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 #38

[JosieJo]

Pro-Letby campaigners seek to discredit Welsh doctor whose evidence convicted her

Martin Shipton Campaigners who believe convicted baby killer Lucy Letby is innocent have held a public meeting at which they strongly criticised the Welsh doctor whose evidence was crucial in convincing jury members of her guilt. Letby was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to...

nation.cymru

Dr Roger Norwich, a former locum consultant who lives in Sark, one of the Channel Islands, told the meeting that Dr Evans’ testimony had been discredited by the international panel and that Letby’s case should be referred back to the Court of Appeal.

After the meeting, Dr Evans told Nation.Cymru: “The case against Letby is stronger now than it was when she was convicted.

“I had never heard of Roger Norwich until recently, which suggests he hasn’t played a prominent role in cases of this kind. I don’t know what expertise he has.

“The international panel, which claimed none of the babies had been murdered, did not include a pathologist, a haemotologist, a radiologist, an endocrinologist or an obstetrician. All of the panel’s conclusions are wrong.

“Mark McDonald, the barrister now representing and campaigning for Letby has been a barrister for 28 years, but he’s not a KC, which makes him an ageing junior.

“If these people are the best the pro-Letby camp can come up with, it’s pretty pathetic.”

"Ageing junior" ..... ouch

 

[marynnu]

"Ageing junior" ..... ouch

Dr. Evans can definitely nail a phrase. Remember poundshop Poirots? Go Dewi.

 

[Marantz4250b]

No it wasn’t, but it was a secret that 25% of the cases that were used to send her to trial were subsequently dropped as they weren’t strong enough to put through a trial process.

It wasn't a "secret" at all.

If 25% (or however many) of the cases initially looked at did not make it to being formally charged then they cannot be mentioned at the trials of the ones which were.

The argument that you are presumably trying to promote - that it harmed her case that the jury didn't know about these and were entitled to view the cases actually prosecuted as less safe because the others didn't meet the bar - is logically ridiculous. It could easily be used the other way round (which I'm sure her supporters would) in that they would argue that lots of "failed" cases were being used as evidence of bad character!

 

[Ruthbullock]

It wasn't a "secret" at all.

If 25% (or however many) of the cases initially looked at did not make it to being formally charged then they cannot be mentioned at the trials of the ones which were.

The argument that you are presumably trying to promote - that it harmed her case that the jury didn't know about these and were entitled to view the cases actually prosecuted as less safe because the others didn't meet the bar - is logically ridiculous. It could easily be used the other way round (which I'm sure her supporters would) in that they would argue that lots of "failed" cases were being used as evidence of bad character!

Would it have harmed her case if they had or had not been shared?

My original post was a reply to another poster who was suggesting the sheer number of charges was relevant and for me it just raised the question above, I will share my original response again:

“The court system is run in the same way regardless of the complexity of a case- but the 7 that were dropped, despite originally being attributed to LL- would have given a very different perspective to the jury of the bigger picture that was being painted, but that information wasn’t permitted.

The discussion around this is not unique to this case, we have seen other trials where discussing previous charges, suspicious incidents or incidents the accused has been cleared of, may have had an impact on the trial outcome and it has been debated many times whether this information should be included or excluded.“

I have a mixed bag of feelings over whether that information should have been shared. If she is guilty, why would it have made her less likely to be found guilty? Surely she has had many many babies under her care that weren’t part of the court case. Would including the fact that some had been disregarded, despite initially being suspected, not potentially have strengthened the case against her? In the same way that people believe the jury assessed every case on its own merit and didn’t just whitewash their judgements- could the same theory have worked to make the verdicts more secure. Or would some of those original cases have corrupted the arguments for some of the babies that did result in being discussed at trial.

I don’t know the answer, it’s something I wanted to hear other people’s opinions on.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Ruth - your post is simply incorrect.

If you read this thread they always are- it really doesn’t matter what I post or who I respond to. I’ve made peace with the fact that most people aren’t actually reading the entire thread, but just commenting on individual posts that they fall upon and know they disagree with (their perception of )what the poster thinks. It is removing the discussion element as I cant reply with further questions or queries that arise from the original post and it’s a little sad that this thread has gone that way compared to other threads that can debate both sides amicably.
It could be worse, there are many in here who keep accusing posters of being pro Letby and believing she is innocent ( which I just don’t see) when they are just concerned about, as am I, that the trial was fair and the guilty verdicts are solid.

 

[Ruthbullock]

A post today from the Doctors Association UK about the submitted perjury charges for Dr J by an MP to the police. For those who may be unaware a complaint by a member of parliament to a public service has to be legally addressed and can’t just be ignored., it’s the equivalent of being accepted by a professional ombudsman.

