Talk:Lucy Letby

I think the English could be improved:

"She went for another training placements ..."

"Got an appointment", instead of "Was appointed" etc. Nicransby (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Please go ahead, be bold, and update the article. Vpab15 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Under Thirlwall Enquiry, this sentence is placed (what seems to me to be) out of sequence:

"In August 2024, a group of 24 neonatal and statistical experts wrote a letter to ministers requesting that the inquiry be postponed and its terms changed, in response to concerns about the safety of Letby's convictions (see: § Safety of the convictions). The inquiry rejected these suggestions."

This is the order that makes the most sense imo, but I am unable to edit:

^{After Letby's conviction the British government ordered an independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the deaths and other incidents. The Department of Health and Social Care said the inquiry would examine "the circumstances surrounding the deaths and incidents, including how concerns raised by clinicians were dealt with." It was affirmed that the inquiry would be non-statutory, so witnesses could not be compelled to give evidence and inquests would still be necessary. The trust's medical director, chief executive and the nursing director at the time of the incidents all commented they would fully cooperate with the inquiry. The medical director retired in August 2018 and the chief executive resigned in September 2018 after signing a non-disclosure agreement.}

^{Slater and Gordon, a law firm representing two of the victims' families, issued a statement calling for the inquiry to have the power to compel witnesses to participate, since a non-statutory hearing "must rely on the goodwill of those involved to share their testimony." The need for a statutory inquiry was a view echoed by, among others, Sir Robert Buckland, former Secretary of State for Justice, Samantha Dixon, MP for the City of Chester, Steve Brine, chair of the House of Commons Health and Social Care Select Committee, Sir Keir Starmer, Leader of the Opposition, and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.}

^{The education minister Gillian Keegan said that the type of inquiry would be reviewed after the chair was appointed. On 30 August 2023, Health Secretary Steve Barclay announced that the inquiry had been upgraded to a statutory inquiry, describing it as the best way forward and meaning that witnesses would be compelled to give evidence.}

^{Lady Justice Thirlwall was appointed to chair the inquiry. The terms of reference of the inquiry were published on 19 October 2023 and updated on 22 November 2023, when she formally opened the inquiry.}

^{In August 2024, a group of 24 neonatal and statistical experts wrote a letter to ministers requesting that the inquiry be postponed and its terms changed, in response to concerns about the safety of Letby's convictions (see: § Safety of the convictions). The inquiry rejected these suggestions.}

^{The public inquiry began on 10 September 2024. Following submissions, the Chair had ruled on 29 May 2024 that remote live viewing would be available to the Core Participants, their legal representatives and the media but that livestreaming "to the world at large" would not. Colleagues testified that Letby was "excited and gossipy" while discussing the death of an infant, always wanted to handle babies who were "unwell", shouted when she was removed from the intensive care unit stating Letby felt that caring after healthier babies "was boring looking after the special care babies", and that she couldn't wait for the first death of an infant to "get it out of the way".}

^{Former Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, apologised to families of the victims during the 2025 hearing for taking "too long" to act.}

^{Lawyers for Letby and other supporters of her called for the inquiry to be paused while her appeal to the Criminal Cases Review Commission is considered. Thirlwall rejected this request in March 2025 and says she plans to deliver her report in November 2025.} 2A10:D582:30A2:0:BCB7:F2C0:32DC:4BDC (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Keir Starmer was the opposition leader when the conviction happened, but there's been recent developments in this case since Starmer became prime minister. The parts of this article mentioning Rishi Sunak's then government ministers should say "then health secretary" for example, as they are no longer the incumbent government. 87.114.4.246 (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Lucy Letby is a convicted serial baby murderer. Others that are convicted serial killers are referred to as such in the opening paragraph. I see no reason why she is exempt from this. The article also seems to be arguing for the defence. She is a convicted serial baby murderer and that is a fact, could someone please look into improving quality facts and bias of the article. Megan Marie Grant (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:See this discussion: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lucy_Letby/Archive_7#RFC_on_first_sentence]. It will take another RFC to change that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Editor CaptainEek writes that he does not know what “safety” of a conviction means. I think this is a difference between UK and US terminology. In UK the usual term is “safety”. In both cases it means (I think) that there can now be reasonable doubt that the convictions correspond to the underlying truth of the matter. Richard Gill (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:For the record, I believe Eek is a she. Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, so we should perhaps use the most recognisable term, or explain a term if it is unclear, although I think "safety" here is probably fine without explanation, as its meaning seems guessable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::My apologies to CaptainEek. I should have written the neutral "they". Richard Gill (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::The first paragraph of that section ends "The Appeal Court has rejected several arguments around the safety of the convictions." We could footnote "safety" there to say that "safety" is a UK legal term equivalent to "integrity" in US law. This might be better than a wiktionary link safety, as we can't refer to specific meaning #9 of that, or a tooltip {{tooltip|safety|"Safety" is a UK legal term equivalent to "integrity" in US law.}}, which only works in desktop, and I've found nothing usefully linkable in Miscarriage of justice, List of words having different meanings in American and British English (M–Z), or Glossary of British terms not widely used in the United States. Yes, it might be guessable, but it seems a little clarification wouldn't be superfluous - CaptainEek's an experienced editor who writes good English. NebY (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm fine with that solution, thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{Done}} NebY (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)