Lucy Letby guilty

[JimBHibees]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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 better

Agree the article above is from the secret barrister and he makes similar points.

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

... I'm not sure compulsory attendance would make things better

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66660136

Lying Tory liars respond with knee-jerk ill-considered gesture politics.

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.

And they say this is not a fascist Government.

[Stairway 2 7]

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

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You say there's no easy answer and then you choose the easy answer.

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 be

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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 there at sentencing and hearing their words, I would prefer that they were at sentencing. There obviously should be caveats and I believe there will be

Worth reposting a section from the blog by the Secret barrister:

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.

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Worth reposting a section from the blog by the Secret barrister:

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.

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.

[Stairway 2 7]

Lots of similarities in the incompetence and inaction

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...eadmore-target

[Pretty Boy]

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.

[Billy Whizz]

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

[Pretty Boy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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.

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I watched the Panorama episode and thought it was just one dragged out advert for the presenters upcoming book on the case.

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.

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

[Pretty Boy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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

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.

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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

[Pretty Boy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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.

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.

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

By any legal definition the evidence is circumstancial. A medical test showing unnaturally elevated insulin levels is an absolutely stellar example of such.

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 Huntly

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.

[Pretty Boy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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 Huntly

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.

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.

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Doctoring reports, lying about the circumstances of a death, searching Facebook and being on duty are not direct evidence. Compelling evidence certainly but not direct. Even writing 'I did this' would be stretching the term to it's limits. Direct evidence is pretty narrowly defined and includes 'credible confessions'.

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 cars 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.

God knows what the parents must think when they see these two bit conspiracy articles. Hopefully she is suffering in prison

[Smartie]

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.

[GreenNWhiteArmy]

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.

[Craig_HFC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

[Pretty Boy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

I just can't make my mind up about this at all.

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?

[Paulie Walnuts]

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.

[WeAreHibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

[Billy Whizz]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62ddkde7y5o

Not sure what this means

[Hibspur]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

[J-C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62ddkde7y5o

Not sure what this means

Basically they never done enough at the time and due to their negligence deaths occurred, so they're partly responsible.

[Aldo]

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

[BroxburnHibee]

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!

[He's here!]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.