Lucy Letby not charged with further crimes - what does this say about her current convictions

[mids2019]

So no more charges for Lucy Letby currently.

I can't say I am surprised as the tactics the CPS used the first time to secure convictions wont wash. There have been too many questions about the 'expert' evidence in the first trial and in my opinion the CPS don't want to take the risk of trying again with a more possibly more aware jury.

The police seem to be not too happy and probably thought they had similar evidence as they had initially so were taken aback by the CPS decision. They have had to approach parents to say that their children dies either through medical incompetence or through natural causes. The poor parents will now feel distraught and confused being lef up the garden path and the police maybe telling them Lucy was guilty.

I wonder if this is paving the way for a retrial?

I don't recall much of a paper trail on this but the decision was made by Chester's Board of Directors. Subsequently, two of the managers, Tony Chambers and Ian Harvey, among others, held the line against reopening until the reviews were complete and they had the consultants' cooperation in actioning the recommendations. I think it was Karen Townsend who checked every morning that no cases who could not be cared for at level 1 had been admitted overnight.

The level 2 unit still hasn't reopened.

Yes, I know exactly what you mean, and as well as erasing the parents it's a really stupid point to make.

Well no you don't because you are still missing my point. How does it "erase" the parents? It's the sheer number of unlucky events that must've happened to her to be innocent not the intensity or the tragedy of them. Nothing will come close to what the babies and the parents have gone through since she's utterly destroyed countless lives. I would've thought that was obvious really and hardly needs stating. OTOH some people on here would have a possible serial killer let out despite the fact the babies' and parents' tragedies will always trump a miscarriage of justice because nothing will come close to their pain. So going by your own logic she should never be let out anyway.

Everyone knows both of these things are really rare and bad luck. But one of them has happened. We are choosing between two very implausible and unfortunate possibilities.

It's ONLY appalling luck for Lucy if she's innocent-you don't seem to realise that.

Right so the managers who didn't want to admit they had a serial killer they didn't remove for months on the unit decided to downgrade at the same time to hide all this. Thought so.

It erases the parents because you're not considering that they might qualify for the unluckiest person in the world competition you're for some reason holding.

And you're doing it again here. I know it's only appalling luck for Letby if she's innocent. If she's guilty, the parents are still really fucking unlucky too, because someone who was looking after their babies murdered them. This is exactly what I mean by leaving them out of your analysis.

There is no explanation for the situation that doesn't involve some people being horrifically unfortunate, to an extent that most of us never experience. To that end, saying Letby would have to be really unlucky to have been fit up is bleeding obvious and tells us nothing.

The report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Children's Health specifically stated that they should not go back to level 2 without making changes.

Here is a copy of that report:

https://pdf4pro.com/cdn/www-coch-nhs-uk-7537c.pdf

So it would seem the managers had excellent cause for their decision.

@Firefly1987

some people on here would have a possible serial killer let out despite the fact the babies' and parents' tragedies will always trump a miscarriage of justice because nothing will come close to their pain.

Being wrongfully convicted is one of the biggest traumas a person can go through, and I'm sure if it happened to you you wouldn't be minimising it.

What's worrying is that there's some people who think well even if she didn't do it, imagine what it would do to the families for them now to be told there was no serial killer so we should leave her locked up. If she didn't do it then the families have suffered a huge injustice and that needs to be rectified.

Here is the RCPCH summary of their findings in November 2016, from https://pdf4pro.com/cdn/www-coch-nhs-uk-7537c.pdf

This report was not shared with the jury because the judge ruled it could not be introduced into evidence.

Yes, and I'm not sure that's necessarily understood by some of the people most emotionally invested in Letby's guilt.

@CommonlyKnownAs

If she's guilty, the parents are still really fucking unlucky too, because someone who was looking after their babies murdered them. This is exactly what I mean by leaving them out of your analysis.

I don't think "unlucky" really covers the depth of their tragedy. It's beyond anything anyone could ever imagine. They had terrible things happen to their precious babies because someone else caused that.

There is no explanation for the situation that doesn't involve some people being horrifically unfortunate, to an extent that most of us never experience.To that end, saying Letby would have to be really unlucky to have been fit up is bleeding obvious and tells us nothing.

As is the case with anyone who was unfortunate enough to be the victim of a serial killer. Agree it is bleeding obvious. Serial killers are still far more common than whatever the hell was happening to poor innocent nurse Letby.

Serial killers are more common than miscarriages of justice, really? Let's see some stats on that.

How does one get emotionally invested in her guilt? I do not have ANY personal reasons to want to be invested in her guilt at all. Unlike those on here who have already previously admitted they have personal reasons to believe in her innocence.

Not being emotionally invested in Letby's guilt myself, I don't know what has caused some people to feel that way. Best I can do for you is point out that it exists.

