play here. And we only have to look at the multiple examples of miscarriages of justice and cover ups (Hillsborough, Infected blood, Post Office, Andrew Malkinson), to know that these things do happen (almost certainly a lot less than they used to).
The fact is, it is POSSIBLE that there has been a miscarriage of justice here (again, not providing an opinion). I know the justice system very well, and know that different Juries, on different days, could give different verdicts on the same case (Note the TV experiment on this - Channel 4??)
I still remember this case.
Interesting, I hadn’t heard of this. Here in America the big headlining court drama is Lindsey Clancy’s case and everyone is debating whether she had postpartum psychosis.
What I find interesting about this Lucy Letby case, just judging by a quick scan through articles found on Google, is that every news source seems to disagree on how many babies survived her attacks. One said seven, another eight, and another ten. How is it that a case that has gone on this long hasn’t had a pin on the suspected attempts of murder yet?
(It just feels like news sources aren’t worried about that. Pretty sure that’s an important detail, though!)
I don't know why, but I've never believed her guilty, I may of course be totally wrong, but there were so many things wrong about this case. In part I think its because I've seen far to many miscarriages of justice over the years, from what looked like overwhelming evidence.