Nurse Lucy Letby found guilty of murdering seven babies

dbas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121037309#Comment_121037309

I've never been on a jury so I can't say the following statement with any truth, but here goes.

I think it would be very hard to remain objective with the remaining charges when the accused had already been found guilty of multiple murders and attempted murders.

The fact that they maintained their meticulousness for each individual charge is a really good sign IMO.

So much evidence to consider. It must have been a huge task.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121037516#Comment_121037516

I was on a jury in the past-certainly not a case like this but serious enough- there were a number of charges- I think 5 or 6 if I remember rightly- we treated each one on its own merits - as it happens we found the defendant guilty on all charges but that was simply because there was clear evidence to convict- you’re right though, there’s definitely a potential for a jury to keep going “guilty guilty guilty- however, if you agree a way of working from the outset as well as abiding very closely to the instructions given by the judge, it’s actually hard to go wrong.

In my view you’d need a lot of strong jurors to try and railroad the decision - something I’d find hard to see happen if I’m honest - the jury I was on were pretty clued in bunch who wouldn’t be swayed easily.

dbas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121037573#Comment_121037573

I'd say the jury were well managed in that regard.

I.e. consider all the evidence relating to all the charges. Don't hurry anything and be fair and objective.

It must have been really hard for them

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121037657#Comment_121037657

The trial I was at took 1.5 weeks for various reasons including about 1.25 days of deliberation -absolutely shattered at the end of it- I truely don’t know how this poor jury survived but they all deserve some sort of recognition- way above and beyond

lumphammer2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121036641#Comment_121036641

I would very much agree ... whole life tariffs are unjust and there is no real reason for them ... Lucy Letby has been found guilty of appalling crimes but there is always the chance she is not guilty and ... there is also the nature of what she did ... unlike a bomb planter/terrorist she does not pose a threat to the general public and is not dangerous outside of her role ... as said before there also is no incentive for her to help authorities to piece together why she did what she did ... which means perhaps some dangerous cult or other influencer remains at large to brainwash others to carry out such crimes ... another reason why whole life tariffs are wrong is that in a shift towards authoritarian regimes in any country .... and it can happen very much in any country ... they can be abused ,...

lumphammer2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121036518#Comment_121036518

Of course what you say is correct .... I agree with this totally ... the jury system is deeply flawed ... clearly it is very restricted to certain people because others are working and have the excuse to exempt themselves ... and juries are like the rest of us ... watching news and their opinions biased by the coverage ... Lucy Letby first came to prominence in the news when arrested all those years back ... at no point was anyone saying she might be innocent ...

Beyond reasonable doubt is not super high that is true ... I agree that young doctors could cover something up ... let's say they got things wrong and a lot of babies died ... the most convenient thing would be to blame it on a nurse who was there all the time ... not saying either that LL is innocent but there is always the possibility ... the appeal will be interesting ...

There are a lot of red flags for me too wrt this case ... the fact that her family and friends come out and said she was very different to the media spiel at the very least give us an indication another story exists that is being shut down .... the court also did not allow much of LL's letters as evidence and only seemed to concentrate on one in particular ... it seems the court just wanted as quick as possible judgement ...

All in all LL may well be innocent or she may be guilty as hell ... but if not already happened someone innocent will end up languishing in prison for life under a whole life tariff ...

Long Sean Silver

i see another hospital, this time in Birmingham has launched an enquiry in baby deaths! a nurse has been arrested.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nurse-investigated-poisoning-baby-after-30800717

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121037026#Comment_121037026

But she was on duty for those ones too right? So either she killed them or there was someone else killing babies at the same time.

The only reason to not convict her was if you believe there might have been someone else, and if you believe that then I don't see how circumstantial evidence can be good enough for the charges she was convicted of.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121037332#Comment_121037332

Where did I say any evidence was disregarded?

The only evidence was the crappy footage, which 1 person out of 12 didn't think was enough for a conviction.

The judge initially looked for unanimity and when he didn't get it he said he would accept a majority and went on to do so.

Oscar_Madison

I’m not going to get into the “why” of these events as obviously even psychiatrists haven’t furnished an explanation

however the studies of one Dr. David Southall make for disturbing reading . Dr. Southall was struck off at one stage but actually successfully appealed and was reinstated. What concerns me is the number of parents (33) he caught on camera doing harm to their newborns.

I’m not trying to provide an “explanation” but these articles certainly show that doing harm to a new born is not as uncommon as we think it is- considering how difficult it is to determine and prove, it’s likely such incidents are much higher than is comfortable for us to believe.

A chilling British study provides important new information on an uncommon but increasingly recognized form of child abuse -- cases in which a severely disturbed parent repeatedly injures or tries to kill a child, while attempting to make doctors and nurses believe the child has a life-threatening illness.

In the study in the November issue of Pediatrics, 39 parents suspected of this type of abuse were secretly videotaped while alone with their hospitalized children. In 33 of the cases, the abuse was documented on camera, including 30 episodes of attempted suffocation, an attempted poisoning and one incident in which a mother deliberately broke her 3-month-old daughter's arm.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/wellness/1997/11/04/camera-proves-childrens-illness-to-be-abuse/593a493f-d544-4498-a09b-56d8cc86e1b3/

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2010/may/05/david-southall-health

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121038608#Comment_121038608

You're were the one that said all the jury thought was that he was guilty because the guards arrested him.

If the evidence wasn't there you should have aquitted. So either the evidence was there or it wasn't.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121038681#Comment_121038681

The evidence presented was the video. The jury decided that this was enough to convict him. A single juror cannot acquit someone. What exactly would you have had me do? "your honor I dont agree with the other 11 jurors, so ignore them and take my verdict"?

