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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
well prepared by her lawyers, probably.
I have searched for a description of her court demeanour every day.
There is very little that the press are allowed to say as regards that. They have to keep it absolutely factual. They cannot seen to be giving opinion. It's why we see very dry descriptions of what the def was wearing, how they had their hair done, etc.
 
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!
Agree.
I've served on Jury Duty - it was a horrible case, couldn't take my eyes off the accused in anger at the things he had done. I don't think I would have the temperament for Lucy Letby and the details of the case.
 
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.
The Sun is reporting she took the photos AFTER they were dead? Is that mentioned anywhere else? Was it without the parents' knowledge then if it was on her phone?

"She also took a photograph of two babies' bodies after she killed them, the court heard"

 
Hello I am new here and really enjoy the intelligent and educated discussions here. I realise I have a lot of catching up to do in this discussion.

I do have a thought about those words. In another context, consider a driver who has accidentally knocked down and killed someone who dashed out in front of them. There are various possible reactions of the driver, one of which is: the driver may well think they have "murdered" the pedestrian and feel "evil", instead of being able to put the incident behind them. I say this to illustrate that some people are traumatised by accidents/incidents that are not their fault, but may well express guilt/despair. Such words are not necessarily indicative of confession or actual guilt.
 
The Sun is reporting she took the photos AFTER they were dead? Is that mentioned anywhere else? Was it without the parents' knowledge then if it was on her phone?

"She also took a photograph of two babies' bodies after she killed them, the court heard"

That's correct.
 
The Sun is reporting she took the photos AFTER they were dead? Is that mentioned anywhere else? Was it without the parents' knowledge then if it was on her phone?

"She also took a photograph of two babies' bodies after she killed them, the court heard"

I was following the reports on chesterstandard.co.uk and I don't think it was mentioned there. I suppose must be true if mentioned elsewhere in the press?
 
I don't see how they can think she's innocent. She wrote a confession. Unless they think she is not guilty by reason of insanity.

She's presumed innocent until proven guilty, by due legal process. This is a basic legal concept.

The defence being offered up is one of no definitive medical evidence, circumstantial evidence and CoCH issues.

There is absolutely no indication that insanity will be proffered as a partial defence.
 
Hello I am new here and really enjoy the intelligent and educated discussions here. I realise I have a lot of catching up to do in this discussion.

I do have a thought about those words. In another context, consider a driver who has accidentally knocked down and killed someone who dashed out in front of them. There are various possible reactions of the driver, one of which is: the driver may well think they have "murdered" the pedestrian and feel "evil", instead of being able to put the incident behind them. I say this to illustrate that some people are traumatised by accidents/incidents that are not their fault, but may well express guilt/despair. Such words are not necessarily indicative of confession or actual guilt.
Hello! and welcome!
"I killed them on purpose" - that's with intent. Someone who accidentally kills someone in an accident MAY have killed that person but even with guilt there's no way they would ever describe it as "on purpose"
 
"The NGT was aspirated and produced 'air+++ and 2mls of milk', after which Child I improved.

The prosecution says this is at odds with the 35mls of milk Child I was fed with at 4pm."

This is the kind of info I'm struggling to make sense of. Can anyone explain for me what it means was going on please.
The naso gastric tube goes through the nose into the stoMach. For preemies, this is how their feeds are given if they are to weak to suckle. The NG tube is clamped off after a feed, otherwise the milk could simply drain out.

Aspiration means using a syringe linked to the NG tube to draw out what is in the stomach. It would be very abnormal to withdraw a lot of air. Here it appears little milk was given and one must wonder where all the air comes from.
 
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.
This case goes beyond duty solicitor though doesn't it?
I still can't see her parents shelling out, and I'm not sure they've got the means anyway.
 
I was following the reports on chesterstandard.co.uk and I don't think it was mentioned there. I suppose must be true if mentioned elsewhere in the press?
If true - makes me think if this were person on person murder case, evidence of a confession saying the killing was done on purpose, the body, and photos of the body post mortem would be considered solid!

But here, because of the sheer volume of cases and medical setting, you need so much time and effort to go through minutiae with a fine tooth comb.
 
Completely overwhelming evidence today.

Did she even try to go the insanity route? I can't remember now.
Thats never been raised, as far as I'm aware. If the notes are indeed her confessions to these crimes then I can't see how not guilty by reason of insanity would fly as for that to apply you have to have no appreciation as to the "nature and quality" of your actions. Essentially, you don't believe them to be wrong. Those notes, taken at face value, do show an appreciation of wrong doing.
 
Agree.
I've served on Jury Duty - it was a horrible case, couldn't take my eyes off the accused in anger at the things he had done. I don't think I would have the temperament for Lucy Letby and the details of the case.

But did you try to remain impartial until you heard all the evidence for and all the evidence against?

Or did you get a feeling right away?

I've never done just service and I don't think I want to.
 
Hello! and welcome!
"I killed them on purpose" - that's with intent. Someone who accidentally kills someone in an accident MAY have killed that person but even with guilt there's no way they would ever describe it as "on purpose"
Thank you for your comment. Wlm17. I was raising the possibility that trauma could make you feel (inappropriately) responsible, hence the wording "on purpose" may not necessarily reflect true intent.
 
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.

Hi. New user.

I’ve had cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety. A huge part of the therapy involved almost exactly what you’ve said: noting down all of my terrible fears and what would happen if they came to fruition. It was part of an exercise I’d do daily when my anxiety was at its worst, and it’s something I still do occasionally now.

I still have all of those notes - some of them on scraps of paper - under my bed. If they were found, they would look very dark out of context.
 
For a serious case like this, LL will very likely be entitled to substantial Legal Aid that would cover the cost of an experienced barrister to defend her, and her parents will not have needed to pay and have probably not gone with their own selection and funded it.

It is an important case involving multiple deaths of children and an NHS worker is accused, it must be tried and defended properly. I think our system gets that part right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
147
Guests online
1,696
Total visitors
1,843

Forum statistics

Threads
606,497
Messages
18,204,728
Members
233,864
Latest member
Barbarabarth2016
Back
Top