The murder charge was dropped, but she is still charged with attempted murder. I think it was dropped as the baby died at Alder Hey a few days later so there was no evidence the initial attack was definitely the cause. It was baby K.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I’ve found it in the bbc article. Chester Standard never reported it.
Lucy Letby 'agitated' by specialists' arrival, trial told
A colleague says Lucy Letby acted "out of character" when specialists arrived to help a baby boy.
www.bbc.co.uk
Why is more weight given to JJK’s memory than other colleagues and parents we’ve heard from? Especially as we (on social media, not necessarily jury) know just how pally JJK and Lucy are?
I’m only asking this as since Lucy has been on the stand and said she does not recall or denies something one of the witnesses has said that is incriminating, we get some responses doubting the memory of colleagues and parents over Lucy’s memory. But then this is brought up since and somehow this stands and exonerates Lucy?
I think they’ll have provided what they had at the time and upon it being reviewed either the judge/prosecution themselves have stated no evidence to prove the murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Someone else has posted that this was the charge that was changed to an attempt.
The CPS possibly charged her on the threshold test rather than the full code so it passed it (probably due to the evidence of the others) whereas after a charge, that isn’t “it” the police continue to gather more evidence and it’s possible that something else has come to light which has made them realise this shouldn’t be a murder charge but an attempt.
I’ll link the CPS guidelines if you want to read further about their threshold & the exceptions that can be made to still charge things etc
I actually find the wording interesting and I remember this was discussed in early threads (or might have been the first few days I tolerated the Facebook groups
).The article says prosecution say they are ‘offering no evidence’. They don’t say ‘there is no evidence’.
I think it was probably harder to prove with baby dying at another hospital. They may have decided for that baby an attempted murder charge would be more successful than murder.
It is a strange one though - if feels a bit ‘we think she’s done it but there’s nothing sticking’I actually find the wording interesting and I remember this was discussed in early threads (or might have been the first few days I tolerated the Facebook groups
The article says prosecution say they are ‘offering no evidence’. They don’t say ‘there is no evidence’.
I think it was probably harder to prove with baby dying at another hospital. They may have decided for that baby an attempted murder charge would be more successful than murder.
Actually it’s just occurred to me that the evidence for the murder charge would mostly be the same as what we are hearing for the attempts now. The baby went on to die shortly after at another hospital so they would have used this same evidence as it’s what occurred whilst the baby was at Chester (because I doubt Lucy went to the other hospital and did another attempt there).
maybe that was enough to charge with murder (balance of probabilities) but they couldn’t get strong enough evidence to show it was those attempts or another health issue that caused the death.
maybe that was enough to charge with murder (balance of probabilities) but they couldn’t get strong enough evidence to show it was those attempts or another health issue that caused the death.
It depends if that charge is being used to back up other charges I suppose. E.g. for Child G there's 3 attempted murder charges, but the first one is essentially "a baby projectile vomited while Lucy was vaguely in the vicinity" which is ludicrous. But that incident resulted in the baby being transferred to Lucy's care, where it happened again two more times. And overfeeding is overfeeding, it's pretty clear a baby can't vomit 20ml if it was only fed 10ml. Something dodgy happened.
So that's a situation where you basically have to charge her with all 3 or you can't at all. They're too closely linked.
It’s absolutely this. They know she did what she did but it’s very hard to prove it caused the babies death only because this baby was so premature they actually had a difficult shot at life. She made it much harder. They’ll never know if baby K could have made it had she not done this which is just so awful.
That's what I think it is essentially though! That it wasn't worth the risk of bringing it to trial incase it affected the view of guilty for the other cases.It is a strange one though - if feels a bit ‘we think she’s done it but there’s nothing sticking’
Ahh just going back to baby N, it’s the prosecution opening statement where they say ‘when the nurses back was turned, Letby told her child N had desaturated.’
I don’t think we’ve heard enough to know if this is prosecution twisting something or if JJKs statement is different to what she said on the stand. It’s quite a discrepancy.
Prosecution opening statement: (from Chester Standard
BBC article on day JJK gave evidence
Transcript of Mail podcast on day JJK took stand:
I don’t think we’ve heard enough to know if this is prosecution twisting something or if JJKs statement is different to what she said on the stand. It’s quite a discrepancy.
Prosecution opening statement: (from Chester Standard
BBC article on day JJK gave evidence
Transcript of Mail podcast on day JJK took stand:
I used to get called chuckie when I was younger due to my gingerness hahaJust changed my profile pic, am I part of the crowd now? Ps I'm female but couldn't find a funny ginger pic, other option was chucky
What are the chances eh! Letby is only popping in to say hi and yet a baby suddenly stops breathing and has such terrible swelling and fresh blood and can’t be intubated. She really has some horrid luck. Guess it’s one of those manic shifts jjk says she always has when she’s on shift with Letby.
Guess it means JJK and all the alarms and monitors missed any signs that baby N would get incredibly rapid onset blood in his throat, stop breathing and suffer extreme naturally occurring throat swelling. It must be another coincidence that the baby gets better from this and just happens to have the same problem whenever he’s around Letby.
So is JJK mistaken and LL had actually been in even earlier than she’s testified? Her eye witness account puts Lucy no where near this baby, so I’m confused as to how she could have been the instigator in this instance?
What do you think happened to baby N on this occasion?
I’m asking you
as Tofino says, there’s quite a discrepancy between the accounts, but JJK’s statement seems to have been taken as fact. I guess there is *always* the chance that poorly babies by their very nature could be changeable in their presentation.What could cause their throat to spontaneously swell and bleed and do you think it’s a coincidence that the baby gets this problem again when around Letby and that other babies have had this happen? Do you think it’s significant that baby N has suffered such severe symptoms but no cause or ongoing problem is identified?I’m asking you
I think you know exactly what I think has happened tbh because I’ve said lots of times I believe letby injured the baby. I think jjk was feeding a different baby at the time and her back was turned.
Baby N was clinically in an excellent condition.
The whole discussion was around why JJK’s statement seems to have been taken at value, indicating that there’s perhaps other evidence to back up her account. So in your mind she’s misremembered?
I’m not really sure what you mean about value or other evidence. No I think that JJK didn’t see Letby do what she did because she was busy with her baby at that time. Do you want to answer my questions too?
Ngl I’m genuinely beyond confused with the trial at this point. I don’t really have the time available to keep up with it tbf, but I’m struggling to get my head around this thing with baby N.
So the prosecution are saying that LL came in to say hello, JJK had her back turned and then LL said that the baby had desaturated.
But JJK is saying that’s not what happened, she is saying that LL came into the room to say hello and then moments later the alarm started going off?
Am I understanding that correctly?
So the prosecution are saying that LL came in to say hello, JJK had her back turned and then LL said that the baby had desaturated.
But JJK is saying that’s not what happened, she is saying that LL came into the room to say hello and then moments later the alarm started going off?
Am I understanding that correctly?
Not a f7cking clue, I'm so confused at this point now. God help the jury
- Status