Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Lucy Letby

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Lucy Letby

Old 4th Jul 2018, 05:53
  #1 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 9,914
Lucy Letby

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...ital-735nqnn5s

Police arrest nurse Lucy Letby over ‘murder’ of eight babies at Countess of Chester Hospital

A neonatal nurse has been arrested on suspicion of murdering eight babies and attempting to kill six more in a scandal affecting dozens of families.

Detectives investigating as many as 17 deaths and 15 life-threatening incidents involving babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal unit were searching the home of Lucy Letby, 28, yesterday. A conviction for eight murders would make Ms Letby Britain’s most prolific child killer and the deaths threaten to shake confidence in the NHS as it marks its 70th anniversary tomorrow.

Ms Letby, described as awkward and geeky but kind-hearted, is believed to have been arrested yesterday. Officers were also searching her parents’ home in Hereford last night. Cheshire police said that the arrest was a big step in the year-long inquiry, which began when concerns were raised over a sharp increase in deaths of newborns that experts struggled to explain. The force did not confirm Ms Letby’s arrest.......

Causes of death have not been released by the hospital or police for any of the 17 babies. But the 15 other serious incidents have been described as non-fatal collapses for which emergency respiration equipment is required.......

Experts from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health said in 2016 that the hospital had not been investigating deaths thoroughly enough and noted that babies were falling ill. “Consultants noted that several of the infants collapsed unexpectedly and had been surprisingly unresponsive to resuscitation,” their report said. One baby collapsed the same way on three different nights for no clear reason. “Consultants did not initially consider that there were any links between the episodes of collapse in the infants that died,” the report said.

Outside experts were brought in after the sharp rise in deaths began in 2015. Two babies died in the unit in 2013 and three died in 2014, compared with eight in 2015 and five in 2016......

Ian Harvey, the hospital’s medical director, said: “We are continuing to support Cheshire police with their investigation. Asking the police to look into this was not something we did lightly but we need to do everything we can to understand what has happened here and get the answers we and the families so desperately want. The Countess is now equivalent to a level 1 special care baby unit and we are confident the unit is safe to continue.”
ORAC is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 07:32
  #2 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 918
" Detectives investigating as many as 17 deaths and 15 life-threatening incidents involving babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal unit were searching the home of Lucy Letby, 28, yesterday. A conviction for eight murders would make Ms Letby Britain’s most prolific child killer and the deaths threaten to shake confidence in the NHS as it marks its 70th anniversary tomorrow"


Well that dispenses with any inconvenient need for a trial and a jury then. Might as well pulp the Statute Book at the same time as an allegation doesn't need to be proved anymore.
Krystal n chips is online now  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 08:47
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 315
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips View Post
Well that dispenses with any inconvenient need for a trial and a jury then. Might as well pulp the Statute Book at the same time as an allegation doesn't need to be proved anymore.
That could even be true in this case, because it's going to be hard to find a jury of 12 people who haven't already been convinced of her guilt by the press reports.
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 09:21
  #4 (permalink)  
Paid...Persona Grata
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Between BHX and EMA
Age: 73
Posts: 236
Not necessarily. I have only read the OP, and seen no TV reports and would be quite open to convincing either way on any evidence presented. I am not going to be on the jury, though, however there must be a dozen more like me out there, but I'm not saying it'll be easy finding them.
UniFoxOs is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 09:28
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 72
Posts: 677
Whatever the outcome, and both Sallyann and K&C have very valid points, it is a shame for not only the parents but the hospital itself and the nurse.
Let's not forget she is innocent as of today. I am surprised at the newspaper's naming of her as she has not even been charged yet, as far as I know.
Years ago, my Mum was a ward sister there but she worked at the other end of the line, nursing geriatrics and she took great pride in reversing then current policy of letting the geriatrics lie in bed all day and instead getting them up and about, including walking around the hospital grounds.
KelvinD is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 09:43
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SW England
Age: 72
Posts: 3,695
I think I am right in saying that there is no restriction on naming someone who has been arrested on suspicion of committing a crime, even before they have been charged.
Tankertrashnav is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 09:50
  #7 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,569
Nice contrast in the Telegraph today.

'Nick' who cannot be named for legal reasons gets a full width front page spread.

Lucy gets her photo on page 1 and a half page spread on page 7. There is a presumptive phrase there too that is certainly prejudicial "under went post-mortem, these did not include systemic tests that would have found traces of poisons . . ." Clearly they meant if present.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 10:14
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,491
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234 View Post
That could even be true in this case, because it's going to be hard to find a jury of 12 people who haven't already been convinced of her guilt by the press reports.
I think you underestimate the ability of a jury to reach a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 12:05
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 48
Posts: 904
I seem to recall a year or two back another nurse was arrested over deaths where she worked; the papers uncovered everything they could, painting her to be a most unsuitable person, and then she was released with no charges and eventually the culprit was arrested and tried. And remember how they went to town on Christopher Jefferies.

