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?

I have read your post and responded directly to it. I’m not confused between your post and someone else’s.

Perhaps you could just answer the question I’ve asked you. What is it that the solicitors and barristers could do that the LAA could take a dim view of? You were definitely the poster who talked about that, and I’ve asked you 3 times now what you meant.

You could just read my post and get the answer from there? But if you really need it spelled out - solicitors recover costs from the LAA, by requesting reimbursements for the costs for the costs incurred while representing clients.

Solicitors don't just get a blank cheque from LAA, they have to quantify their costs and submit bills for work completed.

When the bills submitted are to the LAA, they check them to ensure their guidelines have been complied with and will ask for evidence of the work carried out by the solicitor (e.g. court documents and invoices), before paying the solicitor for their work.

The LAA can push back on the costs if the think the the amounts charged by the solicitor are incorrect or unreasonable.

So if the solicitor submits costs to the LAA and then subsequently claims they didn't have enough money to pay for expert witnesses, I think this would go against LAA guidelines.

If you would like to state your own view of how it works, just do that instead of being aggressive and inflammatory.

I think she probably has fabricated/factitious illness (used to be known as Munchausen’s). So yes she does have a mental illness, but is not in a state where she needs a psychiatric facility, hence being in prison. The illness meant she got a high from the drama of the medical situations, being involved in the drama, dealing with their parents etc.

It’s awful and I don’t think you can stop it, but concerns had been raised about her by her colleagues and they are ignored or accused of bullying. What should change is how future concerns are dealt with.

Some people just like the power and control, and as other have said, playing God.
They’re not sick, they don’t have a mental illness, that’s just what they like.

Your post of 02.43 said ‘the LAA would take a dim view of solicitors/barristers using their fund of £1.5m on lawyers fees and not spending £180 on an expert report…’

All I have done is take issue with the suggestion contained in that statement that the lawyers ‘spend’ the money, in the sense of deciding what to do with a chunk of money they are given. Whatever you’ve said since, that post of 02.43 definitely sounded like you thought that. I don’t believe I’ve been aggressive or inflammatory in asking you about that.

I’m leaving this thread now as I’m going to be away from the internet, hopefully for a long time.

The system for instructing expert witnesses in criminal cases generally involves the solicitor obtaining a quote from the expert and then submitting that to the LAA for Prior Authority, which means the expert's costs have been agreed ahead of time. Once the expert's report is completed, the solicitors can submit the invoice to the LAA and then settle the bill directly once they receive the funds from the LAA.

The costs for experts appearing in Court are settled separately, by the CPS (for Prosecution experts) and by the Court (for Defence experts).

@LarissaFeodorovna thanks, that makes sense.

The paper is a review of 50 cases described in world literature on the subject and as such represents a low level of evidence. Most of the cases were the result of positive pressure ventilation and all were accidental.

The paper states:

“Diagnosis is usually made from a radiograph ordered for suspected air leak.” It goes on to say “there are associated phenomena reported for these infants which may suggest diagnosis” which are listed and do not include rashes.

The only thing it has to say about rashes is very general:

”Blanching and migrating areas of cutaneous pallor were noted in several cases and, in one of our own cases we noted bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background.”

In the LL case, the RCPCH report found that consultants noted “mottling” appeared after a few minutes of resuscitation. In the trial this was switched to before and claimed to be proof of air embolism.

Dewi Evans claimed in court that a “small purpuric rash” was noted on Baby O during his deterioration. No purpuric rashes are mentioned in the Sho Lee study. A purpuric rash - in the context of the other recorded symptoms - distended abdomen, bowel loops, fever - could indicate NEC or sepsis.

Baby O died after CPR and damage to the liver was noted post mortem. CPR injury, specifically abdominal injury from chest compressions, is not uncommon. The prosecution claimed that CPR is usually successful in neonates but that is far from the truth - it is in fact associated with high mortality rate. In one study 40% died, in another 60%. There are many, many papers on the poor outcomes of CPR in neonates - none quoted at the trial.

That the Sho Lee paper was ever used to support the claims made at trial is mind-bendingly bad science.

It’s merely one of the options that has been suggested to explain the absence of expert witnesses; another is simply poor defence strategy.

She had a KC but her solicitor doesn’t make the Legal 500.

She couldn’t really start again with a new defence team for her retrial, and even if she had they couldn’t undo the mistakes made in the first trial, but she might have been better off with a better solicitor.

Lots of people are just nasty or have nasty traits. I suspect some "because she could" , some "playing God" some "enjoying the attention the death/ near death brings to the department" and some "premature babies don't seem like real people as they can't communicate so it's hard to empathise with them".
None of these excuse her behaviour but prison is full of people who've done horrible things to other people. I think many people overestimate how "good" most people are.

