Lucy Letby

[sadoldgit]

Given a whole life sentence and will never been released. Justice has be done but it will not bring back the babies and there is no sentence that will compensate the families for her actions.

It is not right that she is able to refuse to be in the dock and did not hear the victim statements and the judge’s summing up. Hopefully this will be dealt with so that, in future, these people will have face the judge, the victims and the court when the verdict is announced and when they are sentenced.

It seems incredible that she was allowed to carry out these attacks on babies for so long after doctors voiced serious concerns about her conduct. Once the official enquiry concludes, those responsible for not taking the warnings seriously need to be held to account.

[Weston Super Saint]

Why is it "not right"?

[badgerx16]

Technically she has been given 14 whole life terms, but this is little compensation for the families of the dead children  or those having to care for those that have been left severely disabled having "survived" her tender ministrations.

 

How do you effectively deal with pure incarnate evil ?

[badgerx16]

16 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Why is it "not right"?

Having her present in Court might, in some little way, helped the families of her victims, but I don't think it would have made one iota of difference to her, and she may have treated it as one last chance to satisfy her egotistical lust for power and control as the Impact Statements washed over her without any acknowledgement or emotion.

[buctootim]

23 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Given a whole life sentence and will never been released. Justice has be done but it will not bring back the babies and there is no sentence that will compensate the families for her actions.

It is not right that she is able to refuse to be in the dock and did not hear the victim statements and the judge’s summing up. Hopefully this will be dealt with so that, in future, these people will have face the judge, the victims and the court when the verdict is announced and when they are sentenced.

It seems incredible that she was allowed to carry out these attacks on babies for so long after doctors voiced serious concerns about her conduct. Once the official enquiry concludes, those responsible for not taking the warnings seriously need to be held to account.

A friend was a manager at Rampton when Beverly Allitt (the previous serial baby killing nurse) was sent there. He said her room was decorated like that of an 8 years old with fluffy toys and posters.  The acts are evil but when you meet some of these people its impossible to marry them up to the person you see. 

[Weston Super Saint]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Having her present in Court might, in some little way, helped the families of her victims, but I don't think it would have made one iota of difference to her, and she may have treated it as one last chance to satisfy her egotistical lust for power and control as the Impact Statements washed over her without any acknowledgement or emotion.

Which could,in theory, be detrimental to the families in question if they don't receive the reaction they are looking for, therefore her not being present could be the "right" thing for the families???

[andypen]

There could be many more victims as yet uncovered, bloody hell.

I'm just waiting for senior managers to try and wriggle out of this one, procedures were followed, lessons will be learnt etc (medical staff who voiced concerns were told to appologize to poor Lucy).

[aintforever]

It does seem mental that so many consultants were ignored. I guess it's the sort of crime you just cannot imagine to have happened so naturally think of alternative reasons.  Procedures in to be put in place to stop anything like this happening again.

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Why is it "not right"?

I suggest that you go and find a victim of serious crime and ask them if you honestly don’t understand why.

Unless this is just another of your pointless posts trying to spoil a serious thread?

If you are still struggling with the reason go listen to what the former Director of Public Prosecutions (Keir Starmer) has to say about it.

Edited 21 August, 2023 by sadoldgit
Added text

[buctootim]

24 minutes ago, aintforever said:

It does seem mental that so many consultants were ignored. I guess it's the sort of crime you just cannot imagine to have happened so naturally think of alternative reasons.  Procedures in to be put in place to stop anything like this happening again.

 

50 minutes ago, andypen said:

There could be many more victims as yet uncovered, bloody hell.

I'm just waiting for senior managers to try and wriggle out of this one, procedures were followed, lessons will be learnt etc (medical staff who voiced concerns were told to appologize to poor Lucy).

I read an interview with one of the consultants. He came across as weak and not insistent enough. Ultimately the care of those babies was his responsibility and he should have acted more forcefully and escalated outside of the hospital. There is a slightly anomalous situation in hospitals in that nurses are responsible to the Director of Nursing (not medical staff), the hospital consultants are responsible to the medical director and neither are directly responsible to the CEO. It's set that way, ironically, to ensure patient safety and encourage disclosure.      

Edited 21 August, 2023 by buctootim

[badgerx16]

6 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I suggest that you go and find a victim of serious crime and ask them if you honestly don’t understand why.

