Lucy Letby......More revelations.

[blup]

She was a nurse. she is hardly going to be caught with a smoking gun, apart from the occasion when a Childs parents walked into the room while she was attempting to do the deed.

No direct evidence. Hospitals are places where seriously ill people die in the presence of nurses

 

[blup]

Interesting article in the Guardian which goes into a bit more detail

‘My kind of case’: intense focus falls on Lucy Letby trial expert witness

Dr Dewi Evans’s evidence has been criticised, even ridiculed, but he maintains his work stands up to scrutiny

www.theguardian.com

 

[Mottie]

Manslaughter arrests in Lucy Letby hospital investigation

Cheshire Police has been conducted an investigation into potential manslaughter

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[blup]

The police say the investigation does not impact on LL or the convictions, so presumably it’s about perceived failure to act on the statistical blips etc, regardless of whether LL’s appeal succeeds. The Police have a thankless job in many respects but I do wonder whether their failings in historic CSA cases will now be put under the spotlight given this investigation into senior hospital staff some of whom will presumably be career civvies

 

[blup]

Part of the current terms of reference of the current inquiry includes managements response and handling of the concerns raised at the time. Which directly conflicts with the gross negligence manslaughter investigation

 

[JohnD]

Part of the current terms of reference of the current inquiry includes managements response and handling of the concerns raised at the time. Which directly conflicts with the gross negligence manslaughter investigation

Why does it conflict?

 

[blup]

Why does it conflict?

Both are independently gathering evidence, each might interfere with the due process of the other. It makes more sense generally for the inquiry to be put on hold until both the outcome of LL’s appeal against conviction and the current arrests is known/resolved.

 

[Highway Man]

I am confused as to wether or not she is guilty or there has been a massive injustice done here. I agree also that they should deal with one cconviction at a time and then it would make more sense to convict those that have been found guilty of neglect.

 

[blup]

I am confused as to wether or not she is guilty or there has been a massive injustice done here. I agree also that they should deal with one cconviction at a time and then it would make more sense to convict those that have been found guilty of neglect.

The case has been referred by Lettby’s new legal team to the criminal cases review commission which can refer it on to the court of appeal if there is new evidence to suggest the conviction was unsafe. Plenty of experts are coming forward to say the medical and statistical info was misunderstood or just wrong. The court of appeal can squash the conviction. She could be free within a couple of years if not sooner.Or it could say we are not convinced, stay where you are.

 

[JohnD]

Both are independently gathering evidence,

Why might that cause a conflict?

 

[JohnD]

Which directly conflicts with the gross negligence manslaughter investigation

Let's suppose, for example, that somebody reported to a hospital director that a member of staff was committing multiple murders.

Let's suppose that the director refused to listen or investigate the report, and instead told the whistle-blower to shut up, and threatened them with the sack.

Might an investigation find that the director was criminally negligent?

Does their negligence only exist if the reports were true? What if it turned out there was only one murder? Or twenty but the evidence had been destroyed? Or if the murders had been committed, but by a different member of staff?

Is a dangerous drunk driver only guilty if he kills someone?

 

[blup]

Why might that cause a conflict?

Because they are predicated on LL's guilt and so exclude other possible causes

 

[blup]

Let's suppose, for example, that somebody reported to a hospital director that a member of staff was committing multiple murders.

That’s the very supposition in question

Let's suppose that the director refused to listen or investigate the report, and instead told the whistle-blower to shut up, and threatened them with the sack.

If, as seems increasingly possible, LL is innocent, the hypothetical director’s response/actions could be seen in retrospect to have been appropriate

Might an investigation find that the director was criminally negligent?

Again this is all premature

Does their negligence only exist if the reports were true? What if it turned out there was only one murder? Or twenty but the evidence had been destroyed? Or if the murders had been committed, but by a different member of staff?

That raises a much broader point about moral and legal culpability. Are politicians also responsible, or people who vote for low taxation parties?

Is a dangerous drunk driver only guilty if he kills someone?

Does speed kill?

 

[Highway Man]

The case has been referred by Lettby’s new legal team to the criminal cases review commission which can refer it on to the court of appeal if there is new evidence to suggest the conviction was unsafe. Plenty of experts are coming forward to say the medical and statistical info was misunderstood or just wrong. The court of appeal can squash the conviction. She could be free within a couple of years if not sooner.Or it could say we are not convinced, stay where you are.

OMG fancy being innocent and proven but takes 2 years to release you. That is truly terrible.

 

[JohnD]

That’s the very supposition in question

If, as seems increasingly possible, LL is innocent, the hypothetical director’s response/actions could be seen in retrospect to have been appropriate

You think it is "appropriate" to ignore reports of multiple murders without investigating them?