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

[Sweeper2000]

For the love of god …. If these “ notes “ were made by letby under the advice of a professional then why didn’t she say so in the dock ? Ethics aside as we are a bit too late for that now.
I had said myself a million years ago that maybe she had scribbled stuff down whilst talking with people ( possibly on the phone ) as the notes are so jumbled almost like they are written at different times and all crammed onto the same post it notes but she said NOTHING !
There were so many times she could of explained or semi explained her actions to the jury but did not and I found this incredulous -
Nearly 7 years to come up with “ I collect paper “ will never not be utterly baffling.
With the exception of the plumber no experts were offered up by her defence for a very good reason.

I find it curious too. Did the cat have her tongue? I would guess she had been advised to not mention therapy?

 

[Parker Knoll]

There is no reason she could not of mentioned anything about having therapy in the dock if she had.
Tbh I would have totally expected her to have had mountains of it if I had sat on that jury.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I'm not so sure. The biggest prejudice in the world is MH issues. I would be cautious definitely.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Perhaps an article from the British medical association will allow you to hear why professionals aren’t just accepting the verdict as the end of the trial

Letby disaster epitomises flaws in NHS

The tragic events of the Lucy Letby case show the urgent need for an independent regulator for non-clinical managers

www.bma.org.uk

The verdict is the end of the trial.

I have great respect for the BMA and whatever experts they can present but that doesn't mean that they automatically get to second-guess and criticise legal cases they were not part of; the trial, including jury deliberations, took up ten months, involved probably thousands of people in one way or another, and I expect ran up a bill into the tens of millions of pounds. That's without considering the retrial on one count and an appeal.

Moreover, it was splashed all over every conceivable media outlet for the majority of that time.

Lucy Letby was first arrested on 3rd June 2018 - over six years ago - and will have had excellent legal representation since the minute she arrived at Blacon police station.

The defence had every opportunity over the course of many years to find the very best medical and medico-legal specialists on the planet and did indeed have one. In the event they called......the plumber!

Sorry but the BMA may be a highly regarded and prestigious institution but they have no more right to be heard than anyone else. They had years to interject with whatever evidence or assistance they felt necessary or to point out any errors in the evidence to either side. Why are they only shoving their oar in now?

The place for raising objections or voicing opinions is a court of law. You don't get to waltz in after the event and start cherry-picking individual points for criticism like Harry Enfield's Mr You didn't wanna do that character pointing out why everyone else went wrong.

 

[Tortoise]

I don't see what it's got to do with anything anyway. These were still her thoughts, they were not dictated to her, whether it was suggested to her to do some writing or not.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I definitely agree that there were failings at the hospital, and that is what the inquiry is for. IMO it is part of how she was able to carry on for as long as she did, and I hope that management are held accountable.

Yes. These babies did not die due to medical failings, mistakes or general low standards.

They did because a serial killer murdered them. The failing by the system, the Trust and the hospital was one of allowing that serial killer to continue when she could, and should, have been stopped. Management exhibited rank incompetence - criminal incompetence, imo - in allowing the situation to continue. Someone, maybe multiple people, should be in prison for that.

As always, my personal opinion only.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Not sure I can roll my eyes any more than I already have recently about this case but here goes

The fact seems to have escaped them that LL took the stand and got to tell the jury, in her own words, exactly why she wrote the notes and what they meant. IMO she would still have been convicted without the note and would not have been convicted if all they’d had was the note.

Exactly.

I actually agree in that they are somewhat ambiguous in nature and, yes, I think she did write them in response to the obviously enormous level of stress she was under.

We have to remember, tough, that these were written before her first arrest so she hadn't been formally accused of killing babies yet and I don't think that anyone had seriously suggested it to her. I think she was even still at work in admin right up to her arrest. That being the case, to my mind they come over as very extreme things for an innocent person to be writing and probably do lean towards a genuinely guilty conscience. I agree that they aren't that condemning in the great scheme of things.

