Talk:Lucy Letby

New Yorker Article

Not sure where it would fit but I feel like the New Yorker Article should be included somewhere on this page. 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:6C93:9AB4:A12:1523 (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Done before you posted. NebY (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The article is currently unavailable. Has it been taken down? Archived here. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not available in the United Kingdom because of Letby's pending appeal/retrial; it's available in other countries. Mackensen (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

An article casting doubt on her guilt is considered to potentially prejudice the appeal in her favour, but a year of media coverage painting her as - in the words of one reporter - "the face of evil" (not to mention this Wikipedia page reporting her guilt as fact) is presumably not considered to potentially prejudice it against her? That's... fascinating. 86.162.184.224 (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

She has been found guilt, that’s the fact of the matter. The retrial next month is for a single charge for which the original jury were hung. She was found guilty on the other charges. There’s a concurrent appeal which if successful would mean all charges are retried. Unlike the U.S. system, British justice doesn’t permit the public discussion of proceeding until they’re confirmed—its to protect the interested of all involved, including the charged. SteadyJames (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

We currently have "Aviv also questioned the testimony of Dewi Evans ..." which may give the impression that this is new evidence. During Letby's trial, the jury was told that Evans' report in another case had been described as worthless etc, as described by Aviv, and her defence lawyer sought to have Evans' evidence struck out. This was reported by the Independent in August 2023: "Bid to exclude evidence of prosecution medical expert was refused by judge" (and possibly elsewhere). Should we first mention all this in our account of the trial and then in describing the New Yorker article say that Aviv also remarked on it, rather than presenting it only in our account of the New Yorker article as if it's the fruit of new investigation? NebY (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this—if the suspicious about Evans predate the New Yorker article that substantially, I think it's worth referring to them earlier. Nonetheless, I'd argue that we should keep Aviv's commentary about Evans (specifically the quote about him providing the medical basis for the prosecution) as that's a distinct 'fruit of the poison tree' allegation. Fiendpie (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Heavily biased editors with agenda roving article edits

An improvement to the first paragraph (made by another verified user, not me) was reverted by user cwmxii, and their explanation was the following:

This is giving unnecessary ground to the conspiracy theorists and truthers who've infested this article in the last few days, sorry.

This is an incredibly inappropriate explanation for a Wikipedia edit. This user did not dispute the reliability of the edit, the cited material, the prior explanation for the edit, or the importance of the edit. Their only explanation is that it "gives ground" to people that the user has baselessly deemed conspiracy theorists.

This is not the first time this has occurred. As a result, the opening section of the article is inaccurate. It is written as if there is no controversy whatsoever about the case which is not true, it inaccurately summarizes the facts about the shift schedule, and there is emotional writing rather than facts based writing. For example, the user deleted the phrase "who was convicted of murdering" and changed it to "who murdered" because it did not fit with their sensibilities, even though the prior version was factual, did not question the verdict, and actually was more informative (she was convicted by a jury for multiple murders, which is more specific than the more vague phrase "who murdered").

I understand this case has strong emotions for british and involves the highly sensitive subject of a serial killer of small children. However, the newer edits do not argue for conspiracy theories. Instead, they provide factual info from reliable investigative reporting that adds additional factual context to a case that has lots of interest from the public. The reason that the page has recent traffic is because of a major article from the USA written by a serious investigate journalist who interviewed experts and cited the direct evidence and transcripts from the case. And none of the edits made any conspiracy claims. In fact, I don't think some editors here know what a conspiracy is, a concept that doesn't really apply here. 74.111.100.35 (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I was not happy with that edit summary either. However, the lead sentence was intensively discussed in an RFC and settled. (RFCs are one of Wikipedia's formal processes for establishing community consensus, and their outcomes remain in effect indefinitely.) That discussion's now in our talk page archive at Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 3#RFC on Lead sentence. NebY (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

ok that's fair and an actual reason for the reversal. I'm sure there will be more edits like this though 74.111.100.35 (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, glad that helped, and yes indeed, along with reinsertions of "serial killer" too - and then there's the retrial in July. NebY (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, in June (as of last month, anyway). NebY (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Isn’t the retrial only for a single, un resolved charge? She’s still very much guilty of the crimes for which she has been found guilty, although I believe there is an appeal pending. SteadyJames (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

