UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #35

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Sweeper2000 said:
Does @marynnu or any other savvy so and so know if the "silence" button would indicate if it had been pressed? or if i remember correctly the computers log would store that that button had been pressed?
Click to expand...

You can definitely tell if an alarm has been paused, but only if you look obviously! I don't know for sure if the monitors record this but I think it unlikely.
 
The prosecution has finished its case - so no evidence about the notes she wrote saying 'I did this', or anything about the hand over notes she kept. This was so damning last time. It would also have been really useful to have had a few independent neonatologists take the stand and say whether 25 week gestation babies often dislodge their tubes. Or about whether they thought the care offered by CoC hospital contributed in any way to the collapses.

I've got to be honest, I'm not confident this will lead to a conviction. I felt that the chances were higher the first time around, when this case could be considered alongside the others and all the patterns could be discussed. If I were Letby I definitely wouldn't take the stand, as this was disastrous for her last time. She got caught up in so many lies about the handover notes and confessional notes. But if this evidence is not included this time, then will they ask her about it?

I fear that a not guilty verdict here will add to the miscarriage of justice narrative that is building on social media and the press.

What does everybody else think?
 
Jazmania said:
The prosecution has finished its case - so no evidence about the notes she wrote saying 'I did this', or anything about the hand over notes she kept. This was so damning last time. It would also have been really useful to have had a few independent neonatologists take the stand and say whether 25 week gestation babies often dislodge their tubes. Or about whether they thought the care offered by CoC hospital contributed in any way to the collapses.

I've got to be honest, I'm not confident this will lead to a conviction. I felt that the chances were higher the first time around, when this case could be considered alongside the others and all the patterns could be discussed. If I were Letby I definitely wouldn't take the stand, as this was disastrous for her last time. She got caught up in so many lies about the handover notes and confessional notes. But if this evidence is not included this time, then will they ask her about it?

I fear that a not guilty verdict here will add to the miscarriage of justice narrative that is building on social media and the press.

What does everybody else think?
Click to expand...

I agree with you.
I think the original trial was enough.

This new trial is the perfect example of the saying:

'Better' is the enemy of 'Good'.

JMO
 
Jazmania said:
I fear that a not guilty verdict here will add to the miscarriage of justice narrative that is building on social media and the press.

What does everybody else think?
Click to expand...
as much as I stand by the original verdicts, the evidence in this trial is simply not enough to convict her.

I have no idea why they thought retrying this case on its own was a good idea. I get the parents might have wanted it, but how are they going to feel now if a not guilty verdict comes in. It will inevitably give rise to the miscarriage of justice conspiracy theorists that are already going wild. A not guilty verdict here will make them go through the roof.

Bad decision all round I’m sorry.
 
Honeybirdette said:
as much as I stand by the original verdicts, the evidence in this trial is simply not enough to convict her.

I have no idea why they thought retrying this case on its own was a good idea. I get the parents might have wanted it, but how are they going to feel now if a not guilty verdict comes in. It will inevitably give rise to the miscarriage of justice conspiracy theorists that are already going wild. A not guilty verdict here will make them go through the roof.

Bad decision all round I’m sorry.
Click to expand...
Plus a not guilty verdict may impact the decision to carry on with any subsequent police investigations.
 
I agree with the comments above; this seems even weaker than the first time round, quite frankly.

Yes, the conspiraloons are going to have a field day - and that applies to whichever way it goes, imo. I think that a guilty verdict will enable their collective lunacy even more than not guilty because they'll say Guilty!!! On that evidence??? and, you know what, they'll have a good point. Admittedly, I haven't heard any of today's evidence but I can't imagine that anything particularly damning was produced that adds significantly to the prosecution case.

It seems to me that there may need to be questions asked as to how the decision to retry this count was arrived at because the criteria we've seen published by the CPS do not seem to have been met.

Obviously, this is looking at it through the lens of the reporting so perhaps some significant points are being missed here but I really don't think so.
 
Jazmania said:
Plus a not guilty verdict may impact the decision to carry on with any subsequent police investigations.
Click to expand...
I actually don't think so. This is already a massive investigation which will already have cost millions and I think that it'll been seen through come what may - which it should be, imo.

Whether any further prosecutions are brought is a different matter, however. Unless there are extremely compelling reasons then I really can't see how any future prosecutions could be justified as there really isn't any public interest given that she's never getting out as it is.
 
Jazmania said:
If I were Letby I definitely wouldn't take the stand, as this was disastrous for her last time. She got caught up in so many lies about the handover notes and confessional notes. But if this evidence is not included this time, then will they ask her about it?
Click to expand...
She doesn't have a lot to lose, though. She's already going to die in prison so nothing she could say or do could make it any worse for her.

There's also the fact that she's had knocking on for a year to consider her past performance and consider what she might say in response to what she might be asked. It'll be her defence barrister who'll be putting things to her and he's only going to put forth questions relating specifically to the evidence presented by the prosecution - which, I think we all agree is somewhat "thin" for want of a better word.

