Lucy Letby Case #14

[Tofino]

Did she take a photo of deceased twin boys? Where did I hear that? Why on earth would she have that on her phone? Can somebody clarify that please? I’m sure I read that somewhere. They were part of triplets - I think one survived. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Do you know what, I spent ages looking for this in the wiki last night. Could not find it at all. Had to go back to an old thread where it was discussed and found that Chester standard never actually reported it, only mail online reported it. it’s not really that clear though what the circumstances were or whose device though.

She photographed two of three triplets lying dead together in a cot after murdering them after telling a doctor that one of them was 'not leaving here alive', the court also heard this morning. One doctor spoke to Letby before Baby P died, predicting his survival, so was surprised when the nurse replied: 'He's not leaving alive here, is he?', the murder trial was told.

https://www.archive.is/oldest/https...tten-confessions-penned-nurse-Lucy-Letby.html

 

[freaknasty]

Had a thought fellas, don’t know if it sounds a bit ridiculous though.

Could she have been searching the parents pre-murder to see if they had a public Facebook profile, then she would choose the babies whose parents did so she could live it out through them?

 

[slingo16]

I don’t know how to word this but some of you are really good at working out what I’m getting at, so here goes.

insulin poisoning, is that something that would have been explored with the children that actually die in this case? It’s been mentioned that if the two children that had insulin poisoning had not survived it’s likely that it wouldn’t have been picked up? Is it possible that air embolus is being misdiagnosed in some cases because you have to do specific tests to check for insulin poisoning, which obviously didn’t take place at the time. And therefore they cannot give that as a cause of death?

apologies if this is a silly question

 

[candyland_]

Had a thought fellas, don’t know if it sounds a bit ridiculous though.

Could she have been searching the parents pre-murder to see if they had a public Facebook profile, then she would choose the babies whose parents did so she could live it out through them?

I don’t think so in the case of Baby A. They had just been born unless she read their handover, saw how longed for they were and acted very quickly. The baby was only 1 day old.

 

[feistyoneanddone]

I remain on the fence about her guilt or innocence as I have just not see enough evidence yet that meets the legal threshold.

Thanks for the info legal fella.

As these cases are notoriously difficult to prove (already vulnerable patients who can’t speak for themselves, legitimate interventions that carry risk etc) would the legal threshold be satisfied, or mitigated, by multiple cases taken as a whole? I know each case is being tried individually but do they support each other?
If the legal threshold is not met in each case, how is justice served on a potential baby killer who has managed to place herself in a position and environment where crimes are more difficult to prove?
[/QUOTE]

They can't be taken as a whole as I understand it. The legal principle is clear that just because someone is guilty of one crime/charge it does not mean they are guilty of another. Someone can be found guilty of say 9 out of 10 charges/crimes but not guilty of the 10th even if it is apparently "identical" circumstances. The jury is directed to consider each charge individually and the evidence for each charge only should be considered.

There is a famous case which I cannot recall the citation of, and I am also not sure whether it was civil case or criminal, but it gets used by judges a lot in judgments given in family court which is how I am aware of it. As it is case law the judges must follow it and essentially it talks about how people aren't perfect and the principle of it is that just because someone lies about one thing in court it does not mean they have lied about everything and a judge (and potentially jury) cannot assume that. In fact they must assume that if they have been caught in a lie about one thing then they are not allowed to assume they have lied about anything else.

***Edited to add*** I don't know why the quote button didn't work properly and not sure how to fix it, apologies.

I mention this as it is broadly related to what I have said about no presumption of guilt of all charges/crimes even if guilty of one.

 

[Tofino]

They can't be taken as a whole as I understand it. The legal principle is clear that just because someone is guilty of one crime/charge it does not mean they are guilty of another. Someone can be found guilty of say 9 out of 10 charges/crimes but not guilty of the 10th even if it is apparently "identical" circumstances. The jury is directed to consider each charge individually and the evidence for each charge only should be considered.

There is a famous case which I cannot recall the citation of, and I am also not sure whether it was civil case or criminal, but it gets used by judges a lot in judgments given in family court which is how I am aware of it. As it is case law the judges must follow it and essentially it talks about how people aren't perfect and the principle of it is that just because someone lies about one thing in court it does not mean they have lied about everything and a judge (and potentially jury) cannot assume that. In fact they must assume that if they have been caught in a lie about one thing then they are not allowed to assume they have lied about anything else.

***Edited to add*** I don't know why the quote button didn't work properly and not sure how to fix it, apologies.

I mention this as it is broadly related to what I have said about no presumption of guilt of all charges/crimes even if guilty of one.

I’m not a legal bod but I’m just recalling what the prosecution said in their opening statement for child a and b and they say the jury are entitled to look at evidence of child a and B in context with other children. If the jury aren’t allowed to do that then I don’t think the judge would have allowed them to say it?

