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

She had a very experienced, very highly regarded and very successful defence lawyer though. Note successful doesn't mean they 'win' a lot of cases, but that they ensure their clients get a fair trial- which he did.

The one thing I do wonder about is why they were so convinced it could only be one person involved. We all know there are cases where one psychopath manages to bend a weak person to their will, and there is the factor here of different murder methods being used. Did they look into whether in practice the same dates were covered by a combination of two people?

There has never been any suggestion that she wasn’t there when the babies were killed.

In fact she wrote multiple text messages after every one.

She also researched the parents of dead babies on facebook. Sent cards to the parents of the dead babies. Looking up patient records to do that would in itself have been a disciplinary offence.

Yes I did read an article this morning about a family who had a prem baby in the neonatal unit at the countess in 2013. LL was one of the nurses on when their baby collapsed for no obvious clinical reason. Their baby was then transferred to another hospital. So yes I imagine more will come to light when they start digging.

I find it incomprehensible that people who weren't at the trial day in day out can dismiss her as being not guilty because there isn't enough evidence. And if you believe she's not guilty then who killed these innocent children?

This wasn't one disgruntled individual who accused another person. This was a group of respected clinicians who raised serious concerns because they thought a child was being harmed.

I used to be a CID detective. The investigation took years and was thorough .

It makes me laugh that in the police "one bad apple spoils the barrel" on MN but a killer nurse can't be guilty because the evidence doesn't stack up by the armchair experts.

Actually it doesn't make me laugh .

"my debate is about whether the evidence was guilty beyond reasonable doubt given the evidence, and the returned not-guilty and majority verdicts on most charges show that it was not absolutely overwhelming"

You're still not understanding how criminal cases and trials work. Being found not guilty or the jury not able to reach a conclusion on some of the charges pertains to those charges only. It doesn't throw into question the evidence or reliability of the other charges.

The jury has to decide on the evidence on each count. Which they clearly did.

Think of someone for example with multiple cases of rape or assault. It is not the case that a jury can think "well there's plenty of evidence they committed charges A , B and C so the likelihood is they're guilty of all the rest". They have to assess the evidence on each charge.

The Danny Masterson recent case is a good example. The jury found him guilty of 2 counts of rape and couldn’t reach a conclusion on a 3rd. That doesn't mean he didn't rape the 3rd complainant. It doesn't mean the jury didn't believe her testimony. It's very likely they believed he was guilty of that charge but didn't have enough evidence in law to convict him of that particular charge.

All her costs were covered by legal aid. If her defence team thought that a fruitful course to pursue, the Legal Aid agency would certainly have allowed her lawyers to obtain expert evidence on that issue.

Perhaps one of the most telling factors is that I believe the defence didn't call any expert evidence despite instructing experts to investigate. That can only mean, at best, that their experts didn't find anything that would help her case.

There is potentially a "culture" issue at play, in that middle-aged male consultants were forced to apologise for "bullying" a young, female nurse - managers terrified of some sort of discrimination claim? Part of the problem is that hospitals have all sorts of procedures, but don't (at least in this case) always implement them properly.
Henry Marsh (distinguished consultant surgeon) has made the very valid point that the biggest single problem in the NHS over the last 40 years has been the loss of consultant autonomy - one of the reasons why so many retire early. Also, a "failed" consultant would be struck off, but a "failed" manager simply moves on to another good job.

You could do that for yourself. The chart’s freely available. Given that some very fine legal minds have been all over this for years it seems unlikely that all possible combinations weren’t examined, particularly by the defence.

@Iserstatue I do get that, I'm referring to the people who think the overall evidence is 'overwhelming'. I exactly do understand that it wasn't overwhelming on some charges, and was proven beyond reasonable doubt for others!

My remarks then go onto the nature of the evidence across the whole case. It's not the best, and I bet the police and prosecutors had a sleepless few nights recently precisely because it's not absolutely compelling at all in that there isn't one clincher piece, it's a composite of quite compelling evidence for some counts at least.

The only person from the hospital that Letby was called to call as a character witness from the hopsital was a plumber who was confused/bemused why he was there according to the BBC reporter who has attended all the trial. No-one else was prepared to speak up for her, no clinical colleagues at all.

The jury will have seen/heard all the evidence. You have not.

As for those saying 'who else did it?' you don't have to prove who else did it, you have to show it wasn't you, often insinuating that it was someone else or a misunderstanding of the evidence is used to undermine reasonable doubt it was you.

I think she was guilty, but if she wasn't, it's not a case of "if she didn't kill them, who did?" The argument would be that they weren't killed at all, they died naturally. After all, in each case that is presumably what went on the death certificate, given the length of time it took for any serious investigation to start.

You're answering your own question about why 10 months of evidence wasn't made public all the way through. If (and it's a low if) there's an appeal, it's not fair to Letby if she's had all this evidence put out to the public is it? People will have already made up their minds.

As far as the 'circumstantial' evidence is concerned, police look for patterns. Unless someone is caught with a syringe or something in their hands (and even that's explainable sometimes), it will always come down to patterns/perpetrator's ability to carry out the crime/elimination of anyone else.

For example, the issue around Letby's shift pattern. Other people were on duty when the babies died or were injured so could have done it if one or two babies were killed or hurt. But Letby was the only person who was present when ALL of them were injured. That's a pattern.

