Nurse Lucy Letby Guilty

[Thephoenix]

Beyond reasonable doubt my arse!!!!

[Jerboa]

Beyond reasonable doubt my arse!!!!

As I have said before, it was a cover up, Letby was the sacrificial lamb.

[Thephoenix]

The whole thing's a mess.

Lucy Letby's legal team is currently pursuing a challenge through The  Criminal Cases Review Commission which is reviewing her case for a potential miscarriage of justice.
Prosecution expert witnesses have been discredited and the evidence of carpetbagger Dr Dewi Evans has been highly contested.
Cheshire police have also been strongly criticised.

In the meantime the publication of the long awaited Thelwall Inquiry has been delayed again until September at the earliest.
The inquiry was set up to investigate how 'killer nurse' Lucy Letby was able to commit her crimes at The Countess of Chester Hospital.
Inquests have been paused.

*************The CPS refused to bring further changes submitted by Cheshire police.***********

All that can't be a surprise as if The CCRC decide there's sufficient new evidence to return the case back to Court Of Appeal, the whole thing falls apart.

At least in the meantime, the hospital unit that was operating beyond it's skills and capacity - one that was understaffed and suffering from low morale, lacking the expertise to deal with babies with serious needs, and operating in a tired building, struggling with a superbug and with sewage backing up into it's rooms has now been completely demolished and replaced by a new state of the art Women and Children's Building.

**********The CPS refused to bring further charges submitted by Cheshire police*********

Further to the above, it's now been reported that families have failed in their bid for further charges against Lucy Letby after an extensive review by an independent prosecutor has upheld the decision of the CPS not to bring any further charges.

With the inquests still being delayed, the hospital enquiry appearing to be held back and now the evidence of Cheshire police being rejected, it all seems to be adding more doubt to this sad case.

We have to wait for the decision from The CCRC, but the balance seems to be shifting.

[puntingking]

External Link/Members Only

[advent2016]

Key findings
External Link/Members Only

It looks like the end of the road for now

[Jomoore]

Key findings
External Link/Members Only

It looks like the end of the road for now

I'm not so sure.  Given that this enquiry specifically excluded any re-examination of the guilt of Letby, and that the review body has undertaken to read this report to see if there is any new evidence therein one way or another, it seems we are exactly where we were last week.  And just to re-iterate, I haven't got a clue whether she did what she was accused of or not, but as the convictions were all on contested circumstantial evidence, it seems impossible to suggest that there isn't some reasonable doubt surrounding it all.

[advent2016]

I'm fairly satisfied that with the evidence available at the time and the explanations by Letby were weak and contradicting the original trial had the correct outcome.

Many situations that in the past where trust was required a two man(person) rule was used - handling large sums of  money, care of people especially children often it has been relaxed to a single person with no audit of actions with the inevitable consequences.

From that article
Letby falsified records and ignored instructions


Thirlwall added "no-one seems to have understood that safeguarding action is required when a member of staff is suspected of causing deliberate harm - and does not require colleagues to be sure of guilt".

The report found Letby had ignored management instructions when she disliked them and shouted at her manager.

She had falsified records and one infant in her care had been found covered in their own faeces.

She was also found to have been repeatedly untruthful in her dealings with friends and colleagues, and was noted by patients to have been "inappropriate" and "callous" in her manner.

[mh]

She had falsified records and one infant in her care had been found covered in their own faeces.

She was also found to have been repeatedly untruthful in her dealings with friends and colleagues, and was noted by patients to have been "inappropriate" and "callous" in her manner.

Read the Private Eye coverage. The neo-natal unit in the hospital was failing and the health authority continued to treat it as a high tier unit - later it was downgraded. All the deaths could have explanations through poor care. The supposed methods of the murders kept being changed as each was ruled out leaving only insulin and air embolism by injection as possibles and experts since the trial have said the facts don't fit those either.

