Lucy Letby Guilty
Discussion
Hungrymc said:
Is it correct that a baby born at 1lb (mentioned previously in the thread) would only be level 2 in a 4 tier system of risk / complexity? If so, I guess that gives some idea of the nature of babies challenges in the higher levels?.
Wasn’t that also mentioned as being technically beyond their level, or was that another child?Getragdogleg said:
A very interesting read, the whole case has been very odd from the start and I have never been wholly convinced that she isn't some kind of scapegoat to cover for some much larger institutional failings.
One important point covered in the trial is that very sick babies who are getting better do not then suffer catastrophic collapse and die.Much of the “awful string of bad luck” commentary I see on social media seems to ignore this. These weren’t babies hovering on the edge of life and death, they were babies that were heading towards a full recovery, and outside of this case (apparently) they don’t just go backwards and die.
Robertb said:
Meanwhile Valdo Calocane, the man who murdered three and seriously injured three others in Nottingham gets a reduced sentence on 'mental health' grounds, and could in theory be released once he's deemed safe.
He didn't get a reduced sentence though. He was convicted of Manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility (most likely due to his diagnosed psychosis by multiple experts) and his sentence was an indefinite hospital order with special restrictions as per section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This will mean that he will die in a secure hospital and never be freed unless specifically authorised by the Home Secretary. Here is an article which was written in response to Calocane which explains what a hospital order means by someone who might know a little more about the subject than most https://www.kbgchambers.co.uk/news/why-a-s-37-41-h...
type-r said:
Let's hope it's sooner rather than later. ChocolateFrog said:
type-r said:
Let's hope it's sooner rather than later. Ken_Code said:
Getragdogleg said:
A very interesting read, the whole case has been very odd from the start and I have never been wholly convinced that she isn't some kind of scapegoat to cover for some much larger institutional failings.
One important point covered in the trial is that very sick babies who are getting better do not then suffer catastrophic collapse and die.Much of the “awful string of bad luck” commentary I see on social media seems to ignore this. These weren’t babies hovering on the edge of life and death, they were babies that were heading towards a full recovery, and outside of this case (apparently) they don’t just go backwards and die.
I have no idea if there is any weight to the appeal but I hope and pray that in 10/15/20 years time we aren't looking at another inquiry where someone is found to have been thrown under the bus to cover up failings in an organisation. I hope the prosecution case was built on solid evidence and not hearsay / speculation, if only for the sake of the parent/relatives of all those involved.
pavarotti1980 said:
Robertb said:
Meanwhile Valdo Calocane, the man who murdered three and seriously injured three others in Nottingham gets a reduced sentence on 'mental health' grounds, and could in theory be released once he's deemed safe.
He didn't get a reduced sentence though. He was convicted of Manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility (most likely due to his diagnosed psychosis by multiple experts) and his sentence was an indefinite hospital order with special restrictions as per section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This will mean that he will die in a secure hospital and never be freed unless specifically authorised by the Home Secretary. Here is an article which was written in response to Calocane which explains what a hospital order means by someone who might know a little more about the subject than most https://www.kbgchambers.co.uk/news/why-a-s-37-41-h...
sugerbear said:
This is what happens when leaders / managers in public office choose to lie, it will almost certainly have put the idea in peoples mind that if the post office can do it, why can't the NHS. There have been many cases of whisteblowers being hounded to protect senior managers. There have also been cases of nurses being convicted based on misleading statistics.
I have no idea if there is any weight to the appeal but I hope and pray that in 10/15/20 years time we aren't looking at another inquiry where someone is found to have been thrown under the bus to cover up failings in an organisation. I hope the prosecution case was built on solid evidence and not hearsay / speculation, if only for the sake of the parent/relatives of all those involved.
Has there been any investigation / sanction yet against more senior staff / managers who threatened those who thought something was going on?I have no idea if there is any weight to the appeal but I hope and pray that in 10/15/20 years time we aren't looking at another inquiry where someone is found to have been thrown under the bus to cover up failings in an organisation. I hope the prosecution case was built on solid evidence and not hearsay / speculation, if only for the sake of the parent/relatives of all those involved.
Sheepshanks said:
sugerbear said:
This is what happens when leaders / managers in public office choose to lie, it will almost certainly have put the idea in peoples mind that if the post office can do it, why can't the NHS. There have been many cases of whisteblowers being hounded to protect senior managers. There have also been cases of nurses being convicted based on misleading statistics.
I have no idea if there is any weight to the appeal but I hope and pray that in 10/15/20 years time we aren't looking at another inquiry where someone is found to have been thrown under the bus to cover up failings in an organisation. I hope the prosecution case was built on solid evidence and not hearsay / speculation, if only for the sake of the parent/relatives of all those involved.
Has there been any investigation / sanction yet against more senior staff / managers who threatened those who thought something was going on?I have no idea if there is any weight to the appeal but I hope and pray that in 10/15/20 years time we aren't looking at another inquiry where someone is found to have been thrown under the bus to cover up failings in an organisation. I hope the prosecution case was built on solid evidence and not hearsay / speculation, if only for the sake of the parent/relatives of all those involved.
Surely they could and should be prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter for failing to act on the warnings of very senior clinicians, thereby breaching their duty of care to the infants who died as a result.
Ken_Code said:
PRO5T said:
There was absolutely no direct evidence on Letby, only a collection of coincidences that pointed towards her.
There was. There was her confession for one thing.Any others?
PRO5T said:
Very debatable as to whether that is a "confession" (the inverted commas are intentional). As the jurors didn't find her guilty on all charges it would seem they debated it too and didn't take it into consideration.
Any others?
It was a letter she wrote saying that she had killed the babies. Are you pretending it was the start of a novel she was writing?Any others?
However you wish to categorise it, you really can’t pretend that it’s not evidence that goes beyond coincidences.
You are also ignoring the distressed baby with blood in its mouth, among myriad other pieces of evidence.
No, the claim that the prosecution case was based only on coincidences isn’t true.
Ken_Code said:
PRO5T said:
Very debatable as to whether that is a "confession" (the inverted commas are intentional). As the jurors didn't find her guilty on all charges it would seem they debated it too and didn't take it into consideration.
Any others?
It was a letter she wrote saying that she had killed the babies. Are you pretending it was the start of a novel she was writing?Any others?
However you wish to categorise it, you really can’t pretend that it’s not evidence that goes beyond coincidences.
You are also ignoring the distressed baby with blood in its mouth, among myriad other pieces of evidence.
No, the claim that the prosecution case was based only on coincidences isn’t true.
PRO5T said:
Ken_Code said:
PRO5T said:
Very debatable as to whether that is a "confession" (the inverted commas are intentional). As the jurors didn't find her guilty on all charges it would seem they debated it too and didn't take it into consideration.
Any others?
It was a letter she wrote saying that she had killed the babies. Are you pretending it was the start of a novel she was writing?Any others?
However you wish to categorise it, you really can’t pretend that it’s not evidence that goes beyond coincidences.
You are also ignoring the distressed baby with blood in its mouth, among myriad other pieces of evidence.
No, the claim that the prosecution case was based only on coincidences isn’t true.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff