UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, if my maths are correct, LL's trial is due to start in exactly one week. Hs anyone heard anything about any potential delays due to this Barrister's strike?
 
Marantz4250b said:
Marantz4250b said:
So, if my maths are correct, LL's trial is due to start in exactly one week. Hs anyone heard anything about any potential delays due to this Barrister's strike?
Click to expand...

So, if my maths are correct, LL's trial is due to start in exactly one week. Hs anyone heard anything about any potential
Click to expand...
Marantz4250b said:
So, if my maths are correct, LL's trial is due to start in exactly one week. Hs anyone heard anything about any potential delays due to this Barrister's strike?
Click to expand...
rotheras.co.uk

Inquest into baby death at Chester Hospital | Rothera Bray

An inquest will be held beginning August 22nd into the death of a baby boy shortly after his birth at the Countess of Chester hospital.
rotheras.co.uk rotheras.co.uk
 
JosieJo said:

"Lucy Letby trial set to begin as nurse accused of murdering babies at Countess of Chester Hospital"​

www.cheshire-live.co.uk

Lucy Letby trial to begin as nurse denies murdering babies at Chester Hospital

The former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse denies murdering five baby boys and two baby girls
www.cheshire-live.co.uk www.cheshire-live.co.uk
Click to expand...

A link on the same page caught my eye:

Chester Hospital told 'more work needs to be done' after latest inspection

30 SEP 2022

Health chiefs at the Countess of Chester Hospital trust have been told that 'more work needs to be done' after the latest inspection. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) visited the hospital in July, a few months after its previous inspection found maternity services and leadership to be 'inadequate', while the trust was given an overall rating of 'requires improvement'.

The recent inspection focused on both maternity services and 'how well-led the trust was overall'. Both areas remain rated 'inadequate' and the overall rating for the trust stayed the same despite evidence of 'some improvements' being made.

BBM


Interesting reading... :rolleyes:
 
Yes what a relief it is finally going ahead with no more delays. Be interesting to see what the news reports (I know they can only report about the trial) and if people start talking about it more in the mainstream.
 
Sarahlou said:
Finally! This is going to be an interesting one. Crazy to think it will go on until about April next year!
Click to expand...

The phrase "interesting one" may well be the understatement of the century! Given what has already occurred with this case I suspect that the actual court proceedings are going to be absolutely mind-bending!

I'm still unsure as to what level of coverage this is going to get in the media - it's been surprisingly low, thus far - but I'm going to be in front of Sky News for most of the next few months, I think. That's a pretty crappy way to express things in a case of this nature, and I suppose I feel a bit seedy for taking such an interest as these things aren't some sort of spectator sport, but this whole thing is just fascinating.

And, for the record, and after having this rattling around my brain for a couple of years now, I'm putting my cards on the table and saying that I don't think she did any of this. I think that she's entirely innocent.
 
Marantz4250b said:
And, for the record, and after having this rattling around my brain for a couple of years now, I'm putting my cards on the table and saying that I don't think she did any of this. I think that she's entirely innocent.
Click to expand...

That's where I'm at as well, although I will wait and see if there's concrete evidence which will make me revise that opinion! I'm slightly torn, because I hear enough stories of genuine cases not being accepted by CPS for "insufficient" evidence, that I'm thinking surely there must be enough evidence to prove this one?

We'll see, but if it's just "she was coincidentally on shift each time these already sickly babies died without any definite evidence of poisoning/tampering" then my opinion won't change and I'll just be left angry that witchhunts still happen in the 21st century. Hopefully the result will be conclusive either way, rather than leaving either a miscarriage of justice or a massive questionmark over her head if she's innocent.
 
I am also very interested though do feel we will need a lot of patience due to the size of the case and the inevitable days full of "housekeeping" which surely will be huge.
I really do not know what to think until we hear the evidence but I'd be amazed if they have allowed LL to be held on remand for this amount of time without very good cause..I don't buy the train of thought that it is in her own interest
 
Kasmeer said:
Hopefully the result will be conclusive either way, rather than leaving either a miscarriage of justice or a massive questionmark over her head if she's innocent.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! Whether she is convicted or acquitted, it needs to be unequivocal. She needs either to be convicted on evidence which is absolutely insurmountable or the defence case needs to utterly shred the prosecution's position. Any outcome which is remotely open to question will be very bad indeed and will leave a very bad taste.

