Nurse Lucy Letby Guilty

[PumpDump]

Right about all 7?   

However that comment was 2 years ago before any investigations.

It was after conviction.

[daviemac]

It was after conviction.

You're getting yourself confused, my comment - August 2023, 2 years ago -

Are you really suggesting that 7 hospital consultants conspired to make false accusations against Lucy Letby, when the concerns they raised that she was the only single common denominator in all of the deaths have been proved to be justified?

In any case the accusations have been proved to be correct and now 3 out of the 7 mentioned by DastardlyDick have been arrested and questioned on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter not conspiracy to 'frame' Letby. She is guilty and quite rightly will never be released

However if it makes you happy carry on looking through my previous posts to see if there's anything you can incorrectly pick up on.   

[PumpDump]

You're getting yourself confused, my comment - August 2023, 2 years ago - In any case the accusations have been proved to be correct and now 3 out of the 7 mentioned by DastardlyDick have been arrested and questioned on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter not conspiracy to 'frame' Letby. She is guilty and quite rightly will never be released

However if it makes you happy carry on looking through my previous posts to see if there's anything you can incorrectly pick up on.   

DastardlyDick's comment was on 19th August 2023, the same day final verdicts were returned by the jury. Your reply to him was the following day. So it is not true to say his or your comment was before any investigation took place.

And I was not going through your previous posts, I was going through this thread to remind myself what was discussed. I don't spend my time thinking about what you post here, don't flatter yourself 

[scutty brown]

About fucking time. Lucy Letby was a scapegoat. Hopefully the day will soon come when she will be freed and it will be declared a massive miscarriage of justice.

You all seem to be misunderstanding what's going on.
The premise behind the questioning is that Letby is guilty, but that the hospital management were culpable of gross negligence manslaughter in not realising this and investigating earlier - in effect by having management structures which didn't adequately train, monitor and supervise her.
In other words the corporate gross negligence manslaughter can only stick if Letby is guilty of murder. If she was found not guilty at appeal, then there's no murder by her, and so by definition no  manslaughter.

[PumpDump]

You all seem to be misunderstanding what's going on.
The premise behind the questioning is that Letby is guilty, but that the hospital management were culpable of gross negligence manslaughter in not realising this and investigating earlier - in effect by having management structures which didn't adequately train, monitor and supervise her.
In other words the corporate gross negligence manslaughter can only stick if Letby is guilty of murder. If she was found not guilty at appeal, then there's no murder by her, and so by definition no  manslaughter.

Couldn't the management team still be accused of gross negligence manslaughter if the babies were not murdered?

[southcoastpunter]

Couldn't the management team still be accused of gross negligence manslaughter if the babies were not murdered?

yes they could - if her conviction was found to be "unsafe" and was overturned,  it would make any prosecution of managers more difficult but certainly not impossible.

[daviemac]

DastardlyDick's comment was on 19th August 2023, the same day final verdicts were returned by the jury. Your reply to him was the following day. So it is not true to say his or your comment was before any investigation took place.

And I was not going through your previous posts, I was going through this thread to remind myself what was discussed. I don't spend my time thinking about what you post here, don't flatter yourself 

FFS try and keep up, I'm taking about the current investigation, the one that is ongoing now that lead to the arrest of the 3 senior officials the subject that is currently being discussed on this thread, not my comment from 2 years ago on a different matter.

DastardlyDick suggested that 7 senior official had conspired to frame Letby, that is what I questioned in the post you quoted and there has not been any suggestion that there was any conspiracy so DastardlyDick remains wrong.

Do you remomber this post. -

I am more than happy to admit when I'm wrong but since when is having and posting an opinion while at the same time telling others to use whatever source of information they wish wrong.

Do you not think people use the 'troll card' because in their opinion they think you are? or are they wrong to have an opinion as well? 

On this thread I gave my opinion, you could have ignored it, you didn't. If me standing up for myself and defending my right to have an opinion upsets you, tough, feel free not to involve yourself with anything I post.

