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.

This was quite a good discussion for a little bit, and now it's all "you can see the strings" level again.

That's quite an assumption to presume I'm defending Lucy,

For the record as far as I'm aware she was found guilty and I'm not qualified to offer any analysis of any material relating to the case.

All I'm commenting on is the general methods eg how or what I've been taught ect on how juries ect can debate and analyse evidence etc,

You sound exactly how people talked about Sally Clark.

Shame on YOU.

You are completely unhinged.

Sally Clark was not a serial baby killer. LL is.

How would an expert witness saying these deaths are not natural have helped Letby’s defence?

All I'm commenting on is the general methods eg how or what I've been taught ect on how juries ect can debate and analyse evidence etc,

Which A level course was this? Genuinely interested. I come from a position of knowledge on the content of A Level law courses btw.

You would have been a cheerleader for burning SC at the stake.

There is no question about that.

I'm not the unhinged one.

Will the enquiry only focus on letby and how management allowed letby to continue working? or will it also look at the management and care in the unit as a whole? Will it include any inquiry into the poor clinical practice of the doctors, delays in treatment and delays in referral to arrow park or Liverpool?

Tl/dr "I'm commenting but I'm not committing."

And why do you think that was? Perhaps because there were no experts who could support the defence case? Or who would disagree with the prosecution expert witnesses?

Commenting but not commenting even. <facepalm>

The scope of the inquiry will depend on the judge appointed to lead it.

I have every sympathy with Sally Clark and I recognise that miscarriages of justice can occur.

You appear not to comprehend the fact that babies can be murdered by anyone. I find that completely astonishing. Thank god the jury didn't allow Letby to be freed to continue killing.

At the start of the interview, the Dsup answers his own question about why they didnt immediately arrest Letby by stating that "by investigating that it could be anyone means we're not focused on one person...so when you come later on and the defence wants to attack your investigation saying you chose Lucy Letby, you chose this event, no we didnt choose that and we didnt choose that actually, if I had a choice, I'd have wanted the experts to come back and say it was a bad bug in the ward...."

Yet CI Riley says "I knew there was going to be a case to answer or he wouldnt be bringing us in"

Which suggests that the investigation was not as open ended as the DSup suggests.

CI Riley then goes on to say that he quickly found it obvious that someone had administered insulin to [Child F]

But the high insulin level in Child F wasnt known then. Dr Brearey has given an account of discovering the elevated insulin level in Child F on 13th Feb 2018, while he (presumably a suspect in their investigation) was reviewing case notes after being asked to by the police.

Hawkins often plays devil's advocate, which is ok on a thread about how to eat a Muller corner (tip and stir ftr) doesn't lend itself quite so well on a thread like this.

Fwiw that isn't actually a criticism, it is good to get the odd curve ball opinion, just not sure it is entirely helpful all the time.

Sixth form A level course, our tutor did a lesson on different aspects of how juries deliberate and used examples from shows like the good wife, weather it was an actual component I presume it was, but either way it give perspective of how juries deliberation would be vs how it also could be.

The whole point of scapegoating LL was to cover up the poor clinical practice of the doctors etc.

So there is no chance of the enquiry doing anything other than reinforcing that one single person was guilty of killing babies.

There will no justice, there never is, once one person can be destroyed to cover the much bigger picture.

That's how it works.

I'll hold my hands up I do try to do the discussion from both sides, and at times I do make pickles out of it, obviously not intentionally, I do try to get along with everyone and have a good debate,

I do apologise for any annoyance I may have inadvertently caused.

Ah I see, your teacher had a discussion about something that isn't on the syllabus.

Did they teach you about legal directions that the jury receive too and the role of the jury?

Or just something that you wouldn't be asked in an exam?

I don't think they just taught to what was in the exam like robots, they were being more helpful in trying to educate us.

The legal directions we understood to be useful at times for a jury, but it also made it seem odd, because if a jury was to analysis X evidence and considered all the points made from the defence and prosecution, then why would they need to be guided ?

How does this concern the evidence before the court?

CI Riley then goes on to say that he quickly found it obvious that someone had administered insulin to [Child F]

We don’t know when Riley found it obvious. The insulin had been found before Letby’s first arrest in July 2018. What we do know is that Baby F is one of the three unanimous verdicts so the evidence was clearly compelling.

Then try watching or studying how juries deliberate, they discuss the case they don't just discuss the merits of the evidence alone,

This is what you said that you learned from your A Level History.

I'm interested in what a jury is directed in law to consider in addition to the evidence alone?

Surely your A Level Law teacher told you they are advised to consider something else which is what has given you the impression that the juries consider other things?

What did your A Level teacher tell you that a jury considers in addition to the evidence?

Did they tell you that they are directed to do something else?

And if you're asking why they need to be guided? Well they are guided simply to only consider the evidence. Because they are not lawyers and they need to be told not to speculate.

It was the clips from the show the good wife and the talk that officially juries are ment to do X, but then they can even if they are not ment to, also discuss X,y,z too then used the good wife as examples.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

If it helps the actual directions that the judge in this trial gave the jury are read out on the podcast and will be available in the transcripts if you prefer that.

He clearly directed this jury not to speculate and only to consider the evidence brought in the trial by the prosecution and defence witnesses in the court.