Unless this is just another of your pointless posts trying to spoil a serious thread?

It was not a pointless post - what purpose are impact statements and Judge's remarks serving if the subject of them couldn't give a toss, or even views it as another chapter in their power trip ?

[rooney]

1 hour ago, andypen said:

There could be many more victims as yet uncovered, bloody hell.

I'm just waiting for senior managers to try and wriggle out of this one, procedures were followed, lessons will be learnt etc (medical staff who voiced concerns were told to appologize to poor Lucy).

As they continue to enjoy their fat gold plated pensions at our expense.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

I suggest that you go and find a victim of serious crime and ask them if you honestly don’t understand why.

Unless this is just another of your pointless posts trying to spoil a serious thread?

If you are still struggling with the reason go listen to what the former Director of Public Prosecutions (Keir Starmer) has to say about it.

Thanks for the condescension, but I won't be taking you as the arbiter of right and wrong.

Legally she is entitled to not go to sentencing or judgement.  Forcing families to come face to face with someone who doesn't give a flying fuck about what they've done isn't justice - despite what the former director of public prosecutions suggests. 

She has been given a prison sentence from which there will be no release, that is the only justice that matters.

As for your nonsense about finding a victim of serious crime, should we make all victims of rape and sexual assault confront their perpetrators, especially those that have shown zero remorse? Sounds like a triffic idea that 

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

and there is no sentence that will compensate the families for her actions.

 

What about hanging her, that would give them more closure than making her attend sentencing. 

[The Kraken]

An interesting take on it being a bad idea from a former Old Bailey judge.

[Fan The Flames]

25% extra time for not attending the sentencing. If part of the process of prison is rehabilitation and part of that is owning up to what you have done, then hearing the impact statements and the sentencing is important. But this doesn't work for a whole life sentance.

[whelk]

23 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What about hanging her, that would give them more closure than making her attend sentencing. 

Lol 

[Fan The Flames]

Against capital punishment but then a case like this comes along and makes you rethink.

[whelk]

1 minute ago, Fan The Flames said:

Against capital punishment but then a case like this comes along and makes you rethink.

Why? There are plenty who you could argue deserve death but the argument is against being barbaric for society to do, not finally found some who deserves it.

[badgerx16]

Just now, whelk said:

Why? There are plenty who you could argue deserve death but the argument is against being barbaric for society to do, not finally found some who deserves it.

Also, where is the line ? Convicted of 2 murders? Of 3 ?

Does the age of the victim affect whether it is a capital crime ? 

Some would like the death penalty returned for terrorists or killers of Policemen, but it never served as a deterrent in the first half of the last century. And there is always the risk, however slight, of a miscarriage of Justice. Imagine if we had had the death penalty in the 70s with the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings.

 

[Fan The Flames]

3 minutes ago, whelk said:

Why? There are plenty who you could argue deserve death but the argument is against being barbaric for society to do, not finally found some who deserves it.

Agree. But some perpetrators are so heinous that they push the barbaric for society thing to breaking point.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, Fan The Flames said:

Agree. But some perpetrators are so heinous that they push the barbaric for society thing to breaking point.

Whilst I agree with you, but this topic comes up every time there is a hideous crime. Lee Rigby killers, the Manchester bombers, going back to levi bellfield and such like.

tis what it is.

[Fan The Flames]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Whilst I agree with you, but this topic comes up every time there is a hideous crime. Lee Rigby killers, the Manchester bombers, going back to levi bellfield and such like.

tis what it is.

It is what it is, and in the balance the ban on capital punishment is probably correct. But I not denying it, it would be satisfying to know that she would swing.

..,

[whelk]

12 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Whilst I agree with you, but this topic comes up every time there is a hideous crime. Lee Rigby killers, the Manchester bombers, going back to levi bellfield and such like.

tis what it is.

although despite being against the death penalty I would fully support drilling Levi Bellfield’s ligaments on a daily basis.

Edited 21 August, 2023 by whelk

[rallyboy]

Something has to change, you cannot have convicted murderers or even accused defendants dictating and controlling proceedings by ignoring them.

For many relatives I believe it would be useful for them to see that the guilty are forced to hear the impact statements.

But the victims' families would have a say on the attendance issue, it's not compulsory, the court wouldn't force families into a confrontation with the murderer.

