Lucy Letby infant murders trial

bluethrunthru said:
The prosecution have hung their hat on that note and offered nothing more than circumstantial evidence and that note she wrote - its now for the defence to show she was a caring individual who had mental problems and when things were going wrong around her she couldn't cope felt guilt and wrote that note. Going to be interesting to see how it comes out but can anyone say they saw her 100% kill a baby? That is the level of proof required. Watch this space.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.

Beyond reasonable doubt is not that and people have been convicted of murdering their wives despite there being no body found or no witnesses to act.

If she isn't responsible for the deaths, there must be some other cause, can't be a coincidence.presumbly mortality rare has decreased since she was arrested.

Have the hospital made changes that have reduced mortalities or is just the fact that she no longer works on the ward?

I'd ve very surprised if she wasn't found guilty, seems like someone who was maladapted to stress and became addicted to provoking it by tampering with babies life support and eventually graduated to killing.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
No it isn't.

Beyond reasonable doubt is not that and people have been convicted of murdering their wives despite there being no body found or no witnesses to act.

If she isn't responsible for the deaths, there must be some other cause, can't be a coincidence.presumbly mortality rare has decreased since she was arrested.

Have the hospital made changes that have reduced mortalities or is just the fact that she no longer works on the ward?

I'd ve very surprised if she wasn't found guilty, seems like someone who was maladapted to stress and became addicted to provoking it by tampering with babies life support and eventually graduated to killing.
Click to expand...

to which the answer is prove it

Thats my point - I have no real issue with any verdict but hearing it tonight it sounded to me like

a/ she did it

or

b/ she was under pressure had mental problems and expressed herself on paper - she never said who what when and where which is what is the problem

As for the mortality decrease if that has happened then that would be the hospital tightening things up? Look at the numerous issues with post natal care of babies in the last 12 months that have come to light - whole hospital trusts being found wanting.

If she did it she did it and the prosecution simply have to prove it - just hearing the detail today I felt that if they are hanging everything on that note I am not sure the prosecution have provided conclusive proof
 
bluethrunthru said:
Going to be interesting to see how it comes out but can anyone say they saw her 100% kill a baby? That is the level of proof required.
Click to expand...
No it’s not. The level of proof required is making the jury ‘sure’ of her guilt, which doesn’t amount to the same as 100% proof. You can be sure of something without being 100% certain of it. There is a distinct and conscious difference between the two. The test of ‘sure’ leaves room for a tiny bit of doubt, albeit not a reasonable one, but it falls short of 100%, otherwise that would be the test.
 
I really don't think those notes stand up as any kind of admission or proof of guilt.

Imagine for a second if you had been accused of such horrific crimes but you were entirely innocent, its highly likely your head would get messed up pretty quickly and you'd have some kind of breakdown that could result in you writing something as incoherent and rambling as that.
 
bluethrunthru said:
The prosecution have hung their hat on that note and offered nothing more than circumstantial evidence and that note she wrote - its now for the defence to show she was a caring individual who had mental problems and when things were going wrong around her she couldn't cope felt guilt and wrote that note. Going to be interesting to see how it comes out but can anyone say they saw her 100% kill a baby? That is the level of proof required. Watch this space.
Click to expand...

Important to point out that all we’ve had are opening statements which act as more of an overview. The prosecution have stated that they have a lot of evidence to present which has not yet been seen or mentioned.
 
bluethrunthru said:
to which the answer is prove it

Thats my point - I have no real issue with any verdict but hearing it tonight it sounded to me like

a/ she did it

or

b/ she was under pressure had mental problems and expressed herself on paper - she never said who what when and where which is what is the problem

As for the mortality decrease if that has happened then that would be the hospital tightening things up? Look at the numerous issues with post natal care of babies in the last 12 months that have come to light - whole hospital trusts being found wanting.

If she did it she did it and the prosecution simply have to prove it - just hearing the detail today I felt that if they are hanging everything on that note I am not sure the prosecution have provided conclusive proof.
Click to expand...

Having done some more digging there were issues with the mortality rate, but the alleged crimes were uncovered and links established by senior doctor.

Some of the stuff, suggests if it wasn't murder then it was likely negligent/illegal act manslaughter.

She is right, she will likely never marry or have kids, and never work in the profession again even if acquitted and fully exonerated.

And would likely need a new identity.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
even if a baby dies by accident surely better to have everything recorded in these wards to ensure everything was done right
Click to expand...

I don't think we want to go down the route of having cameras everywhere. Imagine working under pressure with emergency situations but knowing you are being recorded and it could come back to bite you. There should still be a baseline position whereby nurses are doing their job and not trying to cause harm. In this case a pattern was recognised and she was moved off night shifts as a result. But perhaps more should have been done to investigate her sooner by the hospital...the benefit of hindsight.
 
The Daily Mail is doing a podcast about the trial. I'm surprised. But obviously they're not giving opinions about the evidence.

 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
Why has it taken so long for this trial? I appreciate the number of deaths and attempt to kill will prolong it, but 9 months?
Are members of the jury being paid? What if they wanted a couple of days off to watch City in Istanbul or whever else?
Click to expand...
Jurors are told at the start that it would be a long trial. Any that have issues with work, especially the self employed can be excused. Any that wanted an Istanbul trip would have had to do the day trip as they knew it would be Monday to Friday.
It is one of the problems of trial by jury as it restricts who can sit on one.
 
Once Jury trial starts you are there for the duration.
Asking for a couple of days off for a football match would probably get you banged up for contempt of court!
 
denislawsbackheel said:
Once Jury trial starts you are there for the duration.
Asking for a couple of days off for a football match would probably get you banged up for contempt of court!
Click to expand...
They should have just picked 12 rags then that avoids any chance of this happening
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top