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 #35

[Sweeper2000]

Perhaps they would consult with any interested parties but I can't see that the opinions of other people, including victims parents or wider family would be determinative. Prosecution decisions have to to be arrived at via the statutory process which basically asks whether there is a realistic prospect of a conviction and whether a prosecution is in the public interest. The wishes of individuals don't really come into it.

If anything, given how long this has already been going on for along with the fact that she's never coming out, would the CPS give more weight to the wishes of a family who didn't want a case to proceed? I can well imagine that families may not want it all dragged through the courts when, in the end, the result for the offender can't be changed.

That's my thinking. I could think it was in the public interest but only if without a conviction the compensation would be difficult to obtain. If the Families need a conviction then yes it makes sense without I'm not so sure.

 

[Sweeper2000]

How long do people think the jury will be out for? My personal view is I am fairly sure she did it. Like 70-80%. But not completely sure really. Is it possible that she was in the room, and the alarm was not sounding for some other reason like a machine fault? She could have not noticed that K's sats were going down, which would explain why she was not doing anything to help and why she would have replied "I think she's desaturating" to Dr J. I mean that doesn't sound likely. But possible. She was a murderer in the midst of a killing spree, but it's possible that K did dislodge her own breathing tube. Will the jury be sure on this one? I believe Dr J saw what he saw, and LL is a notorious liar. But with the best will in the world, as humans our memories are not 100% reliable, and can be biased by things that we subsequently learn in the future.

I'm on board with that figure. Too many things out in that interaction for me to think it was just a regular desat. The alarm should have sounded and if mr myers can dig out an example of self extubation that isnt nefarious but cant bring any examples of another alarm failing to sound and ll is present then im guessing she did it.

I'm going to guess at between three and five days of deliberations before the verdict.

 

[Marantz4250b]

That's my thinking. I could think it was in the public interest but only if without a conviction the compensation would be difficult to obtain. If the Families need a conviction then yes it makes sense without I'm not so sure.

I don't think that would meet the public interest test, though.

There is a statutory scheme for criminal injury compensation (I think) but I don't think it relies on a conviction being obtained. If, for instance, you're the victim of a machte attack and you lose a hand I can't imagine that you don't get paid out if they don't catch the perpetrator.

The whole subject of "compensation" for bereavement is morally problematic, in my view. It shouldn't be a general principle of law that families are compensated financially for the loss of a loved one. You can't compensate for loss of life and I don't think that the law should be trying to do that. It's seedy, in my opinion, that a life can be compensated for with money.

There is a valid reason for compensation in the case of people who are left with long term health issues which is obviously acceptable. But, having said that......we have the NHS which will bear the brunt of that financial burden so people won't be paying for it themselves.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I don't think that would meet the public interest test, though.

There is a statutory scheme for criminal injury compensation (I think) but I don't think it relies on a conviction being obtained. If, for instance, you're the victim of a machte attack and you lose a hand I can't imagine that you don't get paid out if they don't catch the perpetrator.

The whole subject of "compensation" for bereavement is morally problematic, in my view. It shouldn't be a general principle of law that families are compensated financially for the loss of a loved one. You can't compensate for loss of life and I don't think that the law should be trying to do that. It's seedy, in my opinion, that a life can be compensated for with money.

There is a valid reason for compensation in the case of people who are left with long term health issues which is obviously acceptable. But, having said that......we have the NHS which will bear the brunt of that financial burden so people won't be paying for it themselves.

Makes sense really.

I have read that its not really supposed to equate to the value of a human life though. Its supposed to be relevant to a loss of earnings and payment for things. Example I can see these families needing therapy after this therefore the money for that is included in the tally. I think they put a number on the degree of suffering but its tokenistic I think.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Makes sense really.

I have read that its not really supposed to equate to the value of a human life though. Its supposed to be relevant to a loss of earnings and payment for things. Example I can see these families needing therapy after this therefore the money for that is included in the tally. I think they put a number on the degree of suffering but its tokenistic I think.

Yes, I think you're right.

The very relevant one is loss of earnings - murder or serious crimes against family members are quite likely to have potentially serious implications for person's ability to earn, I'd imagine. A family who loses a breadwinner, especially if that person were a high earner may need significant financial compensation for their loss.

 

[elliefant]

In many UK trials (eg Libby in Hull) we have heard that to be found guilty of murder the accused has to have intended to kill OR intended to inflict serious harm which it would be reasonable for them to know could result in death. That is provided as legal definition and has been linked to official sites by other posters ( but I will try to find it).

Does it therefore follow that to be guilty of attempted murder one has to be guilty of attempting the above? If so, it would not have to be proved she intended for them to die only that she intended to inflict serious harm which she could reasonably know could be fatal.

 

[elliefant]

Answering my own question…

In seeking the reference re murder definition I found the bit that says about causing serious harm BUT it states that in attempted murder cases the serious harm part does not apply, only the intent to kill applies

“Murder

• with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (in contrast to the offence of attempted murder, where only intent to kill will suffice)”

Homicide: Murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing or allowing the death or serious injury of a child or vulnerable adult | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

 

[Marantz4250b]

In many UK trials (eg Libby in Hull) we have heard that to be found guilty of murder the accused has to have intended to kill OR intended to inflict serious harm which it would be reasonable for them to know could result in death. That is provided as legal definition and has been linked to official sites by other posters ( but I will try to find it).

Does it therefore follow that to be guilty of attempted murder one has to be guilty of attempting the above? If so, it would not have to be proved she intended for them to die only that she intended to inflict serious harm which she could reasonably know could be fatal.

No. For attempted murder the defendant must be shown to have intended death to occur.

This is why AM is such a difficult offence to prove. You need very, very convincing evidence to prove someone's state of mind and what they specifically intended.

Edit: beat me to it.

 

[DianaWW]

Guilty, and it's unanimous

Live: Killer nurse Lucy Letby found guilty in attempted murder retrial

The retrial of Lucy Letby, who denies attempting to murder baby girl Child K while working as a neonatal unit nurse at the Countess of Chester…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[BabaVanga]

YESSSSSSS

 

[Sweeper2000]

Not surprised and good.

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1808140858442563893