Ffs seriously? Most solicitors are not in the Legal 500. Is that your evidence that the defence was deficient? The Legal 500 is a racket anyway, take it from someone with inside knowledge (I am a former legal practitioner). Being listed in it or not being listed in it doesn’t say very much about your competence. There is absolutely zero evidence that she had an incompetent defence team. You just don’t have any knowledge of how law and evidence functions and don’t like the idea of LL being guilty so are desperately clutching at straws.

I think that although she presented as being a normal young woman there was a vital connection in her brain that wasn't wired up. I think that at her very centre there was an emptiness that had been there her whole life. I believe that killing the babies, and the subsequent drama and attention she received, temporarily filled that emptiness. I don't think she knew she needed it filling, until it was (if that makes sense).

I think the very first time was perhaps an accident, but it triggered something in her brain.

A former legal practitioner who doesn’t know that solicitor-advocates can become KCs? Really?

I followed the case at the time and the deficiencies of the defence were very clear. It was fundamental mistake to accept and not to challenge the air embolism or the insulin theories - for which there is no hard scientific evidence is all highly medically questionable to say the very least. The defence apparently simply did not get their heads around the medical data. Myers did a reasonable job in court but on a very limited range, but that may have been determined by the solicitor.

He’s a barrister so could not be a solicitor advocate which is what you said. I know solicitors can become KCs although this is exceedingly rare. You seemed to imply that him not being a solicitor advocate meant that he was in some way deficient. In fact the opposite is true. You wouldn’t want an SA doing the advocacy in a high profile murder trial. Your entire argument seems based on incorrect and prejudice assumptions about the people representing Lucy Letby, especially her solicitor who for some reason is being blamed for more witnesses not being called and for being from Chester. Odd.

If only Lucy had had you representing her eh?

I did not say any such thing. My precise words were:

Myers is the KC - ie barrister, and not afaik a solicitor advocate

You replied: Why would a KC be a solicitor-advocate?…Barristers and solicitors are different professions. (Rather implying you didn’t know they could be.)

Thus your claim that I implied not being a S-A meant that he was deficient is 100% erroneous.

My “entire argument” is based on the science. My comments on the defence merely follows the poor grasp and presentation of the science at the trial.

If only she had had a friend of mine, a KC who originally qualified as a doctor to consultant level, who would have had no problem with the medical data.

Regardless of what the issues are, every thread quickly turns into personal attacks on the poster(s). Why can’t people just make their point without jumping down the throats of others, others who are as entitled to post their opinions as they are!
I am sick of trying to follow a point someone has brought up, only to be sidetracked by vicious, unnecessary posts which have no bearing on the original issue.
Can those responsible (and you know who you are), just GROW UP! Some (most) of us on here want to discuss something sensibly without being victimised.

Well it was a shit strategy.

It did seem like she was doing lots of hours at night and taking up other peoples shifts. I wonder whether it left her mentally struggling unfocused and not on the ball. I would be interested in hearing from others who work night shifts ?

Do you think Dr A’s colleagues are aware he is Dr A?

In my head I picture him as older, is this something I’ve made up or has his age been mentioned?

I think the most important lesson we need to learn - and it's not like there haven't been plenty of cases to prove it in the past - is that seemingly "normal" people like nurses or in general attractive young women, are just as capable of evil acts as the "weirdo" is. Intelligence and prettiness is not a guarantee of being a nice person - far from it.

The question should be why does anyone do evil things like Lucy Letby has been convicted of doing? We shouldn't be shocked because on the face of it she seemed normal, we should be shocked because of the acts themselves.

Maybe there was a personality disorder or some unknown trauma that led her to do what she did. But I think her motivation was the same as many criminals - personal gain and a belief they were too intelligent to be caught. Crime is usually about personal gain, not necessarily money but some kind of personal "kudos".

In Letby's case, taking babies to the edge of death gave her the opportunity to be seen to act as a saviour, it made her feel important. Killing babies enabled her to act as the sympathetic nurse, the "lovely friendly young woman" who tried her best and sent sympathy cards to her victims' families.

Like most people, she had a hole in her life. Most of us fill it with something that is either productive (raising a family well) or self-destructive (drinking, drugs). The key is, we fill our hole to the best of our abilities based on the options available to us. Unfortunately in the Letby case she had access to the most vulnerable people imaginable, and she chose to go that way.

Yes he is older than her by about 15-20 years I think. Someone on tattle or web sleuths went to court to watch him give evidence and reported back that he was not attractive.
And yeah I reckon everyone who works with him knows it’s him.

Call me cynical, but I would assume that was because there would be fewer people around so fewer potential witnesses.