Page 4 of 4
Re: Lucy letby
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 9:22 am
by Son of Mathonwy
paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 2:52 pm
Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 2:32 pm
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... s-arrested
https://www.nursingtimes.net/hospital-n ... 1-07-2025/
Re: Lucy letby
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 9:53 am
by Banquo
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 9:22 am
paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 2:52 pm
Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 2:32 pm
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... s-arrested
https://www.nursingtimes.net/hospital-n ... 1-07-2025/
that's my take
Re: Lucy letby
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 10:28 am
by Puja
Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 9:53 am
that's my take
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
Re: Lucy letby
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2025 11:00 pm
by Son of Mathonwy
Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 10:28 am
Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 9:53 am
that's my take
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 . . .
Re: Lucy letby
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2025 10:42 pm
by Eugene Wrayburn
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 11:00 pm
Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 10:28 am
Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 9:53 am
that's my take
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...
Re: Lucy letby
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2025 9:42 am
by Son of Mathonwy
Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 10:42 pm
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 11:00 pm
Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 10:28 am
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...
???
Re: Lucy letby
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2025 10:16 am
by Donny osmond
Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 10:42 pm
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 11:00 pm
Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 10:28 am
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...
