|
|
Topic Originator: Paralex
Date: Tue 4 Feb 14:42
There seems to be a lot more to this case than meets the eye. Good that MP David Davis is lending his considerable weight to the situation. A figure who commands some respect. Seems that those who accused Ms Letby had most to lose if she wasn`t convicted. Let`s see how this one goes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Tue 4 Feb 15:14
So she didn’t murder them, just provided “bad medical care” and accidentally injected them with oxygen…….so instead of murder its culpable homicide - let her rot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Playup_Pompey
Date: Tue 4 Feb 15:22
guess finding out who wrote the "confessions" in her personal diary as well will unlock the real killer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Tue 4 Feb 15:26
Apparently she wasn`t working when some of the incidents happened, further investigations required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Tue 4 Feb 16:33
I thought it was the case she was on duty when all of those incidents happened, but was not on duty when other similar things happened (and they were not included in the case). But perhaps I`m wrong (in which case I`m very keen to be corrected).
Unfortunately human thinking and appropriate use of data often are not well aligned. I guess seeing threats that aren`t actually there has played a key role in keeping humans alive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Tue 4 Feb 16:43
sadindifreak called this last August .. saying the prosecution evidence was flawed and in time would go down as a miscarriage of justice .. There is still more to come .. lets hope they get it right .. feel so sorry for all the Families being dragged back through this again RIP all the babies
Post Edited (Tue 04 Feb 16:45)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Tue 4 Feb 17:02
Quote:
Buspasspar, Tue 4 Feb 16:43
sadindifreak called this last August .. saying the prosecution evidence was flawed and in time would go down as a miscarriage of justice .. There is still more to come .. lets hope they get it right .. feel so sorry for all the Families being dragged back through this again RIP all the babies
Well remembered Buspasspar.
Since then the main prosecution witness has said he was wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Tue 4 Feb 17:28
Quote:
Dave_1885, Tue 4 Feb 15:14
So she didn’t murder them, just provided “bad medical care” and accidentally injected them with oxygen…….so instead of murder its culpable homicide - let her rot.
This is precisely the mentality that confirms the death penalty should never return
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Tue 4 Feb 18:01
Quote:
PARrot, Tue 4 Feb 17:28
Quote:
Dave_1885, Tue 4 Feb 15:14
So she didn’t murder them, just provided “bad medical care” and accidentally injected them with oxygen…….so instead of murder its culpable homicide - let her rot.
This is precisely the mentality that confirms the death penalty should never return
Didn’t say anything about killing her 😂 it’s also why I agree that the death penalty should never return. But currently she is guilty of killing numerous babies. Until that’s completely overturned and proven to be false on ALL counts, she can rot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Paralex
Date: Tue 4 Feb 18:04
Glad to be on the same wavelength as sadindiefreak. From the documentary I saw the injection with oxygen was an flawed accusation and the entry in the diary could have a very different meaning from being a confession. She may have been led to believe that she was guilty of the deaths, when she wasn`t. Hopefully this case gets a proper viewing, in light of the new evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Tue 4 Feb 20:22
The first serious question I remember hearing was when loads of statisticians cast huge doubt on some of the statistical methods used in the prosecution`s evidence.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: twin par
Date: Tue 4 Feb 22:28
I might be proved wrong here,but I never believed she was guilty. She was the fall guy.
Post Edited (Tue 04 Feb 22:29)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Tue 4 Feb 22:30
Correct me if wrong - but did not senior staff such as consultants flag up their concerns and these went unactioned by the management ?
If so, a properly conducted review of the cases and further investigation might well have prevented more tragic baby deaths.
The initial verdict was eventually appealed if memory serves and upheld.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Paralex
Date: Wed 5 Feb 00:29
Yes, the Court of Appeal turned down the request for an appeal on the 24th October 2024. Things have ramped up further to that. I don`t have loads of respect for many Tories but David Davis is certainly one I very much respect. I have a hunch he will help to get this case reviewed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 5 Feb 08:46
Time will tell. What I found odd was the reporting of her scrawls in a notepad. Those could have of someone who felt guilt over a death despite not being the cause or intending to cause death. Like a driver who knocks down and kills a child who runs out in front of them might feel it was their fault. Maybe if they`d been going slightly slower or had left slightly later or had the brakes replaced at the last MOT when they were an advisory etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Wed 5 Feb 09:56
The raft of neonatal experts are certainly providing different evidence to that of the original trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Wed 5 Feb 16:51
"The raft of neonatal experts are certainly providing different evidence to that of the original trial."
