Lucy letby - New threads (Part 3)

[WhiteFire]

The last thread has closed. I have kept the thread title in line with the previous one for continuity.

I have just started listening to the Daily Mail podcasts which gives a good overview.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-trial-of-lucy-letby/id1653090985

I've downloaded an app called Radio net so I can download them and then listen off line.

The evidence against her is compelling, the defence is pretty much "it wasn't me"

Why do you need to be to use this chat forum?

No body has “diagnosed” her. They have been asked their professional option, having listened to the evidence and given it. Who do you think journalists should ask for help in understanding what makes a young woman murder babies?

She’s not going to be found innocent in future. I find it very distasteful anyone could think a serial killer of babies might be,

She’s not going to be found innocent in future. I find it very distasteful anyone could think a serial killer of babies might be

Agree, it’s an awful thing to say.

I don't think she necessarily had to be on her own. They were all so busy that the chances were that at any given moment the other nurses would be busy dealing with the babies they were looking after and/or making notes etc. Also they wouldn't necessarily think there was anything suspicious if they saw her apparently administering medication or feeding a baby.

I don't think you need to be a qualified psychologist to realise that someone who murders and attempts to murder pre term babies in a NICU has some for of personality disorder.

It's hardly everyday behaviour!

It's never an excuse it it explains why she could do something so cold, her responses, the paper collecting and disregard for the rules etc.

Parents who notice their children are ND are qualified psychologists. But humans know "normal" human behaviour and can spot behaviour that deviates from the norm.

Being a serial killer definitely falls into that category!

More unpleasant than killing babies?

I’m not sure that ‘as long as it’s not worse than killing babies’ is the best rule for what constitutes ok behaviour.

None of us has any idea what is going to happen in the future.
If everyone thought that entertaining the possibility of wrongful conviction was unacceptable in the case of serial child killing, Lucia de Berk would still be in prison. Would you be ok with that? If not you have to accept that even in the case of uniquely appalling crimes that appear to have been carefully deliberated and to have overwhelming evidence, wrongful convictions happen and appeals have to be allowed.

To be fair, wrongful convictions happen, even in relation to charges of killing babies. In effect Angela Canning was found guilty of killing two babies and the clear implication was that she had also killed her first child. So it's not distasteful to acknowledge that miscarriages of justice happen.

Admittedly, it's incredibly unlikely in this case, given the volume of evidence, but the nature of the crime doesn't in itself render a successful appeal in one or more cases 100% impossible.

Each case is unique. Of course I recognise wrongful convictions happen. But clearly not in this case and it’s distasteful to keep harping on that this woman who brutally murdered babies maybe innocent.

Todays podcast "The whistleblower" was illuminating. I'd love to discuss peoples thoughts when they've had a chance to listen.

Thanks Lizziesiddall I will do that

@ZadocPDederick it is distasteful. You can't compare this with Angela Canning. The evidence against LL is compelling. Her determination to murder little babies was relentless. And now there are idiotic people trying to undermine the justice that has been served to the families who have had their lives turned upside-down by her.

For anyone buying into this nonsense, would you leave LL alone with your baby? The lack of empathy from this group of people is sickening and smacks of the Covid denial narrative.

I wouldn't leave LL alone with a stuffed toy.

@Tambatamba, you didn't read my post properly, did you? Otherwise you couldn't think I was buying into the LL defence.

I did read it. I was disagreeing with you that it's not distasteful for people to be questioning miscarriage of justice.

On that basis, the prosecution was acting distastefully by waiting to charge her till they thought they had enough evidence. They still are acting distastefully by failing to charge her with other deaths. The jury acted distastefully by finding her not guilty on some charges.

Tastefulness simply doesn't come into this.

I’m nearly through the podcasts and I can’t believe her only real defence was it was a conspiracy of 4 doctors against her.

You forgot the shit in the sink. Myers must have been tearing his hair out.

Particularly when she started disputing formerly agreed evidence 😵‍💫

It does sound as if they thought they had experts lined up at the beginning as they referred to their own expert witnesses in the opening speeches. Something went on in the background there, possibly the witnesses changing their minds or the barristers deciding they just wouldn't come up to scratch. I suspect her solicitors must have been doing a fair bit of hair-tearing.

I haven't heard all the podcasts. Was that actually all that the defence was, or was it more that the prosecution just hadn't proved that the babies were killed or that, if they were, she was the perpetrator? The defence doesn't have to come up with any alternative theory.

The defence for the two babies poisoned with insulin was that it was deliberate but someone else (unspecified) did it. It’s like the big boys did it and ran away.

@BIossomtoes she even tried to blame her best friend for the poisonings, as only the friend and LL had access to one baby. She then backed down when questioned in court, and said whilst she agreed it could have only been the friend or her and she agreed that the babies had been poundings, she didn’t know who had done it. Absolutely bonkers!