"We also say that you are entitled to look at the evidence of what happened to [Child A and B] in the context of one, what Lucy Letby did to other children and two, most starkly, her having poisoned [two other children] with insulin."

 

[MmmB777]

I’m not a legal bod but I’m just recalling what the prosecution said in their opening statement for child a and b and they say the jury are entitled to look at evidence of child a and B in context with other children. If the jury aren’t allowed to do that then I don’t think the judge would have allowed them to say it?

"We also say that you are entitled to look at the evidence of what happened to [Child A and B] in the context of one, what Lucy Letby did to other children and two, most starkly, her having poisoned [two other children] with insulin."

I believe in BA case they were directed to see it all- maybe it’s been misreported but that’s my understanding. Obviously, similarly to this case, the insulin was much stronger in terms of evidence than the air embolism and suffocation. Luckily the jury could see the pattern of these sudden cpr events and unexpected deaths coinciding with treatment from BA. She still got off on the two charges that I believe were the ones she committed whilst they gathered evidence for the crimes at Grantham hospital. One was in a care home and one was her friend’s relative she was living with. Her victims were so less perfect though. These serial crimes generally happen with incredibly vulnerable patients- elderly, children and ICU. Which is why generally statistical evidence and staff suspicions are what starts investigations. Letby literally has perfect victims. It’s terrifying to think someone else will be emboldened to do this. I feel like she potentially had knowledge of other cases of this kind of crime.

 

[TennisTina]

Like many others, I find it so hard to imagine someone doing this, that I am watching and waiting for a reason to believe she didn't and I've been quick to explain away the more minor things.. I know I've taken a pic of a sympathy card before because I've sent it to a friend to check if it looks OK.. we'll see if this is explained at all by her defence.

I'm wondering again about her parents and her childhood..

 

[candyland_]

Killer Vincent Tabaks defence lawyer called him disgusting and said that he would not attempt to justify his actions after he was found guilty of killing Joanna Yates.

Almost makes me think that Letbys hasn’t justified anything she’s been accused of - all he’s done is highlight the hospital failings and deflect but he hasn’t stood there (yet) and said that she didn’t do this although I’m aware this might still come. It’s strange that he hasn’t stuck up for her so far. I think he’s just going through the motions.

 

[Milktray]

Like many others, I find it so hard to imagine someone doing this, that I am watching and waiting for a reason to believe she didn't and I've been quick to explain away the more minor things.. I know I've taken a pic of a sympathy card before because I've sent it to a friend to check if it looks OK.. we'll see if this is explained at all by her defence.

I'm wondering again about her parents and her childhood..

Incredibly curious about her childhood...but I'm a nosy fella.

Killer Vincent Tabaks defence lawyer called him disgusting and said that he would not attempt to justify his actions after he was found guilty of killing Joanna Yates.

Almost makes me think that Letbys hasn’t justified anything she’s been accused of - all he’s done is highlight the hospital failings and deflect but he hasn’t stood there (yet) and said that she didn’t do this although I’m aware this might still come. It’s strange that he hasn’t stuck up for her so far. I think he’s just going through the motions.

I wonder if the prosecution case will be in 2 parts.
Firstly - concentrating on proving that these were unnatural deaths.
Secondly - proving that LL was the perpetrator.

I don't think that prosecution have gone into LL involvement in great detail (yet) so wondering if this is to come.

 

[Lucyxxxx]

Thanks for the info legal fella.

As these cases are notoriously difficult to prove (already vulnerable patients who can’t speak for themselves, legitimate interventions that carry risk etc) would the legal threshold be satisfied, or mitigated, by multiple cases taken as a whole? I know each case is being tried individually but do they support each other?
If the legal threshold is not met in each case, how is justice served on a potential baby killer who has managed to place herself in a position and environment where crimes are more difficult to prove?

They can't be taken as a whole as I understand it. The legal principle is clear that just because someone is guilty of one crime/charge it does not mean they are guilty of another. Someone can be found guilty of say 9 out of 10 charges/crimes but not guilty of the 10th even if it is apparently "identical" circumstances. The jury is directed to consider each charge individually and the evidence for each charge only should be considered.

There is a famous case which I cannot recall the citation of, and I am also not sure whether it was civil case or criminal, but it gets used by judges a lot in judgments given in family court which is how I am aware of it. As it is case law the judges must follow it and essentially it talks about how people aren't perfect and the principle of it is that just because someone lies about one thing in court it does not mean they have lied about everything and a judge (and potentially jury) cannot assume that. In fact they must assume that if they have been caught in a lie about one thing then they are not allowed to assume they have lied about anything else.

***Edited to add*** I don't know why the quote button didn't work properly and not sure how to fix it, apologies.

I mention this as it is broadly related to what I have said about no presumption of guilt of all charges/crimes even if guilty of one.
[/QUOTE]

I know what case your on about.