Which begs the (obvious ?) question - where were they then, and why were their expert opinions not sought, and for the appeal ?
Post Edited (Wed 05 Feb 18:05)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: twin par
Date: Wed 5 Feb 23:37
Good question! The more information that comes out,the more I feel she is Inoccent,or at least,an inquiry,is needed.
Post Edited (Wed 05 Feb 23:40)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: QPR_Par
Date: Thu 6 Feb 00:23
Quote:
Paralex, Tue 4 Feb 18:04
Glad to be on the same wavelength as sadindiefreak. From the documentary I saw the injection with oxygen was an flawed accusation and the entry in the diary could have a very different meaning from being a confession. She may have been led to believe that she was guilty of the deaths, when she wasn`t. Hopefully this case gets a proper viewing, in light of the new evidence.
The written entries that have been interpreted as a confession may have been brain dumping. I’ve used it in the past when my stress / anxiety levels have been so high that I couldn’t sleep due to the negative thoughts running through my brain on a constant loop.
The theory is that you dump those thoughts by writing them down. This allows you to read them back, see how ridiculous they are, how needlessly harsh they are, which then calms you down.
In that context it’s no surprise that dark thoughts were captured. It’s also been reported that the hospital’s head of occupational health and wellbeing encouraged this as a coping mechanism.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/03/i-am-evil-i-did-this-lucy-letbys-so-called-confessions-were-written-on-advice-of-counsellors
Post Edited (Thu 06 Feb 00:36)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Paralex
Date: Thu 6 Feb 13:09
Good post QPR. It should have been obvious that a young nurse suddenly finding herself in such a stressful situation might express herself in this way. My wife was a practicing midwife before lecturing in midwifery. There were very high stress levels involved in delivering babies safely.
I notice too that the photo of Lucy Letby used by the media is very unflattering and most like the mug shot of a criminal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Fri 7 Feb 13:44
Once again, please correct me if mistaken - but were there not some child deaths in another hospital where she had worked ?
The report of course being she might be implicated ?
Post Edited (Fri 07 Feb 13:45)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Fri 7 Feb 16:40
I’m guessing there’s child deaths in every maternity hospital given how premature some babies are delivered and incubated
Post Edited (Fri 07 Feb 17:06)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Fri 7 Feb 17:43
Indeed that is unfortunately the case.
But I have the same recollection as vee.
ETA....just rewatched the Panorama from Oct 24...it was Liverpool Woman's Hopsital where there were incidents on around one third of the cases where Letby was working. Hopefully concluding that analysis will help.
Post Edited (Fri 07 Feb 18:46)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Fri 7 Feb 21:44
It`s all just too horrible. If she is guilty she needs to be punished, but if not, she must be in a living hell. Same for her family.
I think we have to allow her to be innocent until it is conclusively proven she is guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: buffy
Date: Fri 7 Feb 21:46
She was found guilty hence why she’s in prison. She’s had two appeals which were rejected.
”Buffy’s Buns are the finest in Fife”, J. Spence 2019”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: P
Date: Fri 7 Feb 21:52
Quote:
PARrot, Fri 7 Feb 21:44
It`s all just too horrible. If she is guilty she needs to be punished, but if not, she must be in a living hell. Same for her family.
I think we have to allow her to be innocent until it is conclusively proven she is guilty.
What a weird statement, she’s in jail because she was conclusively proven as being guilty. She is now guilty until it’s proven to be a miscarriage of justice.
Prisons are full of people who would tell you they didn’t do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Fri 7 Feb 23:13
She was innocent, that ship sailed following her being found guilty.
Two appeals failing to overturn the original verdict.
Our legal system is not infallible, however you have to think it`s competent when it comes to returning a "three strike count" finding against her.
Post Edited (Fri 07 Feb 23:14)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sat 8 Feb 01:18
Quote:
P, Fri 7 Feb 21:52
Quote:
PARrot, Fri 7 Feb 21:44
It`s all just too horrible. If she is guilty she needs to be punished, but if not, she must be in a living hell. Same for her family.