“There is currently no public evidence that Dr Jayaram’s account amounts to intentional perjury.

Variations in recollection over time are not uncommon, particularly in high-stress clinical contexts and after many years have passed.”

Very few have said that this may not be factual, that in fact his recollections did vary over time- but then his email was the original recollection and not what he stated in court, which was his recollection over time. The main problem arises that this may have been a key statement in the trial in evidencing her guilt and it was an inaccurate recollection. So where do we go from here?

Importance of learn not blame culture | Doctors' Association UK

DAUK has restated the importance of upholding a learn not blame culture across the NHS and wider justice system.

dauk.org

 

[Ruthbullock]

“Most reviews are carried out by the local Police and Crime Commissioner’s office (or the Mayor’s office in Manchester and London), or an organisation designated to conduct reviews by the PCC/ Mayor. PCCs/ Mayors should have information about applying for a review on their websites. This review process can lead to recommendations for progressing the complaint further or for changes to the original findings. There is an expectation that these recommendations are taken forward, but forces can disagree to them with good reason.

Reviews involving certain serious allegations are carried out by the IOPC. The IOPC can direct those who investigated the complaint to progress the complaint or change their findings.“

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/police-complaints-handling-casework-involving-a-police-complaint/

 

[Marantz4250b]

Would it have harmed her case if they had or had not been shared?

This is simply irrelevant.

Whatever incidents she may have been investigated for were not put to her as formal charges for reasons we will likely never know; most likely that they thought she didn't do them or they didn't have the evidence to convict her.

Either way, it would have been entirely improper to make the jury aware of them. Surely you understand that?

It is untrue to say that these "charges" were dropped as she was never charged with them.

 

[Marantz4250b]

“Most reviews are carried out by the local Police and Crime Commissioner’s office (or the Mayor’s office in Manchester and London), or an organisation designated to conduct reviews by the PCC/ Mayor. PCCs/ Mayors should have information about applying for a review on their websites. This review process can lead to recommendations for progressing the complaint further or for changes to the original findings. There is an expectation that these recommendations are taken forward, but forces can disagree to them with good reason.

Reviews involving certain serious allegations are carried out by the IOPC. The IOPC can direct those who investigated the complaint to progress the complaint or change their findings.“

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/police-complaints-handling-casework-involving-a-police-complaint/

What on earth are you talking about, Ruth?

Honestly, I see no relevance in this post to this thread.

 

[JosieJo]

Would it have harmed her case if they had or had not been shared?

My original post was a reply to another poster who was suggesting the sheer number of charges was relevant and for me it just raised the question above, I will share my original response again:

“The court system is run in the same way regardless of the complexity of a case- but the 7 that were dropped, despite originally being attributed to LL- would have given a very different perspective to the jury of the bigger picture that was being painted, but that information wasn’t permitted.

The discussion around this is not unique to this case, we have seen other trials where discussing previous charges, suspicious incidents or incidents the accused has been cleared of, may have had an impact on the trial outcome and it has been debated many times whether this information should be included or excluded.“

I have a mixed bag of feelings over whether that information should have been shared. If she is guilty, why would it have made her less likely to be found guilty? Surely she has had many many babies under her care that weren’t part of the court case. Would including the fact that some had been disregarded, despite initially being suspected, not potentially have strengthened the case against her? In the same way that people believe the jury assessed every case on its own merit and didn’t just whitewash their judgements- could the same theory have worked to make the verdicts more secure. Or would some of those original cases have corrupted the arguments for some of the babies that did result in being discussed at trial.

I don’t know the answer, it’s something I wanted to hear other people’s opinions on.

I'm sorry...but I'm still unclear as to 7 being dropped? What 7?

 

[Sweeper2000]

the seven being dropped was a mistake nothing more.

 

[JosieJo]

the seven being dropped was a mistake nothing more.

Aah OK thanks

 

[JosieJo]

Speaking hypothetical...in any trial..cases that have been considered or even looked at in relation to the defendant but found to not have evidence to change should no way be made privy to the jury full stop surely?
A consideration is just a consideration..no?

Without knowing every little detail it's impossible to say how other babies on her watch might influence a jury ...but clearly either way imo it's not something that should ever be part of a trial.

With regards the number of charges effecting the outcome...I do not think it's the number of charges per se that would influence the jury ...more The number of similarities in each case increasing the likelihood of guilt

 

[katydid23]

No it wasn’t, but it was a secret that 25% of the cases that were used to send her to trial were subsequently dropped as they weren’t strong enough to put through a trial process.