As for the circus element, some would try to hijack it - soundproof dock with one way PA?

Or if they want a circus, maybe gag them like Hannibal Lecter on a sack truck....

 

 

[egg]

Interesting thread. The purpose of a sentencing hearing is just to pass sentence. The defendant need not be there for that. The defendant hearing the impact that the crime has had on others is a concept I understand, but it's not the purpose of the exercise. Dragging them there kicking and screaming (especially if they've pleaded not guilty and do not accept any culpability anyway) is a pointless exercise. There's also the real possibility that they'll shout and holler from the dock anyway and be excluded by the Judge. 

 

[Lighthouse]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Interesting thread. The purpose of a sentencing hearing is just to pass sentence. The defendant need not be there for that. The defendant hearing the impact that the crime has had on others is a concept I understand, but it's not the purpose of the exercise. Dragging them there kicking and screaming (especially if they've pleaded not guilty and do not accept any culpability anyway) is a pointless exercise. There's also the real possibility that they'll shout and holler from the dock anyway and be excluded by the Judge. 

 

I agree and I can’t personally imagine wanting to read out an impact statement in any case. It’s impossible to know how I’d really feel, without actually going through what those poor parents have, but I can’t see why I’d want to do that. The woman has just murdered a bunch of defenceless babies for her own sadistic pleasure, the idea that she’s going to exhibit any kind of genuine remorse to anything you say is completely facile.

[sadoldgit]

I think people are missing the point. It is not about getting the offender to show remorse. It is an important part of the justice process, having the perpetrator stand up in court and face the consequence of their actions. These are not speeding offences here. Murder is the most serious of crimes and has far reaching consequences not just for the victims themselves, but for those they leave behind. For many this will provide a level of closure. For the process it certainly does.

The offender is require to attend court as part of the trial process so it seems odd then that they currently have the right not to attend two of the most important parts of the trial, the reading of the verdict and the sentencing.

This has nothing to do with how they might react or feel. She showed no remorse through the trial process so was unlikely to do so at the sentencing.

She will be given a copy of the transcript of the judge’s summing up and of the victim impact statements but may chose never to actually read them. She should know what the contents of those statements are. How she chooses to process that information is down to her, but she should have to deal with it none the less.

I appreciate that we are all different but I would certainly want to be there to see, first hand, the person responsible for doing something terrible to a loved one face their comeuppance in public and to know that they had heard, first hand, the summing up of the judge in front of the court.

They didn’t give their victims a choice in what they did to them. Why should they get to chose how they deal with the consequences?

 

[egg]

12 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I think people are missing the point. It is not about getting the offender to show remorse. It is an important part of the justice process, having the perpetrator stand up in court and face the consequence of their actions. These are not speeding offences here. Murder is the most serious of crimes and has far reaching consequences not just for the victims themselves, but for those they leave behind. For many this will provide a level of closure. For the process it certainly does.

The offender is require to attend court as part of the trial process so it seems odd then that they currently have the right not to attend two of the most important parts of the trial, the reading of the verdict and the sentencing.

This has nothing to do with how they might react or feel. She showed no remorse through the trial process so was unlikely to do so at the sentencing.

She will be given a copy of the transcript of the judge’s summing up and of the victim impact statements but may chose never to actually read them. She should know what the contents of those statements are. How she chooses to process that information is down to her, but she should have to deal with it none the less.

I appreciate that we are all different but I would certainly want to be there to see, first hand, the person responsible for doing something terrible to a loved one face their comeuppance in public and to know that they had heard, first hand, the summing up of the judge in front of the court.

They didn’t give their victims a choice in what they did to them. Why should they get to chose how they deal with the consequences?

 

Sentencing hearings are merely that. They are not meant to be a show, a cathartic excercise for the victims of those left behind, or anything else. The families all heard the judges thoughts yesterday, and all heard the sentence. Justice, as much as it can be, has been done. 

This desire to have the defendant in the dock overlooks what could happen. I've been in crown courts when defendants have shouted "they got what he deserved" etc. Just imagine how appalling it would have been if Letby had been dragged into court and said similar. 

The idealistic, and emotional, viewpoints on this issue are understandable. It's as sad a case as you can imagine. However, I definitely don't want to see defendant's dragged into court and potentially making things worse for those they've harmed. 

