GUILTY UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 7 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 6 hung re attempted #31

[CS2C]

I have wondered if it was a closed court room with only authorised individuals allowed to attend. JMO

I have been told by that friend that the individual I spoke about yesterday actually witnessed the verdicts !

 

[crowmarsh]

The fact her mum said ‘I did it, take me’ when Letby was arrested makes it clear that her parents knew she was guilty.

Really where did you see that

 

[DianaWW]

I think it's interesting that the jury couldn't reach a verdict on baby K. This was the baby where Dr Ravi, an experienced paediatric consultant, walked in on LL and allegedly witnessed her post attack, watching the baby deteriorate. I thought this was strong evidence with an objective, medically-qualified eye witness.

All I can think is that the defending barrister succeeded in trashing Dr Ravi's reputation, in my view.

I think they just couldn’t be certain that whatever she did, that she intended to kill. I do believe if the option was there for a lesser charge of GBH, that she’d have been found guilty. JMO.

I didn't make the rules!

I didn’t say that you did?

 

[WaxLyrical]

Thinking back to her tantrum when Dr Choc was on the stand, she knew that was the last time she would ever see his face, and he chose to testify from behind a screen.

 

[Legal]

Lots of information in here about the timeline of her suspension etc.

Doctor says hospital bosses failed to act on concerns over Lucy Letby

Dr Ravi Jayaram, senior paediatrician at the Countess of Chester Hospital, said he warned NHS managers that Letby was a potential danger to babies months before police were called.

www.dailymail.co.uk

It emerged during legal argument in the trial - in the absence of the jury - that the grievance procedure was resolved in Letby's favour in December 2016.

Letby was due to return to the neonatal unit in March 2017, but the move did not take place as soon afterwards, police were contacted by the hospital trust.

She was suspended on full pay from the moment she was arrested in July 2018.

It is understood she was sacked when she was charged in November 2020.

 

[Dotta]

I'm so curious as to what their family relationship was like... they seem very devoted to her, but have they coddled and enabled her for her whole life? I wonder if we will hear any stories about her childhood and odd behaviour.

That the mum would do something so nonsensical.... WHY?! Did she already suspect and herself feel guilty for "creating a monster" subconsciously?

Phew!
Im slowly catching on the thread, I don't want to miss a single post haha

Re parents

Isn't it STRANGE that LL refused to enter to hear verdicts AFTER her mother's outburst in Court???

Very telling IMO.

Unfortunately, monsters are usually created during childhood, as I sometimes wrote in these threads.

OK, back to reading posts

JMO

 

[Rusty Braincells]

The fact that is not a requirement for them to appear suggests that it is not considered to be part of the legal process. Personally, if someone killed one of my loved ones, I would not want to look at them.

The legal process can always be refined and improved. It has gone down badly lately that defendants have refused to appear.

For many years, British sentencing was based on rehabilitative principles (hence why for example Colin Pitchfork who raped and murdered two children and sought to evade conviction was released) and more recently has (in my view thankfully) e.g. applied longer sentences for murder, introduced the whole life sentence, etc to tip the balance away from convicted criminals and more in favour of the victims and their families.

A change to the court practice so that a failure to appear for sentencing means at least, say, an extra six months, or, for a whole life sentence, later consideration for “enhanced” status when behind bars, would be welcome, in my opinion, and I am guessing is under consideration.

 

[notsure]

I think they just couldn’t be certain that whatever she did, that she intended to kill. I do believe if the option was there for a lesser charge of GBH, that she’d have been found guilty. JMO.

I didn’t say that you did?

I know - just saying that the guilty party has a choice whether to appear or not, regardless of the wishes of the family.

 

[Legal]

The legal process can always be refined and improved. It has gone down badly lately that defendants have refused to appear.

For many years, British sentencing was based on rehabilitative principles (hence why for example Colin Pitchfork who raped and murdered two children and sought to evade conviction was released) and more recently has (in my view thankfully) e.g. applied longer sentences for murder, introduced the whole life sentence, etc to tip the balance away from convicted criminals and more in favour of the victims and their families.

A change to the court practice so that a failure to appear for sentencing means at least, say, an extra six months, or, for a whole life sentence, later consideration for “enhanced” status when behind bars, would be welcome, in my opinion, and I am guessing is under consideration.

Yes, it feels wrong that the convicted criminals can refuse to listen to the judge's comments on the heinous nature of their crimes. They should be compelled to face the truth.

 

[katydid23]

Yes, but what does delivering them in secret achieve? How does that impact their deliberation of other verdicts?

They cannot publicly reveal some of the verdicts while the jurors are still deliberating. That would cause total chaos.

 

[grj373]

In regards to not attending for sentencing I suppose if you know you are going to get a whole life order then what's the point. You may as well just get on with getting used to your new circumstances

 

[grj373]

They cannot publicly reveal some of the verdicts while the jurors are still deliberating. That would cause total chaos.

Then why reveal them at all?

 

[notsure]

The legal process can always be refined and improved. It has gone down badly lately that defendants have refused to appear.

