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

[katydid23]

It's interesting that the evidence presented doesn't include an account by Dr j that the mute button was visually checked and found to be activated. By marynnu account and common sense it would seem that's an easy thing to check and notice. How much of this case rests on what the jury think of that info?

I find it highly suspect tbh. 25 weeks and very fragile baby, would you really wait for a "self correction"? It's also true that we see allot of indirect actions in her prior convictions where she didn't utilise direct and aggressive action such as smothering or something that quite clearly would kill. Aside seemingly from baby e and the ae cases. More like she wanted to push the victim towards the line but not necessarily push the victim over it, imo.

"More like she wanted to push the victim towards the line but not necessarily push the victim over it, imo."


Pushing fragile premature babies 'to the line' where they need a crash cart and a team of first responders to save them?

That may seem 'indirect' and not aggressive enough to outright kill them however without that code alarm reaction to take action to save them, they'd ALL be dead.

Many of the victims required several shots of adrenaline and many minutes of resuscitation, oxygen and emergency treatment in order to stay alive. Many ended up with lifelong deficits and trauma.

I don't think it is any less serious of a crime to push a victim to the line---make them unresponsive and near death---than to push them over the line. IMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

I don't think it is any less serious of a crime to push a victim to the line---make them unresponsive and near death---than to push them over the line. IMO

You may well be correct but that is not what she is charged with.

Pushing someone to the very limits of life is not the definition of "attempted murder" in law. Indeed, it is specifically the opposite of attempted murder as there is no intention to kill.

 

[windrower]

It's interesting that the evidence presented doesn't include an account by Dr j that the mute button was visually checked and found to be activated. By marynnu account and common sense it would seem that's an easy thing to check and notice. How much of this case rests on what the jury think of that info?

I find it highly suspect tbh. 25 weeks and very fragile baby, would you really wait for a "self correction"? It's also true that we see allot of indirect actions in her prior convictions where she didn't utilise direct and aggressive action such as smothering or something that quite clearly would kill. Aside seemingly from baby e and the ae cases. More like she wanted to push the victim towards the line but not necessarily push the victim over it, imo.

Bbm

Ll’s deadly actions and inactions moved the line right up next to the defenseless babies.

Horrific and unconscionable.

 

[katydid23]

You may well be correct but that is not what she is charged with.

Pushing someone to the very limits of life is not the definition of "attempted murder" in law. Indeed, it is specifically the opposite of attempted murder as there is no intention to kill.

I don't think there is enough evidence to differentiate whether she 'intended' for them to die or not. Some died, some didn't. Leaving an infant 'unresponsive' and on the verge of death is indeed attempted murder. IMO She knew that some would die because of her vile actions.

Just because some were lucky enough to have been saved by a team of responders does not change it from attempted murder. If the responders had not been quick enough, the child would be dead. We cannot credit Nurse Letby with the helpful actions of the medical team.

She left many babies unresponsive. Without further emergency response thy would have died. Her intent seemed to be to push them to the verge of death, and then let fate decide which live and which die.

That is still attempted murder, IMO. Her intentions were to push them to the edge and see what happens---and indeed some died. So she cannot claim that she did not intend for them to die because she knew that many times THEY DID die, yet she continued.

 

[katydid23]

Bbm

Ll’s deadly actions and inactions moved the line right up next to the defenseless babies.

Horrific and unconscionable.

Exactly. To pump air into a newborn's veins, or severely overfeed them by injecting so much milk into their stomach their lungs collapsed, is like torture. We cannot say 'she didn't intend to kill them' when they went through so much pain and torture, leaving many with lifelong disabilities. IMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

Thanks for that, Sweeper.

The reason I asked about whether or not a compensation process was in place for the bereaved parents was in the context of @Marantz4250b post about the hope that this last stance of Letby's would finally put her and the case to bed so we no longer have to hear or think about her ever again. An idea and a hope which I absolutely agreed with.

But then I thought about those random parents out there who, watching the earlier trial, might also have realised they lost babies in hospitals where LL worked and who were suddenly alerted to the grim fact that their babies might also have been historic victims of her. And who maybe were comforted by the fact that the investigation was far from over, that their babies, lost and otherwise, mattered too.

And how they might feel in the event that this trial may be the end of the investigation line. Particulary parents whose child didn't die but who might have a child who suffered long-term damage as a result of Nurse Lucy. And what compensation, should the investigation continue and eventually arrive at their door, might mean to them.

It's such a very difficult and heartbreaking thing.

My comments were more relating to the wider "public interest" issues. It's not about never hearing about her or what she's done as we do need a better understanding of why people do these types of things and whether there can be any hope of preventing these things in the future.

I agree that the investigation into potential other crimes she's committed should be continued. Whether these investigations should result in further prosecutions is an entirely different matter, however. At this point I'm really struggling to see any valid public interest factors which would lend themselves to answering the question of new prosecutions in the affirmative. She's never coming out; court resources and funds are limited; lots of barristers and other legal professionals will be tied up potentially for years.

