Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Nurse Lucy Letby found guilty of murdering seven babies

1282930313234»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,050 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    That was over a year ago !

    You don't quote the actual post you mention . I looked it up and it is agreeing with the verdict at the time based on the investigation and jury trial .

    I never said I had " done a lot of research " .I think I said I had since" read a bit " more about it at that time but that was mainly the articles presented here .I avoided it otherwise .

    I didn't conclude she was guilty .

    No ,I am not medical ,..nursing background.

    But I am posting here same as as anyone else with knowledge based on the mostly tabloid UK press except for the Panorama episode and trying to correlate it with my very enjoyable and excellent experience working in the NHS years ago in that field of work .

    The Panorama episode ... did not go into her defence in court much.

    After reading the NYT article I have many questions and think this may be an unsafe conviction , based on her poor defence .

    Not sure if I could or anyone could say she is innocent , but it should go to appeal at least .

    Originally .. felt it strange that the doctors who would normally be responsible / accountable for these babies' health were blaming a nurse without much proof except a very subjective sense that "something was not right ".

    Fair enough if they felt she was a bad neonatal nurse, who did not react quickly enough to her babies' determination, I agree then with removing her from the area .

    I didn't read anything that pointed to anything more than that .

    Then thought there must have been something more that the police arrested her and charged her.

    Would usually be on the nurse's side anyway . .no surprise there !

    But it was very highly charged and emotive in here with parents of babies' undergoing similar , and I didn't want to say anything to contribute to that

    Tuned out until I read that article above and it reinforced my earlier feelings about this .

    I was a bit horrified to see what the actual evidence was in the end presented at trial against her Appears to be in the main her demeanour , .circumstantial ..and a note ..and an investigating witness / doctor who was allowed change his testimony and not be cross examined ?

    Very poor for so many convictions .Although I am sure the parents and families of those poor babies are relieved to have some closure.

    But what if was not her and just poor care generally by the hospital the doctors and the unit as a whole

    But if it's not reexamined we will never know for sure .

    Still just gut feeling though .I don"t know enough about it still to be definitive .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,259 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    Your comparison to the Royal Mail debacle is actually spot on and whilst currently in the news it never struck me to compare the two cases but it’s very possible that similar mistakes were made - very possible to have myopic vision on this murder case - far too easy in fact.

    The vast amount of evidence in this case is one thing, but it has to make sense - I would have preferred one test case murder trial first - don’t know if that was legally possible or not but it would have made for safer law in my view.

    I know she’s guilty now under the eyes of the law- and she may well have carried out these atrocities - I’m probably just not convinced beyond reasonable doubt and would love to see an appeal considered just to hear what those judges have to say- I know appeals have failed in the past where people were eventually proven innocent but still , I think the victims families also need to be fully satisfied around the circumstances of their child’s death - many people are saying it was murder in each of these cases but now some experts are saying “not necessarily” - that can’t be easy for the families to hear.

    Do you have the link to that article or did you post it previously here?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,259 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    And another thought- proving murder in a medical setting must be one of the hardest things for a barrister to achieve - but the prosecution were very successful - just what sort of defence did she have? Did they make the decision that no way would a jury convict on the evidence and just sit back? Where were the counter arguments backed up by an alternative set of medical “experts”?
    Im not a lawyer but I have been a jury member - this is basic defence 101- even if the argument's or evidence put forward by the defence are ultimately dismissed in favour of the prosecution there has to be a level of effort put in on behalf of the defence- one would have thought they would have had counter arguments all the way through especially for things like the roster contrasted with serious medical events taking place when she was on duty - Shirley an alternative reality could have been created there that greatly reduced that evidential impact or even negated it



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭BQQ




  • Registered Users Posts: 621 ✭✭✭marilynrr


    Another interesting one from The Telegraph, they've posted several spin offs of that in the past few days.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-letby-serial-killer-or-miscarriage-justice-victim/



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 621 ✭✭✭marilynrr


    They admit they haven't read the transcripts and they're basing their opinion on the dailymail podcast.

    That's not providing balance.

    That NYT piece was providing balance to the dailymail podcast and similar. So that's just repeating the same stuff that everyone has already heard.



  • Registered Users Posts: 621 ✭✭✭marilynrr


    The defence seemed atrocious.

    However there is a barrister in the UK, Mark McDonald who just did an interview on this, it's on youtube, where he describes how difficult it is to get expert witnesses for child abuse cases.

    There's also going to be a 'private eye' article next week that's going to discuss "The way expert witnesses are used - or not used - in criminal trials with complex and uncertain science is simply not fit for purpose, and risks miscarriages of justice."

    https://x.com/drphilhammond/status/1810630891649073506



  • Registered Users Posts: 621 ✭✭✭marilynrr


    She was initially charged with murder for that baby, but the CPS decided not to bring the evidence, so the Judge recorded a 'Not guilty' verdict before or at the start of the first trial.

