Nurse Lucy Letby - guilty of murdering 7 babies - whole life sentence

Boogie Man said:
You're making a bit of a false equivalence here. The bar is set quite high when we are finding someone guilty of a crime, as it should be, it needs to be beyond reasonable doubt. Judging guilt by someone's looks simply will not do in a British court (and you'd hope in any court). And the burden of proof is on the prosecution here to find guilt, and they'd normally be expected to produce evidence of motive, means & opportunity. The defence doesn't actually have to do anything, it doesn't even have to prove innocence, although a good defence should be picking holes at the prosecution's case. If the prosecution is going to put forward a case, then they are really going to want to show motive. Now I don't know all the psychological conditions that would cause a person to kill 8 babies, but if, for example, the prosecution tried to claim the defendant was some kind of crazy attention seeker, then the defence could then show these photos to the jury, and pose the question "does this social profile really look the work of an attention seeking murderess to you, or is it more likely, the social profile of an ordinary 28yo nurse".

Wouldn't be the be all and end all of the case, we still don't know what the prosecution are going with here, or whether they even have a case, I think people are getting a bit bogged down to appearance here, but it could be a factor and a card the defence may want to play.
Click to expand...
It's not me setting unreasonably high bars, it's you setting them ludicrously low when declaring such nonsense as "she doesn't look the type" and "her social media background looks too normal for her to be such a horrible murderer". The vast majority of our horrible murderers would have met the same criteria for your defence and many of those wrongly persecuted for crimes were pursued precisely because they happened to fit your mythical "type" that murderers always conform to when that profile is only ever uncovered post conviction and then done to death on the plethora of True Crime TV channels you clearly spend far too long watching.

If this nurse is guilty, note I have no idea nor assumption either way from the information that is currently available, then the most likely diagnosed cause of her killings post conviction would be Munchausen's By Proxy as in the case of Beverly Allitt. MSbP does not have any definitive traits prior to the killings however and is technically not even admissible in court in a prosecution these days, only being used post conviction to categorise the behaviour and advise any psychological treatment. Allitt was a weird bugger as a kid and a trainee nurse but staff shortages in hospitals led to signals being overlooked, Shipman was reportedly completely normal if a bit of a miserable sod but the statistical anomalies in his death figures were what finally tipped colleagues off and led to changes in the reviews of mortality statistics which are likely to have led to the earlier detection and detention in this case whether she is proven guilty or not. Whether she is normal looking, whatever that might mean, or has a squeaky clean background does not come into this at all.
 
At this point there’s no way this guy isn’t deliberately wumming. There’s no way someone can be vehemently defending such horribly made points unless they’re doing it to get a reaction out of others.
 
Bury Red said:
It's not me setting unreasonably high bars, it's you setting them ludicrously low when declaring such nonsense as "she doesn't look the type" and "her social media background looks too normal for her to be such a horrible murderer". The vast majority of our horrible murderers would have met the same criteria for your defence and many of those wrongly persecuted for crimes were pursued precisely because they happened to fit your mythical "type" that murderers always conform to when that profile is only ever uncovered post conviction and then done to death on the plethora of True Crime TV channels you clearly spend far too long watching.

If this nurse is guilty, note I have no idea nor assumption either way from the information that is currently available, then the most likely diagnosed cause of her killings post conviction would be Munchausen's By Proxy as in the case of Beverly Allitt. MSbP does not have any definitive traits prior to the killings however and is technically not even admissible in court in a prosecution these days, only being used post conviction to categorise the behaviour and advise any psychological treatment. Allitt was a weird bugger as a kid and a trainee nurse but staff shortages in hospitals led to signals being overlooked, Shipman was reportedly completely normal if a bit of a miserable sod but the statistical anomalies in his death figures were what finally tipped colleagues off and led to changes in the reviews of mortality statistics which are likely to have led to the earlier detection and detention in this case whether she is proven guilty or not. Whether she is normal looking, whatever that might mean, or has a squeaky clean background does not come into this at all.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree, but that is a form of attention seeking, and this Beverly Allitt, she was also aggressive, manipulative, erratic, played truant... and I'm really having a hard time believing the girl in question here is anything like that. But I think we're going round in circles now. I'm sticking by guns, she's innocent, I'm really confident on this one... sometimes a man just knows! You'll have to take my word for it for now.
 
