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?

Either she is mad, or she has been made a scapegoat.

It has been reported that the evidence is weak, and does not support the trial and conviction.

Reported by who?

I find statements like ‘it has been reported..’ as very misleading. Where? The Times? Or Twinkle? Very different levels of authority. but the phrase makes it sound like this is an opinion worthy of merit.

there are a number of checks and balances to ensure that evidences reaches a bar for prosecution. Miscarriages of justice happen but it is usually because evidence is flawed or a witness is lying.

I’d also add that there is always an element of doubt. In murder trials for example, the corpse can’t tell us who killed them, so we can’t ever really say what has happened.

i worked in this area and have seen court cases where it is obvious the person is guilty, but they always present a case which could be possible ( even if unlikely). Murder/ rape are like this. Rarely witnesses so evidence is about building a picture from different types of evidence. Even with DNA, the defendant can say they had consensual sex and he left her fit and well.

this case is similar in that no one saw her murdering a child ( or it wasn’t obvious that’s what she was doing) but you have to look at all the evidence from many different places.

Well the evidence obviously wasn't weak enough for the jury not to be convinced

My source was a reputable American newspaper. Also, Juries are not 100% right every time or innocent people would not have been convicted or even hanged as they have been in past years.

It was a heinous crime whoever did it.

I'm saying that I wouldn't have been convinced by the evidence presented. That's not me saying that I know more than the jury.

At least one of the jurors wasn't convinced for most of the charges also so a certain % of people also not being completely convinced makes sense!

Of course all jurors believed she was guilty of murdering one baby and the attempted murder by insulin poisonings, however I wouldn't have been convinced regarding the liver injury for child O.
The prosecution expert said he didn't think it would have been caused by vigorous CPR, and that he would expect to see that type of trauma after a road traffic accident or if the baby landed on a trampoline and was thrown off it. What on earth is she supposed to have done to the baby to cause damage at that level and do it unnoticed....makes no sense to me.

I've read a lot on this since the New Yorker came out, so it's not just about the New Yorker article.

You found it quite telling that they didn't attend, I don't think it's telling at all. I really doubt she privately confessed.

I'm just clarifying the facts. Again you are deliberately trying to misintrepret me in all of my posts, and I see on one of yours you accused someone else of trying to create confusion.

His name was leaked by in the first version of the appeals judgement document that came out earlier this week. It seems they forgot to redact some of the witnesses names including his 🤦🏻‍♀️

If you wanted to clarify the facts you would have said that LL was found guilty of attempted murder of babies by insulin poisoning.

Instead you said why ‘No babies died from insulin poisoning’, which seems to imply she didn’t carry out any insulin poisoning.

Do you really think what you said clarified the facts? It’s you that is trying to obfuscate what LL did for some strange reason.

Everyone knows that some of the charges were for insulin poisonings, I'm clarifying that there were no deaths due to insulin poisoning. Do we have to repeat things that people know every single time?

Interesting you mention 'obfuscating' because a witness for the prosecution tried to make out that no insulin was being ordered for any baby at the time of one of the insulin poisonings, (a soundbite that went around the world) they failed to mention that insulin was being ordered for his twin who was in the same room. It was the judge who spotted that and made them clarify that they just meant on the day of the poisoning, his twin had died the day before.

Why did the prosecution not try to claim that she used Child Es insulin to poison Child F seeing as they were in the same room? It would have more sense for them to do that, but they seemed to not want the jury to know that there would have been insulin there?

The defence didn't pick up on it either, maybe they were just very unprepared and didn't notice it, or maybe they thought it looked worse for Letby if they said Child Fs twin was receiving insulin because it would have given Letby an easier way of doing it, but the prosecution were not going down that angle at all which struck me as very odd and calculated.

This is all in bad taste. Imagine those poor families of the murdered babies being on Mumsnet and having to face such awful speculations about the fabricated innocence of LL. She is a murderer and she will spend the rest of her life in jail, as the judge has made clear. Job done.

Have some respect for the families, they are the victims. 😡

It was a heinous crime whoever did it.

I thought part of the reasons why there is some concern about the safety of JL's conviction is that it cannot be ascertained with absolute certainty that these babies were actually murdered. All were very premature and in a very serious condition, with multiple issues that could have led to their deaths, i.e. they could have died naturally.

That's how I understood some of the concerns aired in the New Yorker article -- the 'sharpshooter' hypothesis etc.

