paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 11:57 am
3 arrests at Chester hospital in wake of investigation
originally a corporate manslaughter investigation, widened to negligence manslaughter.... ie failed to react appropriately to the deaths as I read it.
Indeed, will be an even more interesting trial if it comes to that - I bet they'll arrange a better defence anyway
It's not clear - because we don't know the basis for the arrests - but presumably?? they arise from the presumption that Letby is a serial killer and did kill and try to kill many babies, ie the negligence is due to failure to prevent her actions rather than failure to properly run a high-risk neonatal unit.
originally a corporate manslaughter investigation, widened to negligence manslaughter.... ie failed to react appropriately to the deaths as I read it.
Indeed, will be an even more interesting trial if it comes to that - I bet they'll arrange a better defence anyway
It's not clear - because we don't know the basis for the arrests - but presumably?? they arise from the presumption that Letby is a serial killer and did kill and try to kill many babies, ie the negligence is due to failure to prevent her actions rather than failure to properly run a high-risk neonatal unit.
Indeed, will be an even more interesting trial if it comes to that - I bet they'll arrange a better defence anyway
It's not clear - because we don't know the basis for the arrests - but presumably?? they arise from the presumption that Letby is a serial killer and did kill and try to kill many babies, ie the negligence is due to failure to prevent her actions rather than failure to properly run a high-risk neonatal unit.
One would have to assume so, given that's the legally agreed facts-on-the-ground.
Which raises a Kafka-esque possibility that the best legal defence for the accused might be to cast doubt on the original verdict. If she's not provably a serial killer, then they can't be on the hook for failing to stop her.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 9:22 am
It's not clear - because we don't know the basis for the arrests - but presumably?? they arise from the presumption that Letby is a serial killer and did kill and try to kill many babies, ie the negligence is due to failure to prevent her actions rather than failure to properly run a high-risk neonatal unit.
One would have to assume so, given that's the legally agreed facts-on-the-ground.
Which raises a Kafka-esque possibility that the best legal defence for the accused might be to cast doubt on the original verdict. If she's not provably a serial killer, then they can't be on the hook for failing to stop her.
Puja
Yes, or that she was such a clever serial killer that she left no credible evidence and was not witnessed once* hence there was no way they could have stopped her.
One would have to assume so, given that's the legally agreed facts-on-the-ground.
Which raises a Kafka-esque possibility that the best legal defence for the accused might be to cast doubt on the original verdict. If she's not provably a serial killer, then they can't be on the hook for failing to stop her.
Puja
Yes, or that she was such a clever serial killer that she left no credible evidence and was not witnessed once* hence there was no way they could have stopped her.
* almost like she wasn't a killer at all . . .
She was witnessed once. But in any event people don't tend to choose to kill others with an audience. I presume the defence had better points than that...
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
One would have to assume so, given that's the legally agreed facts-on-the-ground.
Which raises a Kafka-esque possibility that the best legal defence for the accused might be to cast doubt on the original verdict. If she's not provably a serial killer, then they can't be on the hook for failing to stop her.
Puja
Yes, or that she was such a clever serial killer that she left no credible evidence and was not witnessed once* hence there was no way they could have stopped her.
* almost like she wasn't a killer at all . . .
She was witnessed once. But in any event people don't tend to choose to kill others with an audience. I presume the defence had better points than that...
One would have to assume so, given that's the legally agreed facts-on-the-ground.
Which raises a Kafka-esque possibility that the best legal defence for the accused might be to cast doubt on the original verdict. If she's not provably a serial killer, then they can't be on the hook for failing to stop her.
Puja
Yes, or that she was such a clever serial killer that she left no credible evidence and was not witnessed once* hence there was no way they could have stopped her.
* almost like she wasn't a killer at all . . .
She was witnessed once. But in any event people don't tend to choose to kill others with an audience. I presume the defence had better points than that...
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
