https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66180606
Horrific case that has been under way for a long time. Hospital management appear to have a lot to answer for after ignoring repeated warnings about her.
Printable View
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66180606
Horrific case that has been under way for a long time. Hospital management appear to have a lot to answer for after ignoring repeated warnings about her.
You wonder how someone gets to that point in their life where they're capable of doing something like this. It's beyond incomprehensible.
Surprising that it went to a majority and not unanimous.
I got quite invested in the case and listened to a whole load of podcasts, read a lot etc etc.
I just can't get my head around how someone who seemed to have had a decent upbringing, seemed to have done well at school, seemed to have friends and a support network, has never been in trouble before and seemed to have a near exemplary record at work suddenly decided to just start killing babies. It doesn't fit with one of the established serial killer patterns of failed 'test runs'. One theory was that it was to try and attract the attention of the Doctor who wasn't allowed to be named by the press.
Tbh I would have hated to be on that jury, not just because of the nature of the case. With the acceptance I have only a fraction of the evidence that was presented to the jury I just couldn't decide. I'm not surprised by the guilty verdicts but then neither am I surprised that there were also not guilty verdicts and also no verdicts in some instances. It's the 2nd longest jury deliberation in UK legal history so they were certainly thorough.
It's obviously a tragic case and I'm not sure the families will feel much in the way of justice today. Letby's actions are abhorrent and she will quite rightly be subjected to a whole life tariff. However there does appear to have been tragic systemic failings at the hospital, concerns not properly addressed and there will be families left wondering if there children could have been left untouched had people being more willing to think the unthinkable.
I'm not sure if the CPS will pursue the 6 charges upon which no verdict was reached but I'm fairly certain we will see an appeal which will mean prolonged heartache for the families involved.
Edit: Just read there is to be a review of all 4000 admissions since Letby was employed at the hospital so it may well be there are previous failures or indeed previous murders that now come to light. Horrific.
Can't even begin to imagine the pain the parents have went through. A monster of a woman and thankfully she'll never see the light of day again.
Although nowhere near as violent as male prisons you'd imagine she'll be given a torrid time inside from female prisoner, lots of which are probably parents.
I've just been reading an article on the BBC regarding this, and concerns were raised by a consultant regarding Letby and the deaths.
A meeting was requested with hospital management and it took months, MONTHS, for it to take place. If babies are dying and a concern is raised about someone administering their care how could that not possibly be the most important thing to look at? The meeting should have taken place the same day at was requested.
It's absolutely baffling and to be honest outrageous that is what happened. Those responsible for not following up correctly should lose their jobs at the very least.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66108747Quote:
Originally Posted by Since90+2
I've thought the same about being on that jury. Must have taken its emotional toll after so many months of listening to and deliberating over such harrowing evidence. Your life must effectively be put on hold. If you have a job what happens in those sort of circumstances?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
I read about a jury who served on a fraud case for 2 years. 4 member basically said they had to be retrained in their job and needed counselling to readjust to normal life. Must be even worse in a case like this. The judge has exempted them from ever sitting on a jury again which says is all.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Probably somewhat crass to say but anyone who earned more than about £32K a year would also be out of pocket for the duration of the time the court sat as expenses are capped.
Same old story. Concerns raised repeatedly, nothing done until it's too late.Quote:
Originally Posted by Since90+2
I think it was the case that Letby was gaslighting several colleagues and as such had a great deal of support among many of her peers and superiors and also hindsight makes things seems more clear cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiber-nation
I think it was 6 of the deaths had post mortems at the time and a natural cause of death was recorded. Likewise the 'strange rash' and skin mottling was absent from the contemporary medical notes and was only deemed significant when doctors and consultants reexamined some of the cases later. That was a big part of the defence case, that it was added to give more weight to the air embolism theory.
Of course when concerns were raised about an individual at a time when so many deaths and collapses were occuring it is shocking that no action at all was taken for the best part of 2 years and it really is unforgivable but at the time those raising concerns were ultimately disputing what experienced pathologists were recording.
It's clear there was a sense of disbelief among many off the staff involved - and the wider nursing community - that a nurse could possibly be responsible for each of these murders and attempted murders. Even the police, as they've just stated in the press conference, admitted that 'the last thing they expected to find was a suspect responsible for these deaths and non-fatal collapses'. Having to treat this as 17 separate investigations must also have been gruelling process. As they've stated, they're used to dealing with one murder or attempted murder at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
I can barely read the reports without tears. That is until I read the consultant who raised concerns and was eventually told to apologise! Just unbelievable.