The "stats" presented at trial showing she was the only common nurse on shift for all the deaths was wrong. And she wasn't on shift for some of them (hence the 'she must have spiked an insulin bag' claim that nobody noticed and no trace was left of it). The police expert witness had not practised in about a decade and never on neonates. He volunteered to be an expert witness - big alarm bells there. Her defence fucked up by not challenging the stats.

The consultant who said at trial that she didn't call for help with a baby was shown to have written previously in an email that she had called him to the unit and that is why he was there!

It is looking like they wanted any explanation other than the unit was doing a spectacularly bad job.

[Jomoore]

I'm fairly satisfied that with the evidence available at the time

What you or I think is irrelevant, but what is certainly relevant is that the "evidence", as demonstrated in your short list, is all circumstantial and open to varying interpretations, as we're hearing is the opinion of a range of experts.  I think the review will have to find that reasonable doubt may in fact exist, and therefore the conviction is unsafe.

And that would be awful is she really were guilty; but not as awful as her staying in jail for life if innocent.

[Doc Holliday]

What you or I think is irrelevant, but what is certainly relevant is that the "evidence", as demonstrated in your short list, is all circumstantial and open to varying interpretations, as we're hearing is the opinion of a range of experts.   

Much of the evidence is indeed circumstantial but there is a great deal of it. My position has always been that I think she murdered some babies (though perhaps not all) but it was not beyond reasonable doubt. The juries thougt otherwise.

Her initial defence team would appear to have failed her somewhat which also then makes appeals difficult, as they rely primarily on new evidence. That does not necessarily mean new expert opinion.

Her defence and supporters were desperate to halt the release of the inquiry, because they knew it would not help her and has probably hindered her case.

However of more harm I believe is the withdrawal of two of the expert witnesses in the days just prior to the report being published and their reasons for doing so.

External Link/Members Only



"In a letter to the CCRC, the experts said: “Whilst it is entirely legitimate for the defence to advance multiple arguments, some of the other arguments now being put forward we cannot support as scientifically credible and which have, in our view, fundamental unresolvable problems.”

They said the strategy of Letby’s defence team, led by her barrister Mark McDonald, was “placing the long-term interests of Ms Letby at serious, unnecessary and unacceptable risk” and that those “consequences also extend to the families” of the babies who died and were injured.



I have always felt uneasy about Mark McDonald when seeing him interviewed. His primary tactics has been raising his own profile and mobilisation of the media. This can backfire and it seems he may have 'over egged the pudding' in terms of ensuring some of his expert evidence was fully scientifically sound.

As with her initial defence team he may well have failed her also? We shall see in due course.

Returning to the report, It is pretty much as I expected. Internal politics should never take priority over safeguarding. Appalling but commonplace.

I hope that those in management will be held accountable and manslaughter charges are forthcoming ... though I think the latter will depend on whether Letby gets another trial?

My gut says she won't?

[yandex]

I hope that those in management will be held accountable and manslaughter charges are forthcoming ... though I think the latter will depend on whether Letby gets another trial?

I'm intrigued enough to comment - if someone has been found guilty of murder, can you charge another person with manslaughter for the same death?

Presumably there will be some collective handwringing, followed by a lengthy period of silence and everyone will move on. That's the usual process in my experience of NHS fuckups.

[timsussex]

I'm intrigued enough to comment - if someone has been found guilty of murder, can you charge another person with manslaughter for the same death?

Presumably there will be some collective handwringing, followed by a lengthy period of silence and everyone will move on. That's the usual process in my experience of NHS fuckups.

As always from the humblest PC to the top - if the will is there something can be found to charge them
However your assessment of NHS fuckups is close but you missed out  an empty  promise that "lessons will be learned"

[Doc Holliday]

I'm intrigued enough to comment - if someone has been found guilty of murder, can you charge another person with manslaughter for the same death?

Yes. External Link/Members Only

Presumably there will be some collective handwringing, followed by a lengthy period of silence and everyone will move on. That's the usual process in my experience of NHS fuckups.

