UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #19

[ColourPurple]

Just my view, but as I think I've said before, if guilty IMO this is more about inflicting harm & suffering than murder. After all, most of the babies survived and if murder is the aim it could be done less brutally. This would be the most heartbreaking thing for the parents I believe, because dreadful as it is to lose a child, the idea of them suffering is a million times worse.
All JMO.

I don't think it's an "either or" situation. I think an alleged murderer can want to to kill AND want to kill in a way that causes harm and suffering.

JMO

 

[ColourPurple]

Letby said she was made aware in May 2016, formally, of the higher mortality rate among babies, and that was when she was moved to day shifts. [...]

Mr Myers asks about the 2016 reallocation to day shifts, following a number of deaths on the neonatal unit.
Ms Powell said the move to the day shift was to give Letby "more support" in staffing numbers, and was not "a punishment".
Mr Myers said the unit remained busy during those days.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, April 27

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

So here we see that it wasn't a decision taken to see if the rate of collapses/deaths moved from night-shifts to day-shifts, it was to reduce some of the pressures that could have been affecting LL on the night-shifts. But follow her they did...

And if guilty, STILL that didn't deter her.

IMO, if guilty

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

I think that a whole life order is not at all out of the question. Things like the age of the offender, likelihood of rehabilitation and lack of previous are not atball mentioned in the statutory life sentence tarrif guide lines.

The aggravating factors are things like; a high degree of pre planning, being in a position of trust/responsibility over the victims and suchlike. Look at Wayne Couzens, the major influencing factor in his wlo was that he was a police officer who was in a unique position of power over other people. In my opinion there is a parallel here with a nurse who us in a position to literally dictate whether an incapacitated and helpless patient dies.

If she's convicted of more than one of these murders then, imo, the starting point will be much higher than thirty years. I think at least a decade on top of that.

You are right, a whole life term is not out of the question, by any means.

However, despite the alleged offender being, (IF convicted of three or more murders) essentially a serial killer, it is unlikely in this case.



You are also right, in some aspects, regards the basic guidelines for whom a whole life term might be applied.



What must also be understood, is the judge has to take into account the totality of the offences - a plethora of factors in terms of aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be weighed against one another, hence the scales of justice.



The guidelines, set out in black and white, barely break the surface.



The judge should use their discretion, and when handing down a particularly long sentence, will often air somewhat on the side of caution in terms of applying a whole life term. Which partly explains why so few whole life terms are ever ordered.



In this instance the accused was above the age of 21, which is the minimum age a whole life order can be applied, but still of rather young age (approx 25).

This is likely to weigh heavily on a judges mind when taking into consideration applying a whole life term.



The other point worth mentioning is whether or not the accused is found guilty of all charges. If not, leniency could well be applied in terms of sentencing, to an extent. Meaning a life sentence as opposed to whole life order.

 

[marynnu]

Could you explain what you mean by 'if murder is the aim it could be done less brutally'?

Just that it's been proposed that the babies had things like large amounts of air forced down the NGT & an object insrted into the oesophagus to cause bleeding. Very nasty. I can think of other ways which would be effective but less cruel. Rather not share though to be honest.
God, what a thought.

 

[marynnu]

I don't think it's an "either or" situation. I think an alleged murderer can want to to kill AND want to kill in a way that causes harm and suffering.

JMO

Yes, I suppose that's true.

 

[Tortoise]

Just that it's been proposed that the babies had things like large amounts of air forced down the NGT & an object insrted into the oesophagus to cause bleeding. Very nasty. I can think of other ways which would be effective but less cruel. Rather not share though to be honest.
God, what a thought.

It is indeed nasty and cruel, but the point I didn't get is why you seem to be discounting the suffering as intentional, if she's guilty.

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

I still remember a case I followed here on WS of a man deemed rehabilitated enough to have a trip to the centre of London's Gallery/Museum (with some guards).

And guess what?

The 1st thing he did was to throw a little boy from the viewing deck balcony

Fortunately, the boy (French tourist) survived the attack, but is undergoing constant therapies.
His life and his family's will never be the same as before this tragedy.

Assuming you are referring to Jonty Bravery and The Tate Modern attack, although subsequently being handed a life sentence for the attack, Bravery had not been subject to a life sentence at that time.

 

[marynnu]

It is indeed nasty and cruel, but the point I didn't get is why you seem to be discounting the suffering as intentional, if she's guilty.

Sorry Tortoise, I was trying to say the opposite, that inflicting suffering would seem to me to be the main motive if guilty. IMO.