Judging by the discussion on 5Live just now there appears to be a pretty toxic culture within the NHS where whistleblowers are pretty much told to keep quiet.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
The claim from one of the consultants was that senior management had a nursing background and so didn't believe them.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
I've somehow never heard about this case before today. I guess there was some kind of media blackout, but it seems that others were well aware of it and there have been podcasts etc. Has it been reported internationally but not in the UK throughout the trial? Seems like it should have been one of the main news stories in recent months.
Also this man, Tony Chambers, seems to have been heavily involved and potentially at fault for not taking appropriate action.
https://www.qvh.nhs.uk/2023/01/queen...ief-executive/
Yet, somehow he was hired in another senior NHS management role earlier this year and is potentially still in post as of today. How on earth is that possible?!
The whole thing is just a horrific tragedy that, at least in some cases, could and should have been avoided had appropriate action been taken sooner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
One of those crimes that truly deserve the term ‘monstrous’
It was pretty big news at the time of the arrest but came during COVID so everything played second fiddle to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayo hibee
One of the journalists on a podcast I listened to spoke about the phenomena of 'reporting fatigue'. He said even in relatively short trials the appetite for the story passes after a few days and that's why the prosecution case gets so much more airtime than the defence. Basically by the time the defence speaks the story has moved on. In a case that lasts 9 months then that is amplified. There was a bit of reporting when the trial started, a few prosecution days grabbed the headlines and then a furore at time of verdict.
There has also been really strict reporting restrictions. All victims and various witnesses not allowed to be identified. But further than that there was a belief that today was the day the verdicts were delivered but that is false. They have been given over the course of several hearings this week but are only now allowed to be reported after the final verdicts were given (or not given as the jury confirmed they were hung and couldn't give a verdict on several charges).
Psychiatrists and criminologists appear to be pretty unsure of the motive, other then power.
https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letb...erers-12941902
It's the longest murder trial in UK history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
I'd say the defence case got a decent amount of coverage though the story has only rarely made it to the lead headline during the course of the trial.
The negligence laid bare in this timeline of events is mind-boggling:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120934
Some combination of serious depression mixed with jealousy of others with better lives than her would be my guess. But it's hard to know for sure when you're assessing someone who has done things that no rational person would ever even consider.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiber-nation
I have a citation next month and if called I will have to cancel a £200 photography job and let down someone for about £70. My wife seems to get a citation every summer and manages to get excused because she has 10s of bookings for brides that would need re-arranged. This is teh second I have had in 37 years of adult life and bizarrely I'm in the Odeon in Lothian Rd if requiredQuote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
I would like to see charges and convictions brought against the senior management who ignored repeated claims from the whistleblowers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
It's quite clear that the senior management in the hospital were terrified of the bad publicity, so tried to bury everything. This practice is very common in large corporate organisations like NHS trusts. There is so much scrutiny on them that they are terrified of bad publicity and try to bury problems. That in itself is a big issue.
Of all the lessons to be learned, this is the most important. Unfortunately there will always be psychopaths like her around. But having read of the shocking way Doctors who raised concerns were treated, it would be a disgrace if no further action is taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes
But we know what will happen - years long enquiry, dragged out until the heat dies down. Then a few apologies it'll never happen again etc. Those in the firing line have already retired, moved abroad or got other jobs. Nothing happens. And then the same thing happens again in a few years.
Mathew Syed wrote a book about this called ‘Black Box Thinking’. It focuses on this exact problem with the NHS. There is a culture of cover up within the organisation. It’s helped by the fact it’s close to illegal to criticise it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well at least one advantage of 13 years of Tory rule is that it's by and large no longer taboo to criticise the NHS. They have pretty much run it into the ground at this point, it's a complete shambles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I thought the same when the news broke about what Saville had got up to. Those in power who turn a blind eye are essentially facilitating the crimesQuote:
Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes
If the fact there has only been one baby death on the unit since she was removed from working there was made known to the jury then any doubt/concern as to her guilt was probably eased, but as you say it must have been hard to deliver a verdict on some of the murders/attempted murders based solely on the evidence presented.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
I fear the new review of all admissions during her time there (including two deaths during her time as a trainee in Liverpool) may ultimately see the scale of what she did dwarf what she's so far been found guilty of.
The unit was downgraded following the murders so no longer deals with babies as gravely ill as when she was there which may partly explain the really significant drop in deaths. It's still a significant and relevant point of course. Like you I now fear the true scale of her crimes is only just beginning to be seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Going back to the concerns of doctors being ignored I think you have to remember Letby had painted a real picture of herself as the victim, after being removed from front line duties she launched a grievance case against the hospital! Even listening to accounts of some of the evidence I found myself disliking some of the 'gang of 4' based on her version of events. Obviously now they can talk freely it's a different story altogether.
Watched the panorama documentary about it last night. Quite disturbing there seemed to be an attempted cover up at higher management levels and she kept getting put on shift as many assumed she was 'too nice' to do anything as horrific as that.
Concerning that the initial fear of reputational damage seemed to take priority over the deaths of babies.
If and it’s a big if, the powers that be in that NHS Trust chose to ignore any comments/warnings of others about her they should also be dealt with accordingly.
sentencing is next week and you would hope she should never every see the light of day again. She should receive consecutive life sentences for each of her heinous crimes.
100% she'll get a whole life sentence. She's literally one of, if not the most, evil person this country has ever seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldo
You would hope she will. She’s definitely up there with other imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by Since90+2
There's talk of corporate manslaughter charges. If they've chose to try and bury this/protect reputation rather than do the right thing, they have to face the consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldo
Apparently Letby wasn't in court on Friday to hear the last of the guilty verdicts, and won't be in court on Monday for sentencing. How is that even allowed?
Like I mentioned in my previous post, if they have ignored this and tried to sweep it under the carpet then go get them. They MUST be brought to justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby
As for her, this is her last chance to show some sort of power. She will find out 3rd hand that she is going to spend the rest of her living life behind bars. Tbh given her heinous crimes that’s too good for her imho!
Would assume that would at least be part of the explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayo hibee
Bizarre that she eeems to be able to say she doesn't want to attend court to hear the sentence. How does she have the right to do that?
She was diagnosed with PTSD whilst on remand (as a result of the conspiracy against her and the trauma of her arrest according to her).I'm guessing she will be being excused on health grounds. Surely those on trial and especially those found guilty can't wilfully choose not to attend court because they don't fancy it? Hopefully the victim impact statements reach her.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiber-nation
Is it possibly another case of 'Munchausen-by-proxy' syndrome?
I remember a similar case years ago and the attention seeking motive just totally shocked me.
Beverley Allitt. She killed 4 in Lincolnshire using broadly similar methods. Incidentally she is now eligible for parole having served her minimum term of 30 years. I doubt she'll be released any time soon though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith_M
There's also another 'killer nurse' Ben Green who is about to launch a further appeal against his convictions (2 murders, multiple GBH) on the grounds that the statistical analysis that played a big part in his conviction was and is inherently flawed.
The Letby case still has a wrong way to run yet. A potential retrial for the cases with no verdicts, sadly more potential victims and there will be multiple appeals. We'll be reading about her for years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
Yeah, Beverley Allitt, that's the one.
She has refused to go to the sentencing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldo
I genuinely can't comprehend how that is legally permitted if it's not on health grounds or whatever. I initially thought that might be the case but the judge seems to have confirmed it's not and rather she just doesn't want to go and he can't make her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
I would almost argue it should be more permissible for someone not to be present during their trial in the sense that the legal principle is innocent until proven guilty. Once a guilty verdict has been delivered there should be an obligation to attend and hear the victim impact statements and the judges remarks.
Prosecution push for a whole life sentence, defence offer no mitigation.
Whole life order given for both the murders and attempted murders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
I don't think there could be any other decision.
This is just so sad and I'll never be able to get my head round why anybody would do this.
The impact statements from the families were horrendous. There are so many victims in a case like this. The impact on the treatment of other children, marriages destroyed, people turning to alcohol, suicidal thoughts, distrust of medical professionals, teachers etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith_M
For me it's not just the why but the how. I feel bad if I shout at my own kids, I get up to check them about 10 times a night if they are ill. I'll never understand how anyone can inflict pain on a child and ignore their struggling, crying and other indicators of distress and pain, she must have a lack of empathy bordering on psychopathic.
