Lucy Letby ( To understand)

[PassingStranger]

What made her kill these babies. Been in the news again today.

It's hard to understand?
Presume as she is in prison and not a hospital, she is not mentally ill?

Will anyone try to find out, I guess if people don't admit they are guilty it's hard too.

Instead of people saying give me 5 mins in a cell with her, surely it's better to stop this happening or maybe it's not possible?
Why does she want to be one of the most hated women in the universe and not give a shit about the babies families and even her own parents?

So much better to be known for doing something nice and have people like you?
AIBU to wonder why she took this road in life?

The Guardian reports:

“When questioned by the prosecution, Lee accepted he had not assessed any of the victims’ medical records in Letby’s case or seen any of the witness testimony provided by other medical staff, who noted strange rashes on a number of the dead babies.”

The cost question is not in relation to why Hall was not called, but why there weren’t other expert witnesses.

I'm stunned that people think that £1.5m was a lot to defend a case like this, in 2023.

This was a case trying a serial killer who apparently murdered babies, a case that was going to go down in history, whether she was convicted or not.

For reference Ian Huntley and Maxine Carrs legal aid bill was over £1.3m and that was in 2003!!! And that trial only lasted 5 weeks or so compared to the 10 months or whatever it was that the Letby trial took.

I would have expected multiples of £1.5m for Letbys defence tbh!!

You’re selectively quoting to make it sound like the judge didn’t give a shit about the victims and only cared about Bundy’s wasted potential. The whole thing:

The court finds that both of these killings were indeed heinous, atrocious and cruel. And that they were extremely wicked, shockingly evil, vile and the product of a design to inflict a high degree of pain and utter indifference to human life. This court, independent of, but in agreement with the advisory sentence rendered by the jury does hereby impose the death penalty upon the defendant Theodore Robert Bundy.

It is further ordered that on such scheduled date that you'll be put to death by a current of electricity, sufficient to cause your immediate death, and such current of electricity shall continue to pass through your body until you are dead.

Take care of yourself, young man. I say that to you sincerely; take care of yourself. It is an utter tragedy for this court to see such a total waste of humanity, I think, as I've experienced in this courtroom.

You're a bright young man. You'd have made a good lawyer and I would have loved to have you practice in front of me, but you went another way, partner. I don't feel any animosity toward you. I want you to know that. Once again, take care of yourself.

Controversial, but a lot more nuanced than “the judge even praised Bundy.” It’s not unusual for US judges to say things like “take care of yourself” or “good luck to you” at a sentencing.

His testimony was that the “only sign” of air embolus was pink blood vessels “superimposed” on a pink or blue body.

These strange rashes were not noted at the time. The rashes that were described contemporaneously were to be expected in the clinical circumstances - sepsis, CPR etc. These rashes grew with the telling in parenthesis.

Air embolism is generally diagnosed at the time, and can be diagnosed in a post mortem - but were not. You cannot diagnose air embolus many years after the event on the basis of description of rashes or an X-ray - that is basic bad science.

My intention wasn't to selectively quote. I was only referring to the part that the previous poster referred to, which you then paraphrased.

I would have thought it was obvious that that wasn't all he said and that he obviously condemned him for the brutal crimes. I didn't think that part needed to be said!

The defence hasn’t claimed that the funding levels hindered the case, amongst their other spurious claims, so not sure what there is to be stunned by.

I have wondered if she has a personality disorder, which is not exactly a mental illness. A lot of people with PD gravitate to jobs where they have some kind of power. Certain parts of the medical profession are renowned for this (surgeons have a very high chance of being psychopaths for example). But if she had a PD she may have got a kick from having the power of life and death, or even being able to hurt someone. She also seems very immature, so she may have picked babies because she could not cope with people who may fight back.

I said it clearly in my post what I was stunned by.
I'm 'stunned' that people think that £1.5m was a lot to defend a case like this, in 2023.

I didn't express an opinion that the defence weren't given enough funding. I just don't think it's a lot to spend.

I think it is different if you are a health professional though. It would be one thing to do a search because a patient had mentioned something to you or asked you to look at it. But just being interested or nosy about people is a line you should not be crossing as a professional.

Okay, I get it. We’re good. 🙂

What you said was: The most likely reason the Defence called no expert witnesses in her defence, is because they couldn’t get anyone that supported her case.

That’s an odd way of expressing it given that you’re apparently barrister. That the expert evidence can be used in support of the case doesn’t meant the expert supports the case personally. An important distinction.

A psychiatrist may be called by the defence in a murder trial to confirm that the defendant has diagnosed schizophrenia for example, that doesn’t mean he supports the defendant’s case.