 

[Tortoise]

Sorry Tortoise, I was trying to say the opposite, that inflicting suffering would seem to me to be the main motive if guilty. IMO.

so I'm trying to understand why you said if murder was the aim it could be done less brutally, which seems to suggest that you think the cruelty of the murders (if she's guilty) wasn't one of her aims.

 

[ColourPurple]

Yes, I suppose that's true.

That's probbaly what sickens me most about this case, that, if guilty, she didn't just want to kill them but chose to do so in ways that would really hurt them.

And if guilty, on some occasions when she wasn't successful the first time, she went back to try again.

Baby I being an example of both those things:

Lucy Letby: Baby in extreme pain as she died, trial hears​

The trial of nurse Lucy Letby has heard one of her alleged victims must have been in extreme pain at the time of her final and fatal collapse.

The 33-year-old is accused of murdering the girl, referred to as Child I, at Countess of Chester Hospital in October 2015.

Dr Sandy Bohin told the trial at Manchester Crown Court the baby's crying was "inconsolable".

It is alleged Ms Letby made three attempts to kill the baby before succeeding on the fourth attempt.

Lucy Letby: Baby in extreme pain as she died, trial hears

Lucy Letby made three attempts to kill a baby before succeeding on the fourth attempt, it is alleged.

www.bbc.co.uk

IMO if guilty

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

I don't know if I agree with that - it is still the most ultimate abuse of job position, trust, and power, over the most vulnerable being in existence = a premature baby

Even a bent copper rapist murderer is picking on a grown adult by comparison JMO MOO

From an emotional angle I completely appreciate your position here.

My point is that the recent harsher sentences associated with those in a position of power, and the general movement in terms of pushing back against criminals in uniform, relate particularly to police officers, and those with the power to detain the public. Not to neonatal nurses.



Therefore, I could easily be wrong, however I don’t expect Wayne Couzens sentence to have the slightest affect on Lucy Letby’s sentence, IF found guilty. JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

Considering MH issues some land in secure Mental Health Institutions - almost always for ever.

TBH, I think a lot of the most serious ones are put in those places simply to avoid the inevitable problems and issues of having them in a prison. Beverly Allitt is in Rampton, I believe, but I really fail to see why; she's not criminally insane, as far as we know, and is clearly guilty as all hell. Peter Sutcliffe (or maybe Ian Brady) was in Broadmoor, I think, and, again, I'd ask why. Yes, both of these people have serious personality issues and are dangerous but they are simply criminals when it comes down to it. Criminals who have committed extremely heinous crimes, and are/were deeply unpleasant people, but why a hospital rather than prison?

 

[Dotta]

That's probbaly what sickens me most about this case, that, if guilty, she didn't just want to kill them but chose to do so in ways that would really hurt them.

And if guilty, on some occasions when she wasn't successful the first time, she went back to try again.

Baby I being an example of both those things:

Lucy Letby: Baby in extreme pain as she died, trial hears​

The trial of nurse Lucy Letby has heard one of her alleged victims must have been in extreme pain at the time of her final and fatal collapse.

The 33-year-old is accused of murdering the girl, referred to as Child I, at Countess of Chester Hospital in October 2015.

Dr Sandy Bohin told the trial at Manchester Crown Court the baby's crying was "inconsolable".

It is alleged Ms Letby made three attempts to kill the baby before succeeding on the fourth attempt.

Lucy Letby: Baby in extreme pain as she died, trial hears

Lucy Letby made three attempts to kill a baby before succeeding on the fourth attempt, it is alleged.

www.bbc.co.uk

IMO if guilty

We mustn't forget the surviving victims who were left brain damaged - robbed of fulfilling life!

 

[marynnu]

so I'm trying to understand why you said if murder was the aim it could be done less brutally, which seems to suggest that you think the cruelty of the murders (if she's guilty) wasn't one of her aims.

We're never going to agree I think! My post says the polar opposite.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

They must prove they are fit to return to society to a team of psychologists, various other trained individuals depending on the prisoners circumstances, and ultimately, a parole board and a judge. If they are unable to do so through their meetings or their behavior they should be refused release.



Once released, they should have extremely tight probation conditions, and be returned to prison if they break, or are thought to have broken their terms.



This is the best society can do to guarantee the welfare of the public, whilst offering a realistic chance of rehabilitation to the offender.



The system isn’t perfect, but UK’s justice system remains the gold standard, globally. Anecdotally, there will always be horror stories. The truth is, however, that there are very few instances of convicted murderers being released and reoffending, other than minor offenses (which they are immediately sent back to prison for regardless of how trivial).

I don't know how it works in other countries but what worries me about the UK justice system is just how very many extremely vicious and violent harmful offences the average person gets to commit before they even see a prison.

I can't be more specific as I'm speaking to people and cases I know of personally here.