Is one of the "must have" elements of a psychopathic diagnosis a complete lack of empathy? The cooler headed psychopath observes emotions in others and learns how to manipulate people (ie sociopathy) depending their emotional state. Others just get off on observing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
The shrinks have some job on their hands, on all sides.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
I'm with you on that one, PB. My kids are all grown up now but that pretty much describes my relationship with my kids when they were young.
I'm now a soppy old guy that just loves kids, especially my many nieces and nephews, so I'll never understand either.
Which is why her missing the victim impact statements is not that big a deal. They would make no difference to her. She would not be able to understand what was being said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've not read that much but the notes she left seemed to be all about her. Would speak volumes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
doubt they will ever find out just how many died that she had a part in
Amazed there isn't an obligation to attendQuote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
There's a big old discussion about this in the bit of Twitter that I look at. Here's one view against forcing them to attend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/lucy-let...turing-2560911
Makes a lot of good points to be fair he had an interview with the James O'brien podcast full disclosure which was very interestingQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
It’s incredible really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
It happens more often than you think.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
Aye I saw something on the BBC about that, might have been the same guy. Hadn't really considered that and it does make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
You'd like to think if she gets given copies of the statements and judges sentencing remarks that she'll read them at some point over the next 50 odd years.
I can see it both ways. What is the guilty Party mocks the victim during the statement and starts to make some sort of protest. Not really anything to lose when they are never getting out. I think I would leave it to the Judges myself. I listened to a really good podcast about ex prisoners and the contributions they made when they talked about apologising to families were really interesting and helped both parties. I doubt that will ever be teh case here but I'm not sure compulsory attendance would make things betterQuote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
Pretty much how I see it. Little to gain, lots to lose by her being there.Quote:
Originally Posted by wookie70
Only just recently discovered the podcast on this that ran throughout the trial produced by 2 Daily Mail journalists.
Its incredible listening but even though I'm only 15 episodes in you can already start to understand the struggles the jury had with this.
First episode.....
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7vj...838f692ddb4f53
Agree the article above is from the secret barrister and he makes similar points.Quote:
Originally Posted by wookie70
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66660136Quote:
Originally Posted by wookie70
Lying Tory liars respond with knee-jerk ill-considered gesture politics.
And they say this is not a fascist Government.Quote:
Criminals are to be made to attend their sentencing hearings in court, including by force if necessary, or face the prospect of longer in prison.
I've seen lawyers and commentators argue both sides. I'm with most in the public they should have to attend once guilty. Its what the families want and what the poor kids parents say the missed out on, being heard. Like others have said in the thread I was surprised they didn't have to turn up. There's no easy answer but I'd sway towards the victims families wishes
You say there's no easy answer and then you choose the easy answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
How's that the easy answer, just because your opinion differs others are allowed a different opinion from you. There's pros and cons to both sides, both difficult. But after listening to one of the parents talk at their families hurt at not having her their at sentencing and hearing their words, I would prefer that they were at sentencing. There obviously should be caveats and I believe there will beQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Worth reposting a section from the blog by the Secret barrister:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Quote:
Once again, the drawbacks of policy being drawn by people with no experience of the criminal justice system, and no interest in speaking to those who have it, are all too obvious.
Because I can tell you from extensive experience that somebody intent on disrupting court proceedings will generally find a way. Raab’s plan, far from guaranteeing an obedient and contrite defendant sitting meekly in the dock, is far more likely to encourage the hideous spectacle of a wild, bloodied and bruised prisoner shouting foul abuse at the victims’ families in court as a mechanism to have the judge send them back down to the cells.
Even on a lower level of non-compliance, the vision of a defendant sitting in the dock with his eyes closed and fingers performatively in his ears, or smirking remorselessly as the victims read out their personal statements, is stomach-churning. But, unless the policy is to involve gagging, binding and propping up eyelids with matchsticks, it is also practically impossible to eliminate. The judge’s ultimate power to ensure courtroom decorum is to exclude the unruly and the disruptive. Which is very much the outcome that the proposed policy is seeking to avoid.
The unfortunate reality is that there is little that can be done to force a person to cooperate with a court hearing. If we are set on deterrence as the answer, then a more immediate response might lie in the prison regime that governs incentives and earned privileges. But again, the type of person who derives satisfaction from the frisson of power they experience by defying the court process may well consider a forfeit of prison privileges to be a trade worth making.
And compliance, of course, is only part of the picture. What victims and families often want, in my experience, is not only to have their say, but to be heard. For the person who has wronged them to listen, to internalise and, even if they will never apologise, to leave the court process knowing what they have done. This is entirely reasonable. It is what I would want too. But it is also something which no politician can guarantee. Sincerity and insight cannot be extracted from an unrepentant defendant any more than they can from a politician.