Yes there's no irrefutable proof that any murders actually even took place. Post mortems were done on 5 of the 7 babies who died and other causes were put down. In 2017 hospital also contacted all of the families of 13 babies who had died after they had done their investigation and said that they provided them with full and accurate information about what happened, and then next thing they're saying no actually it was a serial killer.

That's just not true that the babies were very premature and in a very serious condition with multiple conditions that could lead to their deaths.

Honestly where do you get off spreading misinformation in defence of this serial killer of babies?!

One of the babies was just 6 weeks premature - deaths at that gestation are almost unheard of. But if you think they might be some kind of freak outlier, their equally healthy almost term and close to the point of discharge twin also nearly died, also after being left alone with LL. The same story of unexplained deterioration after being alone under LL's care repeats itself with countless late-preterm and generally healthy babies, and as I understand one term baby whose only health concern was haemophilia. Honestly how dare you repeat the LIE that they were "all very premature and very seriously unwell". Don't you have enough respect for these dead children and theor families to even do the most basic research to establish some basic facts about them?

Many of the babies were so robust they survived multiple murder attempts by LL.

Concerns were raised in response to an exceptional and unexplained death rate among predominantly healthy babies not expected to die, some at the point of discharge. Get a grip. Go and read a timeline they're easy to find your claims are inexcusable.

Naturally?? Some of them were given insulin overdoses! How tf did they happen “naturally”?

Absolutely this!

I can’t see where Child E (Child F’s twin) had been ordered any insulin? From BBC :

Jurors have heard how Child F's heart rate surged and his blood sugars dropped dangerously low after a feed bag was started shortly after midnight on 4 August.

No babies in the unit were being prescribed insulin on either 4 or 5 August, the court heard.

Some quite hysterical responses here. All I'm saying is that the New Yorker article raises issues that are not clear cut:

“Insulin is not an easy substance to analyze, and you would need to analyze this at a forensic laboratory, where the routines are much more stringent regarding chain of custody, using modern forensic technology.” But the Countess never ordered a second test, because the child had already recovered.
...
the baby’s C-peptide level suggested the possibility of a testing irregularity, because, if insulin had been administered, the child’s C-peptide level should have been extremely low or undetectable, but it wasn’t.
...
To connect Letby to the insulin, one would have to believe that she had managed to inject insulin into a bag that a different nurse had randomly chosen from the unit’s refrigerator.

So when you and others chat absolute nonsense and other people call you out on it, they're hysterical?

It seems that an expert witness informed the court there was good reason to believe insulin had been used to intentionally poison babies on the unit. The defence were unable to dismantle that evidence and unable to source an expert witness to counter it who wouldn't have damaged their defence. A really neat way of explaining why that should be, is to concede that it's true that insulin was used to intentionally poison babies on the unit. But keep tying yourself in knots.

I have every sympathy for those families and any family who has lost a child. It doesn’t bear thinking about, I can’t even imagine the pain. I particularly feel for them that they have been led to believe their babies were murdered- that must add a whole other layer of pain.

But that doesn’t justify convicting the wrong person, and silencing anyone who questions it.
Well in this scenario it’s not even a case of the “wrong person” it’s likely , in my view, that there was no crime at all- just a failing hospital and general incompetence/ negligence.

It's all here

https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23125020.recap-lucy-letby-trial-tuesday-november-15/

And that last quote you posted came about when the judge made the witness clarify that it was just the 4th or 5th.

This. Also, if I'd gone through the hell of losing a baby I'd rather it had been due to natural causes rather than callously murdered by some twisted bastard.

in my view, that there was no crime at all- just a failing hospital and general incompetence/ negligence.

How very odd that pretty much all the incidents of incompetence/negligence occured on milestone, anniversary and imminent discharge occasions.

What a truly tremendous coincidence.

How equally odd that the failing hospital responsible for all these incidents coinciding with anniversaries & milestones, also had an employee who had vastly above normal (as opposed to taking one home on a pocket accidentally for example) notes in her home, and scraps of paper and note books scrawled with "I did this, I killed them because I wasn't good enough to care for them".

And how equally odd that that employee's inappropriate (to put it mildly) behaviour was making some other members of staff, parents etc extremely uncomfortable.

And how very odd that the unexpected deaths went back to normal levels when that employee was put in an admin role, and that when she was reinstated after a holiday, the unexpected deaths started again immediately.
(And that they followed that employee from night to day shifts, or the reverse, I can't remember).

What a bunch of tremendous coincidences.

If you really believe this, how do you justify punishment for their actions?