Edited 22 August, 2023 by egg

[Weston Super Saint]

16 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I think people are missing the point. It is not about getting the offender to show remorse. It is an important part of the justice process, having the perpetrator stand up in court and face the consequence of their actions. These are not speeding offences here. Murder is the most serious of crimes and has far reaching consequences not just for the victims themselves, but for those they leave behind. For many this will provide a level of closure. For the process it certainly does.

The offender is require to attend court as part of the trial process so it seems odd then that they currently have the right not to attend two of the most important parts of the trial, the reading of the verdict and the sentencing.

This has nothing to do with how they might react or feel. She showed no remorse through the trial process so was unlikely to do so at the sentencing.

She will be given a copy of the transcript of the judge’s summing up and of the victim impact statements but may chose never to actually read them. She should know what the contents of those statements are. How she chooses to process that information is down to her, but she should have to deal with it none the less.

I appreciate that we are all different but I would certainly want to be there to see, first hand, the person responsible for doing something terrible to a loved one face their comeuppance in public and to know that they had heard, first hand, the summing up of the judge in front of the court.

They didn’t give their victims a choice in what they did to them. Why should they get to chose how they deal with the consequences?

 

The consequences of her actions are the rest of her life in prison, not standing in court and listening to a judge issuing sentence.

Rest assured she will be facing those consequences each and every day.

[badgerx16]

32 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The offender is required to attend court as part of the trial process........

 

Not according to this, a defendant can waive their attendance in Court;

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/defendants-refusal-attend-court-0

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Not according to this, a defendant can waive their attendance in Court;

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/defendants-refusal-attend-court-0

The defendant cannot just chose not to engage in the process,whatever methods end up being used, e.g. video link etc. It is highly unusual for a defendant not to engage in the process and usually is down to serious illness.

These matters start off in the magistrates court and the defendant has to appear to confirm their name and address, they are appraised of the charge or charges against them and the date for the next hearing is arranged, along with bail conditions being set. I worked in the CPS for nearly 10 years and my wife for 33 years and neither of us could recall a time when a defendant did not attend court at some stage.

Keir Starmer was on LBC this morning talking again about the issue. Having been the Director of Public Prosecution and a barrister for many years before that, he had listened to countless victims and loved ones of victims. His view is that the law should be changed to ensure that offenders attend court for sentencing. He makes the point that the views of victims have been ignored for years and now need to be addressed. He said that the Government was talking about changing this law last year. Given that Sunak agrees with him, perhaps we shall see some progress in this matter soon.

I find it very strange that there is some resistance to the idea that offenders should have to attend court to face the judge for the summing up and sentence. We used to string people up then cut them down and disembowel them whilst still alive and we were still hanging people into halfway through the last century. What is the problem with ensuring that someone faces a court to hear their sentence?

 

[AlexLaw76]

6 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The defendant cannot just chose not to engage in the process,whatever methods end up being used, e.g. video link etc. It is highly unusual for a defendant not to engage in the process and usually is down to serious illness.

These matters start off in the magistrates court and the defendant has to appear to confirm their name and address, they are appraised of the charge or charges against them and the date for the next hearing is arranged, along with bail conditions being set. I worked in the CPS for nearly 10 years and my wife for 33 years and neither of us could recall a time when a defendant did not attend court at some stage.

Keir Starmer was on LBC this morning talking again about the issue. Having been the Director of Public Prosecution and a barrister for many years before that, he had listened to countless victims and loved ones of victims. His view is that the law should be changed to ensure that offenders attend court for sentencing. He makes the point that the views of victims have been ignored for years and now need to be addressed. He said that the Government was talking about changing this law last year. Given that Sunak agrees with him, perhaps we shall see some progress in this matter soon.

I find it very strange that there is some resistance to the idea that offenders should have to attend court to face the judge for the summing up and sentence. We used to string people up then cut them down and disembowel them whilst still alive and we were still hanging people into halfway through the last century. What is the problem with ensuring that someone faces a court to hear their sentence?

 

what do we do, tie them the chair? gag them? put matchsticks in their eyes to make them look?

what if the the accused claims it is harmful to their mental health, or it is against their religious beliefs? 