It's almost like there's nothing put in place *until* they kill someone, which by then seems very inevitable and everyone's glad it's 'over' except someone's life has been taken forever. Likewise repeat offending rapists, parents who batter their children, dodgy step-dads... it only stops when there's dead bodies and not before. JMO MOO

Not in relation to this case obviously

 

[Marantz4250b]

They must prove they are fit to return to society to a team of psychologists, various other trained individuals depending on the prisoners circumstances, and ultimately, a parole board and a judge. If they are unable to do so through their meetings or their behavior they should be refused release.



Once released, they should have extremely tight probation conditions, and be returned to prison if they break, or are thought to have broken their terms.



This is the best society can do to guarantee the welfare of the public, whilst offering a realistic chance of rehabilitation to the offender.



The system isn’t perfect, but UK’s justice system remains the gold standard, globally. Anecdotally, there will always be horror stories. The truth is, however, that there are very few instances of convicted murderers being released and reoffending, other than minor offenses (which they are immediately sent back to prison for regardless of how trivial).

This is all very well but "society" has deemed that some crimes are so extreme, so repulsive to the public sensibilities that a whole life order is the appropriate sentence. As I mentioned before, a WLO is not an attempt to rehabilitate - you cannot go before a court or a parole board and argue that it should be reduced because you are a changed person, there simply is no facility in law to do that. The tariff for a statutory life sentence is, by fact of law, the punishment part of the sentence.

I don't think you are correct as regards the parole procedure. Judges do not play any part in it, as far as I'm aware. It's the parole board and only the parole board which makes the decision.

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

TBH, I think a lot of the most serious ones are put in those places simply to avoid the inevitable problems and issues of having them in a prison. Beverly Allitt is in Rampton, I believe, but I really fail to see why; she's not criminally insane, as far as we know, and is clearly guilty as all hell. Peter Sutcliffe (or maybe Ian Brady) was in Broadmoor, I think, and, again, I'd ask why. Yes, both of these people have serious personality issues and are dangerous but they are simply criminals when it comes down to it. Criminals who have committed extremely heinous crimes, and are/were deeply unpleasant people, but why a hospital rather than prison?

Often it might simply be a thinly veiled method of ensuring the prisoner the protection they require. If the prisons or prison service make it clear they cannot guarantee a specific prisoners safety, essentially refusing them a place in prison, I would imagine any mental health concern might do. What other option is there?

JMO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I still remember a case I followed here on WS of a man deemed rehabilitated enough to have a trip to the centre of London's Gallery/Museum (with some guards).

And guess what?

The 1st thing he did was to throw a little boy from the viewing deck balcony

Fortunately, the boy (French tourist) survived the attack, but is undergoing constant therapies.
His life and his family's will never be the same as before this tragedy.

A crime that should never have been facilitated to happen IMO at the Tate Modern, viewing platform.
.

Tate Modern teen who laughed after throwing child from viewing platform 'unlikely to ever be released'

The prosecutor says the case was "a whisper away from a murder" after the child was thrown from a 10-storey-high platform.

news.sky.com

They do say in this report, he will never be likely to be released again, thank god. Sorry for going off topic.

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

I don't know how it works in other countries but what worries me about the UK justice system is just how very many extremely vicious and violent harmful offences the average person gets to commit before they even see a prison.

I can't be more specific as I'm speaking to people and cases I know of personally here.

It's almost like there's nothing put in place *until* they kill someone, which by then seems very inevitable and everyone's glad it's 'over' except someone's life has been taken forever. Likewise repeat offending rapists, parents who batter their children, dodgy step-dads... it only stops when there's dead bodies and not before. JMO MOO

Not in relation to this case obviously

Murder is not the only offence that carries a life sentence. It is merely an offence that carries life as a minimum starting point.

Attempted murder, rape, armed robbery and other particularly violent crimes can also carry a life sentence.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Just my view, but as I think I've said before, if guilty IMO this is more about inflicting harm & suffering than murder. After all, most of the babies survived and if murder is the aim it could be done less brutally. This would be the most heartbreaking thing for the parents I believe, because dreadful as it is to lose a child, the idea of them suffering is a million times worse.
All JMO.

JMO but it depends on motive. *If* LL perpetrated the crimes she's accused of, it seems to me that possibly she was using the children to create drama and attention and glory for herself and *if* that were to be the case, she's not even considering the life or health or safety or suffering of the child in any way so much as using them as a mechanism for a means to an end (her getting attention / glory / drama). That would be so callous it defies all belief to a person whose brain and emotions work normally but it also could mean that the end goal was not actually to kill any child. JMO MOO just speculating