Lucy Letby Case #77

1
craftypudding said:
Could there be any scope that they could be trying to goad him to do that? It would be a civil case for libel because it is recorded media I assume. If there is some legal technicality whereby Dr B didn't win, they would then crow that it proves something, which it wouldn't.

Am thinking of Depp v Heard and the previous UK case, which was Depp v The Press. The reason Depp lost the UK case is because (my understanding so could be wrong) what the judge was considering (because you don't get a jury for libel), was, was the newspaper entitled to believe that what they had been told by Amber was true and print it because that is a defence I think - if you really believe it and the court judges that a reasonable person would also believe it based on being told the same things.

I suppose I am crediting them with scheming intelligence that they may not possess.

I hope the police charge her for more soon.
Click to expand...

It's Mark Mcdonald, the consultants who wrote the report, the retired doctors who have slandered Dr Brearey by stating this as a fact. I think they have tried to get round it by not mentioning his name.

The newspapers and twitter idiots may well take it as fact as it's been delivered in that matter by doctors and a solicitor. So he probably couldn't sue them. The press conference seems to be relying on most people not knowing the facts of the case.
 
craftypudding said:
Am thinking of Depp v Heard and the previous UK case, which was Depp v The Press. The reason Depp lost the UK case is because (my understanding so could be wrong) what the judge was considering (because you don't get a jury for libel), was, was the newspaper entitled to believe that what they had been told by Amber was true and print it because that is a defence I think - if you really believe it and the court judges that a reasonable person would also believe it based on being told the same things.
Click to expand...

No, in that case the judge examined a series of incidents that Amber claimed. He concluded (under the civil standard of proof) that the majority of incidents had actually occurred, not just that it was reasonable for the newspaper to have believed Amber. The ruling is here: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/depp-v-news-group-newspapers-ltd/
 
MavisBeacon said:
The thing I don't understand about the NGers is how they expect to overturn all the convictions, which each comes with a whole life sentence. Even if they get a couple thrown out, she's still banged up for life.

Are they hoping to find a universal legal issue that somehow undermines a) every case presented in the first trial (remembering that she was found NG of some charges) and b) the second trial, which didn't even involve Dewi Evans? They've already tried that twice at the Court of Appeal for both trials. Not liking the verdicts doesn't count.

Then there's the issue of the spike in neonatal deaths. If they weren't caused by Letby, then a massive police investigation is completely wrong. A bunch of babies died or were irrevocably harmed during their time at CoCH - so what caused it? Please show your workings WITH EVIDENCE.

And also how do they explain the weird stuff about her like the handover sheets, her behaviour, the change in the timings of deaths when she changed shift patterns or went on holiday etc etc. Plus the new evidence that's come to light during the enquiry about the behaviour of the hospital management to cover up the fact there was an issue.

It baffles me that intelligent people like Phil Hammond (not including David Davis and Nadine Dorries, who are not smart) can't see that these questions need to be answered.
Click to expand...
You are very right...sometimes intelligence may mean nincompoop not all intelligent people are SMART...
---
I feel sorry for the victims and their families.... Operation Hummingbird is still ongoing ...this evil witch may have gone for nurse training to kill...she had an agenda! Bring it on Mark McDonald reveal your foolishness.... moron
 
sebanna said:
Why were they doing all this engaging with Lucy's parents! She is an adult employee just deal with her!
Click to expand...
You know, this just isn't normal in any way shape or form. Contracts of employment usually state that you can have someone with you at a grievance hearing/disciplinary meeting, and usually state who this can be: union rep/colleague, usually. I have seen contracts that state if an issue has possible criminal aspects you can also have a Mackenzie friend (this is before police are involved - things like small value theft, etc) The parents though? Not only have I never seen them listed as an authorised person I have never had a client ask for them to be present.
It's just bizarre that a. They are present throughout and not only part of the conversation but also dictating terms. Either aul fella Letby had serious dirt on someone or... well I don't know what else.
I wonder did Lucy murder as a really fucked up transference of her murderous feelings toward her parents? Maybe in her bleeping twisted state of mind she thought that babies who had a bad start - like her, allegedly - would be better off dead than end up like her.
 
