Lucy Letby

Moddey Dhoo said:
I believe the justice system and the police are trying to play clever here. Get the CPS to lay more serious charges against Letby and have another trial. If she is found guilty then that nails shut any chance of her past convictions being retrialled. And all the protests go away.

Assuming they can find an unprejudiced group of jurors. And that there are no errors and falsehoods in the evidence presented. They will want to present a watertight case if they proceed. That’s probably why they have investigated events at a second hospital in Liverpool given the extreme criticism levelled at the Chester neonatal unit.

But if she is found innocent, then that really opens up the possibility that her first trial was unfair, with potentially biased expert witnesses and unreliable ‘statistics’, and so her convictions unsafe. This is the judges, lawyers and ministers using the system, in order not to have to make a decision themselves and not admit any possible systematic failings in the first two trials, but passing the buck onto a new jury. Most conveniently.
Click to expand...
In the event of the conviction being found unsafe, is there any comeback on the so-called experts?
 
Wizaard said:
In the event of the conviction being found unsafe, is there any comeback on the so-called experts?
Click to expand...
I think the so-called expert witness in the first trial is now too notorious for his use of statistics to be ever called in another trial. It’s probable that the police and CPS have retired him.
Edit: He retired soon after the Letby trial finished, in 2023. Not required back.
 
Last edited:
Bend it like Suddick said:
She was very clever in this instance, as the babies were denied the benefits of the equipment in several cases, which would only result in a switch or button being used in which she had a medical reason for using the equipment.

You mention there were no witnesses...as I understood, in the last case she was found guilty on, a Consultant/Doctor entered the ward when a child was in extreme difficulty and noticed Letby was doing nothing to assist the child, just standing around and watching. The alarm function on the machine had also been turned off. At the very least she was culpable of not carrying out her basic medical function of saving life and/or asking for assistance. If these actions alone were replicated, she's as guilty as **** in my book.

Just Plod intuition makes me feel she is definitely guilty. There are just too many coincidences, and her reactions to arrest, questioning and Court just don't give the impression she is an innocent woman.
Click to expand...
I accept much of what you are saying but different people react to stressful situations in different ways. Some people just shut down. I’m not sure you can take at face value someone’s demeanour. You have to look at the evidence/ witnesses testimony (which is not always reliable) and make the best decision you can.
 
Anyone watch Panorama last night.
One minute I am thinking she is innocent then swing the other way. Still undecided however spending your life in prison is tough when there are so many flaws.

The information from Liverpool childrens hospital does not bide well for LL however the defence Lawyer claims there is no evidence.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
You are undoubtedly right (for a change!) :)

However, the expert evidence now available, post conviction, is, at the very least, worrying. A pile of experts from around the world saying there is no evidence of deliberate harm??

As Halifax says, beyond reasonable doubt is the standard.
Click to expand...
😃
 
Having said what I have, if and it’s a big IF, the defence say they have any compelling supporting evidence, then it’s a retrial for me.

IMHO looking at it from a Police angle and her behaviour pre and post Court, I’m sure she is guilty.

Yes there are certain discrepancies, but ……
 
Lost Seasider said:
But were they pushed that way by a hospital and management that were keen to brush off their own failings onto a single nurse?
Click to expand...
CPS wouldn’t have took it unless they thought the evidence was bulletproof. They have plenty of history of not taking cases unless they’re sure of a conviction.
 
I think at the very least she needs her day in the appeals court.

Far too much new evidence around now to leave her in jail to rot.
 
contraryalf said:
File it under "Henderson Bites Back". You don't like a dose of your own medicine, do you?
Click to expand...
You will find I take as good as I get, but do object to a nonsensical comment that bears no pertinence to the original comment.
Having said that you do have form for insignificant snipes at posters, so I will just put your comment down to juvenile exuberance.
 
puggiz said:
CPS wouldn’t have took it unless they thought the evidence was bulletproof. They have plenty of history of not taking cases unless they’re sure of a conviction.
Click to expand...
When financial cases come to court, the judges tend to be specialists in that field, able to help the jury with the technicalities. The evidence presented will be mostly medical, provided by the very organisation that may or may not be covering its own backside, and the judge will not be sufficiently medically qualified to advise the jury. (Probs a stupid thought, but wouldn't a coroner, who is both medically and legally trained assist?)

