Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Lucy Letby Guilty
https:/
Found guilty of murdering seven babies.
RIP little ones.
Found guilty of murdering seven babies.
RIP little ones.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LadyCG. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Peter, it makes the point, does it not? I really cannot presume to suggest how the parents would have met and dealt with any form of disruption in court had Letby attended and behaved other than compliantly, but I did worry that Letby may have done otherwise had she been present for the sentencing. I absolutely am not able to say what affect it has had on those poor parents not to be able to read their impact statements in front of Letby, but I was so grateful to hear the judge say that he directed his sentencing and their impact statements to be given to Letby. My gratitude goes to Mr Justice Goss for such a comprehensive and thoughtful report today, I cannot think of anything that he omitted.
To clarify my position on this, I would not have convicted her. I would have voted not guilty on all charges. She was part of a collective who, in my opinion, have found a scapegoat. There were no witnesses. Forensic evidence was dubious, to say the least. An attendance record seemed to be some kind of clincher. What are the cops not telling us? Remember that Malkinson guy? Not guilty yer magnitude!
What if she didn’t do it.. a guilty verdict is not gospel.
Also it has been admitted that that is a trial that has one of the highest uses of just circumstantial evidence, whether she is guilty or not there doesn’t seem to be much solid evidence.
I can imagine that with it being probably one of the most emotionally charged cases you can get (the grieving parents want confirmation for closure) that wouldn’t have helped with the objectiveness of it
Also it has been admitted that that is a trial that has one of the highest uses of just circumstantial evidence, whether she is guilty or not there doesn’t seem to be much solid evidence.
I can imagine that with it being probably one of the most emotionally charged cases you can get (the grieving parents want confirmation for closure) that wouldn’t have helped with the objectiveness of it
as the raw emotion subsides today, there's a growing usage of this affair to score cheap political points - the following was on Twitter this morning and is fairly typical -
// the Letby case should teach us this: too many people think "innocence" looks white, middle-class, traditional, vulnerable, tearful. People who present this way are often unquestionably believed and supported. Remember this when it happens again. //
// the Letby case should teach us this: too many people think "innocence" looks white, middle-class, traditional, vulnerable, tearful. People who present this way are often unquestionably believed and supported. Remember this when it happens again. //
https:/
This is unbelievable! Imho.
This is unbelievable! Imho.
Impact statements are another recent American import. Anyone who is pleading innocence, even after being found guilty, will not listen to that type of American gubbins. If there was a law that compelled them to be in court, I'm sure the accused would be protesting their innocence above the impact statement. What would happen then? Be removed from court with a charge of contempt?
Clarion, whether you like them or not, such statements appear to be here to stay. They are not just "fanciful" but allow victims a most important opportunity within our legal system. They can also be considered by any parole board - not that they can apply in Letby's case.
https:/
I think it would take a particular kind of foolhardy person to say that they would have already made up their mind how to vote without listening to and viewing nearly 10 months' worth of evidence. If you are serious about the content of your post I sincerely hope you are beyond the age for acting as a juror. I viewed the judge's summing up when it was reported in one of the papers on a daily basis, surprised I was able so to do. Such reporting gave me an opportunity to try and comprehend the length of the trial, given it has become our lengthiest murder trial of modern times.
I believe the defending counsel still has the opportunity to challenge members of the jury in our courts so the make-up of male to female jurors is irrelevant in your post.
https:/
I think it would take a particular kind of foolhardy person to say that they would have already made up their mind how to vote without listening to and viewing nearly 10 months' worth of evidence. If you are serious about the content of your post I sincerely hope you are beyond the age for acting as a juror. I viewed the judge's summing up when it was reported in one of the papers on a daily basis, surprised I was able so to do. Such reporting gave me an opportunity to try and comprehend the length of the trial, given it has become our lengthiest murder trial of modern times.
I believe the defending counsel still has the opportunity to challenge members of the jury in our courts so the make-up of male to female jurors is irrelevant in your post.
Sorry for not replying sooner. I'm on me jollies at the mo!
I would not have voted to convict.
Fact: No witnesses
Fact: No useable CCTV
Fact: No useable DNA
Fact: Forensic evidence ambivalent
Fact: The whole case is totally circumstantial.
