Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Letby Case (part 2)

990 replies

OneFrenchEgg · 26/11/2022 08:14

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4652340-lucy-letby-court-case?reply=121815754

follow up, remember rules around discussion of active cases

OP posts:
Thread gallery
17
Original poster
OneFrenchEgg · 10/04/2023 22:39

I’ve also read a few articles where her Defence have basically said they believe some of the babies’ deaths/injuries were caused intentionally but deny it was LL who did it. Have they blamed any other specific individuals? And again, do they have to find proof or create theories to point the finger of suspicion at others or is their job simply to provide proof that LL didn’t do it?

My understanding of UK courts is that the onus is on the prosecution-to prove its case and defence aims to show reasonable doubt.
For example, the defence could evidence LL was not in the room/on rota at a crucial time or that several
other people were often present, all of whom could have done the same thing LL is accused of.

OP posts:
LoisWilkersonslastnerve · 12/04/2023 08:20

It has a while to go yet I've been following closely and I have no idea what the verdict will be. It's complicated but I'll try to summarise. The full defence will be interesting. So far they seem to be saying in not all but most cases, yes babies were harmed but as there's no witness or smoking gun, the jury can't be sure who it was. Some babies it could be just illness/negligence. The prosecution are saying it is all deliberate and can only be one person based on timings/shifts etc.

PearWhere · 12/04/2023 13:29

In English law the prosecution have to prove their cases beyond reasonable doubt. The defence technically don't have to prove anything, although it helps their case if they do. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution though.

Which makes this case tricky as what seems to be missing is clear cut proof she did the things suggested other than her being around / volume of incidents. It'll depend what the jury make of that.

Also each count is distinct i.e. she could be found guilty of some and not guilty of others.

We haven't heard from the defence yet and I'll be interested if Letby takes the stand or not. She doesn't have to.

Seen a few mentions of UK law - Scottish law for one is different as they have 3 verdicts and can deliver a 'not proven' verdict.

LoisWilkersonslastnerve · 12/04/2023 14:40

It would be useful for the jury if she did take the stand, there are so many questions I'd like to hear her response to but I doubt she will. She will probably be advised not to.

Mirabai · 12/04/2023 18:05

For me, from the details that make it into the newspaper reports, the evidence in every case is circumstantial. I didn’t feel there was a single one where the evidence against LL was clearcut and indisputable.

I don’t feel I am any the wiser now as to whether she was responsible for some or all of these deaths or not.

DysonSpheres · 13/04/2023 21:02

Yes. I would have thought by now there was a clearer evidence towards her being guilty. That was what I expected this far in.

But I haven't seen it thus far.

FangedFrisbee · 13/04/2023 22:10

SnottyLottie · 10/04/2023 20:47

I haven’t followed this case for a while, surely it should be wrapping up soon?

Have the Prosecution mentioned what they think LL’s motive was if they believe she intended to cause harm/kill? Do they have to establish a motive in a UK court?

I’ve also read a few articles where her Defence have basically said they believe some of the babies’ deaths/injuries were caused intentionally but deny it was LL who did it. Have they blamed any other specific individuals? And again, do they have to find proof or create theories to point the finger of suspicion at others or is their job simply to provide proof that LL didn’t do it?

They don't have to provide any proof. They have to provide doubt.'do you believe beyond reasonable doubt that she did do it?'

NNUJan · 14/04/2023 19:52

You can't expect indisputable evidence in a case like this, or indeed in many cases. There's nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence as long as it's robust and compelling.

Mirabai · 14/04/2023 21:43

You can’t expect conclusive evidence in a medical murder case? Of course you can.

In the Victorino Chua case - which Rebecca Leighton was originally arrested for but then it became clear she was not responsible - patients were found with hypoglycaemia and saline drips were found to have been contaminated with insulin.

In the Ben Green case - where patients with minor injuries suddenly went into respiratory arrest - he was found with a syringe of the drugs on his person.

In this case the evidence is far less clear cut.

RafaistheKingofClay · 16/04/2023 21:24

Reasonable doubt in this case would involve the defence at least offering up that other people than Letby had the opportunity.

So far it doesn’t look very likely that most of these babies died of natural causes. And the chances of Letby co-incidentally being the person caring for all of them at the time of collapse must be tiny. If it isn’t Let y, then it ought to be easy enough to find out who else has access to all of those babies at the relevant times.

LoisWilkersonslastnerve · 17/04/2023 20:35

Another day of confusing and conflicting evidence. The Chester Standard has coverage if any of you are following. You could interpret the notes found in different ways. I really feel for the jury and the families of the babies.

DollyParton2 · 17/04/2023 20:36

Completely in agreement with you RafaistheKingofClay.