It is indeed though, such is this case, it may be different?

Shipman led to significant changes for the medical profession, but the management 'culture' within Trusts is another matter?

[puntingking]

People only think she is innocent because she is a woman. Harold Shipmen case was largely circumstantial aswell.

Plus, Lucy Letby did make a note in her diary saying that she did do it. I mean, how is that circumstantial evidence. 

I believe Lucy Letby is guilty based on so much "circumstantial" evidence but I also believe the hospital bosses should have some sort of punishment as well. Both can be true at the same time.

But as regards to Lucy Letby, she is guilty. 

The amount of protest from people claiming she is innocent is truly frightening.
We need to trust our justice system and in this case I believe they are right. 

[Doc Holliday]

Shipman was in a different league though. Also the degree of lack of safeguarding in the Letby case is bad but pales into insignificance compared to Shipman

"After qualifying as a doctor and undertaking house jobs in hospital, Shipman joined a group practice in 1974. The next year he was arrested on prescription-fraud charges. He pleaded guilty to eight offences of dishonestly obtaining pethidine, and of forging NHS prescriptions. He asked for a further 74 offences to be taken into account. By then he was thought to have unlawfully procured some 70 000 mg of pethidine. He was ordered to pay a fine, to compensate the National Health Service, and to seek treatment for his drug problem.

After receiving treatment and being declared recovered, Shipman received a warning from the General Medical Council, and was allowed to return to work, with no restrictions on prescribing controlled drugs.

In 1977, he joined a group practice in Hyde, Greater Manchester, whose partners were aware of his previous drug problem and criminal conviction. He left the group in 1992 in acrimonious circumstances to set up single-handed practice in Hyde".

External Link/Members Only

[Doc Holliday]

Here is another death Letby will have played a part in.

External Link/Members Only

External Link/Members Only

Married with two children .... more lives ruined.

External Link/Members Only

[Vice Admiral]

People only think she is innocent because she is a woman. Harold Shipmen case was largely circumstantial aswell.

Plus, Lucy Letby did make a note in her diary saying that she did do it. I mean, how is that circumstantial evidence. 

I believe Lucy Letby is guilty based on so much "circumstantial" evidence but I also believe the hospital bosses should have some sort of punishment as well. Both can be true at the same time.

But as regards to Lucy Letby, she is guilty. 

The amount of protest from people claiming she is innocent is truly frightening.
We need to trust our justice system and in this case I believe they are right. 

When, back in February, you similarly wrote (Reply #402), “The journal note that reads ‘I did this, I am evil’ was enough for me to think she was guilty of these crimes”, I responded (Reply #405):

A couple of days ago I wrote, "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."  However I have to say I have always found that note a big problem when it comes to considering whether Letby might be innocent, and attempts to explain it away not altogether persuasive.

Either way, it is a deeply troubling case.  It is possible – but far from certain – that Letby is innocent.  The implications of that possibility don’t bear thinking about.

I doubt, however, that she will ever be cleared.  While I think that English justice is among the best in the world, there must be a sub-conscious – or perhaps conscious – resistance in the minds of the “legal establishment” to re-opening the case, since the implications of Letby now being cleared also don’t bear thinking about.

[cunningman]

The amount of protest from people claiming she is innocent is truly frightening.

I believe the concern is that the legal and evidentiary processes would appear to have been flawed.

There is supposed to be a 'beyond reasonable doubt' bar and some of the with-hindsight objections
make disturbing reading.

[Doc Holliday]

I believe the concern is that the legal and evidentiary processes would appear to have been flawed.

There is supposed to be a 'beyond reasonable doubt' bar and some of the with-hindsight objections
make disturbing reading.

Correct, but this has transformed to much of Social Media declaring her as 'innocent'.

You can argue, with validity, that the beyond reasonable doubt bar was not met but her 'innocence' is a legal argument.

However that does mean she was not responsible ultimately responsible for the deaths. You cannot just discount the large body of  evidence as many of her supporters have done.

