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?

Some people just want to see the world burn. Mental health issues or not. Some people are just pure evil and there is a fine line that once crossed you can't come back from. How does one redeem themselves from such acts.
It is a shame this country doesn't have stricter consequences for such vile creatures. People know they can play the system and get lighter sentencing and have a grand old time behind bars off taxpayers. That should not be the case for such crimes.

As someone who worked in NICU and SCBU often I don't know how any human could ever do this. And as a worker I always engage with the parents/carers and explain what I am doing and allow them to stay and watch if they wanted to.
It makes me fearful to have a child in this situation.
We like to think abuse of power is rare but in my line of work I seen it happen a lot not to this extent but in other ways. And I am fearful to leave a vulnerable child out of my sight in a hospital setting for sure.

I was responding to Mirabai’s post which suggested the defence did not call expert witnesses because they didn’t get enough legal air budget.

I think the legal aid agency would take a dim view of solicitors/barristers using their funds of £1.5m on lawyers fees and not spending £180 per hour on a neonatologist (which is the max the legal aid authority allows to be claimed) if required.

It was a bad strategy and IMO meant that she had an inadequate defence. As a juror I would want to hear from an expert, not just listen to a barrister saying how that the evidence for air embolus was weak.
It's not like he had to pick one or the other, question the witnesses himself OR call expert witnesses. He could and should have done both.

I'm sure if there ever is an appeal that it's going to be a long time from now and that her having an inadequate defence in the trial will form part of the appeal.

She had a defence team most normal folk could only dream of (a top silk KC).

She also used this KC for her appeal hearing this year so she seems to disagree with you that she had an inadequate defence.

I know she used the same team, and I didn't think she'd have a hope of getting an appeal with the same team.
The fact she used the same team doesn't mean that she disagrees that she had an inadequate defence, but perhaps it was just a desperate plea to try to get an appeal heard as soon as possible.

Also from the New Yorker article
"Letby is housed in a privately run prison west of London, the largest correctional facility for women in Europe. Letters to prisoners are screened, and I don’t know if several letters that I sent ever reached her. One of her lawyers, Richard Thomas, who has represented her since early in the case, said that he would tell Letby that I had been in touch with him, but he ignored my request to share a message with her, instead reminding me of the contempt-of-court order. He told me, “I cannot give any comment on why you cannot communicate” with Letby. Lawyers in England can be sanctioned for making remarks that would undermine confidence in the judicial system. I sent Myers, Letby’s barrister, several messages in the course of nine months, and he always responded with some version of an apology—“the brevity of this response is not intended to be rude in any way”—before saying that he could not talk to me."

It makes me wonder how much contact she has had with anyone else.

She may have been in a hurry to lodge an appeal, but she could have instructed new lawyers for the hearing, which was 10 months later.

I imagine she was allowed as much contact with her lawyers as she wanted, acting reasonably. Legal advisor visits don’t count towards the allowance for social visits. Prisoners have an absolute right to have visits from their solicitor.

Yes she could have but if she was in fact innocent then there's a high chance she wasn't in the right frame of mind to do that.

Yeah she was allowed contact with her lawyers, I meant I wonder how much contact she was allowed with anyone else and I wonder if she was receiving letters etc

An expert witness has to be willing to be called. Their reputation and career is on the line. It's pretty damning that no-one was called. Either their witness wouldn't have stood up to cross examination or the witness backed out.

I agree with this.

I think her being innocent is wishful thinking with no basis on evidence.

Even her parents didn’t attend her hearing this time, even though they were there every day for her original trial. Perhaps they’ve finally taken off the rose tinted specs.

kkloo

I'm sure if there ever is an appeal that it's going to be a long time from now and that her having an inadequate defence in the trial will form part of the appeal.

She’s had her appeal, this was her opportunity. No more appeals.

There would need to be very significant new evidence to get another appeal, which is unlikely.

I don't know whether she was innocent or not, but I do know that the evidence presented wouldn't have convinced me of her guilt and I do believe that there are experts out there who could have thrown doubt on some of the prosecutions theories.

Her parents not attending doesn't mean anything either way. Who knows? Maybe they have in fact decided she's guilty as sin....or maybe they just couldn't attend as it was too upsetting and even if she was found not guilty she was going back to jail anyway.

