Your post had 'nothing to do with the jury outcome' ?
I'll stand to be corrected but I don't think any chargs were "dropped", other than one which was one of the mirder charges?
You are correct.
Some were medically explicable but I'm not sure that others weren't charged because they were explicable or whether they simply didn't have sufficient evidence to meet the CPS charing test.
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.
No I was responding to a poster who stated there were 27 charges brought against Letby. Just made me consider how many of those actually went to trial and the fact that such a high number of cases that she was initially accused of through the judicial process were dropped, but that’s not deemed relevant to a trial (any trial, not specifically just this one), which then got me pondering and posting about the impact of that on juries and whether this blanket approach is always the right one, again not just thinking about this singular case, but cases that have been on here previously- like Libby and some domestic violence cases.is this what you are referring to ruth? 33 cases were handed to dr evans by the police some of which he discounted as being medically explicable and thus not needing further review?
"He was asked to investigate 33 cases in total, with two insulin cases later.
He said there were two babies were born in unsurvivable conditions, with obvious medical diagnoses.
He said: "The name Lucy Letby meant nothing to me. I didn't know the staff.
"I was the easiest physician and the most difficult. I was a blank sheet of paper. I had no idea and relied entirely on the evidence I could see from the clinical notes and applying my clinical experience and forming an opinion to the cause."
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 25
THE trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…www.chesterstandard.co.uk
Or maybe I’m just the only one who holds my hands up and admits after 145 days in court I would probably go and read some of the live trial reporting to refresh my brain. I certainly wouldn’t break the judges directions and go reading random articles- but the Cheshire Standard did articles that were allowed to be read by the jury stating live trial reporting and keeping opinion based articles out of them. You think it’s a bit of a reach, I’m saying if I was on the jury and it had been allowed, I would have been reading the summaries of the days court reporting. You obviously believe the jury had some inner moral compass that would have meant they avoided anything of the like, I think human nature is that some of the jury won’t have felt the same need to avoid the court reporting.
A secret? What are you talking about?
I don’t know ask @katydid23 it was her post with 27 that I responded to and broke down to charges at the trial.
I don’t know ask @katydid23 it was her post with 27 that I responded to and broke down to charges at the trial.
“When you look at 27 incidents where babies had unusual and very similar reactions to the emergency resuscitation---not responding to adrenaline shots, needing 3 to 5 shots instead of one, having unusual body rashes that come and go, going from days of good healthy vitals and feedings to a sudden collapse and rapid deterioration, out of the blue.”
That was her statement and 7 posters agreed it was a valid point- why would I then question the validity of her post?
Yes, 22 not 27. It wasn't a typo, it was a 'mental typo'---at 73 I have had some memory 'typos' .
i think your memory serves just fine Kdid. no apology needed.
