Lucy Letby guilty - part 2

[twoandcooplease]

Thread 1 Lucy Letby guilty www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4875009-lucy-letby-guilty

Just in case anyone wants to keep the conversation going

@flute56
am very surprised this has not brought about a demonstration outside the hospital because I for one would go there to demonstrate and I do not live near the area. I feel like walking into that hospital and just creating such a disturbance to the staff and telling them they failed people and if that gets me arested I would not care s single jot because I feel sick to my scomach about what has happened
And what good would a demonstration do?? Make you feel good? Don’t be ridiculous. All you’d do is cause chaos and issues for the doctors/nurses trying to do their job and cause upset to patients in the hospital. 😡

I'm amazed at the number of pp saying they don't think there's enough evidence, or that the evidence doesn't seem conclusive, despite either posters pointing out we don't have access to the entire package of evidence given to the jurors over months.

I know mistakes can be made but it isn't likely given the months and volume of evidence here.

This.

Plus what would be the point given there will be an investigation?

just watched the interview from the hospital chief and he refused to say why nothing was done sooner to stop these deaths. I think this hospital should either sack all the chief members of staff or close down the hospital. If I lived in Chester I would never want to be treated treated there. I am very surprised this has not brought about a demonstration outside the hospital because I for one would go there to demonstrate and I do not live near the area. I feel like walking into that hospital and just creating such a disturbance to the staff and telling them they failed people and if that gets me arested I would not care s single jot because I feel sick to my scomach about what has happened

And how would that help the innocent staff working there and the innocent people being treated?

because it would show that the management of the hospital are not to be trusted and they sweep things under the carpet which meant that more babies died as a result. If they had taken action earlier then it would not be 7 babies that were killed. They moved the nurse from the ward to an office and then moved her back again to kill more babies. What kind of sick managers do that

I wouldnt be surprised if the nurse hangs herself in her cell because that would be the only option. I could not live if I had done what she had done. The flack she will get from other inmates nevermind outside if she was ever released would be too much to cope with and death would be the only solution.

This whole case screams Munchausens.

Save your anger for the evil person who did this and the managers who ignored the concerns of the consultants (although given so many of us are shaking our heads in horror and disbelief that someone could do such things, can you imagine believing it of someone you knew and worked with and probably liked?). Not innocent people.

No, it wouldn’t show that at all. How does a load of random people turning up to protest and disrupt/upset the day to day running if a hospital and cause upset to patients, show that the management can’t be trusted?? Don’t be so ridiculous 😡

@Zonder if there's more evidence, then id like to see it. If like to know why it was reported on and I'd like to use my own brain to decide how I feel about it.

I appreciate other people have their own views about the case and her conviction and I respect that. Can you not do the same?

They invite the public into courts and report on proceedings because it's in the public's interest. Well, it's also in our interests to know that justice has been served correctly. Therefore ALL of the evidence should be made available and reporters should at least report the most significant evidence.

Therefore I'm struggling to see why pertinent information and evidence is still being kept from the public. Is it? Where is it?

If Lucy only used insulin for 2/3 babies, to prevent suspicion. Does this mean it isn't suspicious that 2/3 babies had insulin in their blood work over that time?

Surely it works both ways. If it isn't suspicious to have insulin in a very small number of babies, then why is that the crux of this case?

If it is suspicious still, even in one baby, why wasn't an investigation done there and then and action taken?

So so sad and horrendous. Listening to consultant talk about senior management not wanting police involved and trying to squash concerns raised

Therefore I'm struggling to see why pertinent information and evidence is still being kept from the public. Is it? Where is it?

Is it? I thought it was an open court case so all of the evidence was ‘in the public domain’? Of course, what reporters actually publish is down to their newspapers’ angle / space in the paper etc, but I think it’s all
been available.

The ‘I’d like to make my own decision’ argument is surely what our court system is based on? By having a jury? Theoretically, that could be any of us, so we trust in it?

@WhisperingHi The way you are going on is strange - you obviously think there has some been some miscarriage of justice here but don't want to explicitly say that. Are you the friend or something?

The whole evidence and especially the context from a very complex court case lasting 10 months is only going to be seen by the judge, jury and legal team and those members of the public who have attended every minute of the trial.

Reporters are of course only going to give a broad summary and the most "newsworthy" (in their judgement) info/context. This is no different to any other trial that is reported on,

As has been said it is not the job of the court to prove the case and present the evidence to MN random "Whisperinghi" - if you were so concerned and had such a huge interest then you should have taken 10 months out of your life to attend the trial.

Or do you just want to post continually you have "doubts"?

@Flapjacker48 yeah, I'm "the friend" 🙄

It's ok to challenge opinions and stand away from the crowd if that's what you believe you know. I feel zero pressure to suddenly change my view because of a jury's conviction. Or because posters start calling me Lucy's friend, just because I have a different opinion.