Yes, she worked with some babies who don't appear to have been hurt. But that could be her being interrupted, or not being able to get her hands on what she needed, a parent could have been in the room with another baby, a colleague may have offered to help or her motivation (whatever that was) wasn't there, or she may have just 'liked' that baby or the sun may have been shining that day. At the moment we don't know. We may never know. Or that could be in amongst the witness statements that we've not had sight of yet 'I offered to help her put the IV in' or 'I went in to feed my baby and Letby was there and we had a chat until her end of shift' or 'Dr X was on a two week holiday at the time' (if the alleged affair with the anonymous consultant was her motivation - if he wasn't on call, perhaps there was no motivation to do something?)

The Yorkshire Ripper didn't kill every woman he had contact with - only when circumstances worked in his favour. Same with Brady and Hindley - not every child in their town was murdered. Circumstances have to be 'right' and it can be a subtle thing that switches someone on or off.

I'm old enough to have lived through trials like the Yorkshire Ripper, Harold Shipman etc., I don't remember all the evidence coming out immediately after their trials in the press. Some of the evidence for them came out in subsequent documentaries or books years later.

On that point, the Yorkshire Ripper's trial lasted two weeks - because he confessed. Brady and Hindley's trial was about a month long. Harold Shipman's was about three months. Even Beverly Allit's trial lasted just three months. Letby's jury sat for ten months. That implies a lot of evidence. A lot.

The jury saw all the evidence in Letby's case, they were led through it by experts who could help them decipher what they were seeing. Yes, they may have been wrong, yes some evidence may have been withheld (as in the recent overturned rape conviction where DNA evidence wasn't put in front of his jury). But, at the moment, the jury are satisfied that the evidence they saw, the help deciphering it and the witnesses they heard was enough to prove guilt in some of those cases. To be honest, with the fact that the evidence has to be 'from the past' I'd have been more worried if she'd been found guilty on all counts. The 'not proved' type of verdict on the other babies shows that the jury have tried to be fair, looked for as tight evidence as they could get and not just gone for the jugular in my view.

Yes the lack of defence witnesses very much weakened her case. Her defence did apparently have expert witnesses, but they were never called. I imagine some of the cases they could say could have been natural causes but not all. At the end of the day any witness is there on oath for the court not the defendant so had they used them it may have nailed the coffin more firmly and quickly against her.

I could, but why reinvent the wheel? I was just wondering whether that point was specifically covered during the trial, and if so, how. As I've said, I think she was guilty.

"As far as the 'circumstantial' evidence is concerned, police look for patterns. Unless someone is caught with a syringe or something in their hands (and even that's explainable sometimes), it will always come down to patterns/perpetrator's ability to carry out the crime/elimination of anyone else"

I think a lot of people aren't aware of just how many criminal cases are prosecuted based on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be compelling.

As you say, and I said somewhere on the thread - it's very rare to have indisputable proof presented in court. I think with the advent of DNA evidence that a lot of people think most people are "bang to rights" but DNA evidence isn't always available and even when it is, it isn't always indisputable proof that the accused committed the crime. And the defence team will dispute it.

And even if there is indisputable evidence of an event occurring and the accused being responsible, the charge itself can still be disputed. Cases of murder where the defence says it was an accident for instance.

I see the armchair detectives are out.

Thankfully the decisions were made by a jury of 12 people from all walks of life, who listened to every shred of court evidence over 10 months, looked witnesses in the eyes, we’re in Lucy’s presence for all those days, and took 110 hours to make their decisions. And not made by a bunch of people on mumsnet who don’t understand how the criminal justice system works.

I think the fact the jury was hung on some cases actually supports the fact they ensured each charge was well and truly considered based on the evidence.

Im entirely confident they made the right decision and I hope she rots in prison for the rest of her miserable days.

There are so many evidential hoops to get through to even get a case to court and the police most likely knew she was guilty form her first interview.

Hats off to everyone involved for finally getting the justice those little babies and their families deserve.

Yes, I was thinking along these lines, too. I'm also a nurse, and I have felt sick reading what she did. I'm also really sad as the majority of us are dedicated, kind and compassionate, who practice safely. I feel she has tarnished our profession and a job I work so hard at.

I feel she has tarnished our profession and a job I work so hard at.

I don’t think she has. It’s because the vast, vast majority of nurses are dedicated, compassionate and kind that there’s almost universal horror - and an unwillingness to believe she’s guilty in some quarters.

You can bring a work colleague or a TU rep but I’ve never known a company with HR employee relations policies which allow a family member to attend. I’ve not worked in the NHS but am pretty sure this would be highly unusual and outside procedure.

Not at all. I've been involved in a case where a Consultant Dr went to prison. The internal NHS investigation was really difficult and we were all told that although none of us were accused of anything - we were just giving evidence - that we could have a union rep or anyone else with us for support.

I didn't ask anybody to be with me but a few colleagues had their partners with them or a union rep. And we weren't the ones under suspicion! I know the accused party was given the same opportunity to have a union rep or anyone else they chose for support outside of colleagues as all colleagues were instructed not to have contact with the person under investigation, as part of the investigation.

It's highly stressful for the accused and witnesses. It's standard in the NHS AFAIK for all parties to have the opportunity to bring someone for support.

I'm intrigued to know why the details of her relationship with the consultant seem to have been kept private. I get the fact that he was allowed anonymity but I would have thought the trial would have establish whether they were having an affair or not. She might of denied it but surely he would tell the truth. Also many of their text messages weren't shown at the trial which seems odd, given that their relationship seems likely to be her primary motive.