If this nurse is responsible then she deserves everything she gets. But, otherwise, innocent until proven guilty -though the press will make up its own mind.
Martin the Martian is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 12:38
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 315
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
I think you underestimate the ability of a jury to reach a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.
I think you may overestimate the ability of individual to make an unbiased judgment when they have already been convinced of guilt by the press.

And you also have to consider the ability of a smart lawyer to exploit the potential unfairness of a trial when the accused has already been found guilty by the press.

The press have a long record of misjudging people on the basis of the flimsiest evidence or none at all.. "Ted Heath - nudge nudge - bachelor - wink wink"
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 13:08
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,491
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234 View Post
I think you may overestimate the ability of individual to make an unbiased judgment when they have already been convinced of guilt by the press.
That's why there are 12 people on a jury.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 15:08
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 369
Notwithstanding the ability, or otherwise, of 12 people to reach a verdict based only on the evidence they are presented with (and I've got mixed views on that), I do think it's wrong to name suspects, in the same way it's wrong to name victims.

I'm firmly of the view that both victims and suspects names should be forbidden from being made public until a trial, and then only when the suspect has been found guilty.

The media seem to go to extraordinary lengths to try people in the court of public opinion, and are not, it seems, put off by occasionally being sued for doing so. My guess is that they consider the revenue they make from made-up stories more than covers anything they have to pay out in a libel case, bearing in mind that few ordinary people can afford to consider taking action for libel.

Last edited by VP959; 4th Jul 2018 at 15:26.
VP959 is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 15:59
  #13 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 918
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234 View Post
I think you may overestimate the ability of individual to make an unbiased judgment when they have already been convinced of guilt by the press.

And you also have to consider the ability of a smart lawyer to exploit the potential unfairness of a trial when the accused has already been found guilty by the press.

The press have a long record of misjudging people on the basis of the flimsiest evidence or none at all.. "Ted Heath - nudge nudge - bachelor - wink wink"
And then there was the gentleman in Bristol already mentioned by M M on here....as "Private Eye" reported on the media coverage at the time, he was the perfect suspect, due to his appearance plus was instantly pre-judged as an "eccentric " and "loner"......all of which was malignant speculation as he was totally.....innocent.

Last edited by Krystal n chips; 4th Jul 2018 at 17:01.
Krystal n chips is online now  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 16:24
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 70
Posts: 557
If true it may be an instance of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. I was once involved in a case involving a paediatric nurse who was chopped because someone diagnosed her, either accurately or inaccurately as having this form of mental illness.

Here is a another case..

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/...ukcrime.health
roving is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 16:41
  #15 (permalink)  
Paid...Persona Grata
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Between BHX and EMA
Age: 73
Posts: 236
That's why there are 12 people on a jury.
, none of them clever enough to get out of jury duty.

Unattributable but well known saying:-
No one in this world, so far as I know ... has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people
UniFoxOs is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 17:16
  #16 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,569
Originally Posted by UniFoxOs View Post
, none of them clever enough to get out of jury duty.

Unattributable but well known saying:-
It was adapted from H L Mencken.

Google is your friend
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 18:38
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 5,794
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Notwithstanding the ability, or otherwise, of 12 people to reach a verdict based only on the evidence they are presented with (and I've got mixed views on that), I do think it's wrong to name suspects, in the same way it's wrong to name victims.
.
Not so sure on the not naming of suspects.

Aware via personal knowledge of someone charged with sexual crimes where due to their being named there ended up more people coming forward that HM Constabulary were unaware of.
Person concerned served time at HM Pleasure which as someone said that knew the person well, they hope there was F**** all pleasure in it.
racedo is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 18:56
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canadian Shield
Posts: 536
I wonder how long it will take for the tabloids to come up with an appropriate sobriquet...? Dr. Harold Shipman became 'Doctor Death' months before he was put on trial!

"Does the Jury find Nurse Necrosis Guilty or Not-Guilty???"
er340790 is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 19:05
  #19 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
I think that naming the accused probably derives from years ago with reporters at court proceedings where the defendant has to declare their name in open court - though now it seems to become public knowledge soon as any activity occurs - probably thanks to today's 'instant' social media with neighbours giving names to foraging reporters - though there have been cases (such as Cliff Richard) where the police have been too keen to share names in advance of an arrest.
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 23:28
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SW England
Age: 72
Posts: 3,695
I think you may overestimate the ability of individual to make an unbiased judgment when they have already been convinced of guilt by the press.
I disagree. Some years ago my son was on jury duty and found that he was going to be involved in a manslaughter trial which was somewhat of a local cause celebre. A local man had been killed in a boating accident, and the accused was from "up country". Naturally the local Cornish population were of the opinion that the outsider had to be guilty, and local press reports did nothing to go against the prevailing opinion. In the event the jury had little difficulty in finding the accused not guilty, a verdict which was met with amazement, and not a little anger locally. My son, who took his jury oath very seriously would not tell me any details of the jury's deliberations, but he made it clear that once they had heard the evidence, as opposed to the overheated reporting of the incident, then it was quite clear that the accused was not guilty. Oh and I dont know whether he knows the H L Menken quote, but I think he would have a pretty poor opinion of the sentiment expressed
Tankertrashnav is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.