UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #35

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Jazmania said:
I don't remember another incidence of a breathing tube being moved, but I remember a couple of cases of the alarm not sounding with other babies. But I can't remember which ones.
Click to expand...
I think it was baby G. In the original prosecution opening, it was said that ll turned her alarm off. But it later was suggested that a doctor had forgotten to reconnect the machine that monitors oxygen levels and G collapsed behind a screen.
 
Jazmania said:
I think it was baby G. In the original prosecution opening, it was said that ll turned her alarm off. But it later was suggested that a doctor had forgotten to reconnect the machine that monitors oxygen levels and G collapsed behind a screen.
Click to expand...
Also baby I when she collapsed in the dark and somehow LL was able to see how pale she looked. No alarm sounded then either.
 
bbsaz said:
I guess the reason to retry Baby K was because she was originally one of the murder charges. Whilst the threshold was met for the CPS to charge with murder, the judge must have disagreed. But the police and CPS know full well that if she did attempt to murder Baby K, then those actions caused her to die, albeit the next day or so in Arrow Park. The family need justice. Even if the best they will get is guilty for Attempted Murder, it goes some way to validating that she did in fact cause her death (imo). Imagine knowing someone caused your baby to die and the CPS don't retry it...she was 25 weeks, she had good odds of surviving. Until Letby got hold of her (imo)
Click to expand...

This isn't correct, as far as I recall. I think that Baby K was initially charged as a murder with attempted murder in the alternative - which isn't something I even realised was a thing - but they eventually dropped the murder element to it. It wasn't the judge ordering it, I don't think.

The fact remains that LL was only tried on the attempted murder charge in the first trial, on which the jury could not reach a verdict. She was never tried for killing Baby K and is not being tried for killing Baby K now. The trial is one of attempted murder which, by definition, is an act of failing to kill someone. Yes, the baby eventually died but LL is not being tried for her death.

Thus far, we haven't seen any evidence which is different to what was offered in the original trial, as far as I can see. Then again, it's only just started so we shall have to see what comes up over the next month or so. I'm still asking myself what the reasons were for bringing this case to a retrial rather than the others that the jury were hung on. It's all rather weird, tbh.
 
Marantz4250b said:
This isn't correct, as far as I recall. I think that Baby K was initially charged as a murder with attempted murder in the alternative - which isn't something I even realised was a thing - but they eventually dropped the murder element to it. It wasn't the judge ordering it, I don't think.

The fact remains that LL was only tried on the attempted murder charge in the first trial, on which the jury could not reach a verdict. She was never tried for killing Baby K and is not being tried for killing Baby K now. The trial is one of attempted murder which, by definition, is an act of failing to kill someone. Yes, the baby eventually died but LL is not being tried for her death.

Thus far, we haven't seen any evidence which is different to what was offered in the original trial, as far as I can see. Then again, it's only just started so we shall have to see what comes up over the next month or so. I'm still asking myself what the reasons were for bringing this case to a retrial rather than the others that the jury were hung on. It's all rather weird, tbh.
Click to expand...
Probably murder dropped because proving L’s actions caused the death beyond reasonable doubt was thought problematic IMO.

I used to practice in clinical negligence - not crime - but proving causation on a balance of probabilities ( lower burden of proof in a case of negligence than in a criminal case) in a stillbirth, or a brain injury at birth case, can be extremely difficult - even more so with a pre term birth.
 
Marantz4250b said:
This isn't correct, as far as I recall. I think that Baby K was initially charged as a murder with attempted murder in the alternative - which isn't something I even realised was a thing - but they eventually dropped the murder element to it. It wasn't the judge ordering it, I don't think.

The fact remains that LL was only tried on the attempted murder charge in the first trial, on which the jury could not reach a verdict. She was never tried for killing Baby K and is not being tried for killing Baby K now. The trial is one of attempted murder which, by definition, is an act of failing to kill someone. Yes, the baby eventually died but LL is not being tried for her death.

Thus far, we haven't seen any evidence which is different to what was offered in the original trial, as far as I can see. Then again, it's only just started so we shall have to see what comes up over the next month or so. I'm still asking myself what the reasons were for bringing this case to a retrial rather than the others that the jury were hung on. It's all rather weird, tbh.
Click to expand...
I think the reason is that this case (k) is a lot more simple than the other cases that the jury couldn't reach a verdict on (h,j,q).