Sorry for the bump with no update. This story came into my head and I went to check what happened but there's nothing that I can find. How strange is it for someone to be arrested, rearrested a year later and then hear nothing for another year+?
 
She’s been rearrested on 8 counts of murder and 10 counts of attempted murder
 
Now charged.

Her being named sits very uneasy with me, there are accounts supporting her work (she'd even refer children to special care nursery who would otherwise have been discharged because she thought they needed additional care beyond the neonatal unit) and that the trust itself was having a hard time of it (she even championed more funding for a new neonatal unit) but the Police must have something for her to be now charged.

@Penna Isn't there at least one parent around too on a neonatal unit? Only heading home to change etc? So opportunity for sinister activity is limited somewhat? If I was a mother and my child was in NICU I'd never leave their side.

That's the most sinister aspect for me, someone so professional but potentially masking something incredibly dark.

Trial by media with people already calling her another Beverley Allitt, I guess time will tell; horrendous crimes or tragedies of a failing and underfunded trust who need a scape goat...
 
Last edited:
Rudie said:
Now charged.

Her being named sits very uneasy with me, there are accounts supporting her work (she'd even refer children to special care nursery who would otherwise have been discharged because she thought they needed additional care beyond the neonatal unit) and that the trust itself was having a hard time of it (she even championed more funding for a new neonatal unit) but the Police must have something for her to be now charged.

Trial by media with people already calling her another Beverley Allitt, I guess time will tell; horrendous crimes or tragedies.
Click to expand...

It’s the same for me, naming her potentially prejudices any trial.

however, it’s not because she’s done good elsewhere, it’s because everyone deserves a fair trial. Jimmy Saville did a hell of a lot of good, raised millions of pounds for charity, and made hundreds of peoples’ dreams come true...
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
It’s the same for me, naming her potentially prejudices any trial.

however, it’s not because she’s done good elsewhere, it’s because everyone deserves a fair trial. Jimmy Saville did a hell of a lot of good, raised millions of pounds for charity, and made hundreds of peoples’ dreams come true...
Click to expand...

True, a lot of statements from friends and neighbours saying they're shocked, don't believe it etc will certainly prejudice any trial, guess it goes both ways.
 
Last edited:
Arrested three time and publicly named before she was ever charged does seem strange.

With this kind of crime naming the suspect comes with with particular risk, you would think. Is it normal for people to be named in these circumstances in the UK? Seems reckless.
 
sullydnl said:
Arrested three time and publicly named before she was ever charged does seem strange.

With this kind of crime naming the suspect comes with with particular risk, you would think. Is it normal for people to be named in these circumstances in the UK? Seems reckless.
Click to expand...

not for this type of crime.

when there’s potential for other victims, and the police need them to come forward or to be identified, then yes. But the little I know about this, it doesn’t seem to be in anyone’s interest to name her. If she’s innocent, her life is ruined. I don’t see how this helps anyone.
 
sullydnl said:
Arrested three time and publicly named before she was ever charged does seem strange.

With this kind of crime naming the suspect comes with with particular risk, you would think. Is it normal for people to be named in these circumstances in the UK? Seems reckless.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen all the stories around this, but was she actually named by police before being charged?

Often what happens is police will issue a statement saying, for example, they have arrested a 28year old woman from XXXX on suspicion of XXXXX and the media jigsaw the identity. The police would rarely confirm it, but often give a nod that the media do not have it wrong for instance. Seems there's been quite a bit of misunderstanding in this thread over the bail back in July 2018 when she was released on police bail (pre charge bail), which means she hadn't been charged but had to return to the police station at a certain date. So the posters shocked that she had been bailed didn't get that she hadn't been charged.