There may not be an easy answer here. There may in fact not be an answer at all. And that is something that a public representative with integrity has a responsibility to recognise and to explain, instead of appropriating bereaved families for their tub-thumping tabloid pledges.
I already read the article, but am also interested in people heres opinions, theres many on the thread so far from both perspectives and all valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
As I say there's positives and negatives for both sides. If they are bloodied and cut I'm sure they won't get sent up, they could disrupt the case at any point not just the sentencing and they will get sent out of court that won't change.
I could put up barristers and judges arguing for change. But my opinion is that its important that the criminals hear, even if they don't listen, to the impact of their crimes and the judges sentencing remarks.
Lots of similarities in the incompetence and inaction
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...eadmore-target
A retrial to take place for one of the attempted murder charges on which the jury couldn't reach a verdict. Crown isn't pursuing the other 5.
She has also lodged an appeal against her convictions.
Watched a couple of programmes on this last night. Panorama and a Channel 5 one
Seems to be a lot of information that wasn’t put to the jury!
Low and behold this pops up today
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpdvl3v2x7jo
I watched the Panorama episode and thought it was just one dragged out advert for the presenters upcoming book on the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
It does throw up the question again about how difficult it is for a jury with no specialist knowledge in cases such as this though imo. There are medical experts on both sides arguing about the efficacy of certain tests, putting forward competing theories on what the results mean, statisticians questioning methodology etc etc. You have people who have devoted the entirety of their adult life to becoming experts in their chosen field who are disagreeing about this case yet 12 random people who had to spend 9 months being bombarded with information on things they had no prior knowledge about presented to them by legal professionals being intentionally manipulative had to decide her fate and whether the victims families got so called closure.
This wasn't a classic murder trial. There was no DNA evidence, there was minimal to no eye witness testimony, no fingerprints, blood stains etc. It was basically a load of circumstantial evidence and competing medical theories. I can't imagine how traumatic it must have been for a jury put into such a hideous position because of the (bad) luck of the draw.
The evidence was overwhelming. 2 of the kids died from insulin overdoses that doesn't happen naturally. The kids all collapsed suddenly but more crucially some recovered just as suddenly when doctors came ruling out sepsis or infection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
Of the dozen or so nurses at that time on the same ward, the highest amount of babies to die at the same time as any nurse was 6, apart from Letby who was there when 22 died.
In one child baby O, Dr Andreas Marnerides, the reviewing pathologist, said that the cause of death was ‘inflicted traumatic injury to the liver, profound gastric and intestinal distension following acute excessive injection / infusion of air via a naso-gastric tube and air embolism due to administration into a venous line’. He said that the damage to Baby O’s liver was so extensive that it was like that of a victim of a road-traffic accident. Two independent pediatricians reviewed the case and said it was air put into the lines
Letby falsified the initial lines for baby O and said he was on oxygen, he wasn't. A week later when she was writing her report she said the IV line access was lost the doctor who was doing the resuscitation said this was a lie. If the line access was lost he couldn't have been murdered with air, she covered her tracks.
If the jury were jury were just sending her down due to confused on rotas and stats why did the count her guilty on 14 not guilty of two and unproven on 6.
Do we think the police just went after her or did the doctors, her fellow nurses, multiple expert pediatricians and pathologists, two juries and 3 appeal court judges probably too slowly push this.
I know one of the people who pushed the inquest into the deaths at Glasgows queen E hospital and she thinks saying Letby could have been an infection or plumbing is an insult to the murdered kids.
It doesn't help conspiracies the fact that the evidence from the initial trial is locked. It's a bit like covid vaccines 99% of experts agree it's cut and dry 1% of qualified loons and monetary grifters disagree
I hope she suffers in prison
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Bizarre reaction to my post.
I was making no claim of innocence rather merely stating that a jury was placed in the horrible position of being presented with complex circumstancial evidence (because for as overwhelming as it may have been it was and is almost entirely circumstanceial) and having to base their decision on a rudimentary knowledge of extensive medical data. The same is true of any complex trial, it's particularly spoken about when sophisticated white collar fraud is involved.