I said if there ever is an appeal it's going to be a long time from now (because I am aware that her only option will be the CCRC) I don't know why you seem to be deliberately misinterpreting all of my posts.

No.

I'm doing a degree with the OU. They asked for volunteers to do internet research because prisoners are not allowed the internet. The prisoner tells you what they want to read and it has to be printed out.

If they are, it is severely restricted. A fellow student teacher worked in a young offenders centre, their computers could only access the BBC news website.

Actually that was pre covid, I don't know if things changed. I know a lot of prisoners got a phone in their cells during covid because they were basically locked in their cells 24/7.

She had an amazing defence team, that most people could only dream to afford, but hard to argue against the compelling evidence. If it was in her interests, other witnesses would have been called; it wasn’t.

Evidence meticulously dissected over months

No grounds for appeal, no new evidence so rightfully thrown out. Waste of time and public money, agony for the families. 2nd Jury have convicted on another case,

It took a long time for her crimes to come to light, as far from a scapegoat she was protected by powerful people with blinkers on and head in sand.

Versus a pathetic pop piece in US with more holes than Swiss cheese.

But mad conspiracies are fuelled by AIs, disruptive elements and idiots every day.

A lot of missing young people who should be about to break up for their school holidays, devastated families who deserve our respect, she had a privilege and abused it for her own reasons I don’t want to give any more air time than I have. She’s still breathing, others are not.

But you weren’t presented with the evidence, the jury was. And they found her unanimously guilty.

You seem to think you know more than a unanimous jury because of one New Yorker article.

If there were experts out there, her slick and expensive lawyers would have found them. It’s more wishful thinking.

Agreed we don’t know why her parents didn’t attend, but I found it quite telling. She may have privately confessed to them now.

She was found guilty of attempted murder though insulin poisoning. The babies surviving doesn’t absolve her.

“First, after 76 hours of discussions, the jury unanimously found her guilty of the attempted murders of Children F and L.
They agreed with the prosecution that Letby had poisoned their IV drip bags with insulin on separate occasions, eight months apart.”

https://news.sky.com/story/inside-courtroom-seven-the-trial-of-lucy-letby-and-the-moment-she-was-found-guilty-12941173#:~:text=First%2C%20after%2076%20hours%20of,separate%20occasions%2C%20eight%20months%20apart.

Take a dim view of what now? The government, through the LAA, decide exactly how much (that should probably be how little) solicitors and barristers get paid for everything they do. They’re not just given a big pot to decide what to do with! Good grief, did you think they could decide not to call an expert and pocket the money themselves? That’s what your post sounds like. The misconceptions about solicitors and barristers really do run deep.

It was Mirabai who said LL’s lawyers perhaps didn't engage an expert witness due to the legal aid cap, not me.

I didn’t say they could decide not to call an expert and pocket the money.

Are you responding to the wrong post?

I think this could go some way to explain it, especially as she looked the parents up and stalked them on social media after it. I think she wanted them to suffer and knew she had total control over their happiness.Its taking jealousy to extreme psychopathic limits.

Listen to “In Court” on BBC Sounds . Reviewing and updating the case .

Why would a KC be a solicitor-advocate? That shows you have no idea what you are talking about regarding legal representation. Barristers and solicitors are different professions. And shock horror, you can be a good solicitor AND work outside London. How on earth do you know who made the decisions regarding the evidence? Do you think Ben Myers KC would run a case where he fundamentally disagreed with how it was being conducted? Highly highly unlikely. The more witnesses he called, the more likelihood they would get trashed by the prosecution. That will be why he didn’t call them.

I’m responding to the poster who talked about the LAA taking a dim view. That’s clear from literally the first line of my post. That was you. My response to you stands. I’m not sure why you’re confused by it. Can you explain what the LAA would take a dim view of, given that they decide how much everyone in a case gets paid for everything they do?

New BBC article on some of the reporting restrictions and information vacuum due to the retrial.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c727jgdm7r4o

Have you even read my posts? I even said upthread the LAA sets a fee for a neonatologist expert witness at £180 per hour.

The poster I was responding to claimed that the defence couldn't spend money on an expert witness because of the legal aid cap.

I disagreed with her.

If you have an issue with that point, take it up with her and stop trying to create confusion.