Page 28 | Lucy Letby - new thread (part 2)

anonymousamy · 2023-08-26T21:32:27+00:00

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.

JanieEyre · 29/08/2023 16:29

978q · 29/08/2023 15:30

"I don't think I was alone in thinking that you were very much doubting the verdict. Fair enough you haven't explicitly stated one way or another but you have very much implied your doubt"

Doubt is good, certainty is dangerous, when peoples life's and futures are at stake, as previously the conduct of the trial didn't appear all it could be, as for Ben Myers, only a fool would doubt his abilities, which in itself raises more questions than answers, if his hands were tied, I can see only two people who could do so, I discount LL, as I do not believe she has the ability to instruct a KC.
If his hands were indeed tied,two people are prime suspects in my book, in no particular order, the instructing solicitor or the Judge, we know the Judge cut him off at the knees regards evans, that's about it, we have no idea what the solicitor instructed, apart from the plumber.

You just do not understand the legal system.

Clients in criminal cases never instruct KCs direct, irrespective of their abilities. They instruct solicitors who in turn instruct barristers. However, they cannot tie the hands of barristers, because their primary duty is to the court and to their lay client. If a reputable barrister believed that solicitor was harming the client's case, they would have a duty to say so and strongly advise the client to instruct alternatives. In those circumstances, the Legal Aid fund would have no hesitation in authorising a transfer. If for some reason the client insisted on ignoring the barrister's advice, ultimately the barrister would need to return the brief, but their successor would be under the same duties and would have the same concerns. Indeed, it is highly likely that any successor would speak to the first barrister about what had been going on. Additionally, if the lay client refused to act on advice of that nature a barrister might have to consider asking for a psychiatric examination.

If a judge tried to prevent the Defence from bringing relevant evidence or calling relevant witnesses, not only would that all have happened in open court so we would know all about it, but the Defence would have had a cast iron immediate appeal on that specific issue. It is in no way comparable to refusing to accept defence objections to one specific prosecution witness.

This is bringing your argument into the realms of totally fantastic and baseless conspiracy theories, and in fact you are being incredibly defamatory to the Judge, the barristers and the solicitors concerned. Probably not really a very good idea, to be honest.

Quitelikeit · 29/08/2023 16:30

Excellent response @JanieEyre

Mustardseed86 · 29/08/2023 16:38

This is bringing your argument into the realms of totally fantastic and baseless conspiracy theories, and in fact you are being incredibly defamatory to the Judge, the barristers and the solicitors concerned. Probably not really a very good idea, to be honest.

Well, quite. At least now we've drilled down to the quite bizarre theories and thought processes of this particular poster.

Anyway, I've just been listening to the most recent episode of the podcast, which is an interview with two parents whose baby was cared for by Letby some years ago on the NNU. Their son was on oxygen and Lucy Letby apparently took photos of him without all the tubes for a homemade card for them - tubes he needed continuously in order to maintain his oxygen levels. They did question it, but at the time didn't realise how much this was absolutely not the normal or correct thing to do. I thought that was interesting in terms of her behaviour being very off and not prioritising his clinical needs but rather almost seeing the babies as dolls to play with.

978q · 29/08/2023 16:40

"in fact you are being incredibly defamatory to the Judge, the barristers and the solicitors concerned"

What utter juvenile nonsense.

JanieEyre · 29/08/2023 16:44

Janieforever · 29/08/2023 16:12

actually that’s not correct here. She sold her house to fund it and also got much , much more legal aid than she was entitled to to pay for it, so she had rhe same calibre, if not better of defense as prosecution

in this instance,yes she had very highly paid lawyers.how much they charged for this case is as yet unknown, but she definitely had the best legal brains money can buy

it was done to ensure she had a fair trial.

Show quote history

I've seen reports that she sold the house, but not that it was to fund legal fees. Where was that? Given that it was a first-time purchase it's likely she had a large mortgage so I'm not sure how much it would have made towards fees that would run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. She would never get more legal aid than she was entitled to, no-one does.