It's a weird quirk that conviction by a jury of one's peers is considered the absolute proof someone's guilt yet you could have someone who failed standard grade biology assessing 9 months of complex medical evidence and reach a conclusion. I can't think of many other areas of our life where we would accept decision by unqualified committee as an acid test. Equally I'm not convinced there are many alternatives given the opportunity for coercion and corruption that would be present if we switched to professional juries.
It wasn't to you clearly it was to people who read mince from David Davis and grafters and think she was innocent. I would disagree the evidence was in anyway circumstantial, everyone agrees two kids died due to insulin overdoses. There was only one nurse who was on when both were murdered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
We don't even know all the evidence given but what we know is overwhelming. I think you do the jury a disservice they said not guilty to two and said there wasn't enough evidence on 6, on 14 the unanimously agreed. They got days of evidence from dozens of professionals explaining the case. The defence chose no witnesses he was a good barrister with a high success rate there is only one reason he'd chose not to have a witness and that would be because it would be detrimental
By any legal definition the evidence is circumstancial. A medical test showing unnaturally elevated insulin levels is an absolutely stellar example of such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Letby was on duty when a baby suddenly collapsed.
Letby was responsible for the care of said baby or manipulated a situation so she could be in the vicinity of them.
A blood test and subsequent post mortem examination confirmed elevated insulin levels.
The insulin levels are unnaturally high in a manner that suggests it can only be due to overdose of artificial insulin and the most likely route of administration is hypothesised to be a compromised feed bag.
Every single thing there is circumstancial. It all points towards the proposition put forward by the prosecution that Letby was responsible for tampering with the feed bag being correct, overwhelmingly so, but it's not direct evidence. Direct evidence would be someone witnessing her tampering with the bag or actively administering insulin in another way.
The best explanation of circumstancial evidence and direct evidence I have seen is the example of footprints in the snow. You go to bed at 11pm and your garden is clear, you awake at 1am and it's snowing so you have direct evidenxe it is snowing because you have witnessed it. You awake again at 8am and there are footprints in the snow in your garden, you now have circumstancial evidence someone walked in your garden between 1am and 8am but it's not direct evidence if you didn't witness it or another eyewitness doesn't come forward to say they saw it.
Direct evidence is she said the night of baby Os death that he had been on oxygen in the report a lie, a week later she lied on another report saying IV access was lost. That's not a mistake it's very specific and covering up her murders. Direct evidence is her googling and checking Facebook almost daily all the families of the dead kids, her composing then deleting a Facebook message on the parents of baby Os one year death anniversary post saying "I'm so sorry your dead". Her getting advice from a counsellor to write her feelings and her writing on a post it note "I'm evil I did this". Her being on duty when 22 died and all the other nurses being on a handful of times. No one seen her literally do it but same goes for other beasts like Shipman and Ian HuntlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
If she wasn't white blond and not looking like a murderer, I doubt people would care. The nurses were calling her Dr death and Dr's had to plead for the NHS to act. Baby O was a triplet Letby murdered his sister the day after he died. Both were healthy with no medical issues. Their parents demanded the third child who was originally the weakest to be removed the pediatrician agreed saying Letby was a mortal danger to the child's life, he survived.
Doctoring reports, lying about the circumstances of a death, searching Facebook and being on duty are not direct evidence of murder. Compelling evidence certainly but not direct. Even the prosecution in the trial accepted they were heavily reliant on circumstancial evidence. Writing 'I did this' would be stretching the term to it's limits. Direct evidence is pretty narrowly defined and includes 'credible confessions'. It's debatable if ramblings in a journal constitutes that. It created a spectacle in the courtroom but even the prosecution didn't place too much weight on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Circumstancial evidence isn't a pejorative term, it's not inherently inferior to direct evidence, some would argue it's reliance on hard facts and expert testimony to support a theory makes it more reliable than something like eyewitness testimony which is notoriously unreliable. Loads of cases are convicted primarily using circumstancial evidence, Timothy McVeigh arguably being the most famous.
I'm not sure how this turned into a discussion on the definition of the words circumstancial evidence, I'll concede I have no clue on that. Most cases are convicted on circumstancial evidence and the jury's opinion. What I'm sure of was the evidence was absolutely overwhelming of her guilt. If she didn't murder them someone else did. Since she was the only one on duty when all were murdered it was her. The jury did an impartial job, seeing as they didn't charge on some of the cases where the evidence wasn't clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
God knows what the parents must think when they see these two bit conspiracy articles. Hopefully she is suffering in prison
A while back I read one of the secret barrister books and the imperfections of the criminal justice system are really quite scary when you think about it for any length of time.
