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?

But they didn't do that at the time-so all we have to go with is what was done. But yes thank you that's the kind of thing I was after.

There really isn't anything close enough for me to develop into a fantasy scenario where I'd find Lucy Letby guilty on circumstancial evidence. It's not a game I'm interested in playing - sorry. I don't see the point.

Right so it's only the people who think she's guilty that have to change their minds and not be "obtuse"?

@Firefly1987 What's the point of that exercise?

You want us to imagine that they found evidence that they didn't actually find that would have convinced us?

You're being obtuse again.

It's fine to think that she's guilty.

It's the fact that people just refuse to accept, not that she could be innocent, but that other people have valid reasons to believe she may be innocent, despite those valid arguments being laid out very clearly, in a simple way.

You don't have to think it may have been a miscarriage of justice, but pretending you can't understand why others would have concerns is obtuse, or else you're just deluded and genuinely can't see why.

While I don't know much about Beverley Allitt's case, I do know that the investigative was close enough to the alleged crimes that blood samples etc could be kept for the investigation and tested in multiple ways in multiple labs. Clifton also assembled 60 expert advisors before concluding that there had been deliberate harm and looking for a culprit, rather than relying on one man who volunteered his services and advised against bringing in other experts.

So on these two counts alone, I would say he had significantly more to go on than investigators had for Lucy Letby.

There was evidence against Allit, though, including injection marks on the victims and high potassium levels alongside high insulin, neither of which is present in Letby's case.

Allit also doesn't have dozens of highly regarded medical professionals questioning the safety of her conviction or the quality of the evidence used to convict her.

The two cases are not comparable.

I want you to acknowledge the possibility that they didn't look at the scenario that these deaths were natural in very sick very young babies or medical accidents, in spite of the fact that there were no suspicions at all about some of those deaths until after they decided that others were murdered.

Would you like me to provide more detective quotes? Of course no one was suspicious at the time-do you think anyone is looking for murder every time a premature baby dies in units across the country? Well maybe they are now...

But you are utterly closed minded about her guilt and completely blind to the lack of safety in her convictions.

And likewise people are blind to her guilt!

You feel more comfortable "knowing" the person responsible for those deaths is locked up than facing the thought that the situation in that hospital, or even another person, could possibly be the cause because that would mean it could all happen again.

No more than anyone else wants an evil baby killer off the streets. Well some of us do anyway. Not sure that view needs psychoanalysing.

And serial killers can learn from the mistakes of those that went before. Lucy was unlikely to use the exact same methods that got Beverley Allitt caught. The air embolism course she took less than two weeks before baby A's death was the perfect cover.

There was no air embolism course. There's no such thing.

She completed her qualification in specialism course for caring for babies in intensive care settings. Nurses would be well aware of the dangers of air embolism long before that point in their training.

You had suggested that Clifton must have had nothing on Allitt since he is saying that the Cheshire team had nothing on Lucy Letby.

@frequency and I are pointing out that the evidence base and the investigation process were quite different.

So actually asking you what you'd consider strong evidence is a game now? How strange! Just goes to show you have no answers to how this investigation could've been done better and/or are unwilling to accept her guilt no matter what.

Why isn’t everyone up in arms about the fact that this chart was central to the Allit investigation, and is what convinced Stuart Clifton and his team that she was guilty?

True-it was covered in that course though.

That's really not the question you asked. I think you must know that.

@rubbishatballet wow I didn't know that! They should definitely quash her convictions if they relied on that chart...

There's not a scintilla of evidence nor any admission from anyone that it was covered in that course. That's a tabloid invention.

Once you have demonstrated that a crime actually took place, placing someone at the scene of the crime is a reasonable step in identifying the culprit. That is the point Clifton is making - that this investigation started from the wrong place with the assumption that there was a crime by virtue of statistical patterns.

This is not what happened with Allitt.

Would you like me to provide more detective quotes?

Why would I want you to go on making the same points which don't support your case as you think they do over and over and over again?

Of course no one was suspicious at the time-do you think anyone is looking for murder every time a premature baby dies in units across the country? Well maybe they are now...

How about the more likely explanation that no-one was suspicious because the death wasn't suspicious?

And likewise people are blind to her guilt!

Hope many times do we have to keep repeating this - her guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

No more than anyone else wants an evil baby killer off the streets. Well some of us do anyway. Not sure that view needs psychoanalysing.

Do you even understand how utterly offensive that comment is, suggesting that some people don't want a baby killer off the streets?

It literally is? And you're not prepared to say because you just like criticising the case and saying how they did it all wrong.

I think people have been pretty nice. A lot nicer than if I came here convinced Andrew Mountbatten Windsor or someone of the like wasn't guilty...

There's a difference between demanding that people come up with fantasy scenarios and asking what they would consider strong evidence.

I'm not prepared to keep inventing fantasy evidence for you to keep coming back saying oh it has to be something different.

If you are planning to make a point related to fantasy evidence, why don't you just invent it yourself and make your point (without claiming it's true of course)?

If you've something to say, just go on and say it. It will give a better impression of your argument than these outbursts of random abuse

Had they definitely demonstrated that a crime actually took place? They made the decision to arrest Allit off the back of the chart, less than three weeks into the entire investigation.

They opened the investigation in April and arrested Allitt in September. In the meantime, they undertook the steps in testing I've described above.

As I said, it's not a case I'm greatly informed on, so I wouldn't attempt to argue about it in detail. I can simply say that even a superficial knowledge shows that they gave careful attention to the question of whether there had been a crime, and subjected medical samples to rigorous testing by genuine experts. So long as that happens, a shift chart in itself is not a problem - it sits in that category of useful circumstancial evidence that we have been discussing, even if not probative in itself.

Why would I want you to go on making the same points which don't support your case as you think they do over and over and over again?

Maybe because you keep saying the same thing about them not looking at other possible scenarios despite the police quotes directly contradicting this? Just say you think the police are liars then and we'll draw a line under it.

Do you even understand how utterly offensive that comment is, suggesting that some people don't want a baby killer off the streets?

My point was, I have no personal reasons to be comforted in knowing she's in jail beyond not wanting it to happen to anyone else which I'm sure goes for all of us. So no point trying to work out why I'm so adamant of her guilt beyond just believing she is guilty. Unlike those who have admitted they have personal reasons to mistrust the NHS or justice system. So whether you believe it or not, she could be a serial killer back on the streets if some on here have their way.