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

[marynnu]

So BM staying on …. That’s interesting.
We are never leaving this thread are we !

I think we all have a whole life sentence!

 

[ColourPurple]

So BM staying on …. That’s interesting.
We are never leaving this thread are we !

Quite amusing though that the fan club have been slagging Myers even more since the McDonald news but it seems she’s still sticking with him too and has “bonded” with him.

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

There’s also this weird assumption that people’s own opinions on something they admit they don’t know the full details about , are more important than the opinions of the jury who saw and heard every bit of evidence in a 10 month trial! This isn’t X factor , there was no public vote. The GBP don’t get to decide whether LL was guilty of not. That was the jury’s job!

The fact that somebody who has read a biased summary of events is not convinced “beyond reasonable doubt” that LL is guilty is frankly irrelevant. And why do they keep using the term “beyond reasonable doubt”? Aside from the fact that it’s now been replaced by “sure” in UK courts, it has never been the case that everybody in the country needed to be convinced “beyond reasonable doubt” of somebody’s guilt. It was always only the jury.

ETA that’s not to say that there can’t ever be miscarriages of justice, but a conviction will never be overturned just because some uninformed random member of the public wasn’t convinced beyond reasonable doubt.

Great post!

Bolded by me, I just wanted to add that the whole point of a jury is to be judged by a random group of peers from the general population instead of a group of legal officials or a council of elites. The point is to give someone a fair trial with the chance of those passing judgment being more likely to understand the lives of the accused than a group of lords, ladies and legal echelons.
The simple rules in place, such as jurors not discussing the trial until deliberation and not viewing outside media of the case, are there to emphasize nonbias.
A jury is a representation of LL's peers within the general public.
Why is their decision being questioned? The fact that this is the case is scary. It is almost like Oliver Cromwell might pop out of his grave saying "I'm backkkk"

 

[Dotta]

So...
Forgive my ignorance,

Is the new team headed by Mr McDonald going to appeal to some kind of Supreme Court?

I'm a bit lost
as it was reported that the original verdicts were ultimate and LL cannot appeal any more
That her appeals were rejected.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1831853330387120527

 

[Dotta]

So...
Forgive my ignorance,

Is the new team headed by Mr McDonald going to appeal to some kind of Supreme Court?

I'm a bit lost
as it was reported that the original verdicts were ultimate and LL cannot appeal any more
That her appeals were rejected.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1831853330387120527

To answer my own post.
From link above

"Mr Owen said that, while Letby’s appeal had failed, there was still the avenue of the Criminal Cases Review Commission for her to pursue, should new evidence emerge to suggest her conviction was unsafe.

‘But it will require compelling evidence,’ he added."

 

[Tortoise]

Quite amusing though that the fan club have been slagging Myers even more since the McDonald news but it seems she’s still sticking with him too and has “bonded” with him.

I wonder who is responsible for using that word. It makes her sound like a child, or someone with special needs. At any rate to me it sounds inappropriate and sentimental. I doubt they would use it if talking about a psychopathic adult male serial killer.

IMO

 

[Parker Knoll]

I wonder if it’s reciprocated ?
Doubtful.

 

[Sweeper2000]

The new doc choc, may god help him.

ETA. its worse than that because he knows exactly what he is getting into.

 

[DianaWW]

The Mail have released a new episode of the podcast. They speak to one of the experts that has raised concerns about the statistics (even though the trial didn’t use statistics). They got her to acknowledge that she hasn’t actually even read the entire appeal judgement. She only had time to read a summary…

Addressing The Doubters

Podcast Episode · The Trial of Lucy Letby: The Inquiry · 06/09/2024 · 60m

podcasts.apple.com

 

[marynnu]

The Mail have released a new episode of the podcast. They speak to one of the experts that has raised concerns about the statistics (even though the trial didn’t use statistics). They got to to acknowledge that she hasn’t actually even read the entire appeal judgement. She only had time to read a summary…

Addressing The Doubters

Podcast Episode · The Trial of Lucy Letby: The Inquiry · 06/09/2024 · 60m

podcasts.apple.com

She has her own issues which she hints at in the interview. How the journalists kept their patience defeats me!

 

[iamshadow21]

I wonder who is responsible for using that word. It makes her sound like a child, or someone with special needs. At any rate to me it sounds inappropriate and sentimental. I doubt they would use it if talking about a psychopathic adult male serial killer.

IMO

She always weaponised her 'fragility' well. We saw that at trial. The people with power or position, especially (but not exclusively) men, tripping over themselves to shield her from consequences.

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

[...]

