Lucy Letby

[mel b3]

1 hour ago, ditchman said:

what an awfulbloody mess....

Not half mate.

I truly hope that she's innocent,  and is clearly shown to be innocent.  Not only for herself , but for the parents of those poor children that died. Losing a child must be the most unimaginable pain that a parent could ever feel , and to think that your child had been murdered by a monster must make that pain even worse.

Whatever way it goes , I hope those poor parents can find some kind of peace at the end of it all.

[Gordon R]

Rewulf - fair points. Whatever happens about the medical evidence, I remain uncomfortable with her explanations of what she wrote. Some say the excerpts were incomplete, but when you read the full script, I cannot accept she wrote them for therapeutic reasons.

[Rewulf]

8 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I remain uncomfortable with her explanations of what she wrote. Some say the excerpts were incomplete, but when you read the full script, I cannot accept she wrote them for therapeutic reasons.

As far as the notes go, much was made of them in the trial, also the facebook searches.
But again, IMHO not enough to convict someone beyond reasonable doubt.
Especially when her therapist had TOLD her to write the notes.
Also googling someone or 'stalking their facebook' when their child has died under your care, maybe a little strange, morbid even, but its hardly an admission of guilt ?
Maybe she did feel guilty, I probably would 'Could I have done more, was it something I did ?' Im sure very many emergency workers have felt like this at some point.
The fact is, the cumulative effect of these little snippets of information, when there is no hard evidence, no 'smoking gun' WAS enough to make the jury believe she was absolutely guilty of murder and attempted murder.
Being accused of something you know you did not do, especially a serious crime like murder, tends to affect a persons mental health, you question your own culpability, and reasoning, defending yourself against the accusations becomes difficult.
Many people have admitted to heinous crimes due to this, and been convicted, later on it has been proved conclusively that they couldnt possibly have done it.
In the US, convicted persons exonerated by DNA evidence, 30 % had confessed to the crime.

[Gordon R]

Rewulf - I cannot accept her therapist advised her to write notes of the type that she actually did. They go way beyond "Could I have done more?"

Harold Shipman springs to mind. A lot of circumstantial evidence - his wife never accepted his guilt.

Time will tell.

[enfieldspares]

On 05/02/2025 at 09:37, Gordon R said:

Googling all the families of the dead children.

I Googled Big Bill Haywood just this afternoon (watching Abandoned Engineering) it doesn't mean anything. The issue for me is that there appear to be a number of methods she was found guilty of having used to kill these children. I find it difficult to believe that. All the same method...as per Shipman...I could believe. But a mix and match of methods? I think that those that kill in series usually don't vary their way of murder. 

[GHE]

Gordon R, you don't seem to have any understanding of how the legal system in England and Wales actually works, although perhaps that's to your credit . . . but those of us who do understand it know that it has always existed, in both the criminal and civil branches, to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and weak. Only government departments and large companies can afford to go to law in civil cases, ordinary people simply can't fund it and the general rule is that whoever has the deepest pockets wins.

On the criminal side, it's always the prosecution, which has by far the deepest pockets, that can get the best barristers and the best expert witnesses, and in fact most expert witnesses are worried about their own career if they appear for the defendant, that certainly applies in medical cases like this one.

If a defendant wants a good legal team they have to fund most of the cost themselves, public funding (previously legal aid) comes nowhere near funding a thorough job, and nobody on a nurse salary can possibly get the standard of defence that every accused person should be able to have. Even so, nearly all judges, up to the point of conviction, try to be fair, but they are very much part of the system.

The real problems start at appeal, the person has been found guilty of an offence and the whole balance changes, they are now guilty until proven innocent, the judicial system never likes to admit that something has gone wrong and the odds are dead against the appellant.

In addition, the grounds for appeal must include substantial new evidence, i.e. evidence that did not exist at the time of the original trial, and where that evidence did exist but the defence didn't use it, or failed to find it, they can't introduce it.

