Talk:Lucy Letby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggested edit - One charge dropped[edit]

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)[reply]

Appeal rejected and no others allowed[edit]

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

Primary Sources template[edit]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2024[edit]

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)[reply]

I have just also checked and I am in agreement with you. I've removed this line. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What did you check? I found it at about 4:32 in the video in the cited source. So I have restored it. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, my mistake. I hadn't realised there was a video within the article and that's what it referred to. I thought it was the Sky report itself. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]