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?

An unsafe conviction . She needs a retrial at the very least .

I still think she’s guilty of the deaths she’s in prison for. The evidence of the “new” experts was completely dismantled in a TV documentary recently-apologies I can’t remember the name of it. And I think her new lawyer is not much better than the last one she had.

I think this points more to an issue on that particular unit than with LL herself

Not only was she not on duty every time a baby died, she wasn't even on duty when all the ones she's been convicted of murdering died.

It also isn't necessarily the case that if she didn't kill them, someone else did. A third option is that it was nobody.

No she was on duty when those babies died there were other excess deaths when she wasn’t on shift those weren’t investigated because she wasn’t there

No, he's retired and also reckons he didn't expect there to be more changes.

I agree getting expert evidence for any more prosecutions was always likely to be tough. Wherever you sit on this, it's a circus, and there are some obvious problems. Lots of good reasons not to want to risk your reputation wading in.

Prof Hindmarsh as well suddenly left his job and then retired so I doubt he would be available either

She’s blatantly guilty of the crimes convicted of but I think it was always going to be hard to pin more of them on her. She’s not going to get out any time soon (or at all in fact) so while there isn’t justice as such, the outcome would be no different.

There were a few more deaths and collapses, six I think. They weren’t unexpected or suspicious. The fact she alone was present for 24 deaths or near deaths when nobody else came remotely close isn’t invalidated by there being a few more that weren’t included in the investigation. She wasn’t convicted on statistical likelihood either. And nobody has suggested there was someone else murdering the patients. There were other patients who died and collapsed when Beverley Allit, Ben Geen and Victorino Chua killed too. So what? Some of Harold Shipman’s patients would also have died of natural causes. Doesn’t invalidate Letby’s guilt and I’m glad the courts understand that even if the average internet user doesn’t.

The evidence that any murders occurred at all is scant.

Oh well, two juries and the court of appeal disagree.

I'm interested that anyone thinks they can say which particular piece of evidence someone was 'convicted on'. Unless you were a juror you don't know what weight was given to any specific point the defence made.

Because the prosecution never used statistics as part of their argument. They never said that she must be guilty because the rate of deaths was higher than average and she was the one present for them. They did say she was present for all suspicious incidents which is what that table was but that is a given seeing that she couldn’t have done it if she wasn’t there.

You are literally describing the use of statistics in the prosecution case there. That happened, and nobody except the jury knows what weight they gave to any statistics. Thus means nobody can say she was or wasn't convicted on the statistics, or any other piece of evidence that was presented.

Also, one of the murders she was convicted of she wasn't there.

I think it has been shown that she was on duty when those babies died and the police/prosecution conveniently didn't mention all the babies that died when she wasn't on duty.

I'm fairly cynical. I was a NICU nurse years ago. I don't think for one minute that her convictions are safe. I don't think she is guilty of murder.

I think this is a miscarriage of justice and that the hospital is responsible for systematic failings. If reports that ward rounds were twice per week, that is shocking. ICU ward rounds are twice per day, every day, 365/366 days per year.

It wasn’t based on statistics. And which was the murder she was convicted for but was never present for?

How do you know it wasn't based on the statistical evidence you admit the court provided? Not a guess, proof.

Baby K, who died elsewhere. Edit- think we might be talking at cross purposes for this one though? I'm referring to the fact that this baby died later on.

She wasn’t even there for all the babies she supposedly harmed.
There was the one she supposedly poisoned with insulin while not there by magically knowing in advance which bag the nurse on duty would pick, and the one whose x rays showed damage she had supposedly caused, even though she turned out not to have even met the baby at the point when the x rays were taken.
The jury didn’t have all this information and did the best they could with the evidence before them, but a lot has come out since and anyone who still thinks she is guilty by this point really hasn’t been paying attention.

I can absolutely understand why an innocent person wrote that. Especially as other people have pointed out that she also wrote about being innocent too.

You would feel responsible as a caregiver if a baby died on your watch. Even if you knew rationally that there was nothing at all you could do. Parents that lose children through no fault of their own feel that guilt. I should have done more, I should have acted sooner, I shouldn’t have gone out, I did this… it is human nature to blame ourselves for things we didn’t do. Imagine that happening to you over and over again. It takes a strong person to work with very very sick people, with added strength again if those people are babies. I don’t find it difficult at all to understand why the cumulative impacts of a number of neonatal deaths coupled with managerial suspicion that you caused them, would cause you to look inwards.

And yes, she was on shift almost all of the time. I don’t think that is evidence enough to convict. If they were all just normal patients, maybe. Even then it’s circumstantial. But they weren’t. The babies that died were all preemies, and she wasn’t present for all of them anyway. It’s a leap.

The very worst thing about this is that the parents are being dragged through hell. I don’t blame them for blaming Letby. I do believe that the hospital management would have reason for her to be a convenient scapegoat. We have a national maternity scandal. Many of our hospitals are failing new families. It would be very convenient for there to be a serial killer, but statistically- what is more likely? That this is another failing hospital.

I would really like to see a retrial. I don’t believe the evidence used to convict Letby is secure and I don’t believe the deaths of the babies were investigated properly, through a lens of looking for the truth, not seeking to confirm a bias. If Letby did it, she deserves to rot in jail. But if there’s a chance that this was because of systemic failures in care that were covered up, it can happen again.

Personally I think anyone who wants to be a part of her fan club should be ashamed of themselves nd clearly has 0 empathy for the families of the babies she so gleefully murdered.

There’s been waffle and waffle and waffle about how all this evidence is going to be presented and presented and presented, and oh look. Nothing.

she deserves to rot in hell.

Distressed yes. But surely if she was that unstable she was capable of anything?

Because the prosecution never presented an argument that was based on inferences from statistics. Read the court of appeal judgment.

Baby K? She was convicted of attempted murder for baby K and she was present for that. I wasn’t aware that baby K later died but it’s totally incorrect to say she wasn’t even there for one of the murders she was convicted of. She wasn’t convicted of Baby K’s murder (and it’s possible for victims to die a lot later than when the injuries were inflicted and when the perpetrator is no longer in the vicinity).

Agree

She didnt. I firmly believe Lucy was scapegoated for the incompetence of those higher up

Sure she was. Thats why the consultants on the ward had to practically beg the management to take their concerns seriously and there was zero pressure on management to find a scapegoat. 🙄