It’s not an odd way of expressing it. Entirely standard lingo. Anyway. Zero energy for this. Crack on with your conspiracy theories.

Standard lingo is one thing - I can well see KCs would say that colloquially - however claiming that the defence couldn’t get anyone to appear in support of this case such as this bizarre.

Fuck all to do with conspiracy. Everything to do with science: scientific evidence and the lack of it in this trial. That’s what this case stands and falls on. So crack on with your bad science.

(And roll on the retrial in 10 years and God knows how much more public money down the drain).

I agree that 1.5million is not a lot to spend on a top barrister for a 10 month trial. That was probably just his salary and his staff. He should have applied to increase the budget. No idea why he didn’t. She may well be guilty. But based on the evidence and her terrible defence with no experts I don’t think it’s a safe conviction. If you are going to lock someone up for that long you want to make sure they are guilty and leave no doubt.

Did anyone read the recent New Yorker article arguing for her innocence? It makes quite a case.

So what do you actually think?

If you believe it’s better for a hospital to say they had a serial killer than they were failing to provide care due to staffing then you’re deluded. The New Yorker article left out swathes of evidence. the deaths of two children via insulin that cannot be explained any way other than intentional and she is the only person always there. Her obsession with being the centre of every crash call. The restraining order after she was dismissed by the doctor she was infatuated with. The fact she sent sympathy/birthday cards every year to just the babies who she was accused of. Pristine freshly printed handover sheets and 500 documents in boxes. She had years to remove all those things which were you innocent you might think oh those don’t look good. She kept them as they were trophies.

People will grasp at straws to say she’s innocent because we don’t want to believe that some people are truly evil.

I don't think any of the facts you stated there are facts at all so you don't know nearly as much about this case as you think you do. You're just repeating tabloid crap.

First of all there were no insulin deaths.
There was no restraining order either.
She also didn't send sympathy and birthday cards every year to just the babies she was accused of. Fairly sure she only sent 1 sympathy card.
I believe the handover sheets that were 'pristine' were the ones that she kept from her very first shifts .

I'm sorry but I will never understand how someone could hurt wnd kill a defenseless baby.

She falls into a specific category of killer, other examples in a similar ilk being Beverley Allitt, Harold Shipman and Charles Cullen.

YABU to try to understand from a normal perspective, as very far from normal - abhorrent for most. I think this is partly where the ignorance of conspiracists shows.

Further faulty thinking due to conflating other factors such physical appearance - young, ordinary prettiness, slim. Middle class family. Hen do and day at the races photos. Children’s nurse, poster girl for the charity, blah blah blah.

i certainly don’t believe the whole thing was just about attracting attention from one doctor. Yes, she clearly liked the attention (as from other colleagues and her bosses), but she’s clearly sadistic, as highlighted by the judge, inflicting and watching the effects of physical pain as well as thriving on the emotional pain she inflicted on the families (visiting Facebook page 2 years after in the recent case).

Belongs in prison as she’s culpable, ‘bad’ not unwell. I’d be surprised if she’ll ever own up though…

It will have cost more than 1.5 mil , the final fees hadn't been submitted when the LAA quoted that figure

They aren't just given a pot of money to spend as they like, legal aid doesn't work that way ,which is why the LAA didn't know how much it would end up costing just after the case concluded

As for not being able to get expert witnesses because of cost, wouldn't happen. Her defence would have been complaining to the judge/LAA if they were refused funding for witnesses

Even cases not envolving multiple murders can run into 10s of thousands just for expert witnesses

I am not convinced either way. But I don’t think her defence did a good job at all. I don’t believe they couldn’t find any experts to testify considering how many experts have given opinions on the case since the trial. Especially regarding the insulin evidence.

But the judge accepted that what Dr Jayaram described in Baby A as being an air embolism could be submitted as evidence, based on Dr Jayaram’s reading of a medical paper on cases on air embolisms in neonates and also that baby O’s dad’s description of his baby’s veins being ‘bright, bright blue’ was in keeping with an air embolism.

Dr Jayaram raised the strange, moving rashes as being indicative of air embolisms with the police in 2017.

The medical paper that Dr Jayaram relied on and which the judge accepts can be submitted as evidence does not limit air embolisms to being pink blood vessels superimposed on a pink or blue body. There were around 50 cases of air embolisms reviewed in the paper and there were other variations of appearances.

The judge notes in his comments that the defence thoroughly questioned the expert witnesses brought by the prosecution.

So this was the defence strategy, rather than bring out their own expert witnesses.