Lucy Letby - new thread (part 2)

[anonymousamy]

A thread for anyone who was on the last one and wanted to continue the discussion.

What I cannot wrap my head around is Letby’s seemingly completely normal upbringing. Usually serial killers have displayed some kind of markers by the time they start killing, but AFAIK she literally had none. 100% believe she is guilty BTW - just cannot begin to understand it.

"Why should they be admitted into evidence?"
I can't quite believe anyone would post that, but they did.

Yes well most of us thankfully willl never be, lucy letby,s parents position will we?
I dont think i could ever know how i would react,if i was .

"I don’t know. What do you think? You’re obviously keen to tell us"

Not as keen as you are to disparage anything that questions the narrative.

You’re not questioning the narrative. You’re just dropping snide comments. If you’ve got something relevant to say about the PMs spit it out.

Well if you don’t explain the narrative will remain unquestioned, won’t it?

That means you don't understand how evidence works. Which is why you should pause before you speak next time.

I will help you. The point of a criminal trial for murder is to determine whether person a murdered person b (or in this case c d, e, f etc.)

Cause of death is going to be part of proving that. A post-mortem report isn't going to act as a substitute for this: the court must reach its own decision. So the report itself is irrelevant.

The materials that were looked at in the post-mortem would be relevant and they were part of evidence in the trial.

NB: I understand there wasn't a post-mortem for every death.

I hope that makes sense.

Which part of the coroner refused to review the PM's, are you failing to understand, the coroner you made the snide remark about. Your intransigence is obvious.

Post mortem weren't carried out in every case.

Did the defence ask for evidence of these to be admitted?

That's helpful. No doubt if the defence thought the post mortem reports helped their case they would have put them in evidence.

Thanks 🙂

But once again the reports themselves wouldn't be relevant - they are a person's conclusion drawn in a specific context, and can't be used as a substitute for what the trial needs to determine.

This question might illustrate the point: should a murderer escape because a post-mortem report mistakenly concluded, say, death by natural causes?

"Cause of death is going to be part of proving that. A post-mortem report isn't going to act as a substitute for this: the court must reach its own decision. So the report itself is irrelevant"

The PM's are widely reported as concluding the baby deaths as being natural causes, sort of negates murder being committed, if true.

We shall know when the PM's are published under FOI.

It just means they came to different conclusions. Probably on less evidence and within a different statutory context.

So you see why the reports weren't part of the evidence yet? There's really no 'gotcha' here, regardless of what they say.

Haven't read the thread so apologies if this has already been posted.

Letby caught after witness haunted by accounts of screams of babies

mol.im/a/12451181

At the end of the article there is this:

"A police inquiry into a nurse arrested after the sudden death of a baby at Britain's largest paediatric intensive care unit is continuing. The woman, 28, was held in May last year before being bailed and suspended from Birmingham Children's Hospital."

Another case??? 😱

You clearly know absolutely nothing about the police officers who carried out this investigation or the fact it was carried out in a highly professional and widely praised way.

Each baby who died was given an individual officer to look into their deaths. In order to avoid group think, the officers didn’t speak to each other about their case for months. After all investigations were completed and they had their team meeting, every single officer suspected LL had murdered the baby they were responsible for investigating.

I suspect it was a very dysfunctional upbringing in the way many of us experience (see the stately homes thread). She apparently stated she went in to neo natal nursing because she had been born in difficult circumstances and nurses had saved her life. It made me wonder how much her mother must have talked about how difficult her birth was for it to have made such an impression that it dictates your life.

Sounds like a co-dependence/resentment dynamic with extremely immature emotional development. Narcissistic, god complex whatever results.

I have known many "beige" people who are cold, cruel, emotionally manipulative. Threads on here are filled with them.

Not all of them will go on to kill but with the wrong set of factors colliding (opportunity and no one stopping her) I have no problem imagining the psychology of this happening. I'm surprised people find it so hard to imagine.

Also I doubt very much that the Crown Prosecution Service went "well, it's a rubbish case but as it's them there yokels up in Cheshire we'll prosecute."

"It just means they came to different conclusions. Probably on less evidence and within a different statutory context.

So you see why the reports weren't part of the evidence yet? There's really no 'gotcha' here, regardless of what they say"

Oh I see, the original pathologists, who carried out the PM's got every one wrong , through incompetence or some other spurious reason, such a novel idea, however improbable.

Yes, there is really no 'gotcha' here, it is not unusual for someone's body to be exhumed for a secondary post mortem or for people to be convicted in a 'no body' case.

If the PM evidence was that compelling, the defending KC would have presented it. LL wasn't defended by 'Lawyers 'r' Us' found at the back of the yellow pages, Ben Myers is one of the best defence barristers in the country.

Well, the alternative is that the trial got them all wrong, isn't it? Despite having access to a heap more evidence including all the evidence considered by the post-mortems.

I think you get the point but you don't want to admit it.

Evidence considered by the post-mortems was considered. See this, for example.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-baby-unusual-finding-xray-b2208120.html

Just not the reports. The reports aren't evidence: they're conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence that would also have been before the jury.

"I think you get the point but you don't want to admit it"

You don't have a point, let me put it in simple terms, exculpatory evidence may have been withheld by the court, if it was, serious repercussions will follow, not least for the Crown, time will tell, of course it is possible there may be no appeal.

@CakeForAll21 the police were brilliant on this case and it's really insulting that you suggest otherwise. This is all down to the management of the hospital, not the police.

Once again, the evidence that the post-mortems considered would have been before the court. Together with the results of a police investigation that whoever carrying out the post-mortems would not have had.

What wasn't before the court were the reports themselves and I've explained why above. What's your answer to that please?

@determinedtomakethiswork

You litterally have no idea how brilliant they are. That's an opinion. It's as anecdotal as me telling you that my personal experience of Cheshire policy after 30 years of living here is not great. You have no idea if any of those officers have attended a crime involving my family or not. Cheshire police is small so its highly likely that the same officers work on most major crimes.

@TomPinch

Do you not know how a crown prosecution service works. It's the same one that deals with Cheshire police for every crime in Cheshire that meets the threshold of a crown court. They are not yokles it's just murder is not a speciality in Cheshire. The murder rate in Cheshire west is so low its zero...