While one such chart listed 25 collapses and fatalities in which Letby was present, the jury was not told about a further nine deaths over that period with which she was not charged, which were not included in the table, according to The Daily Mail.

A source said: “Four of the deaths were babies born with a congenital problem or birth defect, another baby was sadly asphyxiated or deprived of oxygen at birth, the remaining four died of infection and their deaths were precipitated with a period of time consistent with infection – they did not suddenly and unexpectedly collapse and die.”

[...]

A public inquiry examining events at the Countess of Chester Hospital following Letby’s multiple convictions is due to begin on 10 September in Liverpool.

What are the fresh questions surrounding the Lucy Letby case?

 

[Sweeper2000]

Does anyone remember if In the evidence it was stated that a unit like the coch one only expected two to three deaths a year? I'm almost certain it did, I wonder if that could influence a appeal decision. I'm right in thinking that totals 16 deaths over the 2015/16 period In question right? That's quite a gross omission isn't it?

 

[Parker Knoll]

Jane Hutton should have a coffee with the parents, police and CPS and see how long she lasts spouting her utter word salad.
She infuriated me.

 

[Tortoise]

Does anyone remember if In the evidence it was stated that a unit like the coch one only expected two to three deaths a year? I'm almost certain it did, I wonder if that could influence a appeal decision. I'm right in thinking that totals 16 deaths over the 2015/16 period In question right? That's quite a gross omission isn't it?

Omission from a chart of all the suspicious deaths and collapses being prosecuted?

Whoever was on duty for those other deaths is irrelevant, whether or not it included Letby.

The usual number was three or four deaths a year (according to trial testimony).

We aren't told if 9 deaths was over 13 months (Jun 2015 to Jul 2016), or if that was from Jan 2015. I know they looked at the period starting Jan 2015.

edited to add - I'm listening to the latest Mail podcast (link below) and they do confirm it is for the period starting Jan 2015. So that is 9 deaths over 19 months.

 

[DianaWW]

I’m so tired of this now. She has been found guilty by a jury of her peers TWICE. Her appeal has been rejected TWICE. Why is this even still a debate? I’ve never known another case like it.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Omission from a chart of all the suspicious deaths and collapses being prosecuted?

Whoever was on duty for those other deaths is irrelevant, whether or not it included Letby.

The usual number was three or four deaths a year (according to trial testimony).

We aren't told if 9 deaths was over 13 months (Jun 2015 to Jul 2016), or if that was from Jan 2015. I know they looked at the period starting Jan 2015.

Yes I'm wondering what an appeal board would think if the information presented was done so in a way that distorted the information unfavourably? If three or four is normal then why did 9 die in a year ? Kind of thing and why wasn't it mentioned? Not sure it's grounds to release her but do wonder if it would be taken seriously.

 

[Tortoise]

Yes I'm wondering what an appeal board would think if the information presented was done so in a way that distorted the information unfavourably? If three or four is normal then why did 9 die in a year ? Kind of thing and why wasn't it mentioned? Not sure it's grounds to release her but do wonder if it would be taken seriously.

It's not a year, it's 19 months (see my edit to my post above)

How was the information distorted? It's like saying an ambulance driver murders all his patients by suffocation en route to the hospital but look at all the heart attack deaths in other ambulances that he wasn't driving to see if he is guilty or not. It's just a chart showing she was at work for all of them, and not at home on her sofa, so suspicion can be excluded for other staff members. It's not statistical evidence. IMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

Cheers. Clears that up.

What I was saying was that if in a year the max death rate should be about three or max four and there was 9 deaths in a year not related to nefarious action, how was it that the deaths in excess of what is expected and not suspicious were not presented to the jury? When the actual death rate was already excessive. My point was depending on the timescale. You see what I mean? From the prosecution would that be seen by a appeal board as either dishonest or misleading presentation of facts?

 

[ColourPurple]

Great post!

Bolded by me, I just wanted to add that the whole point of a jury is to be judged by a random group of peers from the general population instead of a group of legal officials or a council of elites. The point is to give someone a fair trial with the chance of those passing judgment being more likely to understand the lives of the accused than a group of lords, ladies and legal echelons.
The simple rules in place, such as jurors not discussing the trial until deliberation and not viewing outside media of the case, are there to emphasize nonbias.
A jury is a representation of LL's peers within the general public.
Why is their decision being questioned? The fact that this is the case is scary. It is almost like Oliver Cromwell might pop out of his grave saying "I'm backkkk"

Oh I agree. I wasn’t suggesting that the jury aren’t or shouldn’t be, made up of random members of the public.