I think we have to allow her to be innocent until it is conclusively proven she is guilty.
What a weird statement. She’s in jail because she was conclusively proven as being guilty. She is now guilty until it’s proven to be a miscarriage of justice.
Prisons are full of people who would tell you they didn’t do it.
I don`t think it is weird.
From the comments made here by others, there seems to be considerable doubt.
I have to admit that I haven`t the time to read all about it in depth, but if there are grounds for an appeal, there is doubt.
I don`t know the girl. If she is guilty, I hope she pays the price. If she is innocent, I hope they can prove it to an extent that the stigma is lifted and greaving relatives don`t feel that she got off with it.
Personally, I hope she is innocent. Not found innocent but truly innocent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Sat 8 Feb 07:55
The Panorama programme is 30 minutes well spent.
The shift list, concerns about behaviour at another hospital, not having their own medical expert at trial and unconvincing evidence given by Letby herself all seem rather strange.
Her new barrister does come across as someone who has massive doubts but without a hugely robust case to justify that. I`m not sure how much he has been involved in the two failed appeals.
I just wish the original case hasn`t focused only on the 24 cases she was on duty. That wasn`t the right approach in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: P
Date: Sat 8 Feb 09:23
Quote:
PARrot, Sat 8 Feb 01:18
Quote:
P, Fri 7 Feb 21:52
Quote:
PARrot, Fri 7 Feb 21:44
It`s all just too horrible. If she is guilty she needs to be punished, but if not, she must be in a living hell. Same for her family.
I think we have to allow her to be innocent until it is conclusively proven she is guilty.
What a weird statement. She’s in jail because she was conclusively proven as being guilty. She is now guilty until it’s proven to be a miscarriage of justice.
Prisons are full of people who would tell you they didn’t do it.
I don`t think it is weird.
From the comments made here by others, there seems to be considerable doubt.
Oh well the .net massive think there is doubt, no case to answer m’lud throw open the doors and let someone who found in court to be (whats that word again - ah yes) ‘guilty’ out.
I’m not dismissing any further investigation btw just pointing out you cannot say someone who has literally been found guilty is innocent until otherwise proven 😂
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sat 8 Feb 11:42
Quote:
P, Sat 8 Feb 09:23
Quote:
PARrot, Sat 8 Feb 01:18
Quote:
P, Fri 7 Feb 21:52
Quote:
PARrot, Fri 7 Feb 21:44
It`s all just too horrible. If she is guilty, she needs to be punished, but if not, she must be in a living hell. Same for her family.
I think we have to allow her to be innocent until it is conclusively proven she is guilty.
What a weird statement. She’s in jail because she was conclusively proven as being guilty. She is now guilty until it’s proven to be a miscarriage of justice.
Prisons are full of people who would tell you they didn’t do it.
I don`t think it is weird.
From the comments made here by others, there seems to be considerable doubt.
Oh well, the .net massive think there is doubt, no case to answer m’lud throw open the doors and let someone who found in court to be (whats that word again - ah yes) ‘guilty’ out.
I’m not dismissing any further investigation btw just pointing out you cannot say someone who has literally been found guilty is innocent until otherwise proven 😂
I`m trying to figure out what your emoji is intended to achieve.
Comes over a tad smug.
It isn`t the ".net massive" as you so graciously refer to some people who I believe are reasonably intelligent. Possibly more so than your good self, although I don`t know you personally. Maybe you are the superior contributor that you appear to think you are.
Those that you deride are only commenting on the findings of a panel of experts who found no medical evidence to justify a conviction.
It also would appear, from what I have found time to peruse, that there have not been two failed appeals. There have been two attempted appeals that were not granted. It`s not the same thing.
I may be wrong there. Feel free to correct me, but please try not to be so smug. Nobody appreciates that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: buffy
Date: Sat 8 Feb 12:15
Parrot a panel of experts at the time found her guilty. If we were to allow every expert on the planet access to an accused person’s casework then there would be no end.
There is a limit on how many experts can be allowed - and mostly because of financial restrictions.
If there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case then it will be brought forth.
”Buffy’s Buns are the finest in Fife”, J. Spence 2019”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Sat 8 Feb 13:17
The panel of experts that now think she is innocent were nowhere to be seen to defend her at her first trial. There was another group of experts, colleagues, lawyers and jury members that were that found her overwhelmingly guilty. Which she currently is.