BTW I'm quite clearly stating that I didnt believe the evidence was there, I cannot coerce the other jurors into changing their opinions to match mine, this didnt step them from pressurizing me into changing my vote, right up to the point the judge dropped the unanimity requirement.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121038724#Comment_121038724

Ok, so the evidence was accepted by the majority of the jurors, then that's fair enough. Convicted correctly

The way you said it earlier it was like the jurors didn't care about the evidence and just presumed he was guilty because Gardai arrested him.

lumphammer2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121038608#Comment_121038608

This leads to another point ... the judge should not be allowed to reset the goalposts ... I feel that when the sentence is this severe it should be unanimity only ... a majority rule is fine for putting someone away for 10 years and the like but not this ... if there is someone disagreeing then there is a reason to err on the side of caution ... it is clear the court wanted to send her away for life and that was it !! Rightly or wrongly !! Personally I do not think whole life sentences should exist ... with the possible exception of terrorists ...

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121035923#Comment_121035923

It’s not an exact science.

In addition … Some psychologists are just bad at what they do, don’t care too much or are scam artists….

like any jobs….

Especially when psychologists in Ireland are not regulated which I’m reading, they are not. So, get qualified and have at it….

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121038747#Comment_121038747

What I said earlier, and reiterate now, is that the only evidence presented was the video. There was no way anyone could identify anyone, even themselves, from the quality of the video.

The other 11 jurors decided that the police knew what they were doing and wouldnt arrest the wrong guy so convicted him on that basis.

He was not convicted correctly at all in my opinion, hence my issue with jury convictions on circumstantial evidence.

Being at the mercy of a jury of my peers is a terrifying prospect after what I experienced.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121038898#Comment_121038898

I find it hard to believe that - having been on a jury, you’re dealing with mostly very independently thinking people - there was probably one person on my jury that didn’t feel comfortable talking too much he but did listen to everything said by others and eventually he gave his opinion - I just think he wasn’t used or didn’t like speaking in a group which is fair enough.

If you were on my jury we would have listened to what you had to say- but in addition, everyone gave their independent view on what evidence they felt was important in their decision making- not once did anyone say “the guards think it’s him so it must be him” - I think had they said that, they would have been quickly objected to and asked to refocus on the evidence

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121038898#Comment_121038898

So, they didn't convict on the evidence then? You seem very confused.

They convicted on their idea that the Gardai wouldn't arrest someone who wasn't guilty, which means they didn't convict on the evidence.

dbas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121038653#Comment_121038653

That's grim stuff isn't it.

Maternity hospitals are full of good people, good experiences, and great staff.

33 offences of that nature to have happened in a children's hospital is truly awful.

There has to be a lot of that happening at those rates.

There has to be a 'why' for that behaviour. It completely goes against the grain of human nature. No one dreams of being a child abuser when they grow up.

Jequ0n

I long for the day when people accept that human nature is very different to our societal expectations (which are in part totally unnatural).

dbas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121039720#Comment_121039720

Nature or nurture?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121039790#Comment_121039790

We are products of both. Sometimes nurture is the key which unlocks what's already present.

martingriff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121036675#Comment_121036675

Part of the reason she killed so many and attempted to kill more is due to the fact that when concerns from others were not taking seriously and she was allowed to go on working it was not down to her brilliance but others not wanting to bring there beautiful hospital into the spotlight

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121039664#Comment_121039664

Yeah it’s quite frightening and mind opening- The academic paper quoted mentions a collection of “personality disorders” as the potential causes- the human condition is a complex thing. Even if a “diagnosis” was ultimately obtained for this nurse, I’d doubt any or at least many, would be any the wiser.

The only thing this study has shown me is that the rate of occurrence is frightening and quite likely, babies have died under circumstances that have been deemed unknown causes but not suspicious where the actual cause is more sinister.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121039790#Comment_121039790

“Human nature” is animalistic, whether you like it or not.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121039816#Comment_121039816

I don’t doubt that. But I had responded to a post about empathy and her ability to fit in with expectations.

martingriff

Just watched a piece on youtube about this case. Its called the Casual Criminalist (its also a podcast). Absolutely horrifying. The part where she kept going into the facebook of the parents of I think her first murder and send them a card and getting back a thank you card which she kept it as a trophy as a picture on her phone. Showing no emotion while she heard testimony. The only time she showed any type of emotion was when she was talking about herself.

Has anything been done to the senior management or hospital trust who only concern was the hospitals standing. I am guessing a few civil cases will come from this also. She is evil and deserves life.

For those who are concerned because it was "circumstantial" evidence should google the difference between circumstantial vs direct evidence. You will quickly realize how much evidence in trials in just that circumstantial.

martingriff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121037782#Comment_121037782

How do you know she couldn't become a danger to others. It could be possible if she thought she could get away with it she might try it with someone else. Also she was a threat she is a threat o babies. Joe O Reilly may not be a threat to anyone else should we just let him go (there was a program about him yestesterday so was in my head).

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121037782#Comment_121037782

she murdered members of the general public…. How can you say she doesn’t pose a threat ?

there is no incentive ? Well there never was, she didn’t plead guilty…

better off not finding out her ‘ reason ‘ . Keep her locked up for all eternity, then the reason doesn’t matter.

the reason for a whole life tariff is to protect society…. Nothing authoritarian about it…you’ve chosen to use the wrong noun.

martingriff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121039856#Comment_121039856

Oh okay