There was a great programme on C4 a few months ago, might have been called "the jury" which explored how 2 different juries can come to 2 different conclusions when faced with identical evidence.
All of that said - we have to do the best with what we have, and I'm not going to go suggesting obvious improvements on what we do have.
Taken from X
A panel of experts will this morning present what they believe is sufficient evidence to grant serial baby killer Lucy Letby a retrial. The event will be chaired by Tory MP David Davis.
In attendance will be doctors, lawyers and other experts. And former MP Nadine Dorries.
This is a v sensitive case to navigate. The panel here did not sit through the trial, but they believe they have since uncovered vital evidence.
The families of the babies, two juries and every tier of the judicial system so far tested have all concluded that Letby is guilty.
Neonatologist Dr Shoo Lee - whose paper was used during the trial - says his intention is not to upset the families but to get them “the truth”. Which suggests he does not think Lucy Letby is guilty.
Guaranteed to a total **** up then if that incompetent waste of space is involved in any capacity whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenNWhiteArmy
I just can't make my mind up about this at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenNWhiteArmy
The evidence all seemed very compelling and the statistical anomaly of her being present for all the suspicious collapses and deaths was the clincher. It's now come to light though that of 28 cases sent to the key prosecution witness for initial examination she wan't present for 10 of them. That makes the 'common denominator' argument a bit more flimsy. We can all prove a pattern if we just discount the things that don't fit into it. Now you have the expert who's study into air embolism guided the prosecution medical evidence saying the argument 'isn't quite right'. It doesn't seem like a bunch of cranks getting involved either; Professor Neena Modi was President of the Royal College of Paediatrics, she is a world lead in neonatal medicine, and is speaking in support of Letby, or rather in support of allowing an appeal.
There was a lengthy argument before about circumstantial evidence which is what the case hinges on, the prosecution accepted/accepts as much. For me IF there is reasonable grounds to believe statistical and medical evidence was misrepresented so as to lead (mislead?) a jury then there is reason to allow an appeal. I think the prosecution proved overwhelmingly that she was/is an oddball, obsessive, callous and cruel in her words and more than a little bit morbid and ghoulish; the question is did they prove overwhelmingly that she is a murderer if key evidence is proven to have been misrepresented?
I can’t quite believe we’re at the stage he guilt is being questioned.
The reporting at the time made it all seem such a clear cut case. It now appears miles from that.
Of course the reporting being only what they're told or allowed to report. There's every chance she could be innocent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62ddkde7y5o
Not sure what this means
Think it means they've been arrested on suspicion that their negligence/lack of sufficient action around the rising death toll facilitated an environment where the crimes were able to take place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Basically they never done enough at the time and due to their negligence deaths occurred, so they're partly responsible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Looks like the relevant NHS bosses didn’t want to upset her and take the allegations made by consultants etc about her.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-661209...rrer=deep-link
The verdicts were all brought on circumstantial (albeit strong) evidence. They have never sat right with me.
Do I think she did it?? Probably
Did the prosecution prove it beyond reasonable doubt? - not a chance!
The prosecution's role is to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt to a jury or judge, not to the general public. The evidence they presented in the Letby case was clearly so convincing that it left the jury in no doubt as to her guilt.Quote:
Originally Posted by BroxburnHibee
I thought the evidence was overwhelming for her guilt. Who writes “I killed them on purpose” and “I am a horrible and evil person”,“I AM EVIL I DID THIS”. She followed many of the parents of the dead kids on an anonymous Facebook account she set up. The jury gave her not guilty on two deaths, hung jury on 6 and unanimous on 14 deaths, so they looked at the evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Letby said someone in the hospital not her must be killing kids but it wasn't her, the defence team admitted that the insulin death must have been a murder. No other of the 10 nurses on the team were at more than 7 baby deaths in the time frame, Letby was there when 22 babies died. She falsified notes, in one case said there was no breathing tube in, the dr there said it was and changed the record, Letby said she was probably tired when doing the notes. 2 juries and 3 appeals judge's who saw the evidence were convinced by her guilt, I hope she suffers in jail
As an aside if you want to her the evidence, there trial is a good podcast that goes through each days evidence in court
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-trial-of-lucy-letby-the-inquiry/id1711621408
Prosecutors consider further charges against Letby
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yl273mlryo