Once she is charged like now, the case becomes "active" it means the police will generally (except in exceptional circumstances) release the name and charges. The media is only allowed to report name, charges, address, court dates etc all speculation should stop otherwise publishers can find themselves in contempt of court for prejudicing a potential jury. This is a boundary that has been pushed and pushed in the UK media for years and now with online reporting it is very difficult to police as all the speculation is already out there.
 
Rudie said:
Now charged.

Her being named sits very uneasy with me, there are accounts supporting her work (she'd even refer children to special care nursery who would otherwise have been discharged because she thought they needed additional care beyond the neonatal unit) and that the trust itself was having a hard time of it (she even championed more funding for a new neonatal unit) but the Police must have something for her to be now charged.

@Penna Isn't there at least one parent around too on a neonatal unit? Only heading home to change etc? So opportunity for sinister activity is limited somewhat? If I was a mother and my child was in NICU I'd never leave their side.

That's the most sinister aspect for me, someone so professional but potentially masking something incredibly dark.

Trial by media with people already calling her another Beverley Allitt, I guess time will tell; horrendous crimes or tragedies of a failing and underfunded trust who need a scape goat...
Click to expand...
Well, in my experience there were often times when there were no parents with a child. Babies can be in the NICU for a very long time, dads have to work, mums are often recovering from the birth or have other children to care for. I did a lot of night shifts and those were mostly when no parents were there at all, unless a baby was critically ill.

Other relatives weren't allowed in, so if mum or dad weren't there, no-one was there.
 
Case is being sent to crown court now, been remanded and due to appear tomorrow.

Alleged victims were named this morning which seems strange or is that standard? 2 are seemingly siblings too and within a day of each other, poor family. :(
 
Actually more common than you think. I read a true crime book called The Good Nurse, a while back about a nurse killing patients.

Harold Shipman then was a doctor.
 
Nurse Lucy Letby appears in court in baby murders case

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-57057864


A nurse accused of murdering eight babies and attempting to murder another 10 has appeared in court.
Lucy Letby, 31, of Arran Avenue, Hereford, is charged with murdering five boys and three girls at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.
She is also accused of the attempted murder of another five boys and five girls.
Ms Letby appeared at Manchester Crown Court via videolink.
The 31-year-old spoke only to confirm her name and that she could hear proceedings.
The hearing dealt with case management ahead of a trial next year.
Ms Letby was arrested in 2018 and 2019 as part of a police investigation at the hospital, which began in 2017.
She will remain in custody and is due to appear at the same court on 17 May.
 
feck sake today was a good day why’d you have to go and bump this thread to remind me how evil the world can be.
 
This case is really hard to comprehend currently as there is little to no information about how they suspect her.
 
Awful case. It’s horrible because if she’s guilty then you feel such incredible anger toward her, and if she’s innocent then you feel such pity toward her…

It’s very strange, and I hope either way the evidence makes it clear cut.
 
I'd never heard of this case and kind of wish I hadn't know. That has grimmed me out.

It must be awful for the families and god help the poor feckers picked for the jury.
 
Badunk said:
The evidence so far is that she was on duty when it happened. I hope that the prosecution has a lot more than that up their sleeve.
Click to expand...
News earlier said she was the only member of staff who was on duty when every attack happened.

Also said they found paperwork relating to some of the deaths when they raided her home.
 
Terrible. Terrible really. feel so bad for the families of the babies.
 
This was her 3rd arrest right? So I can only imagine this time they had indisputable evidence. Would there not be CCTV cameras or something in these rooms?

If it's all true, I just cannot fathom what is going on in someone's mind for all this to happen/be normal
 
6 months is a very long time for a trial. The prosecution will probably have to first prove that these babies were actually murdered because it seems like they identified the cases based on future statistical analysis rather than at the time of death. They will then have to establish how all these cases are linked and if the same method of murder was used in many instances which suggests it's a lone serial killer. People are quite dumb when it comes to their computer/internet footprint so I wouldn't be surprised if internet searches from her phone/computer form a key part of this case as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.