For many years, British sentencing was based on rehabilitative principles (hence why for example Colin Pitchfork who raped and murdered two children and sought to evade conviction was released) and more recently has (in my view thankfully) e.g. applied longer sentences for murder, introduced the whole life sentence, etc to tip the balance away from convicted criminals and more in favour of the victims and their families.

A change to the court practice so that a failure to appear for sentencing means at least, say, an extra six months, or, for a whole life sentence, later consideration for “enhanced” status when behind bars, would be welcome, in my opinion, and I am guessing is under consideration.

I understand totally, and know about the Pitchfork case, etc.

For Lucy Letby, she knows she's never getting out of jail after being convicted of those murders, so appearing in court for the sentencing isn't going to help. I imagine that must be her line of reasoning.

 

[DianaWW]

I know - just saying that the guilty party has a choice whether to appear or not, regardless of the wishes of the family.

I know, I just think it’s wrong and that it should be up to the victims, not the defendant. If they don’t want to look at her, then absolutely fair enough. I just think it’s rubbish that she has this last bit of control. Didn’t mean for it to come across as having a go at you in anyway, so apologies if I sounded harsh!

 

[Marantz4250b]

Convicted defendants cannot be compelled to court for sentencing, nor can the fact they don’t go be taken into account in the sentence they receive, or even the regime they are under in prison. This needs to change. Thomas Cashman did not appear in court either for his sentencing for the murder of Olivia Pratt-Korbel. The law needs to change so that there are consequences for this cowardice.

I've never understood why they can't be compelled. Lucy Letby is now a convicted murderer and there is a mandatory life sentence to be handed down. She is in the custody of the state and the state says where she goes and what's he does for the remainder of her life.

What possible law could be contravened or right of hers infringed by forcing her to attend court? If she can refuse that then why can she not refuse to be transferred to a new prison or move to a new cell? Its bizarre!

 

[Rusty Braincells]

Yes, it feels wrong that the convicted criminals can refuse to listen to the judge's comments on the heinous nature of their crimes. They should be compelled to face the truth.

Yes, that’s an excellent point, they don’t hear the sentencing remarks that the judge often directs at them either, and they should have to sit through that on principle really.

I understand totally, and know about the Pitchfork case, etc.

For Lucy Letby, she knows she's never getting out of jail after being convicted of those murders, so appearing in court for the sentencing isn't going to help. I imagine that must be her line of reasoning.

As I said, she could get a loss of privileges / delay in earning them in prison.

We are going to have to disagree on this one. It isn’t good IMO for the integrity of process that a defendant can decide simply not to turn up and not hear their sentence or the judge’s comments. They shouldn’t have the right not to show up.

 

[Sundial]

Honestly, I’ve been so invested in this case for 10 months, and convinced of her guilt, that I expected to be happy when the verdicts came. That I’d feel almost celebratory that justice had been served.

But I just feel so sad. I just can’t even begin to imagine how the families feel.

Like you, I was also invested for so long- as practioners it is a honour to care for the most poorly of patients at their most difficult of times. I found it very difficult to believe she was guilty at the start, expecting a case that would undoubtedly demonstrate she was innocent. But there was just so much evidence it was impossible (for me) to see any other explanation but guilt. The defence could not provide that solid doubt that I thought they would.

Not only has this created so much anguish for these parents for the rest of their lives, those tiny innocent lives lost, the jury (and wider teams) traumatised by hearing these events; but she has tainted the nursing profession, what it truly means to CARE for another being, to be a nurse, and horrified many people not just of the UK, but I’m sure in other countries too. Today is a dark day, but as a healthcare provider I am so sorry, so saddened for these parents, yet angry with those at the top who don’t listen to those at the bottom, trying, wanting, hoping above anything to keep their patients safe.

My prayers and love for every loss and harm to life from something that could not be more awful.

 

[notsure]

I know, I just think it’s wrong and that it should be up to the victims, not the defendant. If they don’t want to look at her, then absolutely fair enough. I just think it’s rubbish that she has this last bit of control. Didn’t mean for it to come across as having a go at you in anyway, so apologies if I sounded harsh!

Please don't apologise. We're all just trying to express ourselves, and we've all had some heated debates over the last ten months on this case. I argue with myself most of the time

 

[grj373]

I've never understood why they can't be compelled. Lucy Letby is now a convicted murderer and there is a mandatory life sentence to be handed down. She is in the custody of the state and the state says where she goes and what's he does for the remainder of her life.

What possible law could be contravened or right of hers infringed by forcing her to attend court? If she can refuse that then why can she not refuse to be transferred to a new prison or move to a new cell? Its bizarre!

What would then stop the convicted defendent disrupting proceedings. We would have scenarios where they would have to be muzzled etc

 

[Rusty Braincells]

What would then stop the convicted defendent disrupting proceedings. We would have scenarios where they would have to be muzzled etc

The exact same measures that stop them disrupting the trial in the first place, court security etc.

The decision not to turn up is the little bit of control a convicted murderer might have, like declining to reveal where a victim’s body is. All such control should be limited or removed IMO or there must be consequences for exerting it by a convicted killer.