Boxatrix said:
You know, this just isn't normal in any way shape or form. Contracts of employment usually state that you can have someone with you at a grievance hearing/disciplinary meeting, and usually state who this can be: union rep/colleague, usually. I have seen contracts that state if an issue has possible criminal aspects you can also have a Mackenzie friend (this is before police are involved - things like small value theft, etc) The parents though? Not only have I never seen them listed as an authorised person I have never had a client ask for them to be present.
It's just bizarre that a. They are present throughout and not only part of the conversation but also dictating terms. Either aul fella Letby had serious dirt on someone or... well I don't know what else.
I wonder did Lucy murder as a really fucked up transference of her murderous feelings toward her parents? Maybe in her bleeping twisted state of mind she thought that babies who had a bad start - like her, allegedly - would be better off dead than end up like her.
Click to expand...
I think it is worse than that, I don't think they were even her reps - in her grievance meeting her rep is Tony Millea. Godness knows how they inveigled themselves into it. I wish it had been asked in the Inquiry because it seems to have impacted the course of events. As all the inquiry docs are out of order, I don't know if it is easy to see when Ma and Pa first made an appearance in the records.

I agree transference could be an option - it could be anger at her parents, or maybe when she first started off it was different because maybe she tried to make babies ill-er than they were so that they could be 'miracle' babies like she was, and it got out of hand because she got addicted. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a connection between her own start in life and what she did.

1734856227503.png
 

Attachments

  • 1734855597794.png
    1734855597794.png
    42.5 KB · Views: 2
craftypudding said:
Could there be any scope that they could be trying to goad him to do that? It would be a civil case for libel because it is recorded media I assume. If there is some legal technicality whereby Dr B didn't win, they would then crow that it proves something, which it wouldn't.

Am thinking of Depp v Heard and the previous UK case, which was Depp v The Press. The reason Depp lost the UK case is because (my understanding so could be wrong) what the judge was considering (because you don't get a jury for libel), was, was the newspaper entitled to believe that what they had been told by Amber was true and print it because that is a defence I think - if you really believe it and the court judges that a reasonable person would also believe it based on being told the same things.

I suppose I am crediting them with scheming intelligence that they may not possess.

I hope the police charge her for more soon.
Click to expand...

I don’t think he could sue random people or the press purely based on it having been genuinely said as part of all the court proceedings and legal back and forth. Otherwise whenever there is a court case and the press report and then people comment on what is said as part of it they’d be liable to be sued. I suspect Letby’s lawyers and legal team are also protected to some extent otherwise anyone who ever had to defend anyone by using an argument blaming someone else would also be liable to be sued for it.

It absolutely sucks for Dr B that he’s being made the target of such hate though, he seems to be one of the truly good guys from the unit and no doubt that’s why they’re going after him with such malice.
 
CabalofBolorneaise said:
I don’t think he could sue random people or the press purely based on it having been genuinely said as part of all the court proceedings and legal back and forth. Otherwise whenever there is a court case and the press report and then people comment on what is said as part of it they’d be liable to be sued. I suspect Letby’s lawyers and legal team are also protected to some extent otherwise anyone who ever had to defend anyone by using an argument blaming someone else would also be liable to be sued for it.

It absolutely sucks for Dr B that he’s being made the target of such hate though, he seems to be one of the truly good guys from the unit and no doubt that’s why they’re going after him with such malice.
Click to expand...

I can understand why the legal team would need protection from libel to defend a case but to have a press conference to publically accuse a doctor, when there isn't even an up and coming court case is an extraordinary sequence of events. There was no need to do it as he could just apply to the CCRC like everyone else.
 
Fruitshop said:
That article is excellent
Click to expand...
Yes I agree . I was relieved to read it as I had just watched Dr Soham Das "deep dive into Letby case" expecting to hear his view on Letby as a forensic psychiatrist. To my shock he seems to be arguing her innocence. I can't believe that as a working consultant he has read all the transcripts. I think I'll stick to H G Tudor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top