What about the post-it notes, I hear you say. Those were written by a terrified and frightened person whose whole career had been caring for people but in my opinion, prove nothing. There's been too much emotion and, daresay, hysteria about this case.
Why should someone who has pleaded not guilty to all charges and believes in their innocence, have to attend court and listen to impact statements?
The whole case has been about finding a scapegoat and dodging bullets by the hospital. Lucy Letby was part of a collective that was responsible for these deaths. She was not, in my opinion, personally responsible. Not guilty, yer warship!
I would not have voted to convict.
Fact: No witnesses
Fact: No useable CCTV
Fact: No useable DNA
Fact: Forensic evidence ambivalent
Fact: The whole case is totally circumstantial.
What about the post-it notes, I hear you say. Those were written by a terrified and frightened person whose whole career had been caring for people but in my opinion, prove nothing. There's been too much emotion and, daresay, hysteria about this case.
Why should someone who has pleaded not guilty to all charges and believes in their innocence, have to attend court and listen to impact statements?
The whole case has been about finding a scapegoat and dodging bullets by the hospital. Lucy Letby was part of a collective that was responsible for these deaths. She was not, in my opinion, personally responsible. Not guilty, yer warship!
Clarion, we do not have the availability of a full court transcript, so it is a matter of gleaning information from as many resources as possible. Have you listened to any of the podcasts? I found Episode 54 on The Mail+ podcast post-sentencing which explained a lot about the workings of the police once the Chief Constable received the letter that got the ball rolling to be very illuminating. The case was given to Det. Supt. Paul Hughes who had to decide how to conduct the investigation. After some deliberation he decided to assign one child to one detective to cover all the cases involved in the charges against Letby. This would ensure a sterile corridor for each case and avoid cross-contamination of cases whilst allowing for all questions to be covered and answered. It seems that giving "ownership" to individual officers was the ideal route to follow.
When the detectives finally started to compare their findings, it became abundantly apparent that in each case Letby was the common denominator.
Those findings included:
Letby was always present at the time of the babies' collapses.
Letby later had altered and therefore falsified hospital records to show her location at the time of the collapses.
Letby was detached from all resuscitation attempts.
Letby had made inappropriate contacts with and comments to some of the parents.
It was noted that Letby enjoyed the attention she had garnered.
Had there been any witnesses to Letby's crimes this should have curtailed the deaths at an earlier stage, unless you are suggesting that she was colluding with another?
It is notable that throughout the long court case the only witnesses called by Counsel were those called by the Prosecution.
Furthermore, the 4 members of the management team - Tony Chambers, Alison Kelly, Ian Harvey and Karen Rees - were vehemently opposed to talking to the reporters involved in the podcast, though they are reported to have said that they would co-operate with any official investigation. I understand that these 4 managers are to be subjected to further investigations.
I do not agree with you that there was no forensic evidence - I have already referred to the absence of C-Peptide in the case of the baby who had an abnormal level of insulin.
When the detectives finally started to compare their findings, it became abundantly apparent that in each case Letby was the common denominator.
Those findings included:
Letby was always present at the time of the babies' collapses.
Letby later had altered and therefore falsified hospital records to show her location at the time of the collapses.
Letby was detached from all resuscitation attempts.
Letby had made inappropriate contacts with and comments to some of the parents.
It was noted that Letby enjoyed the attention she had garnered.
Had there been any witnesses to Letby's crimes this should have curtailed the deaths at an earlier stage, unless you are suggesting that she was colluding with another?
It is notable that throughout the long court case the only witnesses called by Counsel were those called by the Prosecution.
Furthermore, the 4 members of the management team - Tony Chambers, Alison Kelly, Ian Harvey and Karen Rees - were vehemently opposed to talking to the reporters involved in the podcast, though they are reported to have said that they would co-operate with any official investigation. I understand that these 4 managers are to be subjected to further investigations.
I do not agree with you that there was no forensic evidence - I have already referred to the absence of C-Peptide in the case of the baby who had an abnormal level of insulin.
Police are investigating 12 more suspicious collapses.
https:/
https:/
