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?

To me the police ststement comes across as petulant; an ill considered outburst possibly due to the effort the police made trawling through neonatal deaths and s conviction they were solid with their evidence.

The police are well aware of commentary like this and we're wanting this new tranche of charges to act to reinforce their policing decisions since so much doubt has been placed on thus con victim.

Well I know who I'd want representing me if I ever needed it! And it's not someone who just wants the limelight on them all the time.

Er, most of the parents had interactions with the convicted serial killer-that's quite crucial. I guess you think the police shouldn't have interviewed them either sine they have nothing to add...you've certainly had your say along with plenty others here who weren't there at all yet think they know the ins and outs of it all.

Btw I should state I read there were parents taking part on another platform, I'm unsure if it's actually been verified. But imagine thinking the VICTIMS shouldn't have a say!

I didn't know the guy's name until you kept mentioning it.

I'd want the person who could most effectively bring my miscarriage of justice into public debate.

Seems to be doing a good job so far.

Just because you don't like him as a personality doesn't make him wrong.

Ah well, at least you can blame him then, if her CCRC / appeal cases fail, since you have this remarkable insight into his character and motivation.

If you've any evidence for your appraisal that would be interesting. He's interviewed quite often but I doubt it's hitting once a week on average - plenty of time for him to do the rest of his job.

I think you should consider whether you and his other detractors online aren't just shooting at the messenger, here.

Of course they should be interviewed by the Police in case they have evidence, what a ridiculous suggestion! But unless they saw her damaging their babies or she told them she was damaging their babies they have no evidence of any kind to offer.

I am not part of any prosecution's evidence, your comment about my involvement on this thread is irrelevant.

Neither did I say victims should not have a say. I am allowed to be deeply disturbed about a very modern trend to make victims a source of entertainment for the public and profit for the media.

Your arguments seem to be scraping the barrel now.

Of course they should be interviewed by the Police in case they have evidence, what a ridiculous suggestion! But unless they saw her damaging their babies or she told them she was damaging their babies they have no evidence of any kind to offer.

@Imdunfer those are not the only two scenarios that would provide evidence. But if that's your bar then no healthcare serial killer is ever getting sent down. I don't think that just because someone does a profession where it can always be argued over whether it was natural causes or murder means someone should just get away with their crimes by default? That goes for healthcare, police, that Shoreham pilot who got off on a technicality etc. no they need to face justice just like anyone else would.

Neither did I say victims should not have a say. I am allowed to be deeply disturbed about a very modern trend to make victims a source of entertainment for the public and profit for the media.

Like I said, I'm unsure if there even are any parents speaking out in the new documentary but if they are and you want to twist it into something it's not then that's up to you. Of course we want to hear from the parents, how is that "entertainment" though?

I haven’t said anywhere that the police statement was required. I just said I don’t have a problem with them issuing it and that it doesn’t breach professional standards.

My point about the police not being required to abandon a belief that someone has committed an offence/s was more generally referring to posters who seem to think this is an unreasonable or inappropriate position.

I think the CPS may well have been frightened by the prospect of Letby rebutting the bad character evidence against her with her expert panel. The conclusion is that the new charges won’t stand up on their own. This seems to be Mark MacDonald’s belief so in a way it does show there’s significant doubt over the convictions.

You said your definition of 'standing by' includes the police statement about the CPS. It now looks like we agree that the police issuing a statement isn't actually required in order for them to stand by the previous convictions, but in that case why include it in the definition you use? Because again, this is a different point to whether you care about them issuing it. And that matters when you're trying to describe other people's views.

I'm not sure what your second paragraph means.

Like I said, I'm unsure if there even are any parents speaking out in the new documentary but if they are and you want to twist it into something it's not then that's up to you. Of course we want to hear from the parents, how is that "entertainment" though?

Well entertainment is what Netflix are for. That's why they exist and how they make their money. It's totally up to the parents what they do, and their possible motives are a different discussion, but surely you don't think Netflix are making the documentary because of anything other the profit margin?

Obviously people can differ on whether they think this is good or bad. But it's not remotely twisting to say this is entertainment being made out of victims, for profit. That's what documentaries about true crime are.

@Firefly1987

I don't think that just because someone does a profession where it can always be argued over whether it was natural causes or murder means someone should just get away with their crimes by default? That goes for healthcare, police, that Shoreham pilot who got off on a technicality etc. no they need to face justice just like anyone else would.

Get off with it by default no, it should obviously be thoroughly investigated, but unless the evidence proves that they did it then they should not be locked up. It's completely unfair to accept a lower bar just because it's more difficult to get concrete evidence. Times have changed but you are happy to go backwards.

You're concerned that potential serial killers will start going into healthcare to get away with killing people, a far bigger concern would be that normal people would be afraid to work in healthcare.