Serial killers are a lot rarer than miscarriages of justice, in fact - in the UK anyway

Maybe they simply just believe the doctors and the parents and the evidence and the jury decision-a crazy notion!

I actually have more reasons to be invested in her innocence since I am no fan of the police and have had bad experiences with the NHS as well. I'm not going to let that blind me though.

I didn't specify miscarriage of justice though-I was talking about the unique chain of events that Lucy was supposedly victim of.

Observers will decide for themselves if they think total, unquestioning faith in one set of professionals and parents who can't know what happened but believe what they've been told is a crazy notion, of course. This is a separate issue to whether those people understand that a false conviction would be a terrible injustice to the families and indeed the babies.

Let me know when you've got some evidence about the prevalence of MOJs v serial killers.

Which would be a miscarriage of justice.

Because you're clearly talking here about the hypothetical where she's innocent, otherwise you'd be saying serial killers are less common than serial killers.

@CommonlyKnownAs not all miscarriages of justice are equal. You can't compare the post office scandal or a man accused of one rape to what Lucy was accused of. It'd be far quicker if you found me instances of MOJ involving multiple rape allegations or murders in the UK. I think I'll be waiting a while on that.

Indeed you will, as you're the one who decided to make comparisons in the first place and therefore the burden of proof falls on you, nobody else. So the wait will be until roughly the twelfth of never, although part of me admires your cheek.

Personally I don't get why you even felt it necessary to compare the two in the first place. Even in the context of the world's unluckiest person competition you're holding in your head, it's a weird detour.

Being wrongfully convicted is one of the biggest traumas a person can go through, and I'm sure if it happened to you you wouldn't be minimising it.

Just trying to keep the logic consistent. I called her unlucky and got jumped on because she'll never be as unlucky as the parents so...same rules apply when it comes to locking up an "innocent" woman.

What's worrying is that there's some people who think well even if she didn't do it, imagine what it would do to the families for them now to be told there was no serial killer so we should leave her locked up. If she didn't do it then the families have suffered a huge injustice and that needs to be rectified.

No one thinks that though, if she didn't do it she should be released-surely that would be best case scenario for everyone assuming the parents believed she was innocent (which will never happen but for arguments sake) I think what people are saying is that another trial would cause unnecessary anguish-especially if found guilty again, which she would be. I mean how many trials do we need or would satisfy some people?

I would argue what's worrying is future potential Lucy Letby's are seeing this thread and all the other support for her and thinking "healthcare sounds like just the job for me to go undetected-they'll never be able to prove it and the public will back me up and demand I'm released even if I do get caught". Because there will be more like her out there.

That is an interesting angle.

If Lucy Letby had actually committed the crimes she has been convicted of, she would almost certainly have been caught.

The tale the prosecution tells involves her acting in front of eyewitnesses in tiny, fully lit rooms; tampering with insulin bags in ways that would have been evident to the nurses hanging them; inflicting venous air embolism without time to hide the effect by flushing the line.

So anyone "inspired by" her crimes is not going to have an easy time. But people aren't flocking to other cases of convicted medical serial killers in the UK, so they would be wrong to think that's the way to gain sympathy.

There is quite a good article by the Jolly Contrarian on this issue: https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php/Lucy_Letby:_unseen_criminal_edgelord

There are plenty who will always think that even if she's exonerated that there's still a small chance she did do it so she should remain locked up 'just in case', or people who think maybe she didn't do it but just leave her in jail rather than upset the families further.

I think most would be satisfied with one more trial as long as it was fair and a proper defence was mounted in court. I believe BM had wanted to introduce his expert witness after the evidence for each of the babies rather than just have him at the end and that was refused. Of course then BM didn't call him at all. If that had been allowed and she'd still been found guilty then there may be a lot less people expressing concerns now because at least some kind of defence would have been put forward at the original trial.

I highly doubt any future potential serial killer is going to think (based on this case) that they'd be able to go undetected and that no one can prove it, there was nothing that proved Letby did anything wrong yet she was convicted, and apparently all of her methods of harm were uncovered. And I highly doubt that any of them would think oh and if I do there will be a public campaign to free me....

I would not be surprised at all if there are people who believe she should stay in prison even if she’s proven innocent, to protect the families feelings.

I haven’t seen it much on this thread, this one has actually been pretty respectable and I’ve enjoyed reading it.
But on a lot of other threads/ forums you see them come on with all caps “You can’t talk about this!” “You are defending a baby killer, you’re disgusting” and so forth on repeat and you can’t engage in a discussion with them as they just continue to call you names.
So I believe it is possible.

Another thing that I thought really odd about the police's statement was they stated people would be 'celebrating the decision to drop charges and they shoulsnt' I literally have seen no one celebrating this decision and it reveals a bunker mind set verging on paranoia within the force where they believe those interested in justice seen to be done are malicious gloaters wanting the police to fail.