As I've pointed out previously, this very trial ongoing now is, imo, almost certainly a waste of time and resources, especially as the evidence appears to be virtually the same as before with one or two minor adjustments. Where is the public interest in pursuing this? I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Todays link - judges directions and summing up.

Live: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, July 2 - judge's summing up

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

 

[Sweeper2000]

Lucy Letby retrial told killer nurse was 'cunning and devious' as her 'terrible' list of convictions is read to court in attempted murder case
Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, named each of the seven premature infants she murdered at the Countess of Chester Hospital, and all six of those she tried to kill while on duty in its neonatal unit.
…
In his closing speech at Manchester Crown Court, Mr Johnson told the jury they now had to decide whether Letby, 34, had also tried to murder Baby K. Jurors in the nurse's previous trial failed to reach a verdict on the infant's death.

'Lucy Letby is an extraordinary person – and not in a good way,' said Mr Johnson. The list of her previous convictions provided them with 'the shocking and dreadful context' of the case.
…
Mr Johnson told the jury: 'Her answer to the accusation? 'I don't remember, but it can't be true because that's not the sort of thing I would do'.

In her evidence the convicted killer had used expressions like 'best practice', 'normal practice' and 'common practice' on nine separate occasions.

'There was nothing 'best' or 'normal' about Lucy Letby's practice,' said the barrister. 'But it was common practice for her to sabotage infants entrusted to her care'.
…
Mr Johnson said it was 'a red herring' for the defence to try to focus on imperfections in Baby K's care at the Countess of Chester. 'It has nothing to do with why K's ET tube kept dislodging.

When Baby K desaturated at around 3.45am Dr Jayaram had been 'doing his best' to arrange her transfer away from Chester. One of his fellow consultants, John Gibbs, said in evidence that the quickest thing a nurse can do for a baby whose saturations are dropping is simply to turn up the oxygen on the wall.

'One thing that was not a reasonable option was doing nothing and to wait for her to self-correct,' said Mr Johnson.

He highlighted the fact that in agreed evidence a nursing expert had made it clear that it would not be good practice to wait.

But when confronted with that in cross-examination, Letby had replied: 'That's her opinion'.

That's her opinion?' asked Mr Johnson. 'That's not an answer. That IS what should have happened. It's agreed evidence'.

Lucy Letby retrial told killer nurse was 'cunning and devious'

The 'terrible' list of Lucy Letby's convictions as a serial baby killer was read out loud in a courtroom today, as her re-trial on a charge of attempted murder entered its final phase.

www.dailymail.co.uk

It's things like this article that make me seriously doubt anything she says. "It's her opinion" she had numerous statements like that in the first trial and it shows imo contempt for these actual doctors. Kind of highlights her attitude and tendency to put up a front. Also seemingly highlights a lie imo. I don't believe her on that.

Dr j said she was inactive at the time he saw her with baby k which I just don't think is right when you have a fragile and new baby desating. You would seek help immediately and do what you can in the meanwhile. I wouldn't want to do that on my own. Two thins wrong she didn't call for help or adjust the oxygen and the alarm isn't sounding? It does sound too out for me and that's without her prior convictions.

Wtf was she doing? Just staring with eyes wide wide open as the baby starts going down? Grim.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Exactly. To pump air into a newborn's veins, or severely overfeed them by injecting so much milk into their stomach their lungs collapsed, is like torture. We cannot say 'she didn't intend to kill them' when they went through so much pain and torture, leaving many with lifelong disabilities. IMO

Well, logically, we can.

Yes, that evidence might be evidence of her having an intent to kill but it could also reasonably be evidence of her intention to cause suffering without death or simply wanting to cause a scene to bring attention to herself.

Remember that the crime of attempted murder requires a definite and unambiguous intention to cause death. Engineering a situation which comes very close to death, even extremely close, or being entirely uncaring as to whether death actually occurred is not attempted murder.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I don't think there is enough evidence to differentiate whether she 'intended' for them to die or not. Some died, some didn't. Leaving an infant 'unresponsive' and on the verge of death is indeed attempted murder. IMO She knew that some would die because of her vile actions.

Just because some were lucky enough to have been saved by a team of responders does not change it from attempted murder. If the responders had not been quick enough, the child would be dead. We cannot credit Nurse Letby with the helpful actions of the medical team.

She left many babies unresponsive. Without further emergency response thy would have died. Her intent seemed to be to push them to the verge of death, and then let fate decide which live and which die.

That is still attempted murder, IMO. Her intentions were to push them to the edge and see what happens---and indeed some died. So she cannot claim that she did not intend for them to die because she knew that many times THEY DID die, yet she continued.

Then you could not convict her of attempted murder!