And, as you rightly point out - she had every opportunity to put whatever evidence she wanted before the jury. Ben Myers could have spent weeks just asking her about the specific nature of the notes, why they were written and what their meaning was yet he didn't. He could have called Kathryn De Berger to give evidence about them - he didn't. He will have had a good reason for everything he did or did not do as regards her defence. He is one of the most well reputed lawyers in the country and securing not guilty verdicts in one of the longest, most complicated and most sensational murder trials in British history would have been a crowning glory for him. Yet she's now serving a whole life order as Britain's most prolific child killer in over a century!

 

[Sweeper2000]

It doesn't change anything for me really aside from quite seriously damaging the thought the prosecutions allegations of them being a confession. If she had of been up front about that it would have been in her favour I think.

 

[Marantz4250b]

There is no reason she could not of mentioned anything about having therapy in the dock if she had.
Tbh I would have totally expected her to have had mountains of it if I had sat on that jury.

Indeed. She could bring up anything she wanted.

I do wonder why she didn't, however. Of course, if she had done that then would that then open the door to everything that went on in therapy? Perhaps there is a lot there which would have done her no favours, if you see what I'm getting at????

 

[Sweeper2000]

It could have been a play by Mr myers, "this baseless accusation by the prosecution of these notes being a confession is proven false and made up to fit the prosecutions
Story as I can tell you and here is the signature of Ms letbys counsellor to do exactly as she has done and write any passing thought onto paper as we can see she has done with these countless meaningless notes and it is also known by them that this is what she was instructed to do". Damaging to the prosecutions story and credibility imo

Would also have served if he had said this was written under guidance and at a time of extreme stress during the time of her being placed on clerical, you can see by these other notes that they are out of character.

 

[Marantz4250b]

It could have been a play by Mr myers, "this baseless accusation by the prosecution of these notes being a confession is proven false and made up to fit the prosecutions
Story as I can tell you and here is the signature of Ms letbys counsellor to do exactly as she has done and write any passing thought onto paper as we can see she has done with these countless meaningless notes and it is also known by them that this is what she was instructed to do". Damaging to the prosecutions story and credibility imo

Would also have served if he had said this was written under guidance and at a time of extreme stress during the time of her being placed on clerical, you can see by these other notes that they are out of character.

The thing is, though, we don't know what else she may have said/done during counselling. If she relied on that to explain the notes would that then have given the prosecution carte-blanche to trawl through her records and cross examine her and her counsellors on everything? If so then what else may come out that might harm her?

I mean, I doubt that she said anything along the lines of I killed babies but you never know. Also, would some damning things about her history have come out?

We just don't know. I'm sure that Mr Myers had very good reasons for doing, or not doing, everything in relation to her defence.

 

[Dotta]

"Lucy Letby inquiry ​

should be postponed or changed, ​

experts say.​

A group including some of the UK’s leading neonatal experts and professors of statistics is calling on the government
to postpone or change the terms of a public inquiry over concerns about the conviction of the neonatal nurse Lucy Letby.

In a private letter to ministers, seen by the Guardian,
the 24 experts said they were concerned that the inquiry’s narrow terms could prevent
lessons being learned about
'possible negligent deaths that were presumed to be murders'
in the neonatal ward of the Countess of Chester hospital (CoC)."

Lucy Letby inquiry should be postponed or changed, experts say

Group including neonatal experts and statistics professors question its setup amid concerns about conviction

www.theguardian.com

 

[Marantz4250b]

"Lucy Letby inquiry ​

should be postponed or changed, ​

experts say.​

A group including some of the UK’s leading neonatal experts and professors of statistics is calling on the government
to postpone or change the terms of a public inquiry over concerns about the conviction of the neonatal nurse Lucy Letby.

In a private letter to ministers, seen by the Guardian,
the 24 experts said they were concerned that the inquiry’s narrow terms could prevent
lessons being learned about
'possible negligent deaths that were presumed to be murders'
in the neonatal ward of the Countess of Chester hospital (CoC)."

Lucy Letby inquiry should be postponed or changed, experts say

Group including neonatal experts and statistics professors question its setup amid concerns about conviction

www.theguardian.com

I don't know what they're actually getting at here. They state that they aren't trying to "relitigate" the Letby case but the general tone of their letter is that she may have been unjustly convicted.

