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?

Because every family needs to have their day in court. If someone you love was murdered, you’d likely not be satisfied knowing the perpetrator was already in prison for life for committing another murder. You’d want justice and a trial for the murder of your loved one too.

Can you point me to the point in the Court of Appeal judgement where they claim to know how the jury weighed the various pieces of evidence including the table the prosecution presented that contained statistics please? I'd like the specific reference, so we can be clear what you're claiming here.

MN need to start removing these threads IMO.

It’s one thing to have had a discussion about it at some point, but there has been thread upon thread upon thread of Lucy Letby defenders, with anyone who dares to suggest she’s the murderer that she is being shot down for suggesting it. Never mind that she’s been convicted, sentenced, and denied the chance to appeal.

This is a parenting site.

This should be a space where her victims could seek support if they needed to do so.

But no parent of any of the babies Lucy Letby murdered would feel safe seeking support here, because instead of MN being a supportive site for the victims of Lucy Letby, it’s turned into the Lucy Letby fan club.

I’m sure there are plenty of Reddit pages and what-not where people can go and worship a murderer, mn isn’t and shouldn’t be it.

They acknowledged/confirmed that the prosecution case was never based on statistics. I dont have the judgment to hand at the moment. Presenting a table showing one member of staff was there for all suspicious collapses is neither a statistical argument, nor particularly controversial.

The woman is guilty. I genuinely cannot understand the mindset of anyone who defends her. It must be the same one that women who marry death row prisoners have.

(The insulin bag 'defence' is particularly laughable, whichever one was contaminated would be given to a baby at some point in the near future)

This is a serious miscarriage of justice, concerning an area of great concern to a number of Mumsnetters, neonatal care and the possibility that a nurse has been scapegoated in order to cover up inadequacies in provision.
If you can’t think of a reason why that might be a topic of concern on a parenting site other than ‘worshipping’ a murderer maybe you need to think a bit harder.

It’s really not. It’s a media circus run by her clown lawyer (who by the way also thinks Ben Geen is an innocent scapegoat. The one found with a literal syringe containing the drug he used to kill patients in his pocket).

What is not right is that they were bringing extra charges to try to make the conviction of the first set more solid, but that first set was based on no solid evidence whatsoever, and the CPS say this set aren't good enough either.

Her conviction is terribly unsafe if you read all the "evidence".

LL on the other hand, had no solid evidence against her at all. The two cases are not connected just because they have the same layer, who probably special in medical defense claims and is required to defend his client even if he knows he's a guilty as sin.

wtf. She was convicted after two trials, both lasting a very long time. She had a review of her evidence in her application for appeal and it was rejected. The convictions are rock solid. The police have no reason to make the original convictions “more solid”. They were investigating because they had information suggesting that she had committed further crimes so they need to investigate. And no, her conviction is not unsafe.

And yet a panel of world leading neonatologists and other relevant experts, unlike the out of date, touting-for-work Dewi Evans, looked at the evidence and decided the ‘clown lawyer’ was right.

You're slightly off target there. It's the mindset of rational, intelligent people who have actually studied the "evidence" and spent the whole trial saying "they're never going to get a convict on that, it simply isn't being reasonable doubt".

There was NO solid evidence and a key witness lied in court about whether she had called for assistance.

You can’t see the difference between sexual attraction to violent men and concern over shockingly weak evidence convicting someone for murders that didn’t take place. Ok….

It is unsafe, there are plenty of top lawyers who think it is unsafe.

There is a HUGE bias in these discussion on MN. It is very disturbing to believe that a maternity unit could be so unsafe. It is far easier to cope mentally with the thought that there was one mad woman and she has been caught.

What evidence do you rely on to persist in your belief that the conviction is safe? No actual evidence of her directly causing harm to a baby was presented at the trial.

I don’t think he does specialise in that, no. He’s not particularly well respected in the legal profession but is a publicity seeker who has jumped on this case. LL has plenty of evidence against her, including but not limited to tampering with medical notes to present herself in a better light, failing to record certain information, repeatedly entering the room of babies not in her care and needing to be told to go back to her own charges. If you want to ignore all that be my guest but I’m glad the jury had more sense, as well as the appeal court judges. Also BG obviously had an explanation for having the syringe and says he is a scapegoat. The cases aren’t wildly different.

Here's the judgement.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf

Now can you find the part that you think says how the jury weighed up the various pieces of evidence, in particular the statistical stuff the prosecution prevented?

She still won’t get out. Sorry.

Two juries would disagree with you. As would anyone with half a brain.

You clearly don't understand how the appeal process works. Thanks for confirming the ignorant foundation for your aggressive assertions.

All circumstancial evidence and none at all of her actually harming one single baby, an expert witness who wasn't competent to state what he stated, the source of his information saying he got it wrong, a doctor lying in court about whether she called for assistance, canning CQC inspections about the standard of care at the hospital, incorrect evidence about who was on shift at the time ........

Lots of people posting on these threads need to look up the definition of "beyond reasonable doubt" in our legal system.

I think people find it hard to believe that a young , innocent looking nurse can be guilty of something so awful.

Sometimes people do things without logic. Those include people in positions of trust and power- police officers, nurses, teachers.

I have faith that the jury was right. They had access to evidence that we’ll never see.

Are you living in an echo chamber? There have been numerous Inquiries into UK maternity services. ALL of them have said services are unsafe!

I'm a member of one of the legal professions, I don't recall anyone surveying us to ask our views on any of LLs legal representatives. It is quite odd to be making assertions about the way people are viewed in the entirety of a profession without any way to back it up. Dare one say it, someone with legal training would caveat a claim like that much better!

Please stop with the offensive personal comments.

I've worked in the legal system and also been a juror, so I have some experience of how they work. Judges are frequently astounded by the verdicts that juries hand down.

Juries found a man not guilty of murdering his wife when he left an argument to go back to his workshop to pick up a hammer and went back and stoved her head in. Another found not guilty of the same offence had already dug a grave in a wood.

Juries are far from infallible.

The jury were told of her convictions in the second trial. Nobody, but nobody, in either trial would not have read the media coverage until that point. She was guilty before she walked in the room.