External Link/Members Only

[Blackpool Rock]

When, back in February, you similarly wrote (Reply #402), “The journal note that reads ‘I did this, I am evil’ was enough for me to think she was guilty of these crimes”, I responded (Reply #405):

A couple of days ago I wrote, "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."  However I have to say I have always found that note a big problem when it comes to considering whether Letby might be innocent, and attempts to explain it away not altogether persuasive.

Either way, it is a deeply troubling case.  It is possible – but far from certain – that Letby is innocent.  The implications of that possibility don’t bear thinking about.

I doubt, however, that she will ever be cleared.  While I think that English justice is among the best in the world, there must be a sub-conscious – or perhaps conscious – resistance in the minds of the “legal establishment” to re-opening the case, since the implications of Letby now being cleared also don’t bear thinking about.

I think there's a reluctance to reopen or retry any case and not just because of the cost but because if someone who has been previously found guilty is then cleared / found innocent it blows a massive hole in the "belief" that our legal system is capable of coming to the correct conclusion / judgement.

The jury system is increasingly under pressure and being questioned, while on the face of it the old "12 good men and true" makes sense as you're judged by 12 of your peers in reality I think that for complex cases a lot of jurors struggle following so much information.

There have been a few C4 programs where they recreate cases using actors but follow court proceedings and get a panel of 12 ordinary people to deliberate and give a verdict just like the original jury did, I believe it's actually a test to see if they come to the same outcome and helps to provide feedback to the legal profession on the future of jury trials.

The last one which was on in the last couple of weeks was an eye opener in the way people think and bears out normal human behaviour / interaction that you see in everyday life and particularly at work etc.
Some people were pretty much murder from the start and some were manslaughter (the 2 lads admitted killing but were trying to get diminished responsibility etc), a lot of people swung from one to the other as new evidence was heard and cross examined.
A couple of guys were adamant that they would only ever give manslaughter on the basis that the lads had a tough childhood however these 2 guys were also very vocal and IMO started about bullying and brow beating other jurors to change from murder to manslaughter, other people were also talked over and belittled and put down for speaking and wanting to discuss certain points   

[Jomoore]

Correct, but this has transformed to much of Social Media declaring her as 'innocent'.

You can argue, with validity, that the beyond reasonable doubt bar was not met but her 'innocence' is a legal argument.

Sorry to state the obvious, but as I know you're well aware, it is not necessary for her to be proved innocent in order to be acquitted, merely to be deemed not guilty on the basis that the conviction was not safe, eg, the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt having not been met.

That should still be a possibility.

[Doc Holliday]

Sorry to state the obvious, but as I know you're well aware, it is not necessary for her to be proved innocent in order to be acquitted, merely to be deemed not guilty on the basis that the conviction was not safe, eg, the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt having not been met.

That should still be a possibility.

Yes, apologies I didn't express it well. From a legal perspective under English Law and at trial you are found either guilty or not guilty (or possibly a jury are unable to decide) You are not found innocent.

Many a defence barrister will have achieved a not guilty outcome for their client, when the offence has been committed.

My point was that the Social Media circus, to which we have all become accustomed, has a large contingent saying Letby is innocent and was not involved in the deaths. The balance of probability IMO suggests otherwise, but not beyond reasonable doubt.

My understanding is that if the CCRC deem the verdict is unsound, they refer it back to the Court of Appeal. They can then decide to quash the verdict and she is free, decide on a retrial, which would seem unlikely given the history, or quash the appeal.  My money is on the last option and that assumes the CCRC refer it? 

[puntingking]

When, back in February, you similarly wrote (Reply #402), “The journal note that reads ‘I did this, I am evil’ was enough for me to think she was guilty of these crimes”, I responded (Reply #405):

A couple of days ago I wrote, "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."  However I have to say I have always found that note a big problem when it comes to considering whether Letby might be innocent, and attempts to explain it away not altogether persuasive.