It's correct that the barristers would be paid relatively well, though still way below commercial barristers' rates. Solicitors would however be held to set rates and have to justify every piece of work they do; they may be entitled to a degree of uplift given the nature of the case, but again it will be way below commercial rates. Reports in the right wing press about fat cat legal aid lawyers have always been fictional.

As I say, none of that changes the fact that they were excellent lawyers. IME, legal aid lawyers are amongst the best and most conscientious in the business precisely because they're not solely motivated by what they're being paid.

JanieEyre · 29/08/2023 16:46

978q · 29/08/2023 16:40

"in fact you are being incredibly defamatory to the Judge, the barristers and the solicitors concerned"

What utter juvenile nonsense.

Is there any danger that you will every come out with a substantive, fact-based argument rather than these silly little comments that just reveal you have no answer?

Janieforever · 29/08/2023 16:50

MikeRafone · 29/08/2023 16:28

surely The defensive is just that as you are presumed innocent until the jury returns their verdict.

your barrister is not bringing in witnesses to testify your innocence because you are at this point. They defend you by providing proof you couldn’t have commuted the crime or there was another cause ( thus the plumber in this case)

Show quote history

I’m not really sure why you’re quoting me? Apologies. I don’t see the link between your comment and my quote? If you’re happy to explain I’m happy to respond.

I think you are discussing defence strategy? Where as I responded to a previous post on legal aid Ie on cost and calibre?

to answer your question though, there was no way to dispute the babies were murdered. And her legal team sought medical experts far and wide to try. But it was simply indisputable. The babies were murdered.

as such they went with it wasn’t her as a defence strategy, Which is actually the only defense they had, in that they didn’t and could not dispute the babies were murdered, that would have had no chance, so the “it wasn’t her, but someone else” strategy, means the prosecution had to prove it was her who murdered them and not some other unknown person, and to do so beyond all reasonable doubt.

which they subsequently succeeded over ten long months in doing. The babies being murdered was never in question. It is medically and scientifically indisputable. What the trial was about was was it her or someone else. The who dunnit.

over the course of the trial it became evident beyond all reasonable doubt no other person could have been the murderer. It could only have been letby.

Janieforever · 29/08/2023 16:55

JanieEyre · 29/08/2023 16:44

I've seen reports that she sold the house, but not that it was to fund legal fees. Where was that? Given that it was a first-time purchase it's likely she had a large mortgage so I'm not sure how much it would have made towards fees that would run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. She would never get more legal aid than she was entitled to, no-one does.

It's correct that the barristers would be paid relatively well, though still way below commercial barristers' rates. Solicitors would however be held to set rates and have to justify every piece of work they do; they may be entitled to a degree of uplift given the nature of the case, but again it will be way below commercial rates. Reports in the right wing press about fat cat legal aid lawyers have always been fictional.

As I say, none of that changes the fact that they were excellent lawyers. IME, legal aid lawyers are amongst the best and most conscientious in the business precisely because they're not solely motivated by what they're being paid.

Show quote history

I think you can Google and search back a few months, it was public knowledge, I can’t confirm though how much equity she had , I understand her parents helped her buy and yes she received more legal aid than she would normally be entitled to

apologies, you can disbelieve or Google it, but I’m not really a fan of people asking me to do that work for them. As said, take it as read, disbelieve, I’m ok either way with it,

978q · 29/08/2023 17:05

"You just do not understand the legal system"

Obviously you don't, Ben Myers is a public access KC, you have a delightful evening.

TetherMetherPip · 29/08/2023 17:16

Ah, @978q so you think either LL’s sol was in on the conspiracy or the judge fixed the the trial. You still haven’t explained why you say the principle of res gestae is relevant though?

978q · 29/08/2023 17:22

TetherMetherPip · 29/08/2023 17:16

Ah, @978q so you think either LL’s sol was in on the conspiracy or the judge fixed the the trial. You still haven’t explained why you say the principle of res gestae is relevant though?

which conspiracy, you think flawed trials are conspiracies, such a gauche outlook.