She was convicted at two trials, and she lost her appeal. She is now at the review stage, and the bar is set even higher for reviews, and it's almost impossible to force a review. Despite the alleged new evidence (which seems to be old evidence that wasn't called and which therefore isn't new evidence) and the publicity, she will probably not get her case reviewed and will spend the rest of her life locked up, which is fine if she is guilty but not if she is innocent.

Her only real hope is if the politicians get involved, as in the Post Office miscarriage of justice, and that's a very rare thing.

And even if the review board does take action, it could easily be another 10 years before she gets a re-trial, that's how long they take.

Despite your touching faith in our legal system, whether she is innocent or guilty, and we don't know which, she is being treated very unfairly, every convicted person is.

[enfieldspares]

3 minutes ago, GHE said:

Gordon R, you don't seem to have any understanding of how the legal system in England and Wales actually works

Yes. The old adage that British justice is "open to all" just the same as is dining at the Ritz open to all.

Edited Thursday at 17:03 by enfieldspares

[Rewulf]

58 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Rewulf - I cannot accept her therapist advised her to write notes of the type that she actually did. They go way beyond "Could I have done more?"

I tried to find some examples of the notes, this piece is worth a read.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/lucy-letby-hadwritten-notes-conviction-092658288.html

[Gordon R]

Quote

Gordon R, you don't seem to have any understanding of how the legal system in England and Wales actually works, although perhaps that's to your credit . . . but those of us who do understand it know that it has always existed, in both the criminal and civil branches

GHE - as patronising junk posts go, this is up there with the best. I have a far better understanding than you.

As bad as the first part was, this just about tops it.

Quote

she is being treated very unfairly, every convicted person is.

Just explain to me how Harold Shipman was treated unfairly, as "every convicted person is".

[GHE]

27 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

GHE - as patronising junk posts go, this is up there with the best. I have a far better understanding than you.

As bad as the first part was, this just about tops it.

Just explain to me how Harold Shipman was treated unfairly, as "every convicted person is".

With the greatest possible respect, all that I know about you is based on what you have written, and what you have written indicates a severe lack of understanding.

As for "Just explain to me how Harold Shipman was treated unfairly, as "every convicted person is"., fair point. What I should have said was that every convicted person who wants to appeal their conviction is treated unfairly, and the reason for saying this is that there is no actual right of appeal, permission (called leave) has to be given, and when leave is refused (as in the Letby case) that is always bound to be unfair. That comment didn't include Shipman, who didn't appeal.

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, GHE said:

Gordon R, you don't seem to have any understanding of how the legal system in England and Wales actually works, although perhaps that's to your credit . . . but those of us who do understand it know that it has always existed, in both the criminal and civil branches, to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and weak. Only government departments and large companies can afford to go to law in civil cases, ordinary people simply can't fund it and the general rule is that whoever has the deepest pockets wins.

On the criminal side, it's always the prosecution, which has by far the deepest pockets, that can get the best barristers and the best expert witnesses, and in fact most expert witnesses are worried about their own career if they appear for the defendant, that certainly applies in medical cases like this one.

If a defendant wants a good legal team they have to fund most of the cost themselves, public funding (previously legal aid) comes nowhere near funding a thorough job, and nobody on a nurse salary can possibly get the standard of defence that every accused person should be able to have. Even so, nearly all judges, up to the point of conviction, try to be fair, but they are very much part of the system.

The real problems start at appeal, the person has been found guilty of an offence and the whole balance changes, they are now guilty until proven innocent, the judicial system never likes to admit that something has gone wrong and the odds are dead against the appellant.

In addition, the grounds for appeal must include substantial new evidence, i.e. evidence that did not exist at the time of the original trial, and where that evidence did exist but the defence didn't use it, or failed to find it, they can't introduce it.