Non of what I write assumes that she was not a murderer, but, as above, the rule is "beyond reasonable doubt" and the medics had skin in the game.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
When financial cases come to court, the judges tend to be specialists in that field, able to help the jury with the technicalities. The evidence presented will be mostly medical, provided by the very organisation that may or may not be covering its own backside, and the judge will not be sufficiently medically qualified to advise the jury. (Probs a stupid thought, but wouldn't a coroner, who is both medically and legally trained assist?)

Non of what I write assumes that she was not a murderer, but, as above, the rule is "beyond reasonable doubt" and the medics had skin in the game.
Click to expand...
Great shout about Coroner - always wondered when I was at Court certain cases needed that expertise. Always thought that with their knowledge they tend to be ‘underused’
 
puggiz said:
Having said what I have, if and it’s a big IF, the defence say they have any compelling supporting evidence, then it’s a retrial for me.

IMHO looking at it from a Police angle and her behaviour pre and post Court, I’m sure she is guilty.

Yes there are certain discrepancies, but ……
Click to expand...
The diary entry and her demeanour at the time of trial have both been explained to some extent.
The diary entries are some sort of self help, psychotherapy thing she was trained in.
Her demeanour at court has been attributed to anti depressants which can leave people flatlining emotionally.
Still an element of doubt but it might provide some sort of explanation for a jury.
 
Last edited:
gjr said:
The diary entry and her demeanour at the time of trial have both been explained to some extent.
The diary entries are some sort of self help, psychotherapy thing she was trained in.
Her demeanour at court has been attributed to anti depressants which can leave people flatlining emotionally.
Still an element of doubt but it might provide an element of doubt if a jury had known this.
Click to expand...
The diary entries, to me, are something an innocent person would easily write during a very intense and stressful emotional time, especially that involved such accusations. So not any indication of guilt to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjr
Lala said:
The diary entries, to me, are something an innocent person would easily write during a very intense and stressful emotional time, especially that involved such accusations. So not any indication of guilt to me.
Click to expand...
Was she on meds when she was arrested and interviewed? Trust me that wasn’t normal
 
Lala said:
It’s not normal to be normal if arrested for multiple baby murders.
Click to expand...
To clarify, there are certain traits an innocent person tends to show and likewise traits a guilty person shows at an arrest and interview. Letby’s demeanour was bizarre bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations and her involvement.
 
puggiz said:
To clarify, there are certain traits an innocent person tends to show and likewise traits a guilty person shows at an arrest and interview. Letby’s demeanour was bizarre bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations and her involvement.
Click to expand...
It proves nothing more than she was maybe a bit of an oddball or in a state of shock though.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
It proves nothing more than she was maybe a bit of an oddball or in a state of shock though.
Click to expand...
Proves nothing agreed, but when you’ve locked up plenty of offenders you get a certain insight that Joe Public will never get. You also have the ability to usually tell when people are lying.
 
Why is more not being made of the bull shitting consultant who said as part of the prosecution "evidence" he entered the room to see her stood doing nothing to help one of the victims and having not called for assistance? They have email evidence, sent by him from a few years prior to her being charged, of him stating that he responded and attended after she had raised the alarm. That to me is a pretty clear indication of somebody trying to bend the truth as part of a stitch up.
I'm pretty sure she was on anti depressants at the time of her arrest, having been moved to a desk job once suspicions were raised. This was, I think but stand to be corrected, stated by her former manager/boss in the recent TV programme.
 
Letby was remanded in custody for 18 months prior to her trial and was on serious anti-depressants. No wonder she appeared like a zombie in the court room. Which has been used against her in appeals and by the police statements post-trial and in the media.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top