 

[MmmB777]

Incredibly curious about her childhood...but I'm a nosy fella.

I think she will have liked attention. It’ll be interesting for sure. Didn’t her note say “I don’t deserve mum and dad and Tom and Matt” quite an empty life really. A realisation of who she’s hurt there too with her actions. I hope that hurts her but probably not. Also how many times can someone say “it’s not about me” in texts before it’s glaringly obvious it absolutely is all about them. Such a twatish thing to say.

 

[candyland_]

I wonder if the prosecution case will be in 2 parts.
Firstly - concentrating on proving that these were unnatural deaths.
Secondly - proving that LL was the perpetrator.

I don't think that prosecution have gone into LL involvement in great detail (yet) so wondering if this is to come.

That would make sense. They will be more damning down the line.

 

[Faith61]

Even if she did have something to hide, I think it's bizarre she didn't say she was thinking of them and checking on them... was she not capable of having that type of thought, even in cover up? Very strange really. On its own, as many have said, the FB isn't a big thing to me but, of course, it's part of a picture. Just catching up on thread for today.

Exactly.. i can understand her maybe panicking when first asked..but to carry it on throughout is dodgy to me!!

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

I don’t know how to word this but some of you are really good at working out what I’m getting at, so here goes.

insulin poisoning, is that something that would have been explored with the children that actually die in this case? It’s been mentioned that if the two children that had insulin poisoning had not survived it’s likely that it wouldn’t have been picked up? Is it possible that air embolus is being misdiagnosed in some cases because you have to do specific tests to check for insulin poisoning, which obviously didn’t take place at the time. And therefore they cannot give that as a cause of death?

apologies if this is a silly question

I don’t think so in those cases as the babies would have been hypoglycaemic prior to their collapses, which I would assume would have been picked up on when the medical staff intervened. Also I don’t think death is imminent in an insulin overdose, I believe hypoglycaemia would cause a coma then death if left untreated. However, who knows in a tiny baby ? But I assuming the symptoms they were displaying or the pattern of the collapse’s didn’t point to hypoglycaemia or insulin poisoning, but rather death by air embolus. For example the rash.

 

[feistyoneanddone]

I’m not a legal bod but I’m just recalling what the prosecution said in their opening statement for child a and b and they say the jury are entitled to look at evidence of child a and B in context with other children. If the jury aren’t allowed to do that then I don’t think the judge would have allowed them to say it?

"We also say that you are entitled to look at the evidence of what happened to [Child A and B] in the context of one, what Lucy Letby did to other children and two, most starkly, her having poisoned [two other children] with insulin."

I have been trying to find the CPR that refers to this to try and gain some clarity, and I can't find it. As I say, family law is my area and not criminal law although I have some experience where the two overlap and some limited experience with criminal law some years ago. I think there must be some rules/proceedure/law somewhere dealing with multi victim cases and I would love to read it so I can understand it more.

I think in this case, the judges written/verbal route to verdict given to the jury its going to be very interesting indeed.

 

[MmmB777]

Do you know what, I spent ages looking for this in the wiki last night. Could not find it at all. Had to go back to an old thread where it was discussed and found that Chester standard never actually reported it, only mail online reported it. it’s not really that clear though what the circumstances were or whose device though.

She photographed two of three triplets lying dead together in a cot after murdering them after telling a doctor that one of them was 'not leaving here alive', the court also heard this morning. One doctor spoke to Letby before Baby P died, predicting his survival, so was surprised when the nurse replied: 'He's not leaving alive here, is he?', the murder trial was told.

https://www.archive.is/oldest/https...tten-confessions-penned-nurse-Lucy-Letby.html

Jesus just thought I’d have a read of this as don’t recall reading it before. Their write up of baby I the baby is crashing and she tells the nurse not to intervene. It’s incredible reading. Baby I only had this problem around her. She was being bottle fed and in air. It’s truly heartbreaking how many times baby I nearly escaped her. If any fellas have not read this yet, really suggest you do!

 

[Weeder]

During arrest you'd do the blood sugar from a capillary reading and correct as per result. The insulin testing resulted from hypoglycaemia and if this hadn't been the case diring cpr then it wouldn't have been insulin poisoning.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

I have been trying to find the CPR that refers to this to try and gain some clarity, and I can't find it. As I say, family law is my area and not criminal law although I have some experience where the two overlap and some limited experience with criminal law some years ago. I think there must be some rules/proceedure/law somewhere dealing with multi victim cases and I would love to read it so I can understand it more.

I think in this case, the judges written/verbal route to verdict given to the jury its going to be very interesting indeed.

Thanks for looking.
Would the Judge have any discretion in his directions to the Jury in how to reach a verdict?
@Tofino post seems to indicate he does.

 

[candyland_]

One baby had 100ml of air aspirated. Is this a crazy amount for a neonatal baby?