If we listened to every experts opinion then vaccines would never exist, the economy would be booming and the Earth would be flat…..or have ended 20 years ago!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Milos Drizzle
Date: Sat 8 Feb 14:18
Being found guilty in a court of law does not make one guilty in the general sense of that word, especially civil courts that seem very susceptible to miscarriages. This case of course had a proper trial, but I hope justice prevails here, whatever that means for the accused.
This is my signature
Post Edited (Sat 08 Feb 14:18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Sat 8 Feb 15:00
Quote:
veteraneastender, Fri 7 Feb 23:13
She was innocent, that ship sailed following her being found guilty.
Two appeals failing to overturn the original verdict.
Our legal system is not infallible, however you have to think it`s competent when it comes to returning a "three strike count" finding against her.
She`s not had any appeals. She had applications for an appeal declined. These are completely different things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sat 8 Feb 15:35
Quote:
sadindiefreak, Sat 8 Feb 15:00
Quote:
veteraneastender, Fri 7 Feb 23:13
She was innocent, that ship sailed following her being found guilty.
Two appeals failing to overturn the original verdict.
Our legal system is not infallible, however you have to think it`s competent when it comes to returning a "three strike count" finding against her.
She`s not had any appeals. She had applications for an appeal declined. These are completely different things.
That`s what I said earlier Sif
It`s interesting how people read situations differently.
Some of us can be very judgmental.
In my mind, from what I have read so far. She is more likely to be guilty in most folks eyes, but there is significant doubt.
I`m just saying I hope she is not guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Sat 8 Feb 18:28
The article states that she killed 7 babies and attempted to kill 7 others - including two of the latter being attributed to insulin injections.
"The former nurse, now 35, is serving 15 whole-life prison terms after being convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill seven others – including trying to murder two by insulin overdoses – at the Countess of Chester hospital in north-west England."
So, even if she is found not guilty of the attempted insulin deaths she stands convicted on the other counts.
Or are they also being challenged ?
Post Edited (Sat 08 Feb 18:30)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Sat 8 Feb 19:01
Quote:
sadindiefreak, Sat 8 Feb 15:00
Quote:
veteraneastender, Fri 7 Feb 23:13
She was innocent, that ship sailed following her being found guilty.
Two appeals failing to overturn the original verdict.
Our legal system is not infallible, however you have to think it`s competent when it comes to returning a "three strike count" finding against her.
She`s not had any appeals. She had applications for an appeal declined. These are completely different things.
Indeed. Obviously the appeal judges twice found insufficient grounds to justify further action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Sat 8 Feb 20:47
The people that are siding with her being “innocent” now - do they also believe Luke Mitchell, Jodi Jones murderer, is also innocent because he has claimed it for the last 20 years? 🤔 seen he has also put in an appeal against the parole board recently regarding his application being mishandled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 9 Feb 00:22
Well can you think she`s innocent and Mitchell is guilty? And if you think she is guilty does that also mean you have to think that Andrew Malkinson is guilty?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sun 9 Feb 16:00
Quote:
Dave_1885, Sat 8 Feb 20:47
The people that are siding with her being “innocent” now - do they also believe Luke Mitchell, Jodi Jones murderer, is also innocent because he has claimed it for the last 20 years? 🤔 seen he has also put in an appeal against the parole board recently regarding his application being mishandled.
That isn`t even remotely similar. I`m sure you could find a better example to make your point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tad Allagash
Date: Sun 9 Feb 19:25
The biggest difference is that we can be certain that SOMEBODY murdered Jodi Jones.
In the Lucy Letby case, it’s not certain that ANY murders took place - let alone that Lucy Letby committed them.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Paralex
Date: Fri 14 Feb 17:20
Reading through the thread again, it strikes me as slightly prejudicial that several posters think Lucy Letby has had two appeals heard, when as has been stated by others, she has had zero appeals heard. It`s quite easy for the legal system to turn down appeals as I have found out recently regarding a friend`s situation in a relatively minor case. It is in fact very much in the best interests of the legal establishment to do so because those involved do not wish to tarnish their own reputation by being found to have been presiding over flawed outcome.