They go on to say that they want to ...change its terms of reference to enable “a broader examination of potential factors contributing to the increased neonatal deaths, without the presumption of criminal intent”. Which is basically saying let's fish around for a clinical reason rather than a criminal one. Sounds like an attempt to "relitigate" it, at least to some extent.

Yet again we see references to "statistical" analysis and suchlike. She WAS NOT CONVICTED ON STATISTICAL EVIDENCE!!! If the probability of her being present for all the events was even mentioned it was only briefly and it was never claimed that it was highly damning of her. The chart of her shift patterns coinciding with the events is not a statistical piece of scientific evidence - it's merely an anecdotal piece of circumstantial evidence!

 

[Sweeper2000]

The thing is, though, we don't know what else she may have said/done during counselling. If she relied on that to explain the notes would that then have given the prosecution carte-blanche to trawl through her records and cross examine her and her counsellors on everything? If so then what else may come out that might harm her?

I mean, I doubt that she said anything along the lines of I killed babies but you never know. Also, would some damning things about her history have come out?

We just don't know. I'm sure that Mr Myers had very good reasons for doing, or not doing, everything in relation to her defence.

Anyone know if either side would have the right to or to not have that evidence presented in court? I doubt the defence could stop it being presented but idk.

 

[Dotta]

I don't know what they're actually getting at here. They state that they aren't trying to "relitigate" the Letby case but the general tone of their letter is that she may have been unjustly convicted.

They go on to say that they want to ...change its terms of reference to enable “a broader examination of potential factors contributing to the increased neonatal deaths, without the presumption of criminal intent”. Which is basically saying let's fish around for a clinical reason rather than a criminal one. Sounds like an attempt to "relitigate" it to at least some extent.

Yet again we see references to "statistical" analysis and suchlike. She WAS NOT CONVICTED ON STATISTICAL EVIDENCE!!! If the probability of her being present for all the events was even mentioned it was only briefly and it was never claimed that it was highly damning of her. The chart of her shift patterns coinciding with the events is not a statistical piece of scientific evidence - it's merely an anecdotal piece of circumstantial evidence!

Yep.
It is all turning into a circus.

I'm so sorry for the poor victims' parents/families

This seems to be never ending horror story.

And, mind you,
there are many tv documentaries in progress.

I'm observing all this from afar,
constantly shaking my head

 

[Marantz4250b]

Anyone know if either side would have the right to or to not have that evidence presented in court? I doubt the defence could stop it being presented but idk.

I don't know but my thinking is that if you start relying on your mental health/medical records as part of your case then the other side has the right to access those records and call your doctors/counsellors in order to test your evidence.

Many people, myself included, have been astonished that LL seems so normal, so unlike other serial killers having had a seemingly perfect upbringing and family life and it's always been suggested that there must be more to her that hasn't come out. Perhaps there's something particularly dark hidden away in her medical past?

 

[Sweeper2000]

I don't know but my thinking is that if you start relying on your mental health/medical records as part of your case then the other side has the right to access those records and call your doctors/counsellors in order to test your evidence.

Many people, myself included, have been astonished that LL seems so normal, so unlike other serial killers having had a seemingly perfect upbringing and family life and it's always been suggested that there must be more to her that hasn't come out. Perhaps there's something particularly dark hidden away in her medical past?

I might wonder if and under what grounds that kind of thing can be excluded from a trial?

 

[DannyLFC1892]

Can somebody explain to somebody who isn't medically trained how the insulin/c-peptide cases could possibly not point to intentional murder? It's 100% got to be? Right?

 

[Sweeper2000]

Can somebody explain to somebody who isn't medically trained how the insulin/c-peptide cases could possibly not point to intentional murder? It's 100% got to be? Right?

No the test they did was only on c peptide which is produced by the body in relation to degree of insulin, so they didn't test for the actual insulin ratio in the blood. All they knew 100% was the c peptide was grossly out of the ordinary but not about the actual insulin level. The contest about that is that the test done was not forensically sound but I believe it is still admissible as evidence of external in origin insulin.

In essence this is an argument about what c peptide ratios show. The prosecutions argument is that nothing indicates why the c peptide would be that way without injecting insulin.

 

[Tortoise]

She's been proven guilty! So what she wrote about doing it was in fact true!

Red Herring alert.