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

IIRC with shipman they estimated that he was likely responsible for over 2000+ victims over his career as a doctor.
I suppose if one is not involved personally it could be easy to say “ let’s call it a day with this “ but putting myself in a parents position where their baby had died at the CoC or Liverpool and Letby was involved in their “ care” and something happened it would haunt me.
A tough one.
 
Hello, nice to see everyone again.

I think it depends on the outcome of what happened to the babies she is suspected of harming. If there are other babies who died as a result of her murdering them, or any children who were disabled due to her trying to kill them, then those parents deserve justice. Also it could lead to them being awarded compensation which could help with caring for these children. If the babies that were attacked made a full recovery however, then I agree that there would be no public interest in pursuing the case.

With child K, I always felt that was the strongest case of the ones that the jury couldn't agree on. I think there must be new evidence too (possibly), as there's no way that the prosecution spent 4 weeks on baby K last time. Although it will take some time to get the jury up to speed on what they need to know about the background of the case.

I wonder how much of the surrounding evidence the prosecution will be allowed to bring in. If child K wasn't mentioned in the handover notes, will they be able to dwell on those?
 
attempted murder is really difficult to prove with a jury, I’ve had first hand experience of it in a jury deliberating room. It’s the whole intent vs without intent thing. Ppl won’t use their common sense because they are repeatedly told to only judge on the evidence infront of them. which to be fair, is extremely difficult because how can you truly prove what a persons intent is at the time? Remember they can only go on what’s Infront of them this time and cant use any inferences from her past guilty verdicts. I remember the evidence being quite weak last time, so I’m really hoping they have new evidence.

I don’t have a good feeling about this retrial. I don’t know if we’ll get justice for baby k and I think this will just open a can of worms where the lucy letby fan girls/boys will have a field day.

I do hope I’m wrong.
 
Honeybirdette said:
attempted murder is really difficult to prove with a jury, I’ve had first hand experience of it in a jury deliberating room. It’s the whole intent vs without intent thing. Ppl won’t use their common sense because they are repeatedly told to only judge on the evidence infront of them. which to be fair, is extremely difficult because how can you truly prove what a persons intent is at the time? Remember they can only go on what’s Infront of them this time and cant use any inferences from her past guilty verdicts. I remember the evidence being quite weak last time, so I’m really hoping they have new evidence.

I don’t have a good feeling about this retrial. I don’t know if we’ll get justice for baby k and I think this will just open a can of worms where the lucy letby fan girls/boys will have a field day.

I do hope I’m wrong.
Click to expand...
I agree with all the points I have bolded.

If they failed to convince a jury of attempted murder last time round, why do they think they can this time? Is there new evidence giving a "real prospect of conviction?" A simple rehash of the previous evidence doesn't seem likely to clear that bar so why is this proceeding? There must be something coming that we haven't seen before.

And, yes, you're right on the last point; if she's convicted they'll still say it's a fit-up and if there is another hung jury or, lord forbid, an acquittal it will simply encourage their lunacy.
 
Nice to see you all again. Is this where we're discussing this time around?

Just reading the Chester and its bizarre that this time around she's been found guilty so sections where NJ says this sound really surreal:

"Mr Johnson says the date of concern is February 17, 2016.

He says by this stage, Lucy Letby had murdered five babies, and had attempted to murder three more.

She had twice attempted to murder one of the latter."
 
Marantz4250b said:
I agree with all the points I have bolded.

If they failed to convince a jury of attempted murder last time round, why do they think they can this time? Is there new evidence giving a "real prospect of conviction?" A simple rehash of the previous evidence doesn't seem likely to clear that bar so why is this proceeding? There must be something coming that we haven't seen before.

And, yes, you're right on the last point; if she's convicted they'll still say it's a fit-up and if there is another hung jury or, lord forbid, an acquittal it will simply encourage their lunacy.
Click to expand...

All my own thoughts but Baby K relies largely on witness evidence. As per reports from the day:

"The prosecution told the jury that medical experts Dr Dewi Evans and Dr Sandie Bohin would not be called to give evidence regarding Child K

He said it was agreed that "nothing either Dr Dewi Evans or Dr Sandie Bohin" could provide would "add to the evidence you have heard so we are not going to call them at this stage".
LINK

Sounds to me like the CPS now have further medical evidence to backup their case. It makes me wonder if the crown were just not as prepared for Baby K in general as iirc this was initially a murder charge that was dropped to attempted pre-trial due to insufficient evidence. If I also remember right this was one of the times Myers really excelled so I think overall the CPS have more evidence and believe they can present their case better this time.