My recent experience of the Sheriff Court system in Scotland and the treatment of those charged of a minor offence by others, who failed to appear at the trial date, because they were on holiday, causing several adjournments and failing to produce proper evidence, which caused the case to drag on for 3 years, has left me with great reservations as to the fairness of the system. The punishment the guy had to suffer by hanging on over these 3 years was much greater than the admonishment verdict that was given. But that verdict labels the guy guilty of a crime and as such tarnishes his whole life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: buffy
Date: Fri 14 Feb 17:36
It depends what you consider a minor crime, Paralex. If your friend was arrested and charged with the offence but then admonished then the criminal element would be removed from his record.
”Buffy’s Buns are the finest in Fife”, J. Spence 2019”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Fri 14 Feb 18:59
Quote:
buffy, Fri 14 Feb 17:36
It depends what you consider a minor crime, Paralex. If your friend was arrested and charged with the offence but then admonished then the criminal element would be removed from his record.
Are you sure on that ?
I thought an admonishment was still recorded as a conviction ?
Maybe different in England and Wales ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Paralex
Date: Fri 14 Feb 19:16
No Buffy, I`m 100% sure that although admonished, it gives him a criminal record, which, among other things, stops him from travelling to places like the USA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Fri 14 Feb 19:17
Vee I think in Scotland it is a stern warning not to re-offend
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: buffy
Date: Fri 14 Feb 19:57
Apologies. I mixed it up with another term. (I’m still learning criminal law).
BPP is correct.
“An admonition is where an accused person found guilty of a crime is warned not to offend again. It is recorded as a conviction and appears on their criminal record. No other penalty is given.”
”Buffy’s Buns are the finest in Fife”, J. Spence 2019”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Paralex
Date: Fri 14 Feb 20:36
The only charge I could have brought against my friend was that he was rather persistent in putting forth his point of view. You can`t convict someone for peacefully putting forward a licit point of view. He had very good motivation for doing so. His lawyer who was forced upon him (my friend wanted to defend himself) thought the admonishment was a good result for his client. Not so, for the admonished one is even more persistent now in seeking an appeal. This has been turned down once, by the Sheriff and his cronies who admonished him. But my friend, who is by no means ignorant of the law, continues to carefully and wisely, build up his case for appeal.
Lucy Letby has good people on her side, Whether they prevail in getting an appeal remains to be seen but the more that is uncovered makes me less certain the conviction was safe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Fri 14 Feb 20:59
"Vee I think in Scotland it is a stern warning not to re-offend"
Indeed - but still recorded as a conviction though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Fri 14 Feb 22:13
I was admonished for a minor firearms offence in 1979. It came up on my report in 1994 when I started fostering kids.
Didn`t stop the process.
I listed it on my ETA passing through Florida on route to Bogota just after 9/11. Didn`t stop me.
I listed it again on an ESA 7 years ago on route to Canada. It failed the application.
I only had to get a new police report. It had finally been wiped, but the computer acted on my inclusion of the incident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Paralex
Date: Fri 14 Feb 22:38
Now it`s all coming out Parrot. Your delinquent past!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sat 15 Feb 07:28
Quote:
Paralex, Fri 14 Feb 22:38
Now it`s all coming out Parrot. Your delinquent past!!
I wasn`t always a saint, brother Paralex 😇🤪
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Sat 15 Feb 10:33
Did you ever have the username PARblo?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sun 16 Feb 12:55
Quote:
ipswichpar, Sat 15 Feb 10:33
Did you ever have the username PARblo?
Over my head
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Sun 16 Feb 15:03
Quote:
PARrot, Sun 16 Feb 12:55
Quote:
ipswichpar, Sat 15 Feb 10:33
Did you ever have the username PARblo?
Over my head
That suspicious trip to Bogota Pablo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sun 16 Feb 16:59
Quote:
ipswichpar, Sun 16 Feb 15:03
Quote:
PARrot, Sun 16 Feb 12:55
Quote:
ipswichpar, Sat 15 Feb 10:33
Did you ever have the username PARblo?
Over my head
That suspicious trip to Bogota Pablo.
I clicked just after I posted . There is actually a story involving drugs behind that trip but I`ll save it for another day.
It was quite a scary trip. We were not allowed out the hotel without an armed guard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
