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 #36

[Kemug]

Would the parents have a say? The parents of babies (whether deceased or not) who now suspect their babies may have been other victims of LL? Do they have rights?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Would the parents have a say? The parents of babies (whether deceased or not) who now suspect their babies may have been other victims of LL? Do they have rights?

Below is a guide to how the CPS decide whether to prosecute. Victims have a right to appeal a decision not to prosecute.

The CPS: How we make our decisions | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

I don't see that that changes the public interest consideration, though. It's not a case of someone saying ".....it's really, really important to us that this person is prosecuted..." because that isn't a public interest consideration. Public interest means an interest (benefit) to the public as a whole.

 

[Kemug]

But what if the public strongly believes that if some of the parents of murdered babies have justice for their murdered child, then so should the others, if they exist.

 

[Kemug]

Below is a guide to how the CPS decide whether to prosecute. Victims have a right to appeal a decision not to prosecute.

RSBM
But surely a trial would be needed to prove that other babies were murdered, and that therefore their parents  are victims?

 

[Marantz4250b]

RSBM
But surely a trial would be needed to prove that other babies were murdered, and that therefore their parents  are victims?

If you get stabbed in the street by a stranger, for instance, you don't need a trial to demonstrate that you are a victim of crime.

 

[Marantz4250b]

But what if the public strongly believes that if some of the parents of murdered babies have justice for their murdered child, then so should the others, if they exist.

Well, yes, if the CPS believes that the public interest is served by that then it will be taken into account in the decision.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Victims right of review scheme

 

[Kemug]

If you get stabbed in the street by a stranger, for instance, you don't need a trial to demonstrate that you are a victim of crime.

Then it is common and irrefutable knowledge that you were stabbed. Just because your baby had a wobble and nearly died, or did in fact die, doesn't make you a crime victim. It has to be proven.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Then it is common and irrefutable knowledge that you were stabbed. Just because your baby had a wobble and nearly died, or did in fact die, doesn't make you a crime victim. It has to be proven.

No it doesn't. If the CPS clear the evidentiary bar (but not the public interest one which is the point of our discussion) then that essentially shows that there is a victim somewhere.

Besides, if a trial were needed to prove victimhood then there is no "victim" prior so no one has standing to ask for the decision to be reviewed, surely?

Anyway, pointless conversation so Am oot.

 

[Tortoise]

No it doesn't. If the CPS clear the evidentiary bar (but not the public interest one which is the point of our discussion) then that essentially shows that there is a victim somewhere.

RSBM

The range of verdicts in the first trial showed this isn't the case. The jury couldn't reach a verdict on several counts, and found her not guilty of two counts. Not because they weren't sure who perpetrated the attempted murder of those babies, but because of a lack of conviction that the collapses were unnatural. IMO

 

[Phoenix Lazarus]

This is an interesting article about her parents. It also mentions that one of her old teachers is thought to be among those who write to her in prison.

https://archive.ph/wxM5h

 

[sunspun]

This is an interesting article about her parents. It also mentions that one of her old teachers is thought to be among those who write to her in prison.

https://archive.ph/wxM5h

That was interesting. Did it say that Mr Letby is not Lucy's biological father? It wasn't clear the way it was written. Here's the quote from that article that I'm talking about:

"Mr Letby had been a 43-year-old bachelor, 14 years older than his wife, when they got together, while she was a divorcee and three months pregnant when they tied the knot."

It could also have meant he was, but that Mrs Letby became pregnant with Lucy before the Letbys were actually married. I think the way it was written could be taken either way, so I'm still not sure.

Also, I just wanted to say thanks @Phoenix Lazarus for linking this Daily Mail article on archive.ph, instead of at the DM itself. My computer gets all glitchy when I try to read the DM website, probably all the ads and links, etc, on every page, so I don't get to read many articles from there. But the way you did it was much easier, perfect for me!

 

[mrC]

a bit from talk radio

 

[Kemug]

"Mr Letby had been a 43-year-old bachelor, 14 years older than his wife, when they got together, while she was a divorcee and three months pregnant when they tied the knot."

I should think Mr Letby is her father. Otherwise his wife would still have been on sleeping terms with her first husband probably less than 3 months before the divorce became final.

 

[mrC]

i will watch it with interest Letby lawyers to reveal evidence they say ‘significantly undermines’ her convictions

 

[Tortoise]

Great live show @CS2C , thank you very much!

A reading of the actual court transcripts of Lucy Letby's 2018, 2019 and 2020 police interviews, for babies A, B and C, plus a refresher of the relevant transcripts of prosecution closing speech, (incidentally Lucy Letby's own words showing the errors in Aviv's New Yorker piece)

 

[katydid23]

i will watch it with interest Letby lawyers to reveal evidence they say ‘significantly undermines’ her convictions

Any guesses as to what this evidence will be about?

Maybe something about the insulin and faulty testing?

Maybe something about other deaths when LL was not on duty?

Maybe some second opinions on the coroner or medical examiners reports, declaring some deaths were actually sepsis or whatever else?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Any guesses as to what this evidence will be about?

Maybe something about the insulin and faulty testing?

Maybe something about other deaths when LL was not on duty?

Maybe some second opinions on the coroner or medical examiners reports, declaring some deaths were actually sepsis or whatever else?

I suspect that it isn't going to be anything particularly spectacular, tbh. It's only just over a year since she was convicted so it seems unlikely that any earth shattering revelations have been uncovered in such a short space of time.

Insulin? Don't think so and those were only two cases neither of which resulted in death.

I think it'll be a PR exercise and not much else, quite honestly.

I can't see it will involve deaths and collapses when she wasn't around. Unless they were pretty much identical in nature then I don't see how it will help her.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I'd also add to my previous by saying that a press conference to announce "new evidence" is extremely unusual in the UK. This is not how it's done here. I can't ever recall anything similar, ever. If he has new evidence then it should go to the CCRC, CPS or whomever.

Just sounds like a press stunt, to me.

 

[CatsnChickens]

Expert witness 'changed mind' over deaths, say Lucy Letby lawyers

The nurse was convicted of the murders of seven babies and the attempted murder of seven more.

www.bbc.co.uk

Breaking news key witness has changed his mind over what caused deaths of 3 babies