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

Marantz4250b said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jazmania said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Sweeper2000 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Marantz4250b said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Sweeper2000 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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 www.cps.gov.uk
 
elliefant said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
So, that pretty much concludes her trials barring any pointless appeals she launches to this verdict.

I've said previously that I suspect there is other stuff to come out about her and her upbringing, stuff that the press has been sitting on that they were barred from publishing before now. Be interesting to see what comes out.
 
Personally I think this was an easy verdict and I never understood the extended deliberations with no verdict in the original trial. I don't think they were using the patterns of her offending, as they were allowed to do. JMO
 
3:18pm

It can now be revealed child serial killer Lucy Letby was compelled to hear part of the sentencing remarks she refused to listen to last year as they were read out ahead of her latest trial.
Former neo-natal nurse Letby, 34, refused to attend her sentencing at Manchester Crown Court after she was convicted in August of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others – with two attempts on one victim – at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.
The mother of two of her victims said her absence was “one final act of wickedness” while Prime Minister Rishi Sunak branded Letby “cowardly” as he said the Government was looking at changing the law to force criminals to attend sentencing hearings.
Letby received 14 whole life terms of imprisonment – one for each offence she committed.
In June, Letby returned to the same courtroom to face a retrial on an allegation that the previous jury could not reach a verdict on – that she attempted to murder a baby girl during a night shift at the hospital’s neo-natal unit in February 2016.
Her legal team tried, unsuccessfully, to throw out the case before it started as they argued she could not have a fair trial due in part to a “tsunami of prejudicial comment” in the aftermath of her convictions.
But prosecutor Nick Johnson KC countered that what followed in media coverage was “nothing more than a fair reflection of the facts of this case”, which included the sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Goss.
Referring to Letby, who he said “of course was not there”, he reminded the high court judge of what he said on sentencing.
Letby looked largely to the floor in the courtroom dock as Mr Johnson took seven minutes to read a section of the remarks while a packed public gallery watched on in silence.
He said: “My lord, you said ‘you acted in a way that was completely contrary to the normal human instincts of nurturing and caring for babies and in gross breach of the trust that all citizens place in those who work in the medical and caring professions … the lives of newborn or relatively newborn babies were ended almost as soon as they began and lifelong harm has been caused, all in horrific circumstances.
“‘Loving parents have been robbed of their cherished children and others have to live with the physical and mental consequences of your actions. Siblings have been deprived of brothers and sisters.
“‘You have caused deep psychological trauma, brought enduring grief and feelings of guilt, caused strains in relationships and disruption to the lives of all the families of all your victims’.”

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

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 www.chesterstandard.co.uk

I love that he made her listen to her sentencing remarks!
 
Me too @Diann
DianaWW said:
3:18pm

It can now be revealed child serial killer Lucy Letby was compelled to hear part of the sentencing remarks she refused to listen to last year as they were read out ahead of her latest trial.
Former neo-natal nurse Letby, 34, refused to attend her sentencing at Manchester Crown Court after she was convicted in August of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others – with two attempts on one victim – at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.
The mother of two of her victims said her absence was “one final act of wickedness” while Prime Minister Rishi Sunak branded Letby “cowardly” as he said the Government was looking at changing the law to force criminals to attend sentencing hearings.
Letby received 14 whole life terms of imprisonment – one for each offence she committed.
In June, Letby returned to the same courtroom to face a retrial on an allegation that the previous jury could not reach a verdict on – that she attempted to murder a baby girl during a night shift at the hospital’s neo-natal unit in February 2016.
Her legal team tried, unsuccessfully, to throw out the case before it started as they argued she could not have a fair trial due in part to a “tsunami of prejudicial comment” in the aftermath of her convictions.
But prosecutor Nick Johnson KC countered that what followed in media coverage was “nothing more than a fair reflection of the facts of this case”, which included the sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Goss.
Referring to Letby, who he said “of course was not there”, he reminded the high court judge of what he said on sentencing.
Letby looked largely to the floor in the courtroom dock as Mr Johnson took seven minutes to read a section of the remarks while a packed public gallery watched on in silence.
He said: “My lord, you said ‘you acted in a way that was completely contrary to the normal human instincts of nurturing and caring for babies and in gross breach of the trust that all citizens place in those who work in the medical and caring professions … the lives of newborn or relatively newborn babies were ended almost as soon as they began and lifelong harm has been caused, all in horrific circumstances.
“‘Loving parents have been robbed of their cherished children and others have to live with the physical and mental consequences of your actions. Siblings have been deprived of brothers and sisters.
“‘You have caused deep psychological trauma, brought enduring grief and feelings of guilt, caused strains in relationships and disruption to the lives of all the families of all your victims’.”

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

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 www.chesterstandard.co.uk

I love that he made her listen to her sentencing remarks!
Click to expand...
So do I. Even though she's been ordered to attend her sentencing on Friday I bet she won't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 231 more.
Total: 1,049 (members: 232, guests: 817)

Online statistics

Members online
232
Guests online
817
Total visitors
1,049
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
598,294
Messages
18,078,814
Members
230,591
Latest member
ShirlzWorld
Back
Top