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
Whilst she is 100 % guilty - this was an aspect of this case the surprised me. Know little about law - but in my mind you needed more than circumstantial evidence to be committed of a crime of this seriousness ? It wouldn't surprise me if she gets of with a few of them in an appeal - but some are as clear as can be.
Contrary to TV crime series, circumstantial evidence is often the most reliable. Eye witnesses are the single greatest source of miscarriages of justice.
The evidence in this case was overwhelming. The babies had air injected into their blood stream and lethal doses of insulin were given to babies who had not been prescribed any.
There was a consistent pattern of this behaviour which could not have been accidental and there was only one person who had access to all the babies at the relevant time.
Fortunately, the jurors used their common sense and weren’t too influenced by TV dramas (or social media).
she's either innocent or she's insane. my money is on the latter. if she's sane & guilty then i'm Mike Tyson.
the British courts have a long and not so distinguished history of miscarriages of justice. i can think of a dozen that readily come to mind. i wonder how long before an appeal is launched?
of course they'll tell you this is proof the system works. ya sure....
I never suggested they weren't.
In cases of diminished responsibility when you have 2 expert psychologists disagreeing statistically the jury will side with the prosecution witness.
In Ireland it is extremely rare that the jury will side with the defence, normally both expert witnesses would have to agree.
Under the extremely narrow definition in law it's an extremely hard case to win here and in the UK.
In this case she knew exactly what she was doing, so diminished responsibility doesn't apply.
Fair chance of an appeal here ?
Still can't quite get my head around this, how someone would a) even think about doing this and b) actually doing it, multiple times. No words.
The best explanation I can come up is that this person is a pure psychopath, zero empathy, and also was addicted to the drama surrounding an infants death. An horrific combination by any measure, I don't know will we ever really know the 'why'. I'm not sure she even knows. Just awful stuff, and really it should have been brought to an end a lot sooner, why she was allowed to continue even after concerns raised is beyond me. What type of system is that?
Appeal on what grounds? Her defense offered no mitigatiing circumstances ahead of sentencing.
Most criminals are “insane” in that sense. Their behaviour is fundamentally irrational and ultimately self-destructive. Fortunately, the law still holds them accountable for their crimes, except where their mental state meets the legal definition of insanity.
Lucy Letby is not legally insane. Her murders were highly organised, carried out over a long period and required technical medical skills. She was well aware that her actions were evil in the extreme. She was never diagnosed with any form of mental illness and her behaviour otherwise seemed entirely normal.
I wouldn’t be surprised if stupidity became an issue in her case. I mean the stupidity of those who think that, because her crimes were unthinkable, she must be insane. Fortunately, while the law may be an ass at times, it hasn’t fallen into that trap yet.
One thing which surprised me about the defence case was that they didn't present a statistician to "blind 'em with maths". Or more specifically examine in detail the likelihood/possibility of clusters of deaths, chances of one member of staff always being present etc.
*******
This is a decent 'Letby could be innocent' blog. It's by statistician Richard Gill who was instrumental in having Lucia de Berk declared innocent after the original trial was marred by incorrect probability theory. Conversely he has also unsuccessfully campaigned in other cases, so there is a chance that having been correct once he has become obsessed with trying to strike gold again.
The Lucy Letby case – Richard Gill Statistics (gill1109.com)
Richard D. Gill - Wikipedia
Edit : Another convicted nurse case he was successful on in Italy Italian nurse acquitted of murder after statistical analysis - Leiden University (universiteitleiden.nl)
An appeal is possible only if new evidence comes to light or if she wishes to challenge somehting that was raised in the original trial. So, has she new some evidence or which point of the original trial would she try to challenge? Did she even try to challenge the evidence in the original trial?
That seems fairly stretchy TBH.
The reality is people have a very hard time wrapping their head around why someone so ordinary would commit crimes so horrific and extraordinary.
The reality is she ticks quite a few boxes for the profile of a female serial killer. They are by definition very ordinary at least on the outside.
Interestingly they are usually married or have been married.
If she is innocent she does have one thing going for, the families are pushing for a wide ranging independent review. You would imagine something would be highlighted in that.
They are saying letby had no empathy...yet she had 2 rescue cats she cared for...
If there was evidence she was insane the defence would have clung to that as best they could. There'd be eviddence from allher colleagues and friends and families to support that hypothesis if it was the case, and pschiatrists would have then backed it up in the court case if the defence felt it was viable route to go. But obviously it wasn't which means it's incredibly unlikely she is insane. Her brain is absolutely different to most of ours in all the wrong ways but 'insane'( as in has diminished responsibility for what she did) she is not.
Shipman had several animals that he cared about deeply.
Not all serial killers start by skinning rabbits.
Hitler absolutely adored his dogs.
By all accounts shipman was gaining financially from some of his patients when they passed away
I don't see how that is relevant.
Serial killers and financial gain would be quite common, particularly amongst FSK.
I believe that's the reason why he was investigated firstly
Okay, but how is that relevant to level of empathy, pets and mass killings?
What you basically said was she can't be all bad she had 2 cats.
Or did you mean something else?
You'd thought she had shown the same level of caring towards those babies..after all we are all living creatures... be it human or animals...maybe she couldn't accept other mother's happiness of having a baby...as she seemed to really target twins or triplets born there...who knows... maybe being a only child had a effect on her
Given that cats are selfish creatures with no empathy and enjoy torturing pretty little birds it's no surprise she had them as pets, rather than loving and loyal dogs. Like attracts like
Well she didn't so not really relevant.
One of my bonkers theories is something to do with family background of the child.
I think she could have targeted certain types of families for whatever reason.
Yes, I know I'm an armchair detective.
It's all probably has been looked into anyway.
Her killing, as mentioned was very thought out, cunning, methodical, precise and devious.
Insane my arse, and if so, then a very devious and dangerous and "with it" insane person.
And still some folks are questioning her guilt. Nobody else killed those babies, and they didn't just die! Plenty concise/credible evidence shows her as the killer. Labeling the evidence "circumstantial," as if to diminish it, doesn't change this. Most convictions rely on circumstantial evidence.
And seriously, what is with the bringing up miscarriages of justice got to do with this clear cut conviction? Miscarriages of justice have always occurred, and will always occur. It's part of a human society. Letby's case is not at all a possible miscarriage
So you're saying miscarriages occur however letbys conviction isn't a possible miscarriage
That's nonsense for obvious reasons . You can't possibly know that at this stage .
The possibility exists however slim atm
I forgot you’re clinging to your 1 percent chance theory.. 🤔
i think her defence did a lousy job. it's possible she's so delusional that she does not accept what she has done and refused to go down the mentally ill route. i would love her to be diagnosed by a few expert psychiatrists in this field to see what they can diagnose. with the greatest respect i don't think you know much more about her that the average boardsie, which let's be honest aint a heck of a lot.
i think the case against her was pretty flimsy.
did anyone catch her in the act? did cameras record it? did she confess to doing it?
is it possible there was a systematic failure in that Hospital that led to these deaths? the Brits are overly protective about their precious NHS and would be anxious to find a fall-guy/gal to lay the blame on, as to admit something like this would be unthinkable.
the fact that their much vaunted NHS is creaking at the seems was never discussed.
Didn't a mother of 1 of the babies cared for there walk in on her when when she was doing something to another baby and it was screehing in pain and she said to the mother.. don't worry "I'm a nurse"...she had form alright.
proves nothing. i mean babies scream a lot.