TetherMetherPip · 29/08/2023 17:26

978q · 29/08/2023 15:30

"I don't think I was alone in thinking that you were very much doubting the verdict. Fair enough you haven't explicitly stated one way or another but you have very much implied your doubt"

Doubt is good, certainty is dangerous, when peoples life's and futures are at stake, as previously the conduct of the trial didn't appear all it could be, as for Ben Myers, only a fool would doubt his abilities, which in itself raises more questions than answers, if his hands were tied, I can see only two people who could do so, I discount LL, as I do not believe she has the ability to instruct a KC.
If his hands were indeed tied,two people are prime suspects in my book, in no particular order, the instructing solicitor or the Judge, we know the Judge cut him off at the knees regards evans, that's about it, we have no idea what the solicitor instructed, apart from the plumber.

So the bit about BM KC’s hands being tied by either the solicitor or the judge? You’re not implying conspiracy?

Either an idiot or a bot, clearly.

and still no answer on the relevance of res gestae…hmmm…probably the former.

978q · 29/08/2023 17:36

"So the bit about BM KC’s hands being tied by either the solicitor or the judge? You’re not implying conspiracy?

Either an idiot or a bot, clearly.

and still no answer on the relevance of res gestae…hmmm…probably the former"

Your superiority complex is quite amusing, if somewhat misguided, again, do have a lovely evening.

TetherMetherPip · 29/08/2023 17:40

Suspicions confirmed. Thank you @978q 😉

lifeturnsonadime · 29/08/2023 17:48

I don't know why people are still engaging.

The posts are vile, smug and disrespectful to the victims.

Mustardseed86 · 29/08/2023 17:53

lifeturnsonadime · 29/08/2023 17:48

I don't know why people are still engaging.

The posts are vile, smug and disrespectful to the victims.

You're right. I won't again, I didn't get a reply to my question earlier anyway.

JanieEyre · 29/08/2023 19:00

978q · 29/08/2023 17:05

"You just do not understand the legal system"

Obviously you don't, Ben Myers is a public access KC, you have a delightful evening.

The term is direct access, not public access, and you can't instruct barristers via direct access under legal aid. LL would never be able to afford the fees a KC would charge for a 10 month trial without legal aid.

JanieEyre · 29/08/2023 19:02

Janieforever · 29/08/2023 16:55

I think you can Google and search back a few months, it was public knowledge, I can’t confirm though how much equity she had , I understand her parents helped her buy and yes she received more legal aid than she would normally be entitled to

apologies, you can disbelieve or Google it, but I’m not really a fan of people asking me to do that work for them. As said, take it as read, disbelieve, I’m ok either way with it,

Show quote history

I did google, I didn't find anything, but I did you the courtesy of assuming that nevertheless you had a source for this. It's a real shame you don't extend similar courtesy.

Oulu · 29/08/2023 19:07

978q · 29/08/2023 16:40

"in fact you are being incredibly defamatory to the Judge, the barristers and the solicitors concerned"

What utter juvenile nonsense.

You really can't handle it when someone who knows what they are talking about spells out the facts, can you?

AcesBaseballbat · 29/08/2023 19:13

If you're familiar with who is leading this conspiracy theory then the weird posts here aren't all that surprising.

So yeah she might have made colleagues anxious because they knew she wouldn't gloss over their fuck-ups.

So you admit she had a history of making colleagues anxious? So you admit your previous staunch claim that Letby had no history of making colleagues anxious was not true?

Please provide proof for your allegation that the other nurses were making "fuck ups", because that's a very serious allegation to make without proof.

Nurse Lisa Walker testified in court that Letby had accosted her and told her off because she called for help when a baby started crashing. Walker did not "make a fuck up", she behaved exactly as she was supposed to.

Walker testified that Letby's behaviour stuck in her mind because it was so strange and abnormal. So that's one nurse who found her behaviour strange and uncomfortable.

There was another nurse who was assigned to a baby Letby had become obsessed with, and Letby got angry with her and demanded "four or five times" to be allowed to have the baby instead of the assigned nurse. To the point both the nurse and the parents found it weird and creepy because Letby was "really really angry" and persistent in wanting access to this particular baby.