She’s still very much guilty of the crimes for which she has been found guilty - that is, charitably, tautologous. In law she is guilty because the law has found her guilty. However, on the greater question, she is, as a matter of fact, either guilty or not, and she was guilty or not before she was found guilty and will remain guilty or not regardless of the outcome of various appeals. Speculation on that point is not the role of an encylopaedic article. Careful use of language is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s not speculation—with this logic she might only ever be considered “accused” even when found guilty. Assuming a miscarriage of justice before the review or retrial process is complete is to question the sanctity of the English legal system—which is definitely outside the capabilities and role of an encyclopaedia article. Just report the facts. Letby remains guilty, she is by definition a convicted murderer and serial killer. By all means, mention the details of the single charge on which she will be retried and why the retrial is happening. The article should even mention that there is a review process in place regarding other aspects of the original trial, but at this point what else is proven? SteadyJames (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Just report the facts. Yes. The verifiable ones. Letby remains guilty No, this is loose language. Sally Clark was never guilty. She did not remain guilty until her conviction was quashed. Your following clauses are better: she is by definition a convicted murderer and serial killer. Which is a verifiable fact. We report that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You’re splitting hairs. She’s a convicted murderer, in short a murderer. She was found guilty and that judgement stands until it is overturned. Stick to what we know not what we might speculate on. SteadyJames (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Stick to what we know is exactly my point. But your language is tighter in that last comment, so we can leave it there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See Lucy Letby#Appeal and retrial. NebY (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

(That was my edit, so asking:) What is the process for reopening the RFC? Much of the recent reporting since January has brought new interest to the case and new, very credible questions about the strength of the evidence. I am not a conspiracy theorist or truther and I don't have a personal opinion on whether or not this woman committed these crimes! But I find it hard to accept that we are okay with the lead stating "her being on duty whenever suspicious incidents took place." -- this is just factually untrue and depends on an entirely subjective and biased definition of "suspicious," as investigated at length in the New Yorker article. One man decided what qualified as "suspicious" here and is unable to provide a concrete explanation. This feels very low quality for Wikipedia (not to mention for a criminal trial, but that's another matter!). Sneakers2929 (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Rather than reopening the RfC, you just need to start a new one. However the question being asked is best workshopped a little. An RfC question must be neutrally phrased, and one option should be retaining the current text, but note that, while an option might add "convicted" (a word I always felt was better), others might reopen the question of the addition of "serial killer" in the first words, before even mentioning she was a nurse. There is no saying where a new consensus will fall, nor will a new RfC really resolve the matter. We would, however, need to be on the look out for the canvassing that affected the last RfC. I doubt that sock puppet has gone away.

Personally, however, I would support the editors currently taking a deep dive into the article itself, and leave the lead alone until they are done. This article has been a monster that I have long intended to work on, but previous discussions on small changes became a massive time sink, and the larger, and IMHO more valuable work was ignored. I am very grateful to Soni and others who are taking a deeper look and cutting out swathes of weakly sourced and primary sourced guff. The article has long had NOTNEWS issues, that are finally being addressed (no thanks to me!). Let's see how that looks when done and only then have another ding-dong over the first sentence! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree, but I would also like to start a new RFC if it's not immediately getting shut down. Ledes are the "most representative" summary of the overall article and most likely, the only parts of the article a large majority of editors will read.