Edited: please let me know if I'm breaking rules by talking of the previous case in relation to this. I'm not familiar with re-trials admittedly
 
DinerMite said:
Sounds to me like the CPS now have further medical evidence to backup their case. It makes me wonder if the crown were just not as prepared for Baby K in general as iirc this was initially a murder charge that was dropped to attempted pre-trial due to insufficient evidence. If I also remember right this was one of the times Myers really excelled so I think overall the CPS have more evidence and believe they can present their case better this time.
Click to expand...
I seem to recall that. I think it was dropped as murder first time round as the baby had been transferred and some other stuff had gone on so that it could not be stated with certainty that her alleged actions were the direct cause of the death? A direct causal link could not be made.
 

"Jury told Letby was previously convicted of the murder of seven babies​

He said Letby was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempted to murder six others,
one twice.

'All that happened
whilst Lucy Letby was working as a neonatal nurse in the neonatal unit at Countess of Chester Hospital in Chester.

The other cases have an ‘importance’,
not because of what she has done previously,
but what the Crown are suggesting is
the relevance gives significant evidence
what her intention was at the time'.

'We say her status as a multiple murderer is an important piece of evidence'​


Mr Johnson continues:

'In a nutshell,
we say that her status as a multiple murderer and attempted murderer
is an important piece of evidence
that you can and should take into account
when you are considering whether
we have proved that she was trying to kill Child K'."

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Lucy Letby retrial updates as ex-nurse accused of attempted murder of baby

The trial of the former neonatal nurse is expected to last up to four weeks
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk
 
Last edited:
CS2C said:
The Letby's will not be attending I have been told.
Click to expand...
How strange. You’d think they would want to go to be able to see her? I guess she’s told them not to.

I wonder if she will give evidence in her own defence this time round. That really *advertiser censored**** her up last time so I would imagine she’s been advised not to.
 
Honeybirdette said:
How strange. You’d think they would want to go to be able to see her? I guess she’s told them not to.

I wonder if she will give evidence in her own defence this time round. That really *advertiser censored**** her up last time so I would imagine she’s been advised not to.
Click to expand...
It's anyone's guess as to why they aren't there. Given how much they attended the original trial it's significant that they aren't there for this one, imo. I can only see it being due to;

  • Illness
  • They think she's guilty
  • She's asked (begged probably) them not to go, or;
  • Some other significant reason we aren't privy to
Maybe they've decided that it's all a big fit-up and have simply thrown in the towel?

As to her being advised not to give evidence - if I were a gambling man, and I am, I'd put strong money on that being the case the first time round but she did anyway. I'm not convinced that she takes sensible advice well, tbh.
 
From Chester Standard:

"At 3.30am, Letby recorded observations for that room 2 baby.

Also at that time, "a lot of things were being recorded", Mr Johnson says. Letby signed for morphine for Child K with Joanne Williams. The morphine was a painkiller and sedation. It was to be given as Child K had been intubated, Mr Johnson tells the court.

It is so they don't interfere with the tube, he adds."


I remember this being a key issue last time.If K was sedated, how could she have dislodged her breathing tube? But I remember the doctor last time admitting that the morphine must have been given later after she collapsed. So if the prosecution are now again saying the morphine was given before the collapse, this seems like new evidence proving their version of the timeline will be presented.
 
Her demeanour when I saw her in the last trial was the most bizarre I have ever seen with a defendant in a witness box.
If it’s anything like last time it’s almost mesmerising how unperturbed she presents.
 
Marantz4250b said:
It's anyone's guess as to why they aren't there. Given how much they attended the original trial it's significant that they aren't there for this one, imo. I can only see it being due to;

  • Illness
  • They think she's guilty
  • She's asked (begged probably) them not to go, or;
  • Some other significant reason we aren't privy to
Maybe they've decided that it's all a big fit-up and have simply thrown in the towel?

As to her being advised not to give evidence - if I were a gambling man, and I am, I'd put strong money on that being the case the first time round but she did anyway. I'm not convinced that she takes sensible advice well, tbh.
Click to expand...

IMO
The parents should be left alone.
It is not anyone's business if they attend or not.

Their lives have been turned upside down and their love for the only child should not be held against them or dissected by the public.

They carry their own burden,
unimaginable for most of us.

All parents in this tragedy are victims.

JMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 116 more.
Total: 2,073 (members: 117, guests: 1,956)

Online statistics

Members online
117
Guests online
1,956
Total visitors
2,073
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,908
Messages
18,115,438
Members
230,991
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top