She was convicted at two trials, and she lost her appeal. She is now at the review stage, and the bar is set even higher for reviews, and it's almost impossible to force a review. Despite the alleged new evidence (which seems to be old evidence that wasn't called and which therefore isn't new evidence) and the publicity, she will probably not get her case reviewed and will spend the rest of her life locked up, which is fine if she is guilty but not if she is innocent.

Her only real hope is if the politicians get involved, as in the Post Office miscarriage of justice, and that's a very rare thing.

And even if the review board does take action, it could easily be another 10 years before she gets a re-trial, that's how long they take.

Despite your touching faith in our legal system, whether she is innocent or guilty, and we don't know which, she is being treated very unfairly, every convicted person is.

A very well presented insight, with much of your point proven right by the thousands of miscarriages of justice in the travisty that was the post office scandal.

I think many in the uk are waking up to the fact our legal system, like many other institutions in the UK, far from being the envy of the world, are in reality, not as great as we've been led to believe. 

[Gordon R]

Quote

With the greatest possible respect, all that I know about you is based on what you have written, and what you have written indicates a severe lack of understanding.

With no respect whatsoever, I think you are clueless. I judge you on what you write, not what you should have written.

Only government departments and large companies can afford to go to law in civil cases, ordinary people simply can't fund it and the general rule is that whoever has the deepest pockets wins.

Utter rubbish.

On the criminal side, it's always the prosecution, which has by far the deepest pockets, that can get the best barristers and the best expert witnesses

Ken Dodd makes you look rather silly. Don't say he was an exception - you said "always". 

 

Even so, nearly all judges, up to the point of conviction, try to be fair, but they are very much part of the system.

I am unclear as to how you claim to speak for nearly all judges. Perhaps you could provide some examples of judges who didn't try to be fair. You infer they are corrupt. Put up or shut up.

Despite your touching faith in our legal system, 

Our system isn't perfect. but I have had a fair amount of experience in criminal trials. Your patronising manner suggests you are still at school.

she is being treated very unfairly, every convicted person is.

That is what you posted - garbage.

 

 

[zipdog]

8 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Rewulf - fair points. Whatever happens about the medical evidence, I remain uncomfortable with her explanations of what she wrote. Some say the excerpts were incomplete, but when you read the full script, I cannot accept she wrote them for therapeutic reasons.

Please can you share your version of the “full script” so we are all on the same page.

[shaun4860]

Children 

Let’s not get into a slanging match.

Keep it civil please 

[GrayA]

16 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Rewulf - fair points. Whatever happens about the medical evidence, I remain uncomfortable with her explanations of what she wrote. Some say the excerpts were incomplete, but when you read the full script, I cannot accept she wrote them for therapeutic reasons.

Ummmm how would know what she wrote them for, why or the context? Are you a therapist with experience in treating people accused of mass killings?

You weren't party to these therapy sessions. But either way, its not evidence of murder, anymore than saying under your breath "i could kill x y or z" as part of a throw away remark is proof of intent to cause harm or death.

[GHE]

13 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

A very well presented insight, with much of your point proven right by the thousands of miscarriages of justice in the travisty that was the post office scandal.

I think many in the uk are waking up to the fact our legal system, like many other institutions in the UK, far from being the envy of the world, are in reality, not as great as we've been led to believe. 

This.

The legal system now barely works at all and isn't fit for purpose, and the NHS is another institution for which we are expected to be grateful, but it has many faults, and one of those faults is a reluctance to deal with poor practice, dodgy staff etc, and an obvious willingness to cover up failings and protect senior people.

By contrast, a friend of mine has just given birth in China. Everything was going well until, suddenly, it wasn't, and she had to have an emergency Caesarean, but it all worked out fine. There were two consultants, both with over 25 years experience of doing only Caesarean surgery, 6 days a week, and never less than two per day, which made them pretty experienced. One of them told my friend later that Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Europe, and specially in the UK, is considered to be a dangerous joke, with very inexperienced staff carrying out complex procedures because there's nobody else "See one, do one, then teach one". They work incredibly hard and do their best, but it's way below the standard of most other countries.