That happens all the time with serial rapists, robbers or offenders. If they have attacked many victims, a few of the cases may be weaker than others due to the circumstances.

The circumstances of Letby's cases were in her favour most of the time. Newborns are totally vulnerable. They cannot speak up to report their abuse. They cannot fight back. They are in private nurseries with other vulnerable newborns who cannot speak up as witnesses or fight back.

There are very few adults in the nursery besides Nurse Letby and she knows when others will not be around. She knows when she will have privacy in the nursery surrounded only by totally vulnerable newborns. I think she is a total coward.

The fact that she was ever uncovered, charged and found Guilty on any charges is miraculous.

 

[CocktailQueen]

Surely it works in LL’s favour that the jurors did not know that there had been other cases that she had been implicated in (and not been charged with or had the charges dropped)? In my personal opinion if I’d have known as a juror that she had been implicated in other cases but there wasn’t enough evidence to charge her with, but in the cases being presented to me there was (hence the trial) it would make me think she must be very conniving and good at hiding her tracks so I’d be more likely to go with a guilty verdict.

 

[Sweeper2000]

good question actually. I think all the charges that were made (22 of them) were more or less signed off by Dr Evans but we know he was handed 33 files by the police with two insulin files added later, some of which he signed off as medically explicable with obvious causes of death or collapse. What we (or at least I) don't know is how many he actually signed off (at least 2 that i know of) so the remaining 9 i can say nothing of.

 

[OhDannyBoi]

Why am I getting notifications of posts being removed for "claiming a reporter is lying" when it is a matter of public record that the writer for the Guardian has published materially false claims disproven by court transcripts on the exact topic?

Do I need to sit down, provide links to the relevant transcripts and articles to establish that this journalist spreads misinformation? And why are moderators overstepping in their moderation to tip the scales when it is a matter of fact and public record that can easily be verified if one looks for themselves?

 

[OhDannyBoi]

I'll go one step further: Felicity Lawrence, the writer of this article, is lying.

‘I am evil I did this’: Lucy Letby’s so-called confessions were written on advice of counsellors

"Written on advice of counsellors" is included in the title and body of the article. It is one of several lies that Lawrence was caught writing when her work was reviewed.

Why is this statement a lie?

Because we have Lucy Letby's transcripts thanks to Crime Scene 2 Courtroom. In fact, during her evidence in chief Letby was asked to explain those notes. She did not include any mention of having been told to write those notes by a counsellor.

The fact that the article was then altered to include "The fact that writing the notes had been advised as part of counselling was not mentioned in court." was to cover for the fact that the claim is entirely fabricated and made to fit the false innocence narrative being spread regarding this case.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Why am I getting notifications of posts being removed for "claiming a reporter is lying" when it is a matter of public record that the writer for the Guardian has published materially false claims disproven by court transcripts on the exact topic?

Do I need to sit down, provide links to the relevant transcripts and articles to establish that this journalist spreads misinformation? And why are moderators overstepping in their moderation to tip the scales when it is a matter of fact and public record that can easily be verified if one looks for themselves?

Contact the mods directly - they don't like moderation being discussed publicly.

But, yes, if you can provide links that prove a report is false then I'd do that as WS will want to prevent being sued.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I'll go one step further: Felicity Lawrence, the writer of this article, is lying.

‘I am evil I did this’: Lucy Letby’s so-called confessions were written on advice of counsellors

"Written on advice of counsellors" is included in the title and body of the article. It is one of several lies that Lawrence was caught writing when her work was reviewed.

Why is this statement a lie?

Because we have Lucy Letby's transcripts thanks to Crime Scene 2 Courtroom. In fact, during her evidence in chief Letby was asked to explain those notes. She did not include any mention of having been told to write those notes by a counsellor.

The fact that the article was then altered to include "The fact that writing the notes had been advised as part of counselling was not mentioned in court." was to cover for the fact that the claim is entirely fabricated and made to fit the false innocence narrative being spread regarding this case.

Yes, I agree with you. This has been discussed at length here and there is zero evidence that the notes were written on the advice of a counsellor or medical professional. Letby's side has never claimed such and it was never suggested in court that they were.

Right at the start her KC mentioned that they were ..the outpourings of an anguished and troubled woman under immense pressure... or something to that effect. That, I have no doubt is true, but it doesn't mean anything more and it certainly doesn't lean toward her innocence.

I think that the whole thing initially was taken the wrong way and it's come to settle in the minds of many that they were some sort of medical treatment exercise. They were written before her first arrest and quite possibly before she even knew that the police might even be called in. Writing about killing babies that early on gives an insight into how she feared things would play out, imo.