So the claim that everyone loved her and thought she was an excellent nurse is just a flat out lie.

Difficulty making and maintaining relationships means ALL relationships.
Difficulty maintaining intimate relationships specifically is considered a potential red flag. The fact someone can make superficial casual friendships is meaningless. In fact, one of the markers of psychopathy is "superficial charm." Letby was clearly extremely manipulative and used things like her willingness to cover any shifts anyone needed covering to create this fake persona which occasionally slipped.

Janieforever · 29/08/2023 19:25

JanieEyre · 29/08/2023 19:02

I did google, I didn't find anything, but I did you the courtesy of assuming that nevertheless you had a source for this. It's a real shame you don't extend similar courtesy.

Show quote history

Huh? I don’t want to fight with anyone on this thread, there is no need to have a go.

I think it’s fine to quote what you’ve read on the news, you don’t need to provide a source for everything written, I am not going to Google and find the source, honestly I genuinely don’t care if you think it’s right or not.

if you don’t think it’s right move on. However from what I know it’s true, she sold her house and used the equity to pay her legal fees and got much more legal aid than normal to ensure her defense was comparable or better than the prosecution. How do you think she had such an eminent legal team?

TomPinch · 29/08/2023 19:54

978q, do you think the Manchester bombings were a hoax? Because some of what you're saying is on a similar level.

978q · 29/08/2023 19:58

"The term is direct access, not public access, and you can't instruct barristers via direct access under legal aid. LL would never be able to afford the fees a KC would charge for a 10 month trial without legal aid.

You best correct the BSB, they will be thankful for your correctional input, maybe not.

www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/barristers-register/5C088AAB7420E50B64D824DFB887BF71.html

swimminginthesun · 29/08/2023 19:59

@AcesBaseballbat Where are you getting the info about the court testimony from Lisa Walker and the other nurse you quote? I’m listening to the podcast and don’t recall it being as you describe.

There were definitely mistakes made in the care of several of these babies - though they were mostly medical. One baby was born in a toilet because the midwife didn’t recognise that the mother was in labour. One wasn’t given antibiotics when they should have been due to the mother’s waters breaking and labour not starting for some time afterwards. There was one resus attempt which involved multiple mistakes including an overdose of adrenaline. This is all covered in the podcast.

Much of the evidence makes me uneasy but I do think the verdict was correct. To say her colleagues weren’t making mistakes is just untrue though. And the staff shortages were scary. At one point LL was responsible for an intensive care baby in one room and a different baby in another room. So unsafe! Impossible to give the correct level of care to two babies when they aren’t even in the same room as each other. Even with Lucy Letby removed I wouldn’t have wanted any baby of mine near that department. I am very glad it has since been downgraded and patient numbers reduced.

AcesBaseballbat · 29/08/2023 21:18

@AcesBaseballbatWhere are you getting the info about the court testimony from Lisa Walker and the other nurse you quote? I’m listening to the podcast and don’t recall it being as you describe.

The stuff about Letby being "very very angry" about no longer being in charge of the baby she'd become obsessed with and asking "four or five times" to swap comes from yesterday's episode of the podcast, they aren't first hand quotes from the nurse (the nurse isn't named) but are direct quotes from the parents of the baby. This is the same baby who Letby removed all the oxygen and other stuff from so she could take loads of photos of him, and when challenged she lied that hospitals routinely remove oxygen tubes to clean them. I just finished listening to the episode of the podcast a few minutes before I posted.

Lisa Walker testified in court at being "shocked and taken aback" when Letby confronted her and "told her off" for calling for help when a baby Letby was working on crashed. Walker's testimony has been very widely covered by the media.

https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-completely-unclear-why-child-ds-condition-got-worse-court-hears-12741065

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/manchester-crown-court-lucy-hereford-the-crown-b1038180.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-nurse-murder-trial-b2219893.html

Lucy Letby trial: Nurse 'told off' colleague for shouting for help when baby's oxygen levels dropped

Lucy Letby is on trial for the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of 10 others at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016. She denies all charges.

https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-completely-unclear-why-child-ds-condition-got-worse-court-hears-12741065