Have you never heard of retrials? Overturned convictions? Happens all the time. Jury's have gotten it wrong. Lawyers have gotten it wrong.

The reason why I'm standing on the fence here is because the evidence is so inconclusive, circumstantial and retrospective, that I can't say either way.

If there's more evidence, as a member of the public with a public interest, I want to see it. I'm open to being swayed.

But I don't agree with people blindly stating there must be all of this compelling evidence behind the scenes, just because the jury found her guilty of most charges, with no proof of said evidence. Where is it? What is it?

In women, munchausen's goes together with anti social personality disorder. So it doesn't make someone somehow unwell or less evil. It's merely a part of their psychopathy.

Your opinion doesn't matter anyway @WhisperingHi, none of ours do really. I sat in court on one of the days and there was evidence that wasn't reported at the time, I believe now the verdicts have been given there isn't embargoed evidence and information aside from the names of those who have been granted anonymity? Although going to err on the side of caution.

@WhisperingHi - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/order-a-transcript-of-court-or-tribunal-proceedings-form-ex107

For me personally the most telling thing is that the only expert witness the defence called was a plumber to try and corroborate something that had just been mentioned by her in her testimony. The questioning at the start of the independent witnesses by the defence was pretty much just trying to discredit their professional standing which wasn't really compelling either.

I don't think you have a lot of experience of criminal trials.

It's incredibly rare for there to be 100% conclusive evidence. Unless someone has been caught on film actually committing the crime, there often isn't conclusive evidence.

DNA isn't always available as evidence or even if it is , it's not conclusive evidence of the accused committing the crime. Witness testimony can be unreliable.

That's why the jury is asked to make a decision beyond all reasonable doubt, not "are you 100% sure they did it?".

Circumstantial evidence is evidence and circumstantial cases can be powerful.

@WhisperingHi I also find it odd you keep saying "Lucy" in a quite personal way in your posts - you notice no-one else is? Here or in the press? You seem over-invested at best.

People don't keep saying there is compelling evidence "behind the scenes" - you must be inteligent enough to understand that the ONLY place the entire evidence and the context would be seen is at the courtroom itself, as presented to the jury (and by default the court overall)

In YOUR opinion, the evidence is inconclusive - based on what you have read on-line about the case. I don't think anything would "sway" you to be honest.

The senior management involved have got blood on their hands and should be held to account and prosecuted.

But of course they won’t be will they.

They’ll carry on getting their obscenely high salaries or slope off and retire early on their extremely comfortable pensions.

@Tippley I don't agree that none of our opinions matter. If that was the case, why not keep all of the evidence under wraps? Why bother with the costs of making a trial public?

It's public to avoid misjustices. To ensure (the best we can) that processes are followed correctly. And to prove to the public that the legal process is fair and reliable.

I'm not saying Lucy is innocent, at all. But I am saying that if there's more evidence out there, then I want to see it. I'm struggling to see why, if there's more compelling evidence, it wasn't reported and yet less compelling evidence was.

As I said on the other thread and I’ll say it again - the staff knew, they knew, they insisted time and time again that she was removed. Over and over. She launched grievances that were proven by management and got letters under duress from those staff apologising to her for ‘her distress’ by management. That is unforgivable- they didn’t call the police in, they didn’t investigate or take those nurses or staff in. The excel chart alone is grounds for the police. The fact the deaths stopped immediately once she was removed.

The evidence was overwhelming I couldn’t see any other outcome.

Then you have the falsified records and the paperwork she took home - you don’t take medical sheets home - you just don’t- never mind doodle hearts on documents and store hundreds of them under your bed. Do you not understand that alone is sackable?

I find it interesting that actually reported is the fact her father demanded the letter to Lucy and encouraged the grievance claim. When the police arrested her, the mother said ‘I did it’ - I mean what? The police turn up to arrest your grown daughter for crimes committed at work and she says ‘she did it’ - I just don’t get that ‘she didn’t do it’ I can understand.

I think she is a cold calculated killer - her manner is designed to gain constant sympathy even when caught lying over and over.
even getting in the car, I’ve just had knee surgery etc poor Lucy card.

The jury convicted her - it was harrowing for them, her colleagues, the survivors and the entire families of those she murdered and those she treated. Can you imagine it? She hasn’t just murdered a certain number of babies, there will be others that there was no evidence for, and even when colleagues knew she was involved management ignored and threatened them - unforgivable.

@Flapjacker48 Lucy is literally her name. It's been used in every news article. As far as I'm aware she doesn't have another name. What shall I call her?!

I'll stop responding to you now. You clearly have no interest in having a sensible discussion, which is your perogative but I don't wish to keep going backwards and forwards if you just want to tear me down with petty name calling rather than actually engage with what I've tried to say.