You wonder why people call you a troll, you've quoted a post of mine from 2 years ago that was in reference to a conspiracy to frame Letby and brought it into a discussion about something totally different.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, the post you quoted was my reply to DastardlyDick's insinuation that senior officials had conspired to frame Letsby, she had been found guilty with no mention at trial of any conspiracy so his insinuation was not proved.

The current discussion is about senior officials being arrested on suspicion of manslaughter, nothing to do with what I posted 2 years ago, this is where you are getting confused.

Try reading Sutty's post he explains it in a way you might understand. 

[scutty brown]

Couldn't the management team still be accused of gross negligence manslaughter if the babies were not murdered?

If the babies were not murdered then there's no illegal deaths so no manslaughter.
Unless it could be proved that the babies died due to lack of adequate training, supervision and management. In which case who is the person who wasn't trained, supervised and managed properly? If Letby was proved innocent it couldn't be her.

[PumpDump]

Just so there's no misunderstanding, the post you quoted was my reply to DastardlyDick's insinuation that senior officials had conspired to frame Letsby, she had been found guilty with no mention at trial of any conspiracy so his insinuation was not proved.

The current discussion is about senior officials being arrested on suspicion of manslaughter, nothing to do with what I posted 2 years ago, this is where you are getting confused.

You are right Davieboy, I stand corrected.


 

[PumpDump]

If the babies were not murdered then there's no illegal deaths so no manslaughter.
Unless it could be proved that the babies died due to lack of adequate training, supervision and management. In which case who is the person who wasn't trained, supervised and managed properly? If Letby was proved innocent it couldn't be her.

They don't have to be murdered, they could have died due to many reasons the management and/or staff could be responsible for. From my recollection there was a higher than usual mortality rate in this unit. There were additional deaths unlinked to Lucy Letby which the jury were not informed about.

[daviemac]

You are right Davieboy, I stand corrected.

You won't get another warning, stop trolling.

[PepeMAGA]

They don't have to be murdered, they could have died due to many reasons the management and/or staff could be responsible for. From my recollection there was a higher than usual mortality rate in this unit. There were additional deaths unlinked to Lucy Letby which the jury were not informed about.

Wonder if it's still higher than usual without letby

[PumpDump]

You won't get another warning, stop trolling.

Wouldn't it bet better if you diffused things, not escalate them? I admitted I got it wrong. You're response it to write this. Why would you do this? The only reason I can think is you are trying to bait me as you would like me gone.

[daviemac]

Wouldn't it bet better if you diffused things, not escalate them? I admitted I got it wrong. You're response it to write this. Why would you do this? The only reason I can think is you are trying to bait me as you would like me gone.

This is the second thread that you've tried to bait me on and on the last one I defused things when I told you to ignore what I post yet here you are dragging up an irrelevant post from 2 years ago so my warning stands.

If I wanted you gone you wouldn't be here so try taking notice of what Doc posted about how as a good contributor it would be a shame for you to get banned.

Your last banning reason was for 'trolling' about bareback. If you persist in deliberately trying to be confrontational I feel you will eventually be banned permanently. That would be a shame 

Up to you which way you want to go.

[Doc Holliday]

This is the second thread that you've tried to bait me on and on the last one I defused things when I told you to ignore what I post yet here you are dragging up an irrelevant post from 2 years ago so my warning stands.

He tried to bait me in the link below by quoting one of my posts which, while not two years, was still seven months.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=339931.msg4229322#msg4229322

Having replied to his post to 'diffuse' it I also posted this

No he is just 'playing' full stop. His considerable positive contribution to the forum is sadly marred by his tendency to frequently seek deliberate confrontation for the sake of it. People continue to take the bait.

Yet here we are yet again?

[daviemac]

He tried to bait me in the link below by quoting one of my posts which, while not two years, was still seven months.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=339931.msg4229322#msg4229322

Having replied to his post to 'diffuse' it I also posted this

Yet here we are yet again?

I had thought he would stick to the assurances he gave, obviously not. Very silly.

[Thephoenix]

Wonder if it's still higher than usual without letby

The neonatal unit at the hospital is no longer a level 2 (intensive care) unit.