@kkloo you can't ever prove 100% that she did it though. I mean you would think the insulin results were proof beyond reasonable doubt but even those are being argued. People can argue anything in that setting. It's just one excuse after another for her. So you ARE in actual fact saying nurses should get let off by default unless one was stupid enough to do it in front of an audience (and then it could be argued they were administering care and a baby collapsing shortly after was sheer coincidence) It's not going backwards just because some people on social media that weren't there, weren't on the jury think the bar hasn't been met. There will always be people out there who don't like a verdict-just tough really isn't it. I don't like that they let that pilot off but it is what it is.

You're concerned that potential serial killers will start going into healthcare to get away with killing people, a far bigger concern would be that normal people would be afraid to work in healthcare.

That is a concern but unless someone is deliberately harming babies then they really have nothing to worry about.

One major problem with the insulin test results is that they are no more connected with Lucy Letby than anyone else on the ward. Let's ignore any concerns about testing errors or interpretation. Three tests threw up results that we are told showed poisoning. One of them was conducted while Lucy Letby was in shift.

It's reasonable to want a higher standard of proof than this.

You really are impossible to argue this with sensibly you know?

A long time ago someone explained to you that a baby can collapse suddenly because of something that happened on a previous shift. You keep banging on about insulin but nobody saw her administer excess insulin, nobody can verify any insulin was even missing. You're certain that the feelings of the parents should have an impact on justice.

You really don't seem to understand what "beyond reasonable doubt" means.

@Firefly1987 I'm saying that everyone should get off the evidence isn't convincing, I don't agree with a situation where just because it's hard to get in some instances that that should mean we accept a lower bar. You're ok with locking people up even though the evidence doesn't actually prove any crime was committed, that is 100% backwards, it's like medieval times.

Of course there's something to worry about and health professionals are indeed worried about it, even though they're not harming anyone.

So in other words you're perfectly happy to accept there was a serial killer it just so happens to NOT be the one they've locked up? Who is it more likely to be?

Oh the old "nobody saw her" again-yawn. I'm sure she had amply opportunity to do it. Did anyone see Beverley Allitt or Victorino Chua?

No, no one directly witnessed Beverley Allitt in the act of murdering or attacking the children in her care [1.17].
Instead, Allitt was convicted based on circumstantial evidence, most notably that she was the only nurse on duty for all 13 incidents of sudden collapses (including four deaths and nine injuries) on the children’s ward at Grantham and Kesteven General Hospital in 1991

No one was keeping track of whether any insulin was "missing" or not-she didn't take it home with her she used it there and then and they did go through more insulin than the previous year.

You're certain that the feelings of the parents should have an impact on justice.

I never said that I said more evidence exists than "the parents saw her do it" or "she told the parents she did it" which is an almost impossible bar of evidence to meet for someone who had plenty of time alone to attack babies.

You really don't seem to understand what "beyond reasonable doubt" means.

Oh well, me and the whole court system and jury then-I'd rather be on that side.

No - I'm saying that even if we accept that the insulin cases meant attempted murder, we have no grounds to consider Lucy Letby the culprit.

Obviously, if we can't find a culprit, we can't lock anyone up.

So when you use the insulin cases as an example of why we much consider it justifiable to imprison Lucy Letby, I can't agree with you.

@Oftenaddled well thankfully police investigations are a bit more in depth than "oh we can't prove x so lets just give up". The more I'm on this thread the more I realise how little concept some people have of circumstantial evidence and why they're having such a hard time with the verdict. They already long suspected her before the insulin evidence even came to light.

@Firefly1987

Oh well, me and the whole court system and jury then-I'd rather be on that side.

The court system isn't infallible, hence why the CRCC exists as part of a process to set things right when the original verdicts were unsafe, to ensure that the justice system does in fact stay true to the standards they are supposed to uphold.

Your problem is that you keep posing problems, then changing the terms when people don't reply as you want them to.

Another thing to think about is that people can understand what circumstantial evidence is and that it can indeed be used to solve crimes without believing that the police had any valuable circumstantial evidence in this case. I certainly can't think of any that made any difference to the insulin cases.

The only one who doesn't understand anything here is you.
Everyone understands circumstantial evidence.
You just don't seem to understand the difference between circumstantial evidence that is strong and circumstantial evidence that is weak.

You seem to think that if circumstantial evidence exists that it then has to mean something, they could have gathered 'circumstantial evidence' against anyone on that ward, the doctors who turned the monitor off, the other nurse who the mother thought had harmed her baby, doesn't actually prove anything or mean anything though.

Neither is the CPS-so hopefully the decision not to take any charges further is challenged. The fact the police could find evidence against her for a further NINE babies-even though none met the CPS threshold is quite something. From her previous hospital too. But yeah it's all a conspiracy-they picked the charges out of thin air. How many babies is she suspected of harming now?

https://archive.is/gusR2

Mark McDonald saying the CPS were afraid of the initial verdicts being challenged.

“However, Mark McDonald, Letby’s barrister, argued that the decision was probably influenced by a desire to prevent the defence from challenging the safety of Letby’s previous convictions in open court. The CPS is understood to deny this claim.”