The Trial of Lucy Letby

[LDC]

There was no evidence. It was all purely circumstantial. The babies started dying when the hospital started taking very prem and sick babies and the deaths stopped when the hospital stopped taking them.

You really think that's all it was? Insulin dosing and inappropriate airway procedures have been mentioned as well.

Including a note she wrote saying "I am evil I did this" apparently?

 

[moomoo]

You really think that's all it was? Insulin dosing and inappropriate airway procedures have been mentioned as well.

Including a note she wrote saying "I am evil I did this" apparently?

The note could have referred to anything.

 

[moomoo]

The only evidence against her was that she was on duty every time a baby died but that still doesn’t prove she did it. That’s purely circumstantial.

 

[danny la rouge]

It was all purely circumstantial.

Circumstantial evidence is usually the best evidence: fingerprints, DNA, recordings. Direct evidence is often the worst: eyewitness testimony.

Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I don’t know what the evidence presented in this case was, as I find it too upsetting to read up on, but if the evidence was mainly circumstantial, then that is the strongest case you can get.

 

[LDC]

The note could have referred to anything.

Clearly you have much less of an idea and access to the evidence than the police, CPS and jury.

Calling it circumstantial shows you don't know what you're taking about, that is often more reliable, it doesn't mean not important or insignificant.

I think you're just indulging wishful thinking and fact twisting, bet you'd decided she was innocent from the start?

Lucy Letby: What did the nurse do to babies in her care?

Neonatal nurse Lucy Letby is found guilty of murdering seven babies and trying to kill six others.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[girasol]

I think one thing likely will happen because of this: 24H surveillance in premature babies' wards?

 

[moomoo]

bet you'd decided she was innocent from the start?

Yep!

 

[Gerry1time]

The note could have referred to anything.

The note also appears to say "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough", and says "I did this" twice. Out of interest, what other things might it have been referring to?

 

[LDC]

Yep!

Don't you think that's a bit weird?

Puts you in same ballpark as all the US school shootings all being false flags types imo.

 

[Thora]

Seems like there was loads of poor practice in the hospital, an unsafe environment in general and little concrete evidence against Letby specifically so I can understand why it was so hard for the jury to reach a verdict (I have no opinion either way on her guilt).

 

[Buddy Bradley]

Yep!

Weird baby-killing hill to die on.

 

[moomoo]

Seems like there was loads of poor practice in the hospital, an unsafe environment in general and little concrete evidence against Letby specifically so I can understand why it was so hard for the jury to reach a verdict (I have no opinion either way on her guilt).

Yep. This. I would not have been able to find her guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[LDC]

Seems like there was loads of poor practice in the hospital, an unsafe environment in general and little concrete evidence against Letby specifically so I can understand why it was so hard for the jury to reach a verdict (I have no opinion either way on her guilt).

What do you mean by 'concrete evidence'?

Yep. This. I would not have been able to find her guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Lol. How on earth can you say that given you haven't seen any of the evidence?! That's totally bonkers.

Have to say I'm a bit shocked there's someone on here saying she's innocent.

 

[Riklet]

This woman is guilty as fucking sin. I dont really believe in people being evil but for sure she attacked these babies.

Im sure it's taken so long cos there's a) so much evidence against her and b) they dont want her to get off on a technicality.

 

[moomoo]

What do you mean by 'concrete evidence'?


Lol. How on earth can you say that given you haven't seen any of the evidence?! That's totally bonkers.

Have to say I'm a bit shocked there's someone on here saying she's innocent.

I’m not saying she’s innocent but I’m surprised she’s been found guilty. Of course, I haven’t seen all the evidence and basically only know the information my daughter gives me. Also we went on a murder trial night out and got the verdict right so we are basically professional jurors now.

 

[LDC]

This woman is guilty as fucking sin.

Im sure it's taking so long cos there's a) so much evidence against her and b) they dont want her to get off on a technicality.

They might have had a moomoo on the jury who refused to believe the evidence presented to them.

TBH I think trials like this (i.e. high profile, unlikely defendant, children as victims) can often be very difficult as people struggle to comprehend a person did this, and often do all sorts of mental gymnastics to find any other reason as the truth is so grim.

 

[savoloysam]

When I heard this story my opinion of the circumstantial evidence was guilty and I think the right decision is made.

May the evil bitch rot in hell.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

How fucking grim.

 

[Elpenor]

My gut feeling when I learned of the case was she was innocent and had been fitted up as a scapegoat.

While I can’t claim to understand the medical side of the evidence, it seems to have been reported as fairly damning, and with the notes too I can see why they reached a guilty verdict.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

The detail that some who did not die will need round the clock care for life, is just as awful, if not worse than those that died, to me. What a truly horrific thing she’s done.

 

[Gerry1time]

It doesn’t sound like the jury rushed their decision either, or were unafraid to give not guilty verdicts where they couldn’t be certain beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Raheem]

There was no evidence. It was all purely circumstantial.

Circumstantial evidence isn't non-evidence. It's the name given to a type of evidence.

 

[danny la rouge]

Circumstantial evidence isn't non-evidence. It's the name given to a type of evidence.

The strongest. Fingerprints, DNA, blood analysis.

Direct evidence is by contrast more likely to be unreliable. Eyewitnesses testimony would be a very weak hook to hang a case on.

 

[editor]

Yep. This. I would not have been able to find her guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Except you have no idea about what evidence was presented in court, or what testimony was admitted by hospital workers.

 

[Cloo]

A horrible, awful case all round but evidently the jurors ultimately decided there was enough evidence, and clearly considered very carefully.

 

[LDC]

Anyway, I'm out, bit grim discussing it at all tbh.

Poor families and kids left unwell and suffering.

 

[savoloysam]

From the BBC website. Why the fuck would such claims not be taken seriously for so long and even be attempted to be silenced. Appalling stuff that could saved have some of those babies lives

The lead consultant at the neonatal unit where Lucy Letby worked has told the BBC that hospital bosses failed to investigate allegations against the nurse and tried to silence doctors.

The hospital also delayed calling the police despite months of warnings that the nurse may have been killing babies.

The unit's lead consultant Dr Stephen Brearey first raised concerns about Letby in October 2015.

No action was taken and she went on to attack five more babies, killing two.

 

[moomoo]

Except you have no idea about what evidence was presented in court, or what testimony was admitted by hospital workers.

Obviously not because I wasn’t there. I’m only going by what I was told.

 

[bcuster]

what could possibly motivate a person to do these things?

 

[savoloysam]

what could possibly motivate a person to do these things?

Pure evil.