[daviemac]

They're investigating more deaths now that she might be responsible for. - External Link/Members Only

[scutty brown]

They're investigating more deaths now that she might be responsible for. - External Link/Members Only

Clever move by the police to try and resolve the questions over the case.
If the CPS decline to prosecute, or she's found not guilty then the whole evidence in the first case will be undermined.
A good way of forcing what would effectively be a retrial even if the appeals process is refused

[timsussex]

Clever move by the police to try and resolve the questions over the case.
If the CPS decline to prosecute, or she's found not guilty then the whole evidence in the first case will be undermined.
A good way of forcing what would effectively be a retrial even if the appeals process is refused

Fat chance !

There is no way she could get a fair trial

In the first trial the jury couldn't decide on six counts, a few weeks of lurid newspaper headlines like "Angel of Death"  and she was rapidly convicted on retrial

[Colston36]

Wouldn't it bet better if you diffused things, not escalate them? I admitted I got it wrong. You're response it to write this. Why would you do this? The only reason I can think is you are trying to bait me as you would like me gone.

Just to add variety the word is defuse not diffuse.

[puntingking]

External Link/Members Only


Lucy Letby will face no new criminal charges over baby deaths and collapses at hospitals where she worked.

[Thephoenix]

External Link/Members Only


Lucy Letby will face no new criminal charges over baby deaths and collapses at hospitals where she worked.

If the police were still relying on the evidence of Dewi Evans as a reliable expert witness, I'm not surprised.

[scutty brown]

External Link/Members Only


Lucy Letby will face no new criminal charges over baby deaths and collapses at hospitals where she worked.

They're scared she'll be found not guilty as that would undermine the previous convictions. It would actually be to her advantage to be prosecuted on these new charges. Anyone know if a writ of habeas corpus could be used to force a prosecution?

[timsussex]

They're scared she'll be found not guilty as that would undermine the previous convictions. It would actually be to her advantage to be prosecuted on these new charges. Anyone know if a writ of habeas corpus could be used to force a prosecution?

why would such a writ have any bearing on a prosecution ?

[puntingking]

My point is what would be the point in charging her for more crimes when she is serving 15 whole life sentences anyway.
She will never be released. It would just be wasting time on the courts when they could be doing more useful things with their time. Lucy Letby will never be let out, this should be the end of it. There would be no need to charge her for more crimes regardless if there is a case to answer or not. 

[daviemac]

My point is what would be the point in charging her for more crimes when she is serving 15 whole life sentences anyway.

It would give some closure to those who have had their children murdered as against not knowing how they died and who killed them. Rather important to those who have lost their babies.

[DastardlyDick]

It would give some closure to those who have had their children murdered as against not knowing how they died and who killed them. Rather important to those who have lost their babies.

But what if she was found not guilty? Then, not only do they have no closure as they do now, but the families of the other victims have doubt cast on the safety of those convictions, so their closure is gone too.

[daviemac]

But what if she was found not guilty? Then, not only do they have no closure as they do now, but the families of the other victims have doubt cast on the safety of those convictions, so their closure is gone too.

They don't have any closure now, they only have speculation about what happened. If she was found not guilty they wouldn't be blaming someone who was shown not to have done it.

It might even come out that there was nobody to blame, as sad as it is a child dying of natural causes is better than thinking they've been murdered and knowing that the authorities have done all they can to discover the truth would give some closure in itself.

[puntingking]

It would give some closure to those who have had their children murdered as against not knowing how they died and who killed them. Rather important to those who have lost their babies.

I can understand it from the parents points of view. My point of view (however heartbreaking for the families) is that the court should be used to punish bad individuals and to protect the public. It is not there I don't think to give the victims families closure or some kind of justice for them 

It would just be a waste of time for an already overstretch system 

[timsussex]

My point is what would be the point in charging her for more crimes when she is serving 15 whole life sentences anyway.
She will never be released. It would just be wasting time on the courts when they could be doing more useful things with their time. Lucy Letby will never be let out, this should be the end of it. There would be no need to charge her for more crimes regardless if there is a case to answer or not. 

presumably you took the same point of view regarding the 6 babies that the first jury couldn't agree on ?
what was the point of a second trial when she was already serving 9 whole life sentences ?