    Maybe because the evidence from the other hospital of Child Ks condition when she reached that hospital seemed damning for the care received at the COCH.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭JVince




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,259 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭BQQ


    For a cluster of normal deaths to occur like that would be an extraordinary coincidence on its own, but these deaths were anything but normal



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭standardg60


    5 minutes of reading shows the whole deliberate embolus theory to be ridiculous.

    Prof. Arthurs himself agreed the embolus could have been caused by misplacement of the long line or during CPR. There were several people present during baby A's collapse yet Letby somehow managed to inject lethal amounts of air without anyone noticing, she even called for help ffs.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/y9ref4/lucy_letby_trial_updates_prosecution_day_6_21/

    https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/y8w2i7/lucy_letby_trial_updates_prosecution_day_5_201022/



  • Registered Users Posts: 621 ✭✭✭marilynrr


    Basing his initial thoughts on the daily mail podcast in his first article and his follow up on the appeals court judgement, surely you can see that that's going to be incredibly biased seeing as she got refused 🧐



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,824 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    That talk of coincidence is making the same logical error that the paediatrician who got Sally Clark convicted for the murder of her children. The point is that these are not “normal” children - they were the most seriously ill of premature babies, and being treated in a hospital that was struggling to provide proper maternal and infant care.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls@UNSRVAW "Very concerned about these statements by the IOC at Paris2024 There are multiple international treaties and national constitutions that specifically refer to#women and their fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination, so the world has a pretty good idea of what women -and men for that matter- are. Also, how can one assess whether fairness and justice has been reached if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,056 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Some people will stop at nothing to blame 'd foreigners ' for everything



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,263 ✭✭✭silliussoddius


    ”Is suspicions are correct “, that’s some ancient aliens language right there.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 23,855 CMod ✭✭✭✭Ten of Swords


    Mod - Let's get back on track please, Dirk wont be joining us in CA for... well, ever really



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,309 ✭✭✭plodder


    Reading that it looks to me like she could have been responsible for some of the deaths, but the evidence that she intended to kill them looks much more thin. I obviously haven't seen the totality of it, but some of what was quoted in the media, like the postit notes wondering if she was responsible, could just as easily be seen as an ordinary human reaction. What kind of person doesn't have thoughts like that when they were involved and maybe in a position to prevent the death?

    A red flag for me was the hospital not allowing staff to testify in her favour. How do you justify that? They decided she was guilty obviously and it was one nurse versus two consultants at the end of the day.

    The other thing I find interesting in these cases is the family background. Who was on her side? Seems like all she had was her elderly parents. Father in his 70's and mother aged 60 I think. She was fighting this for a number of years even before the criminal trial on her own. Doesn't sound like her own legal representation was that great when it got to the trial either.

    ‘Why do you sit out here all alone?’ said Alice…..
    ‘Why, because there’s nobody with me!’ cried Humpty Dumpty.‘Did you think I didn’t know the answer to that?’



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,259 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    I don’t know what the truth is but certainly I don’t think her defence was anything near what it needed to be given the “expert” views you can see now post trial going against the “evidence”. Also incredibly difficult for a jury to concentrate on technical medical evidence for one death but to roll so many cases into one trial - sorry but that’s not justice - that’s lunacy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,191 ✭✭✭rogber


    Loads of kids died when she was around, it stopped completely after she left. She also wrote notes confessing it and online stalked the parents of the dead kids. It is so obvious she did it but always some contrarians will want to claim the opposite. Is there 1 single huge piece of evidence pointing her way? Maybe no. But there are 100 smaller pieces of evidence pointing her way and not a single one pointing at anyone else. It's more than enough.

    She is guilty



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,079 ✭✭✭tibruit


    Of course she`s guilty. Unfortunately the world is full of Jessica Fletcher types who live in an alternate reality that follows the classic Murder She Wrote plotline where the obvious suspect can`t have done it and all the damning evidence should be ignored. It`s started here now and there are other real crime threads where it is evident too. It would be funny if it wasn`t so sad, because there are real victims and real loved ones left behind to pick up the pieces. It`s still best to leave all the armchair detectives to get on with it though in my experience.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,478 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    This is mostly wrong. The 'innocent' campaign isn't just Jessica Fletcher types or armchair detectives. It includes statisticians who have brought their concerns to the RSS, multiple consultants, medical experts and NHS officials, at least one high-profile Conservative MP, and journalists who've produced episodes of Rough Justice & Dispatches. It's a very broad spectrum of concerned people.

    FWIW, I agree that doesn't mean they are correct and that she is innocent. But clearly this whole situation is very different to how you described it.



Advertisement