 

[Sweeper2000]

"More like she wanted to push the victim towards the line but not necessarily push the victim over it, imo."


Pushing fragile premature babies 'to the line' where they need a crash cart and a team of first responders to save them?

That may seem 'indirect' and not aggressive enough to outright kill them however without that code alarm reaction to take action to save them, they'd ALL be dead.

Many of the victims required several shots of adrenaline and many minutes of resuscitation, oxygen and emergency treatment in order to stay alive. Many ended up with lifelong deficits and trauma.

I don't think it is any less serious of a crime to push a victim to the line---make them unresponsive and near death---than to push them over the line. IMO

I don't either, I was just highlighting the less than direct but still sadly torturous means of inflicting harm in some cases. I would think a whole life tarriff would still be appropriate as the most severe sentence possible. I can see where marantz is coming from though.

Strange the more direct means ie intravenous AE featured more prominently amongst the earlier cases. I wonder if she changed it due to "not so nice comments"? We know it was a topic quite early on in the events in the unit.

 

[Parker Knoll]

The charge of AM is absolutely the right charge for her for Baby K - it’s nothing else IMHO.

This is an unprecedented case and this retrial I have had mixed feelings about since it was announced HOWEVER as I have said before thankfully I am not in the parents position which changes everything … I’m just someone on the internet.

Personally and fwiw I think Dr J had a big influence in this being retried by the crown, sometimes he who shouts loudest gets heard and the defence did everything in their powers to shred his credibility ( not forgetting pretty much all the professionals in this case ) and I think he certainly wanted some redress.

The trial was a nightmare to prosecute based on the sheer numbers of babies on the indictment, they had to prove an overall pattern here and they succeeded but that comes with its own issues with the massive weight of evidence for the jury to digest and mammoth length of the case.

Going forward I’m not sure how they would begin to bring further cases to trial as the time would be pre June 2015 and how would anyone really remember their shifts that day ? The only comparison is Shipman and maybe they will use the methodology they did with him at his inquest - who knows, maybe we will never see her again in the doc - maybe we will, Operation Hummingbird is still a live investigation.

Apologies for this wall of text and JMO as ever.

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1808085910052864429

 

[Sweeper2000]

The charge of AM is absolutely the right charge for her for Baby K - it’s nothing else IMHO.

This is an unprecedented case and this retrial I have had mixed feelings about since it was announced HOWEVER as I have said before thankfully I am not in the parents position which changes everything … I’m just someone on the internet.

Personally and fwiw I think Dr J had a big influence in this being retried by the crown, sometimes he who shouts loudest gets heard and the defence did everything in their powers to shred his credibility ( not forgetting pretty much all the professionals in this case ) and I think he certainly wanted some redress.

The trial was a nightmare to prosecute based on the sheer numbers of babies on the indictment, they had to prove an overall pattern here and they succeeded but that comes with its own issues with the massive weight of evidence for the jury to digest and mammoth length of the case.

Going forward I’m not sure how they would begin to bring further cases to trial as the time would be pre June 2015 and how would anyone really remember their shifts that day ? The only comparison is Shipman and maybe they will use the methodology they did with him at his inquest - who knows, maybe we will never see her again in the doc - maybe we will, Operation Hummingbird is still a live investigation.

Apologies for this wall of text and JMO as ever.

You think the parents of any potentially harmed baby would be given a choice? "We checked your babies records and found things that are unusual, we want to know if you would seek a prosecution as she is in for life"?

Was anyone expected to remember their shifts in the first trial? Thought the clinical notes led the stated sequence of events with testimony on top? Seems right to me as there is as you say a mammoth task in remembering all of it for that trial alone.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I don’t follow sweep ? the crown would not ask them they would simply tell them.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I don’t follow sweep ? the crown would not ask them they would simply tell them

Going forward I’m not sure how they would begin to bring further cases to trial as the time would be pre June 2015 and how would anyone really remember their shifts that day ?

If the process of bringing other cases to trial was either legally difficult or inpractical would they ask?
Just thinking if in the process of the investigation they did find cases that were suspect, rather than bringing everyone to trial again would the crown ask the parents if they wanted to? She's already locked up for life so would it be deemed in the public interest to convict her of more crimes?

 

[Marantz4250b]

If the process of bringing other cases to trial was either legally difficult or inpractical would they ask?
Just thinking if in the process of the investigation they did find cases that were suspect, rather than bringing everyone to trial again would the crown ask the parents if they wanted to? She's already locked up for life so would it be deemed in the public interest to convict her of more crimes?

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.

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1808100523142181070

 

[Jazmania]

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.

 

[Jazmania]

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.

Although her looking up K's parents years later, just months before her police interview where she said she didn't remember any of the events of the very short amount of time K was in her unit. That's very suspicious. How could she remember K's surname years later, but not remember any of the specifics of the hours that K spent on the ward.