From recall, the evidence in those (h,j,q) cases was mostly how similar the situations surrounding the collapse of these babies was to the other babies who were murdered. So the collapses occurred soon after the nurse in charge or the parents left, and medical notes were changed to make it appear LL wasn't present. So to try those cases again you would almost have to do the whole trial again to explain in detail the similarities of the cases.

But with K you don't have to do that and the trial is actually quite simple. Both prosecution and defence agree the baby had a serious event due to the breathing tube being dislodged. So it's down to whether you believe Dr Jayaram saw what he thinks he saw. You don't need months of expert testimony to make the jury understand air embolism etc. so it's quicker and cheaper to trial, and more likely to succeed as you have strong witness testimony seeing her doing wrong.
 
I feel to not be able to reach a verdict is what it is ..you should have the right to "go again" as it were ..for answers and justice.
Yes I understand the trail of thought...why ? She can't get any more punishment etc.
But as an individual that baby and her family are entitled to justice.
The huge amount of information across the last trial must have been hugely difficult for the jury. The sheer scale of it must have had an effect.
I really think if it had been a stand alone trial we wouldn't have had a no verdict.
 
Also I read that last time Dr J got into trouble for saying the baby was sedated before the collapse, when the defence say she was sedated after the collapse and therefore could actually have removed her own tube at the collapse. However, yesterday they said she was sedated before the collapse, making it nigh on impossible for her to remove her tube.

So presumably that mistake is being rectified in the retrial.

They have also added context by saying the subsequent collapses were not LL trying to kill Baby K again, but trying to show that Baby does remove her tube, and thus cover herself for the first collapse (attempt at murder). Covering her tracks was something we saw in the previous cases.

I always thought Baby K was one of the stronger cases and I assume so did the CPS if they originally charged her with murder for it. Hence their pursuit for justice with a retrial.
 
bbsaz said:
Also I read that last time Dr J got into trouble for saying the baby was sedated before the collapse, when the defence say she was sedated after the collapse and therefore could actually have removed her own tube at the collapse. However, yesterday they said she was sedated before the collapse, making it nigh on impossible for her to remove her tube.

So presumably that mistake is being rectified in the retrial.

They have also added context by saying the subsequent collapses were not LL trying to kill Baby K again, but trying to show that Baby does remove her tube, and thus cover herself for the first collapse (attempt at murder). Covering her tracks was something we saw in the previous cases.

I always thought Baby K was one of the stronger cases and I assume so did the CPS if they originally charged her with murder for it. Hence their pursuit for justice with a retrial.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I thought in the original trial about the 2 further incidents and I wanted them to come out and say it.

She knew she had been seen by Dr Jayaram, so the two further tube movements were done solely to make it appear that this baby was very active.

Now years later we can see with documentation and witness testimony that she was there moments before alone with baby K on both occasions.
 
bbsaz said:
It is quite an odd thing to think that you would care about. You will never see the outside world again, everyone in the world (bar a handful of weirdos) hates you. Yet you care about your hair colour for a new trial. Bizarre.
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure how I feel towards her, tbh. I'm not sure I could say I hate her.

She's a complete enigma, imo; she's been described as "evil" by many people but I think that's a bit of cop-out and just an easy thing to say. I'm not convinced that evil is the correct word to describe her. If she did what she did because she wanted to cause pain, suffering and death then, yes, evil is the correct word. I'm still not sure that any of that was her primary intent, though. I think her main driving influence was attention and thrill seeking and doing what she did was simply about achieving those goals. Yes, she certainly didn't seem to care about the consequences or the fact that babies suffered and showed a staggering indifference into what might become of them but I'm not sure that that is actual, real, genuine evil. I'm not sure that she got her thrills specifically from being the cause of the suffering, if you see what I mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 155 more.
Total: 1,780 (members: 156, guests: 1,624)

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
1,624
Total visitors
1,780
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,212
Messages
18,091,808
Members
230,814
Latest member
akoyaqueen
Back
Top