As far as a conviction is concerned, I have my doubts as to whether the prosecution have such a level of evidence in their favour. She's been arrested three times, held for the maximum period without charge on two of those occasions (requiring magistrates authority) and was only charged on the final arrest. Hence, the police obviously didn't have the required evidence they needed to charge her for years. I think that the chance that they suddenly had utterly damning evidence after years of investigation is remote, quite honestly. From everything we know of her - which, to be fair, isn't a great deal - she appears to be an entirely normal, if slightly timid, young woman rather than some hardened criminal or unhinged psychopath. She certainly doesn't come over as the type who's used to confrontation, especially not with the police. If she was guilty I think she'd have cracked long before they actually charged her.
 
JosieJo said:
I am also very interested though do feel we will need a lot of patience due to the size of the case and the inevitable days full of "housekeeping" which surely will be huge.
I really do not know what to think until we hear the evidence but I'd be amazed if they have allowed LL to be held on remand for this amount of time without very good cause..I don't buy the train of thought that it is in her own interest
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying. Yes, this is slated to be a long case but I think we will get a feel for the level of evidence the prosecution has (or doesn't) very early on. The prosecution is going to have to have to say early in their case precisely how they are alleging that she carried out these murders and attempted murders. They are going to have to present causes of deaths for these children. If they don't present these details very on it will say a lot as to the strength of their position, I think.

If they start banging on about, say, the fact that she was on-shift when these deaths occurred or that she was thought to be alone with them when it happened without pinning down how they allege that she did it then I think we'll see it drifting into the realms of the highly circumstantial which is never going to sit well. As I and others have said all over this thread, I suspect that we are going to hear a lot about coincidences and a lot from "experts" who will tell us that there is an eleventy billion to one chance that she didn't do it based on her shift patterns, etc but we all know how that has ended in the past!
 
I'm interested in how the prosecution is going to try this case. There are so many variables when dealing with infants in neonatal units that are already high risk babies. I fear this woman is going to be treated like a witch. There are too many cases where the kneejerk reaction is to accuse someone of foul play without any real evidence of intent. Babies die in neonatal wards. We've already mentioned other cases where nurses have been accused of being avenging angels only to find that suspicion is not evidence.

Here's a link to mysterious infant deaths in Argentina. Lots of suspicion but no proof.

en.mercopress.com

Newborns kept dying in mysterious circumstances in Argentine city

The death of at least 5 newborn babies between May and June in a hospital in the Argentine city of Córdoba has made the news nationwide. There may be more cases, it was reported. Pending investigations, staff at the Maternal Neonatal Dr. Ramón Carrillo Hospital have been relieved from duty.
en.mercopress.com en.mercopress.com
 
9 months is going to be incredibly difficult for a jury. Having to retain all the information and make a decision, on what surely has to be statistical and circumstantial details (if there was anything more concrete then it would likely be quicker than 9 months)

I see them struggling to reach a verdict..I sense that the judges directions are going to go a long way in their decision, but what happens if 9 months down the line they can't agree. Surely they couldn't then have a retrial?

I've mentioned before it is an absolutely fascinating trial, both in the estimated length of time of the trial and the amount of time LL has faced in jail pre-trial.
Not to mention usually trials/cases of this magnitude are splashed all over the papers, even when reporting restrictions are in place
 
ShireChe said:
9 months is going to be incredibly difficult for a jury. Having to retain all the information and make a decision, on what surely has to be statistical and circumstantial details (if there was anything more concrete then it would likely be quicker than 9 months)

I see them struggling to reach a verdict..I sense that the judges directions are going to go a long way in their decision, but what happens if 9 months down the line they can't agree. Surely they couldn't then have a retrial?

I've mentioned before it is an absolutely fascinating trial, both in the estimated length of time of the trial and the amount of time LL has faced in jail pre-trial.
Not to mention usually trials/cases of this magnitude are splashed all over the papers, even when reporting restrictions are in place
Click to expand...
6 months, not 9. But I agree it will be incredibly hard for people to be on a jury that long.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 161 more.
Total: 2,881 (members: 162, guests: 2,719)

Online statistics

Members online
162
Guests online
2,719
Total visitors
2,881
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,631
Messages
18,144,166
Members
231,468
Latest member
CapeCodTodd
Back
Top