[puntingking]

presumably you took the same point of view regarding the 6 babies that the first jury couldn't agree on ?
what was the point of a second trial when she was already serving 9 whole life sentences ?

If Lucy Letby is serving life without the possibility of parole then yes, any more court dates to charge Lucy Letby with more crimes is pointless because she will never be allowed out ever again. 

[timsussex]

yet that is what the CPS did - however this time, despite the police opinion they decided not to prosecute so there must be a different reason

My question was however what has habeas corpus got to do with anything - a bit like asking why the goal wasnt allowed for LBW

Habeas corpus is used to get people released

[daviemac]

I can understand it from the parents points of view.

You obviously don't.

Justice for victims comes first, always.

Nothing more to say.

Edit

You should watch 'Cause of Death' on tv, it will show you how seriously the coroners office take finding out a cause of death and how important they think it is for those left behind.

[DastardlyDick]

If Lucy Letby is serving life without the possibility of parole then yes, any more court dates to charge Lucy Letby with more crimes is pointless because she will never be allowed out ever again. 

I'm no lawyer, but I believe that once a charge has been laid it has to be discharged either with a Court verdict (which is why you get Judges directing the jury to give a "Not guilty" verdict) if a Jury cannot make a decision, they bring in a new Jury, who have to hear all the evidence again, so a "new" trial is organised. The only other way is for the AG to discontinue the case as "Not in the public interest". In a serious, high profile case such as Letby's, that just won't happen.

[puntingking]

You should watch 'Cause of Death' on tv

I will see if I can watch this program 

[daviemac]

I will see if I can watch this program 

Last night they had a sudden death and even after CT scan and invasive postmortems they couldn't determine the cause of death so they sent the heart to an expert in London to be examined, all so they could give the family some closure by knowing what happened.

I suppose you would say it was a waste of time and money as she was dead anyway and the resources could have been better used. Though I would say they were doing their best to look after the physical wellbeing and mental health of the bereaved.

[puntingking]

Though I would say they were doing their best to look after the physical wellbeing and mental health of the bereaved.

That is a good point that I never thought about in my earlier post. 

[Thephoenix]

My point is what would be the point in charging her for more crimes when she is serving 15 whole life sentences anyway.
She will never be released. It would just be wasting time on the courts when they could be doing more useful things with their time. Lucy Letby will never be let out, this should be the end of it. There would be no need to charge her for more crimes regardless if there is a case to answer or not. 

I wouldn't bank on that.

[Jomoore]

I wouldn't bank on that.

I tend to agree.  There's some heavyweight opinion questioning the safety of the conviction still.  And for those prioritising the victims, don't forget that if she's innocent, she's the victim.

[puntingking]

I just saw another documentary that looked at the possibility of Lucy Letby being innocent. 

Only are women who commit these sorts of crimes do people talk about being innocent 

A mindset of "a woman can't be that evil" mentality 

I think the documentary is available on youtube and there is also a similar one on ItvX. 

If she is found to be guilty by a judge then that should be the end of it.

It is sad that the victims families have to see all this in the media.

I do believe if a man did the same crimes as Lucy Letby then there would be no media portraying him as possibly innocent 

[alabama1]

I just saw another documentary that looked at the possibility of Lucy Letby being innocent. 

Only are women who commit these sorts of crimes do people talk about being innocent 

A mindset of "a woman can't be that evil" mentality 

I think the documentary is available on youtube and there is also a similar one on ItvX. 

If she is found to be guilty by a judge then that should be the end of it.

It is sad that the victims families have to see all this in the media.

I do believe if a man did the same crimes as Lucy Letby then there would be no media portraying him as possibly innocent 

It was a jury that found her guilty !

[puntingking]

I just saw another documentary that looked at the possibility of Lucy Letby being innocent. 

Only are women who commit these sorts of crimes do people talk about being innocent 

A mindset of "a woman can't be that evil" mentality 

I think the documentary is available on youtube and there is also a similar one on ItvX. 

If she is found to be guilty then that should be the end of it.