DollyParton2 · 17/04/2023 20:39

I can only see one clear meaning, or even confession, not even an “interpretation” of somebody writing “I am evil I did this” and “I killed then on purpose”. Why on earth would you desperately try to grapple at these clear as day statements to find an “alternative interpretation”??

Mirabai · 17/04/2023 20:40

Reasonable doubt in this case would involve the defence at least offering up that other people than Letby had the opportunity.

It isn’t the responsibility of the defence to prove their case, the onus is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

Mirabai · 17/04/2023 20:47

DollyParton2 · 17/04/2023 20:39

I can only see one clear meaning, or even confession, not even an “interpretation” of somebody writing “I am evil I did this” and “I killed then on purpose”. Why on earth would you desperately try to grapple at these clear as day statements to find an “alternative interpretation”??

Perhaps because you have more than a simplistic grasp of psychology?

By that token everyone who walks into a police station and confesses to murder is correct right? Except police would tell you that most people who do that are mentally ill.

This note is much more problematic:
^^
“I don't know if I killed them maybe I did maybe this is all down to me”

DollyParton2 · 17/04/2023 20:51

Mirabai because, as usual you are both an expert in both Law and psychology yourself, is that correct?

A case of somebody random walking into a police station and confessing to a crime they didn’t commit through being “mentally ill” as you state (very often for attention) is HIGHLY different to an accused in a case with stacks of other circumstantial evidence linking them to a series of murders - having her home and belongings searched and multiple notes confessing to the crimes then being found.

Bizarre you have such a simplistic view on things yourself you can’t see how different these two situations are. But I’m happy to highlight this for you.

ineedastrongercoffee · 17/04/2023 20:53

I just do not know what to think, those notes to me aren’t a clear confession, to me they are ramblings, yes it says “I did this” in another note it says “I didn’t do this” she seems very troubled but does that make her a serial killer of babies??

I’ve had prem twins in NICU so the evidence is totally heartbreaking.

the poor jury, one thing for sure is that this is probably one of the most complex cases a court has heard in a long time.

FannyPhart · 17/04/2023 21:09

How much longer is this trial expected to last? It seems it's been going on forever. I've never known a trial last this long before.

Mirabai · 17/04/2023 21:09

Never claimed to be an expert it’s just comment sense (law doesn’t take a capital).

Not everyone who apparently confesses to murder is guilty of it.

Mirabai · 17/04/2023 21:10

ineedastrongercoffee · 17/04/2023 20:53

I just do not know what to think, those notes to me aren’t a clear confession, to me they are ramblings, yes it says “I did this” in another note it says “I didn’t do this” she seems very troubled but does that make her a serial killer of babies??

I’ve had prem twins in NICU so the evidence is totally heartbreaking.

the poor jury, one thing for sure is that this is probably one of the most complex cases a court has heard in a long time.

Quite. It’s far from clear.

SnottyLottie · 17/04/2023 21:22

Quick question: Is the doctor who took the stand and made her cry the same doctor that her colleagues teased her about and accused them of flirting with each other?

Goldpaw · 17/04/2023 22:58

The problem with the notes is that they can be seen as outright confessions, or the notes of someone questioning themselves and wondering if they did kill the babies, or the calculated jottings of a murderer who thinks confused notes will either make it look like they are mentally unsound or questioning their mental state.

None of it seems clear cut.

GreenClock · 17/04/2023 23:05

The jury really has its work cut out. What a complex case.

RafaistheKingofClay · 17/04/2023 23:11

Mirabai · 17/04/2023 20:40

Reasonable doubt in this case would involve the defence at least offering up that other people than Letby had the opportunity.

It isn’t the responsibility of the defence to prove their case, the onus is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

Don’t you think that if at least one other person was on shift and had access to all the babies that would be a significant piece of evidence for the defence to bring up re: reasonable doubt?
I’m not sure they have managed to create reasonable doubt over whether most of the babies were deliberately harmed or not. And I don’t think a random statistical anomaly is going to help them here either.

In terms of coming to a verdict, the jury presumably have to find Letby guilty or not guilty on each individual charge. Are they allowed to consider the cases as a whole as part of that given it’s one trial or do they have to strictly look at say, Baby A and only Baby A and ignore everything else?

Quitelikeit · 17/04/2023 23:20

The defence have already stated that shift rotas have been presented that are not accurate and that the notes presented in court do not show what happened to babies when LL was not on shift. Apparently similar occurrences when she was not present

Myers also stated that LL was not on shift when the second bag of fluid was given to the baby who was found to have suffered insulin poisoning. Apparently it was this bag that contained the insulin due to timings of the effects in the child etc

Out of everything her notes etc one has me wondering the most ‘Bergerac’ which as far as I know is a detective show!!!

I have noticed though that not many outlets have published much of todays transcript