UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
There we go, he says the note means 'anguish' and not 'guilt'. Not questioning the veracity of it.

I personally can't see the spin that the person who was charged with the babies' health and safety is more anguished than the parents' she was stalking. Unless he has evidence that she was as anguished about the unexplained deaths of so many of her patients, and was doing her utmost to figure it out and change things BEFORE being investigated - I see this as taking zero accountability for the gravity of the role she was tasked with.

Working hard to be a nurse is easy. It's how much responsibility you take for the damage mistakes and not following protocol cause that's harder.

But this feels like he doesn't think LL had any personal responsibility to the babies in ensuring their safety/welfare.

He's doing what he is paid to do, provide a defence, which is a right in law for any defendant.

He does this because, like Mr Johnson KC, he seeks to uphold the values of our legal system.
 
Wow. The defence didn't even try to imply the note wasn't written by her.
I don’t think it would be remotely credible to suggest anyone else wrote them if they were found in her home and not in the hospital. I wouldn’t try that one myself to be honest. I assume they’re also in her handwriting and an expert could be called on this if necessary.
 
It's not looking good for LL so far but I'm personally still holding some space for the scapegoat theory. Regarding the notes, she might have been having a breakdown as a result of the allegations (a normal person would surely?, I would!) and be running through her mind all the terrible fears that she's caused the deaths by not being a good enough nurse and that people will think she's evil.

I know there is a little space for that.

But to me the way she worded the note.

She said she killed them on purpose, to me that isn't writing out of angst. She could have written i feel I killed them, or it's my fault they died. Any number of things.

But the "on purpose" bit seems so strong in my opinion
 
He's doing what he is paid to do, provide a defence, which is a right in law for any defendant.

He does this because, like Mr Johnson KC, he seeks to uphold the values of our legal system.
<modsnip>

I'm commenting on his defence strategy which is a common one he employs. As with Duckenfield, in the Hillsborough trial. That because everyone around them is at fault, his client is not. Which is a strategy based on the individual not being personally responsible even if they made the order or decision or action that caused a death - because everyone around them made equally poor decisions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am leaning towards LL and her family are paying an astronomical amount of money for this defence, that most people, if able to, would have to sell their homes for. And that might still not cover the bill.

EDIT: If LL is found not guilty, all of her defence costs are paid for by the court.

I wouldn't have thought so. The British legal system provides you with a lawyer for free. And the magnitude of this case, LL would have been provided with a crack defence team.
 
Sorry if I’ve missed this…

But was just watching Sky News live reporting. They stated the photographs of the two brothers (2 of the triplets) taken after their death were on LL’s phone :eek: has this been reported anywhere else or likely been a mistake by Sky reporters?
 
I have a feeling the defence are really going to go for the throat of this hospital during this case in regards to their problems, standards etc.
Can only imagine how the good nurses who go above and beyond for babies at the hospital feel when they read what this is gearing up to be, shifting the blame to hospital failings, you can see that's where they're going with this already...
 
Sorry if I’ve missed this…

But was just watching Sky News live reporting. They stated the photographs of the two brothers (2 of the triplets) taken after their death were on LL’s phone :eek: has this been reported anywhere else or likely been a mistake by Sky reporters?
Sickenly, that is being widely reported. Unbelievable.
 
Sorry if I’ve missed this…

But was just watching Sky News live reporting. They stated the photographs of the two brothers (2 of the triplets) taken after their death were on LL’s phone :eek: has this been reported anywhere else or likely been a mistake by Sky reporters?
Yes, Judith Moritz who is in the court also reported it on Twitter as did another BBC reporter.
 
As most nursing/medical staff will have, I have been involved in incidents where patients have sadly died. I have felt like it was my fault, I have blamed myself, I have questioned my competence (and been well supported and reassured to understand and accept that this was not the case). I believe I have felt some of the “anguish” the defence is trying to propose (although admittedly I obviously did not face accusations of intent). I cannot understand why the note would say “on purpose” and I don’t think there’s anyway they can explain that.
 
Can only imagine how the good nurses who go above and beyond for babies at the hospital feel when they read what this is gearing up to be, shifting the blame to hospital failings, you can see that's where they're going with this already...
I think that will definitely be a route they go down. They need to do the best for their client and unfortunately others like you say will be swept up in it.
 
Sorry if I’ve missed this…

But was just watching Sky News live reporting. They stated the photographs of the two brothers (2 of the triplets) taken after their death were on LL’s phone :eek: has this been reported anywhere else or likely been a mistake by Sky reporters?
Im curious about that too. First I thought she took a photo for the mum but then surely the mum has her own phone so why would you take a photo of 2 deceased babies and keep it? if it is true then it is shocking.
 
I was wondering that too. But was told defence in criminal court is free and the barrister would've been arranged by her solicitor. I thought for free you just get someone out of law school not a top barrister like him?I
Not necessarily, legal representation in criminal cases is free if you can't afford to pay for it. If the Crown decided they needed to use a KC to represent them because of the complexity of the case then it would only be fair to appoint a KC for the defendant or it may appear unfair. Also the cab-rank rule means they (the barrister) have to take the case if they are able to.
I think it’s also important to consider the magnitude of this case. The CPS, assuming they believe in their case, will want the best person they can find to prosecute such a complex case. There would then need to be a similarly highly qualified KC on the opposing side defending and I imagine her solicitors (even if the initial acting duty solicitors at the police station) would look to ensure she has the best defence possible. It’s important for a sense of justice having been served correctly - whatever the outcome. This is not a case that could ever be prosecuted/defended by “someone just out of law school”. And it is likely all being covered by legal aid (as a nurse she will be means tested and will no doubt have qualified - we don’t pay nurses nearly enough for the work they do!)
 
Why? If you can't afford an attorney, one is provided for you. That's how it works.
A duty solicitor is available at court.

As I said I'm leaning towards LL and her parents shelling out a small fortune on her defense, with the trial expected to last 6 months.
 
by that thinking, nobody would be found guilty of murder :) But I know what you're saying.

Don't forget insanity is a legal concept, not a medical one. You really could say everyone that murders (especially with planning) is "insane" but that's not what the legal defense of insanity refers to. This article is a good explanation. Seems it wouldn't be suitable given what we know so far, and it's rare in the UK.

Thanks for this. I know people who were in active psychosis can be found not culpable and this was once excellently illustrated in a Canadian TV series called 'Cracked' that doesn't seem to be available anywhere these days. I really enjoyed that series but the ratings are middling.

 
Christ, that was unexpected.

"On another piece of paper, she wrote: 'I don’t deserve to live. I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough”.

“'I am a horrible evil person' and in capital letters, 'I AM EVIL I DID THIS'.

"That, in a nutshell," Mr Johnson tells the court, "is your case
The one day I decide to go into work to actually do stuff this happens!!!

Staggering! Uterly staggering!!!
 
Sorry if I’ve missed this…

But was just watching Sky News live reporting. They stated the photographs of the two brothers (2 of the triplets) taken after their death were on LL’s phone :eek: has this been reported anywhere else or likely been a mistake by Sky reporters?

I hope Sky news haven't messed up again!
 
The juror’s really are in for a long and hard 6 months. A general trial is draining enough, but such a trial, with such detail, in such length, involving such defenceless babies is going to be SO tough on them!
I'll be surprised if we don't see one or two drop out due to the mental effects of this sort of thing day after day after day!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
164
Guests online
4,393
Total visitors
4,557

Forum statistics

Threads
602,589
Messages
18,143,196
Members
231,447
Latest member
SmoothieQuota
Back
Top