Either way, it is a deeply troubling case.  It is possible – but far from certain – that Letby is innocent.  The implications of that possibility don’t bear thinking about.

I doubt, however, that she will ever be cleared.  While I think that English justice is among the best in the world, there must be a sub-conscious – or perhaps conscious – resistance in the minds of the “legal establishment” to re-opening the case, since the implications of Letby now being cleared also don’t bear thinking about.

 

[Blackpool Rock]

Yes, apologies I didn't express it well. From a legal perspective under English Law and at trial you are found either guilty or not guilty (or possibly a jury are unable to decide) You are not found innocent.

Many a defence barrister will have achieved a not guilty outcome for their client, when the offence has been committed.

My point was that the Social Media circus, to which we have all become accustomed, has a large contingent saying Letby is innocent and was not involved in the deaths. The balance of probability IMO suggests otherwise, but not beyond reasonable doubt.

My understanding is that if the CCRC deem the verdict is unsound, they refer it back to the Court of Appeal. They can then decide to quash the verdict and she is free, decide on a retrial, which would seem unlikely given the history, or quash the appeal.  My money is on the last option and that assumes the CCRC refer it? 

Yeah social media seems to be able to garner support and drag people in to follow a "cause".

There's the recent case in the US where a woman has killed her 3 kids but she seems to have 1000's of supporters

[yandex]

Yes. External Link/Members Only


It is indeed though, such is this case, it may be different?

Shipman led to significant changes for the medical profession, but the management 'culture' within Trusts is another matter?

It goes beyond management culture, though that is a significant strand in this tragic case and if changes for the good happen then something positive will have occurred.

However, the real issue is that those babies shouldn't have been in that unit in the first place. Fundamentally, that is a much wider political issue for which no Health Secretary will be in the least bit held to account. NHS fuckups invariably lead to a couple of individuals getting shafted whilst the system failures are ignored. I read a response to the recommendation for cameras on cots which rightly pointed out that cameras do not deliver good care - qualified individuals with time and resource do.

Letby, like Shipman, is an aberration and should be treated as such when looking at the wider picture

[Doc Holliday]

It goes beyond management culture, though that is a significant strand in this tragic case and if changes for the good happen then something positive will have occurred.

However, the real issue is that those babies shouldn't have been in that unit in the first place. Fundamentally, that is a much wider political issue for which no Health Secretary will be in the least bit held to account. NHS fuckups invariably lead to a couple of individuals getting shafted whilst the system failures are ignored. I read a response to the recommendation for cameras on cots which rightly pointed out that cameras do not deliver good care - qualified individuals with time and resource do.

Letby, like Shipman, is an aberration and should be treated as such when looking at the wider picture

I would broadly agree. On a personal level, I am at the point now where my anxiety levels, when myself or any of my family members become ill, goes through the roof. This was much less the case just a couple of decades ago.

The ever increasing demand and expectation on what is a system both inefficient and unfit for purpose is unsustainable. This demand is a global issue, but our NHS model to deal with it, is less well equipped than other comparable countries.

I have been a 'problem solver' all my life, but I cannot foresee any solution to this, such is the scale of this problem in a country which is so politically and financially bankrupt.

[Thephoenix]

I started this thread back in August 2023.
I'd followed the court case closely as it was reported in detail in my local newspaper.

Having been called to do jury service on three occasions, I was well aware of the problems associated with the suitability of juries making decisions on cases involving such emotional and detailed evidence.
I was worried about the possibility a miscarriage of justice.

My wife and I have both been regulars at the hospital for a number of years, and know some of the staff both past and present.
We've seen first hand and from reports, everything that's been good and bad about the place.

If I had some doubts initially they have increased with every new article and documentary that's been made, and there have been plenty of them.
I don't read or view social media. I just listen to the increasing number of accounts from folk much more qualified than I  who have  also express their doubts and are prepared to put their reputations on the line to express them.