According to the 14 top international experts, no crimes were committed and the deaths and near-deaths all resulted from natural causes, poor care and poor systems. None of us knows what actually happened in the Letby case, but the doubts are there, and should not be ignored.

[GrayA]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57725263#:~:text=Jeremy Hunt%2C who chairs the,signs of babies in distress.

 

Yet only Letby ends up in Prison....

[old man]

Maybe to expect less than good, bad, useless or excellent anywhere is a gamble?

[Gordon R]

GHE - I note that you cannot back up what you post, which does not surprise me.

However, I will bow out of this discussion and wait for the only outcome that matters.

[GHE]

12 hours ago, shaun4860 said:

Children 

Let’s not get into a slanging match.

Keep it civil please 

 

6 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

GHE - I note that you cannot back up what you post, which does not surprise me.

However, I will bow out of this discussion and wait for the only outcome that matters.

I'm simply following the guidance of the mods. We are all entitled to an opinion, you've already checked my profile info on here and if you do more research into my background you'll find that although I'm now retired, I have a lifetime of experience.

So, let's just leave it there.

[Vince Green]

20 hours ago, mel b3 said:

Not half mate.

I truly hope that she's innocent,  and is clearly shown to be innocent.  Not only for herself , but for the parents of those poor children that died. Losing a child must be the most unimaginable pain that a parent could ever feel , and to think that your child had been murdered by a monster must make that pain even worse.

Whatever way it goes , I hope those poor parents can find some kind of peace at the end of it all.

Even if she is found innocent what sort of a life is she going to come out to?

She will be a target for every loony under the sun and I can't imagine any hospital will ever employ her, innocent or not.

I have been reading back over the case and right the way through the investigation by the NHS and an independent enquiry it was always about medical failures within the hospital. It was only when two of the consultants that were threatened with medical negligence started a whispering campaign against Letby that (at their insistence) the police got involved .Surely they just trying to deflect the blame away from themselves?

Why didn't any of the pathologists that did the initial post mortums on the babies appear to be willing to give evidence at the trial? You have to wonder?

Edited Friday at 12:36 by Vince Green

[mel b3]

10 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Even if she is found innocent what sort of a life is she going to come out to?

She will be a target for every loony under the sun and I can't imagine any hospital will ever employ her, innocent or not.

I have been reading back over the case and right the way through the investigation by the NHS and an independent enquiry it was always about medical failures within the hospital. It was only when two of the consultants that were threatened with medical negligence started a whispering campaign against Letby that (at their insistence) the police got involved .Surely they just trying to deflect the blame away from themselves?

Why didn't any of the pathologists that did the initial post mortums on the babies appear to be willing to give evidence at the trial? You have to wonder?

I tend to agree with you .

I have great admiration,  but also , a deep mistrust , when it comes to the NHS.

[Rewulf]

10 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Even if she is found innocent what sort of a life is she going to come out to?

Probably a lot better than the life she has in prison as a child murderer facing the rest of her days behind bars ?

 

17 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Why didn't any of the pathologists that did the initial post mortums on the babies appear to be willing to give evidence at the trial? You have to wonder?

Thats a good question, but its not about whether they were willing, they certainly werent asked to appear by the defence, you would have thought their evidence was crucial ?
The new panel of experts have shredded the pathology reports as inconclusive of deliberate injury.

[wymberley]

46 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Probably a lot better than the life she has in prison as a child murderer facing the rest of her days behind bars ?

 

Thats a good question, but its not about whether they were willing, they certainly werent asked to appear by the defence, you would have thought their evidence was crucial ?
The new panel of experts have shredded the pathology reports as inconclusive of deliberate injury.

It is a good question and deserves an answer. Surely, in any court case where a death has occurred and an autopsy has been deemed necessary, the result of that investigation should be detailed in the court as a matter of course. This would avoid the possibility of one side asking for it because it would possibly strengthen their case or the other side not wanting it for the opposite reason.