She may not do as terribly as she did first time round. If she puts in an even slightly better performance than last time (especially if acquitted) then, again, that is just going to play into the hands of the hard-of-thinking who are promoting the insane conspiracy theories.
 
Last edited:
Marantz4250b said:
I'm not really sure how I feel towards her, tbh. I'm not sure I could say I hate her.

She's a complete enigma, imo; she's been described as "evil" by many people but I think that's a bit of cop-out and just an easy thing to say. I'm not convinced that evil is the correct word to describe her. If she did what she did because she wanted to cause pain, suffering and death then, yes, evil is the correct word. I'm still not sure that any of that was her primary intent, though. I think her main driving influence was attention and thrill seeking and doing what she did was simply about achieving those goals. Yes, she certainly didn't seem to care about the consequences or the fact that babies suffered and showed a staggering indifference into what might become of them
Click to expand...

Someone purposely causing babies to suffer and die is the definition of 'evil', IMO
Marantz4250b said:
but I'm not sure that that is actual, real, genuine evil. I'm not sure that she got her thrills specifically from being the cause of the suffering, if you see what I mean.
Click to expand...
I disagree. She must have gotten her thrills from causing the suffering, of the babies AND their parents , because she did so repeatedly and obsessively. It was not accidental or occasional. IMO
 
katydid23 said:
Someone purposely causing babies to suffer and die is the definition of 'evil', IMO

I disagree. She must have gotten her thrills from causing the suffering, of the babies AND their parents , because she did so repeatedly and obsessively. It was not accidental or occasional. IMO
Click to expand...

I don't even know what 'evil' is supposed to mean.
 
marynnu said:
I don't even know what 'evil' is supposed to mean.
Click to expand...


Evil Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster​


What defines someone as evil?

If you describe someone as evil, you mean that they are very wicked by nature and take pleasure in doing things that harm other people.

: morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked. an evil impulse. b. : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct. a person of evil reputation.


I think the MANY actions that LL has been convicted of, the murders and attempted murders of infants in her care, are the true definition of evil. As in Morally Reprehensible---an evil impulse arising from actual bad character or conduct.



What was the bad conduct we heard about in the very long trial? We heard about many instances in which a co-worker or a parent of an infant, would walk away from the nursery and the defendant would slip in and do something 'morally reprehensible'----like giving a newborn toxic/insulin in their liquid nutrients, or dislodging their breathing tube sending them into code red, or pumping air into their lines causing a stroke...

Those repeated actions are literally the definition of 'evil' in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
katydid23 said:
I disagree. She must have gotten her thrills from causing the suffering, of the babies AND their parents , because she did so repeatedly and obsessively. It was not accidental or occasional. IMO
Click to expand...
She may have done but the evidence presented doesn't definitively point to that, imo.

I think that her number 1 priority was getting the attention and adoration of others; the doctor she fancied, other nurses, the parents and, probably, her own parents. This seems to be the general consensus, as far as I can see.

She did what she was convicted of in order to get that intention, imo. Yes, she caused horrendous levels of suffering but I don't think that she did what she did for the primary purpose of causing suffering. That was just the collateral damage of her getting what she wanted, that being the attention.

I absolutely think that she couldn't give a flying toss what the consequences were to anyone and couldn't have cared less whether these babies suffered or died and that she didn't care one iota what pain or grief it caused to anyone else. Her "thrills" weren't derived from causing people to suffer, though. Imo and I think that is borne out by the evidence presented.
 
Marantz4250b said:
Her "thrills" weren't derived from causing people to suffer, though
Click to expand...

RSBM. IMO: Even if you believe that (I don't, because of how she escalated and even commented on their suffering), it doesn't make it less evil. She could have aimed to receive positive attention. She could have stopped what she was doing when the rumors started. Gone out of her way to make sure all of the babies thrived and pursued a healthy relationship with an available colleague. Instead she escalated, needing to cause more and more suffering...
 
ChatteringBirds said:
RSBM. IMO: Even if you believe that (I don't, because of how she escalated and even commented on their suffering), it doesn't make it less evil. She could have aimed to receive positive attention. She could have stopped what she was doing when the rumors started. Gone out of her way to make sure all of the babies thrived and pursued a healthy relationship with an available colleague. Instead she escalated, needing to cause more and more suffering...
Click to expand...

Exactly!

The way she was escalating is terrifying!

She did what she did because she COULD.
Who could have stopped her??
She seemed to feel untouchable.
Deciding about death or life as if God/Fate.

Insane, immoral and wicked.
Heartless and soulless.
Her blank stare in mugshot terrifies me :(

JMO
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 205 more.
Total: 2,048 (members: 206, guests: 1,842)

Online statistics

Members online
206
Guests online
1,842
Total visitors
2,048
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,369
Messages
18,107,611
Members
230,992
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top