It is sad that the victims families have to see all this in the media.

I do believe if a man did the same crimes as Lucy Letby then there would be no media portraying him as possibly innocent 

I corrected it 

[Watts.E.Dunn]

Many have been convicted over the years, and if further evidence came to light then possible pardon or re-trial..

Male or Female..

[catweazle]

There's a very good documentary on Netflix about this case. There's a fair bit of previously unseen stuff in it, and some interviews with one of the parents.

Having watched it, I'm convinced she's guilty.

[puntingking]

There's a very good documentary on Netflix about this case. There's a fair bit of previously unseen stuff in it, and some interviews with one of the parents.

Having watched it, I'm convinced she's guilty.

Thank you. I will give it a watch later this week.

I have seen the BBC documentary and the ITV documentary. I will finish the trilogy off and give the netflix one a watch. 

[Hardman123]

I was about to suggest the documentary. It’s crazy and definitely changed my perspective about Lucy potentially not being guilty. Just shows how easily things we see as hard evidence can be misinterpreted.

[Thephoenix]

There's a very good documentary on Netflix about this case. There's a fair bit of previously unseen stuff in it, and some interviews with one of the parents.

Having watched it, I'm convinced she's guilty.

I've watched every documentary, (I think there's been about 5), and read every article in the press.
I also followed the detailed court reports in my local paper each day during the trial.
I also followed the detailed reports of the inquiry as it relates to my local hospital.

I'm far from convinced she's guilty.
It makes me question the suitability of juries to judge such complex and emotional cases.

[Vice Admiral]

I've watched every documentary, (I think there's been about 5), and read every article in the press.
I also followed the detailed court reports in my local paper each day during the trial.
I also followed the detailed reports of the inquiry as it relates to my local hospital.
I'm far from convinced she's guilty.
It makes me question the suitability of juries to judge such complex and emotional cases.

None of us were flies on the wall either in the hospital or in the courtroom.  As in all matters where laymen make judgements from a distance, we are guided in part by evidence in reports and investigations and in part by what might be termed "instinct".

Now instinct is of course a capricious creature.  Nonetheless, although I have not followed the case as closely as some others, I have (for what it's worth) always felt a little uncomfortable about Lucy Letby's conviction.

And yes, Phoenix, I too wonder whether jury trial works in an emotive case like this (or, notoriously, in complex fraud cases).

[Blackpool Rock]

None of us were flies on the wall either in the hospital or in the courtroom.  As in all matters where laymen make judgements from a distance, we are guided in part by evidence in reports and investigations and in part by what might be termed "instinct".

Now instinct is of course a capricious creature.  Nonetheless, although I have not followed the case as closely as some others, I have (for what it's worth) always felt a little uncomfortable about Lucy Letby's conviction.

And yes, Phoenix, I too wonder whether jury trial works in an emotive case like this (or, notoriously, in complex fraud cases).

I agree cases like this are probably too complex and indeed too important for trial by jury, in theory jury trials are a good idea to be judged by your peers back in the day when someone stole a loaf of bread etc but this is on another level

So I watched part of a documentary last week (kept drifting off to sleep so didn't get all of it) where they were showing how all those random scribblings she did admitting to killing babies and how it was all her fault was something she was taught to do at some point
Also the sheet showing deaths and who was working that shift where she was the only person working all those shifts was skewed as there were other deaths which weren't on the sheet and she wasn't working

I think there are questions regarding whether the entire trial was conducted in an ideal way and i'm not sure that the public have seen the full picture or facts all layed out on the same page in the same documentary
So am I right in thinking that some documentaries have put forward "evidence" that shows or implies she is innocent or that there should be major concerns about her conviction while others put forward different evidence which shows or implies she is indeed guilty 

However i'm reminded of something that I became aware of many years ago that these documentary programs about miscarriages of justice do always seem to come at them from an angle of setting out to cast doubt on the conviction.
Lets be honest here two different documentary makers with the same information could make two entirely different documentaries in their portrayal and outcome of the facts if they were initially told to come at it from a perspective of innocent or guilty so I always take what's being shown / said with a large amount of scepticism