Lucy Letby Guilty
Discussion
RATATTAK said:
IMO Managers and HR bods who let this continue to happen should be in prison with her.
This, in spadesUnit manager
Chief Nurse
Duty exec
All indirectly culpable for deaths after they were told by senior consultants Letby was a problem
When you are told b6 a team of 7 consultants that there is a clear link between one nurse and babies deaths, you should be acting, not sticking your fingers in your ears and hoping it all goes away
They should all be dismissed and face criminal charges
Edited by freedman on Saturday 19th August 08:34
Hammersia said:
sebdangerfield said:
Hammersia said:
Thanks for the advice, but I wager I know a fair bit more about the subject matter than you, so I will continue commenting and expressing my doubts.
Are you an expert witness too? What’s your view on the way Dr. Dewi Evans and Dr. Sandie Bohin’s testimony was dealt with?
It doesn't change the entirely circumstantial case that was built.
If she really is guilty, then she has an entirely unique psychological make up amongst serial killers.
fs916 said:
"On 24 March 2003, de Berk was sentenced by the court in The Hague to life imprisonment for the murder of four patients and the attempted murder of three others (2004, after an appeal, she was convicted of seven murders and three attempted murders). The verdict depended in part on a statistical calculation, according to which the probability was allegedly only 1 in 342 million that a nurse's shifts would coincide with so many of the deaths and resuscitations purely by chance."
The graph does look damning, but also has similarities with the Dutch nurse, who the experts were also so convinced of guilt. Also, there were a lot more deaths which she was not charged with, which she was not on shift for.
Again circumstantial to be fair but the difference perhaps to the Dutch case might be the (very) large rise in deaths in that unit and the return to normal ie very few since after she was not present. Don't honestly know enough to have much of an opinion either way but I did think re the point about circumstantial evidence being damning, the dutch case as linked provided quite a good counterpoint for that. Terrible case for all concerned and irrespective of the case itself, the NHS management should be facing some rather serious questions.The graph does look damning, but also has similarities with the Dutch nurse, who the experts were also so convinced of guilt. Also, there were a lot more deaths which she was not charged with, which she was not on shift for.
Hondashark said:
I think I read that the unit has only had 1 death in the last 7 years. Pretty incredible change.
They stopped taking particularly premature infants in 2016.This is the problem with the whole narrative surrounding this situation: people on both sides looking for evidence that supports their belief.
freedman said:
RATATTAK said:
IMO Managers and HR bods who let this continue to happen should be in prison with her.
This, in spadesUnit manager
Chief Nurse
Duty exec
All indirectly culpable for deaths after they were told by senior consultants Letby was a problem
When you are told b6 a team of 7 consultants that there is a clear link between one nurse and babies deaths, you should be acting, not sticking your fingers in your ears and hoping it all goes away
They should all be dismissed and face criminal charges
Edited by freedman on Saturday 19th August 08:34
Calls for prosecutions and dismissals will be rejected on the basis that it would prevent the development of an open culture and make people fear retribution. They will quote the air industry 'no blame' approach.
Slowboathome said:
They stopped taking particularly premature infants in 2016.
This is the problem with the whole narrative surrounding this situation: people on both sides looking for evidence that supports their belief.
She must be the only serial killer in history to be arrested, dearested and released on police bail for two years.This is the problem with the whole narrative surrounding this situation: people on both sides looking for evidence that supports their belief.
Slowboathome said:
They stopped taking particularly premature infants in 2016.
This is the problem with the whole narrative surrounding this situation: people on both sides looking for evidence that supports their belief.
What a horrible tangle. You cant go putting statistics out there like "only one death in 7 years" when you have significantly changed what happens at that unit.This is the problem with the whole narrative surrounding this situation: people on both sides looking for evidence that supports their belief.
As I wrote earlier, there are a lot f questions, mostly What the hell went on and Why ?
She's maintaining her innocence so were not going to get answers from her, she either did it but wont admit it or didn't and its all a weird circumstance. A Jury thinks she did it so that's as good as it gets for now but justice sometimes isn't the truth and more an outcome from who had the more compelling arguments.
According to Wiki:
In criminal law, culpability, or being culpable, is a measure of the degree to which an agent, such as a person, can be held morally or legally responsible for action and inaction.
Is there such a thing in law as 'contributory culpability'? If there isn't, perhaps there should be.
In criminal law, culpability, or being culpable, is a measure of the degree to which an agent, such as a person, can be held morally or legally responsible for action and inaction.
Is there such a thing in law as 'contributory culpability'? If there isn't, perhaps there should be.
It is odd really. On one hand she is guilty but on the other she could have just been totally incompetent at her job. The NHS from my dealings leads to the later.
