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

[Marantz4250b]

There is medical evidence proving the babies were deliberately harmed. Such as the insulin/ C peptide blood tests, baby O liver injuries seen on post mortem, baby G vomiting double the amount of milk she was fed. The medical evidence stood up in court and needs to properly challenged in court to release her.
The issue isn't about personalities and who comes off better on TV. It's about having robust evidence. Shoo Lee's panel haven't gone to court with their evidence while Dr Evans has therefore their evidence can't be compared yet.

Indeed!

I will repeat what I said a while back on this; If this ever gets near the CoA my betting that these "experts" will start deserting MM's panel like rats from a sinking ship. Any who remain will be absolutely eviscerated by the prosecution barrister.

 

[Sweeper2000]

To me there is plenty of evidence suggesting guilt, not much neutral evidence and little quite little actuslly suggesting innocence. This is mostly guessing on my part but once and if Dr Lee's panel falls flat (I think it will) then yes its a safe conviction.

You could look at the lack of defence seemingly still present discounting Dr Lee, there has been no strong or viable counter narrative and more or less no evidence supporting any counter narrative made. That aspects still lacking.

 

[joltz]

I think we'll be going round and round on this forever, unless someone else is found who *did* commit the crimes or LL herself confesses. LL, it appears, is never going to do that and if the babies died of natural causes and the number of deaths was all just a horrible coincidence, then there simply is no-one else to be found. In most events, it's almost impossible to prove a negative without a substitute positive. It seems that the only choice worth discussing now is whether it is 'better' to have an innocent person behind bars, thus destroying their life and that of their family, or to have a guilty party released on no secure evidence, to do the same thing again and put many unknown persons at risk. Because the only person who actually knows the facts is LL and her 'facts' are apparently not to be trusted. And round and round we go. The *only* thing we have here or *can* have here is opinion, we're all entitled to our own and there's no point in our getting into strife about it .

Can't get behind this. The trial proved conclusively that the babies were harmed. There is 1 candidate, it's Letby. There's not been a single shred of evidence post trial which brings into question even a single verdict, imho. Letbys defence can simply claim what they want when they operate through carefully coordinated media stunts. None of it is fact, none of it stands up to scrutiny.
JMO

 

[Charlot123]

Did you actually follow the trial on here?

Why on here? On a different media. But i would say that i started, stopped for an obvious reason, and then continued… following in parallel with the Thirlwall inquiry, parts of which got published, so some depositions were immediately followed by materials from the inquiry. That was more educative.

 

[Charlot123]

Here is what makes me angry with mostly Breary and Jayaram, but with all the senior consultants, too.

These seven doctors think that by putting Lucy behind bars they have closed the problem, but this is not how I view it.

Instead, they have opened the door to a huge string of lawsuits against their colleagues, the doctors. Potentially ending with imprisonment of the doctors. They have shown how easy it is to make such a strong accusation on flimsy evidence and a money-eager trial witness. The press took a note. They have created a horrible precedent.

Medicine is a profession of high risk. Too many people end up unhappy with the results, too many relatives are grieving. It is probably worse in neonatology where parents fight to even have a baby. So the risk of doctors being accused, especially in the situation when old healthcare systems may fail to meet the growing needs, is high IMHO.

To throw “a nurse killer” into the mix is stirring up the pot. I am happy that they didn’t proceed with the movie that histrionic Jayaram dreamed of because it would have generated another mega-wave. People would be looking for cults, for “witches” in the hospital. You just have to start the process.

This is all that Breary, Jayaram, Evans, Gibbs @ Co have done for the profession. This is going to be their legacy when they retire. Nothing else but this.

(Plus, they drove a wedge between the doctors and the nurses, of course, but this is nothing new).

 

[Baileyboo]

Here is what makes me angry with mostly Breary and Jayaram, but with all the senior consultants, too.

These seven doctors think that by putting Lucy behind bars they have closed the problem, but this is not how I view it.

Instead, they have opened the door to a huge string of lawsuits against their colleagues, the doctors. Potentially ending with imprisonment of the doctors. They have shown how easy it is to make such a strong accusation on flimsy evidence and a money-eager trial witness. The press took a note. They have created a horrible precedent.

Medicine is a profession of high risk. Too many people end up unhappy with the results, too many relatives are grieving. It is probably worse in neonatology where parents fight to even have a baby. So the risk of doctors being accused, especially in the situation when old healthcare systems may fail to meet the growing needs, is high IMHO.

To throw “a nurse killer” into the mix is stirring up the pot. I am happy that they didn’t proceed with the movie that histrionic Jayaram dreamed of because it would have generated another mega-wave. People would be looking for cults, for “witches” in the hospital. You just have to start the process.

This is all that Breary, Jayaram, Evans, Gibbs @ Co have done for the profession. This is going to be their legacy when they retire. Nothing else but this.

(Plus, they drove a wedge between the doctors and the nurses, of course, but this is nothing new).

I do strongly believe the consultants were absolutely terrified that LL was attacking babies and would continue if she was returned to the NNU. They didn't even have the full evidence ( insulin babies) at this point. To blame her for their medical mistakes wouldn't have worked as the medical notes would be scrutinised. No one was blaming them at that point and the senior managers wanted to drop it.

 

[thinker47]

Can't get behind this. The trial proved conclusively that the babies were harmed. There is 1 candidate, it's Letby. There's not been a single shred of evidence post trial which brings into question even a single verdict, imho. Letbys defence can simply claim what they want when they operate through carefully coordinated media stunts. None of it is fact, none of it stands up to scrutiny.
JMO

Yes, I agree in the main - and I shouldn't have suggested natural causes as being possible COD overall - but one candidate? That's still circumstantial. If that were not the case, there could be no doubt and this whole debate wouldn't exist. (And FWIW, Devil's Advocate, I believe she's guilty - but I'm heavily influenced by the circumstantial stuff.)

 

[marynnu]

Instead, they have opened the door to a huge string of lawsuits against their colleagues, the doctors. Potentially ending with imprisonment of the doctors.

I don't understand this at all. Lawsuits for what? Prosecution for what?