For me, I completely disagree with how much POV the current lede is pushing. I did not touch it much myself because I didn't want to mess with established consensus. But frankly the state of the entire article was much less "Neutral Wikipedia article about X" and more "True crime documentary with a story to tell" (Still is, but lesser). And I really hate that on a well-visited article, especially a BLP. So I'd like to re-establish that NPOV and "Wikipedia fairness" here, which changing the lede is part and parcel of. Soni (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of sorting out the body of the article first and then summarising it, but inconsistently I've still tried trimming the contested second half of the first paragraph; it was getting into detail which I think we can grapple with later rather than burdening the reader with it at once - or giving ourselves another editing problem when there's more to do. NebY (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding a little to what Sirfurboy says: our sources at present largely accept the outcome of the trail. Aviv's article is an exception, but blogs etc don't qualify as reliable sources, so how much other "recent reporting since January" is there that would be appropriate per WP:DUE? I'm also uncertain how much of Aviv's report brings new material that hasn't already been taken into account (or at least been available to be taken into account); for example, much about Dewi Evans was raised by the defence during the trial.

As to what next, the retrial on one count begins in JulyJune. I could be wrong, but I think most reporting restrictions will fall away when that's complete, as it'll no longer be sub judice (the privacy restriction might still remain). The restrictions on reporting the arguments for allowing an appeal will probably end, and it may be that the Appeal Court judges are waiting until the end of that trial to release their decision on whether to allow an appeal to proceed. All in all, we may then have a lot more reliable sources that we can use and that affect what's WP:DUE. NebY (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm also uncertain how much of Aviv's report brings new material that hasn't already been taken into account (or at least been available to be taken into account); for example, much about Dewi Evans was raised by the defence during the trial. To me, this question is inconsequential. Our article at the time could have been biased regardless of reliable sources existing on both sides. Alternately, Aviv's report brings those arguments from primary source (a defence who has to help their client) vs secondary (a reporter). That itself could be enough for us to consider adding more of those concerns here.

Ultimately though, I think it does not matter much. For me, the rule of thumb I'm aiming for is "summarise all RS fairly, do not give too much weightage to any". I don't care if our sources largely accept the outcome, as much as if they specifically accept "Lucy injected insulin and this was an insulin murder" (and a dozen other similar claims). Where there is reasonable doubt from RS, we should mention it on a case-by-case basis. Soni (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

To me, this question is inconsequential is the correct response. :) That was me veering into WP:NOTFORUM. NebY (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggested edit - One charge dropped

I think the article should probably mention that originally 8 charges were brought to trial, but one was dropped because the prosecution could offer no evidence. A good source here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-61759823#:~:text=Nick%20Johnson%2C%20QC%2C%20said%20the,neonatal%20unit%20at%20the%20hospital.

Apologies if this is already in the article, but it probably should go in that first paragraph in the section '2023 Trial' as it explains the discrepancy between the number of murder charges in the first paragraphs and the number of counts to which she pled not guilty in the second. 2A00:23C6:AE87:3401:9C2F:756E:70EC:DCE7 (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Appeal rejected and no others allowed

Can someone update the page please 2A00:23C4:241:8C01:69DD:A23A:7F39:A0B9 (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Primary Sources template

I know the primary sources template was added a long while ago, and refreshed earlier this month. When can that template be removed? I'm trying to figure out which are the worst sources we should be looking to replace.

At Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 4#Overly represented sources I had linked four sources I found were cited more than I preferred - Panorama documentary (31 citations), The Times article (15), The Nurse who killed documentary (12), Sky news (9)

Are there any other sources that need to be removed? Soni (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2024

Senior Investigating Officer Paul Hughes later said: "the initial focus was around the hypotheses of what could have occurred: so generic hypotheses of 'it could be natural-occurring deaths', 'it could be natural-occurring collapses', 'it could be an organic reason', 'it could be a virus', and then one of the hypotheses was that, obviously, it could be inflicted harm." -> this sentence has no reliable source to back it up, so it needs to be deleted. I checked the source and did not find it in the source. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:AD59:A396:7B54:FD9E (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)