This case had been absolutely harrowing for all involved.
Those poor babies and their families.
Words cannot describe the depths of cruelty at present here. My first child was born 6 weeks early. They are so delicate and helpless.
This vermin Lucy Letby deserves to rot
From hearing the consultants interview on Friday, it appears the investigation was not thorough enough by a long shot.
It was more 'hunch' than investigation.
They had evidence of neither of those scenarios.
All they had at that time was roster evidence( she was the only person in work for all those instances) and a professional hunch.
Want until a lot later that real evidence and unignorable circumstantial evidence came to light.
Still, professionals with concerns should not have been ignored the way they were
But here is my query: if the doctors believed she was intentionally trying to harm/kill babies, this is a police matter from the get go.
Hence I asked if their reporting to management was more a report of her being incompetent (without an intent to harm/kill).
anyway, we are merely bystanders. I’d say an awful lot happened to get the situation to where it tragically ended.
My initial thoughts are the consultants should have went straight to the police with it.
They likely were not allowed to do that, and have to go through management.
She wasn't incompetent though. Apparently she was a good nurse. This started out as coincidence
Something was happening, that they couldn't explain and Letby was on shift every time.
Surely if doctors really think a person on a babies’ ICU ward is trying to harm/kill babies, no protocol needs following. It’s straight to police. I know I would.
I had not heard of this story until today. What a nasty piece of work. The awful suffering she has caused.
There was no precedent for it, and doctors didn't know anyone was trying to harm or kill babies.
The insulin spike in one of the babies wasn't noticed until the police investigation was underway. That was one of the first bits of concrete evidence found.
Doctors didn't know she was murdering babies. Suspecting something and knowing it are very different unfortunately
Pond scum. Could have been planning this since her teenage years
No decent society should have a death penalty. No matter what you think of Letby, just remember what Justice Lord John Donaldson said to the Guilford Four (and I'm not trying to suggest Letby is in any way innocent)!
This explains it well
Dead right.
Too good for her anyway.
Correct and it's easily forgotten in the moment .
The evidence seems entirely circumstancial
My take . I believe she's likely guilty as she's been found guilty by a jury
I will know she's guilty in time when appeal avenues have been exhausted and the verdict isn't overturned for any reason at a later date
I'm sure the women's prison she will be staying in will be very comfortable and she's such a narracist she'll create a life for herself she'll enjoy.
You keep insinuating subtly that she could be innocent. There is no “could.” Absolutely guilty.
also, plenty guilty people have walked free from appeals. And plenty innocent people haven’t.
They've done really well with this case all things considered.
Years of evidence gathering
9 month trial. Lots of prosecution witnesses and evidence and she had a plumber from the hospital to give evidence on her side.
She hid in plain sight, but she had no hiding place in court.
Over 100 hours of jury deliberation.
She's goosed, and correctly so
You're interpreting my words here
I believe I'm correct in saying that a conviction only implies guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
I believe it's prudent to reserve final judgement for the reasons I stated above
like this guy?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23365657/lostprophets-paedo-ian-watkins-stabbed/
A certain number of people keep using phrases like "entirely circumstantial" or "only circumstantial", inferring that the evidence presented in the trial is somehow sub-standard or second rate.
This is categorically not the case. Circumstantial evidence is as valid as direct evidence. It is the totality of evidence that secures a conviction. If there's multiple layers of circumstantial evidence that all point to the same conclusion, a conclusion can indeed be made beyond a reasonable doubt. This occurs in many criminal trials.
The irony is that people use the phase "smoking gun" to describe iron-clad evidence in legal cases. In an trial, a smoking gun is actually circumstantial evidence - as the significance of the gun in relation to the accused must be inferred, as opposed to directly asserted. Forensic testimony is another common example of circumstantial evidence.
Lack (or failure) of appeal does not prove guilt. Appeals can only be on specific points of law. I think the evidence presented in this case is deeply problematic.
I hope the evidence of googling Facebook and handwritten confession didn't carry too much weight
The handwritten confession has been dismissed by an expert as evidence
Spot on.
Dismissed by an expert means nothing. There was a 9 month trial, and experts on both sides made their cases in great detail in front of a jury. It was up to the jury - and only the jury - to accept or dismiss evidence.
She should have been dragged into court, and not be allowed to chicken it out in a cell.
There's no "only" or "implied" about it.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the established standard of proof in a criminal trial. Once that threshold has been reached, the verdict is guilt. There's no gradient.
An appeal can set aside the verdict, but only because of errors in the application of law, jury/procedural misconduct or brand new evidence. Going back over existing evidence is not allowed in an appeal - the judgment as it stands on the existing evidence is final.
Your last sentence reinforces my point
If you have evidence to the contrary of her conviction, you should share it with her legal team.
Is it surprising she showed remorse in the notes? I would have thought someone who could kill babies wouldn't even have it in them to show remorse?
Indeed it's not (revisiting jury deliberations over evidence) - but it should be. Juries are fallible, and as liable to act on emotion than other people. The so-called justice system is deeply, deeply flawed.
True, she should be suffering alive every single second of her remaining life, with hope she lives to her 90's. She should be fed minimum calories to sustain her alive, left in a room without windows and a hole for a toilet, ne running water, just 2l to have it for drinking, showering and you know what else. She is not human, she shouldn't be treated as one, she is a monster
Do you think that was remorse or self pity?
It could have been neither.