I wasn't intending to post again as I've expressed my views on a number of occasions, however I would urge anyone with an interest in the case to watch tonight's documentary on Channel 5 entitled Lucy Letby: Scapegoat?

After watching it with an open mind, I challenge you to declare the this woman is guilty beyond reasonable doubt

[shaft10]

After watching it with an open mind, I challenge you to declare the this woman is guilty beyond reasonable doubt

I've already watched numerous documentaries and read various articles/reports on this case and in my opinion, she's not guilty, and there's plenty of people a lot closer to it that I and more educated who are saying the same.

[Watts.E.Dunn]

Well perhaps i live in the right place that's Cambridge and have been a patient for a few times at Addenbrookes and the Royal Papworth and in both instances the care was all that could be expected epically Papworth, it is in effect not that different from what you'd expect from a private hospital!

But..

Not all the NHS is the same everywhere there are horror stories from a lot of places in the country, medicine is expensive ,just had a quote for a very simple procedure the NHS can't permit and a few thousand quid for a hours work!.

But it is not the most efficient place and there are plenty of staff it would  work just as well with if they weren't  certain "managers" and the like. Friend of mine tells m that that buy in somethings that you can get at the local chemists shop fr a lot less that what the NHS has to pay.

Now who is going to sort this all out only fuck knows!..

[Jomoore]

I've already watched numerous documentaries and read various articles/reports on this case and in my opinion, she's not guilty, and there's plenty of people a lot closer to it that I and more educated who are saying the same.

In my reading of the case, I find it astounding that anyone can suggest that the prosecution has proven its case "beyond reasonable doubt". Whether she did it or not (a related but separate issue) it cannot possibly be beyond reasonable doubt.

[Vice Admiral]

After watching it with an open mind, I challenge you to declare the this woman is guilty beyond reasonable doubt

In my reading of the case, I find it astounding that anyone can suggest that the prosecution has proven its case "beyond reasonable doubt". Whether she did it or not (a related but separate issue) it cannot possibly be beyond reasonable doubt.

I watched the programme last night.

Obviously it was presenting “the case for the defence”.  Nonetheless it is a persuasive case.  The expert on injections of air was far more impressive and convincing than the expert who had spoken in court.

So, yes, for this and other reasons I share the view that Letby’s conviction is not safe beyond reasonable doubt, as indeed I have previously indicated in this thread.

Letby’s apparently self-incriminating scrawls do, however, continue to pose a bit of a problem.

I asked Google AI what is the “innocent explanation” that has been suggested for these notes.  Here is its response (this ground was also covered in the documentary):

Therapeutic Advice
Sources close to the defence and reporting indicate that Letby was advised by counsellors to write down her deepest fears, anxieties, and dark, intrusive thoughts as part of a coping mechanism.

Expressed Distress
The Post-it notes and papers did not just contain self-critical or dramatic phrases; they were densely packed with chaotic, mixed emotions, including statements like "I haven't done anything wrong", "help me", "I can't do this any more", and questions about what allegations were being made against her.

Expert Testimony on False Confessions
Prominent confession experts—such as Professor Gisli Gudjonsson—have argued that scrawled, high-stress emotional outbursts should not be interpreted or relied upon as literal confessions of murder.

In spite of this, I have to admit that I find it difficult to see myself ever "confessing" in this way to something I hadn't done, however intense the distress I might have been under.  But the human mind is a complex and erratic instrument.

[Vice Admiral]

An interview with Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye, in yesterday's Sunday Times magazine included this:  "The magazine now runs detailed stories about why Lucy Letby’s conviction should be quashed. Is Hislop confident it will be? 'Yeah. But will it be when she’s 70?'”

Interesting.  Hislop and the Eye are usually right about most things...

[Snipper]

The stories in Private Eye have changed my mind about this case. As her trial progressed I became convinced that Lucy Letby was a monster, but given what the Eye has revealed, I am now certain that much of the prosecution evidence was flawed and misleading and that her defence team were inept.