My own experience, I'm told directly I will die if I don't take medication, but they stop it as they erroneously say I missed an appointment.
I had to complain to the trust executive head to get back on it. Now I've had blood tests go missing etc, but when does incompetence become malfeasance.
My feeling is the NHS have to have the image protected at all costs, even if incompetent people work for it. This is the reason why change just cannot take place on any scale that would stop stuff like this straight away.
My own experience, I'm told directly I will die if I don't take medication, but they stop it as they erroneously say I missed an appointment.
I had to complain to the trust executive head to get back on it. Now I've had blood tests go missing etc, but when does incompetence become malfeasance.
My feeling is the NHS have to have the image protected at all costs, even if incompetent people work for it. This is the reason why change just cannot take place on any scale that would stop stuff like this straight away.
Edited by Cockaigne on Saturday 19th August 11:42
Hammersia said:
That chart covers a whole year, and it's a self selected chart showing cases that "fit an MO" eg air embolism and insulin.
It is NOT a chart recording all baby illnesses over the whole year, which might look very different and more random, and much, much bigger.
In other words, just on that piece of evidence alone, there must be some cause to suspect that the facts have been made to fit the case.
no, it doesntIt is NOT a chart recording all baby illnesses over the whole year, which might look very different and more random, and much, much bigger.
In other words, just on that piece of evidence alone, there must be some cause to suspect that the facts have been made to fit the case.
it is explained, if you can read, that that chart is supposed to be EVERY death or collapse within that year she worked before being moved to non clerical duties.
Nothing about insulin or air since the causes werent investigated properly.
id think the basic statistical calculation is what is the chance of this being a coincidence. But you do need comparable data from the years previously, and from other comparable baby units, and its not clear that exists
milesgiles said:
no, it doesnt
it is explained, if you can read, that that chart is supposed to be EVERY death or collapse within that year she worked before being moved to non clerical duties.
Nothing about insulin or air since the causes werent investigated properly.
id think the basic statistical calculation is what is the chance of this being a coincidence. But you do need comparable data from the years previously, and from other comparable baby units, and its not clear that exists
The chart doesn't include any time period before or after the arbitrary year selected, and doesn't include any other staff roles - doctors, cleaners, admin, managers etc etcit is explained, if you can read, that that chart is supposed to be EVERY death or collapse within that year she worked before being moved to non clerical duties.
Nothing about insulin or air since the causes werent investigated properly.
id think the basic statistical calculation is what is the chance of this being a coincidence. But you do need comparable data from the years previously, and from other comparable baby units, and its not clear that exists
"They had one baby death after she was moved". Let's have that on a full chart then.
milesgiles said:
I can think of several that were released from prison completely. Lopez, the serpent, Kemper..
not sure why you think Letby is unique
Some other serial killers have been released after serving a sentence, or adjudged to have been cured of mental illness, or bribed their way out, yes.not sure why you think Letby is unique
I'm not aware of any serial killer having been arrested and considered so harmless and lacking in psychopathy by police to have been released on bail for two years.
Edited by Hammersia on Saturday 19th August 13:41
Hammersia said:
The chart doesn't include any time period before or after the arbitrary year selected, and doesn't include any other staff roles - doctors, cleaners, admin, managers etc etc
"They had one baby death after she was moved". Let's have that on a full chart then.
It was on the full chart. The defence would have had a field day had it not been. The BBC have redacted the chart. The chart shown in court to jurors and discussed for many hours had all the information on. "They had one baby death after she was moved". Let's have that on a full chart then.
Riley Blue said:
According to Wiki:
In criminal law, culpability, or being culpable, is a measure of the degree to which an agent, such as a person, can be held morally or legally responsible for action and inaction.
Is there such a thing in law as 'contributory culpability'? If there isn't, perhaps there should be.
"Four levels of criminal culpability can be identified for sentencing purposes: Where the offender;In criminal law, culpability, or being culpable, is a measure of the degree to which an agent, such as a person, can be held morally or legally responsible for action and inaction.
Is there such a thing in law as 'contributory culpability'? If there isn't, perhaps there should be.
- has the intention to cause harm, with the highest culpability when an offence is planned. The worse the harm intended, the greater the seriousness.
- is reckless as to whether harm is caused, that is, where the offender appreciates at least some harm would be caused but proceeds giving no thought to the consequences even though the extent of the risk would be obvious to most people.
- has knowledge of the specific risks entailed by his actions even though he does not intend to cause the harm that results.
- is guilty of negligence.
Note: There are offences where liability is strict and no culpability need be proved for the purposes of obtaining a conviction, but the degree of culpability is still important when deciding sentence. The extent to which recklessness, knowledge or negligence are involved in a particular offence will vary." Sentencing Council
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff