Lucy Letby appeal

[GonnaGetGoingReturns]

Sorry if not allowed to discuss here but just seem that this vile creature plans to appeal against her original sentence as per yesterday’s news. Her defence team is leading this potential appeal.

WTAF?!

They haven’t reached a verdict on is it 6 or 7 poor other little babies who died and she’s suspected, I thought?

So sad for the poor parents and babies still.

Exactly so your first statement is moot

Thankyou for your comment.You’re right. I am insane and I’m fiercely proud of it because unlike pussyfooted bleeding hearted liberals more concerned with the supposed rights of the perpetrators than the actual and moral rights of the victims I tell it like it is!
Do people like that, maybe not, do I care? No!
Do people like to pretend to be offended or upset by the things I say in truth when they don’t affect them personally or literally?
Yes.
Do I care?
No!
The reason being that when you ignore or suppress the truth idiocy takes over.

Are you some sort of parody account?

unlike pussyfooted bleeding hearted liberals more concerned with the supposed rights of the perpetrators than the actual and moral rights of the victims I tell it like it is!

Wishing to uphold a fair criminal justice system is not being a bleeding heart liberal 🙄

Many of us believe LL is guilty and that shes where she belongs, but also that she - like anyone - should be able to exercise her right to apply for an appeal

For the half wits who still don’t get it: this does not mean we think she is innocent.

I’m really not sure what’s so hard to understand TBH

As a former defence solicitor, you're talking rubbish. You hate us until you or your family need us.

A defence team have to act like they firmly believe their client is innocent if that client says they are. They have to fight tooth and nail for their client. They shouldn’t feel shame. Obviously there’s a chance the client is lying but that’s on the client.

If they're not, they're that person at the bus stop that everyone slowly shuffles away from

I believe she is appealing all the convictions - all the murders and attempted murders. If they can prove she didn't do one of the murders it might mean the others can't be attributed to her (I don't know). The insulin babies are the ones that I think sealed the case. One argument is that the baby was improving and worsened after the second bag was put up but that LL wasn't on duty when the second bag was put up. I believe the prosecution argument was - she must have spiked it before she went off duty. But mistakes do happen and if the wrong bag was put up (ie the bag intended for the deceased twin with the same name) for example.

I need to check as I read insulin was prescribed for one baby and it was prepared in a bag which then wasn't needed as that baby had died. The twin of the other one with the same surname.

So the only argument I can think for appeal was that there was no evidence that she actually injected insulin into the bags - and wasn't on duty when it happened. And it could have been a mistake.

Mistakes happen and people don't always own up to them. As an example as a student nurse I once gave the wrong dose of insulin because a night staff member gave me the syringe already drawn up at handover, because they didn't have time to give it. It needed two people to check it. I double checked the dose (eg 6 units) but later realised it had been drawn up in a 1ml syringe not an insulin syringe (they look similar). So it was 0.6 ml not 6 units. The dose was much bigger than it should have been. I immediately reported it and the patient was observed and given extra glucose and all was well. It was very scary and not really my fault but a practice mistake by a qualified member of staff at handover.

Was that her evidence though, did she have evidence to show she wasnt on duty at the time?

I think the evidence showed she wasn't on duty at the time - from the rota sheets.

They don't even have to act like that. Defence solicitors don't have to believe or act like they believe their clients are innocent.

They just have to present a robust defence as given to them, identify points where the law may not have been applied and adhere to due process and put those before the court.

That's their job. They are working for the client but also for the criminal justice system and should identify any areas where it has been lacking or ill-used.

Their personal beliefs or opinions should not come into it. They are concerned with the law.

It's the public who get over-emotional and say 'how are you defending this person'?. They're not, they are defending the law and due process.

You can't really blame the defence lawyers. They're paid to do a job and are instructed to act for their client. They have to strip themselves of all emotions and act objectively.

No chance.

Well I guess. I think we’re agreeing on the same point though that they have to act as though they’re innocent and defend them to the best of their ability as if they were innocent. I think that’s what I was badly trying to say. So yes, I guess they don’t have to honestly believe the client deep down, they just have to act as if they do and then do their job. They certainly shouldn’t feel shame for doing their job.

Only that's not what I said is it?
she's had a trial.lasting many months the jury has listened to.all.the evidence
Several consultants spent twelve months going over all the possibilities of why so many babies died and the only conclusion they could come to.wss that someone was deliberately harming/ killing babies and when they studied the off duty LL was the only nurse on every shift so its not just a case of I just know she's done I
I'm no expert but I'm more inclined to believe the jury and the experts than some random armchair detectives on mums net who think they know better
Just because
I would say that makes them more arrogant.

Ok, well the jury either didnt believe that or felt that it might have been another of those days where she came to work despite not actually being at work or that she had her hand in it another way

Either way, its not new evidence or poor direction from the judge

The prosecution case was weak. I think she may be innocent

I don't think some people on here understand how applications to appeal work.

Just because a person is unhappy with an outcome they are not granted the right to appeal, there has to be something much more than that.

This case lasted 10 months, she had a fair trial and had the opportunity to present evidence in it with a first rate defence team on side.

The judge gave appropriate and correct legal directions to the jury.

So it seems that the only possibility will be fresh evidence, which begs the question is what can have cropped up in 28 days from the verdict which was not available to the defence team to put to the original jury after an extensive investigation? And note that the existence of fresh evidence does not automatically give rise to an appeal, they will have to demonstrate good reason it was not presented at the original trial.

Sorry for the cross post @bellac11

The prosecution case was compelling. Just hearing the huge volume of prosecution evidence took months.

Idiocy has certainly taken over here, I'd agree with that.

Do you have somebody who cares for you at all? Perhaps you could share your fixation with images of slashing and slaughtering with them?

Why?

There was just no direct evidence. They think it was air embolisms without proof. Letby reported beforehand that breathing machines were faulty. There’s a question whether the insulin was in fact synthetic. The unit had sewage coming up the drains. And her defence was rubbish

What ‘direct evidence’ did you expect there to be from a case where the deaths were essentially historic?

Which ‘breathing machines’ did she report as faulty?

Any proof about sewerage coming into the unit and that the deaths were a result of this? As in blood tests that show the infections that wouldn’t killed babies?

What about the insulin?
And whose fault is it that the defence wss rubbish all.she Saud was it wasn't her.