We are a tolerant society that ever felt the need to change the law in this area, despite many hideous examples being offered over the last few years (which I do not recall you being against this)

 

Edited 22 August, 2023 by AlexLaw76

[badgerx16]

31 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The defendant cannot just chose not to engage in the process,whatever methods end up being used, e.g. video link etc. It is highly unusual for a defendant not to engage in the process and usually is down to serious illness.

 

Whilst it might be highly unusual, nevertheless the CPS guidelines state;

"..... unless the court is satisfied that

    the defendant has waived the right to attend, and
    the trial will be fair despite the defendant’s absence."

[Weston Super Saint]

39 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

What is the problem with ensuring that someone faces a court to hear their sentence?

 

It has clearly escaped you, but the law says they don't have to. The problem would therefore be against the law to force people to go to court to hear their sentence.

Change the law and the problem goes away. I'll wager the law doesn't get changed though....

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

It has clearly escaped you, but the law says they don't have to. The problem would therefore be against the law to force people to go to court to hear their sentence.

Change the law and the problem goes away. I'll wager the law doesn't get changed though....

Considering Sog has previously boasted he has spent a lot of his career prosecuting knife crime, rape and domestic violence it is somewhat surprising he is unaware of what appears to be a fairly simple and standard legal procedure.

 

[skintsaint]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

What is the problem with ensuring that someone faces a court to hear their sentence?

I read there could be times when the guilty will make things worse by saying evil things, etc., during sentencing, upsetting families more.

[Turkish]

9 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

I read there could be times when the guilty will make things worse by saying evil things, etc., during sentencing, upsetting families more.

You’d suspect this would have been one of these times 

[Lord Duckhunter]

Does soggy actually believe this pony. What’s he going to do, gag the accused, truss him up like Hannibal Lecter? 
 

Sir Kier can’t see a bandwagon without jumping on it, but I guess that’s politics (RS is as bad if as Soggy claims he’s for it). But surely somebody who worked so long in the CPS should understand. You can not force somebody to attend unless you take measures that’ll turn the whole thing into a fucking freak show. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, skintsaint said:

I read there could be times when the guilty will make things worse by saying evil things, etc., during sentencing, upsetting families more.

 

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

You’d suspect this would have been one of these times 

Sadly it happens, and it makes a sad situation much worse. This is very much one of those situations where some people are asking for something without any understanding or thought of its real impact. Keir Starmer should know better. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

 

Sadly it happens, and it makes a sad situation much worse. This is very much one of those situations where some people are asking for something without any understanding or thought of its real impact. Keir Starmer should know better. 

Anyone who has worked in the CPS really should have a better understanding. Sir Kier is just playing politics, others are clearly just dopey. 

Edited 22 August, 2023 by Lord Duckhunter

[aintforever]

22 minutes ago, egg said:

 

Sadly it happens, and it makes a sad situation much worse. This is very much one of those situations where some people are asking for something without any understanding or thought of its real impact. Keir Starmer should know better. 

Starmer is just playing the Tories at their own game, if he took the sensible approach the press would just spin it as him being on the side of murderers and the thick gammon twats in the red wall would lap it up. Makes sense for him to just play along because the law won't be changed anyway because of the practicalities.

[egg]

1 minute ago, aintforever said:

Starmer is just playing the Tories at their own game, if he took the sensible approach the press would just spin it as him being on the side of murderers and the thick gammon twats in the red wall would lap it up. Makes sense for him to just play along because the law won't be changed anyway because of the practicalities.

Sadly I think that's right. Politically he had little choice but to follow Rishi's lead. 

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, skintsaint said:

I read there could be times when the guilty will make things worse by saying evil things, etc., during sentencing, upsetting families more.

Starmer accepted that there could be some difficulties on occasion but these are things that can be dealt with. If we never changed anything just because there might be some problems nothing would ever change. 
If anyone knows what the victims want it is a former DPP and barrister. As for your comment that he should know better Egg, given his experience he clearly knows better than you.

I should add that although it has been a while since I worked at the CPS, unless things have changed dramatically, I believe that the majority of offenders do attend the sentence hearings and that the majority of them are carried out without any drama.

Edited 22 August, 2023 by sadoldgit
Added text

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Starmer accepted that there could be some difficulties on occasion but these are things that can be dealt with. If we never changed anything just because there might be some problems nothing would ever change. 
If anyone knows what the victims want it is a former DPP and barrister. As for your comment that he should know better Egg, given his experience he clearly knows better than you.

How come he (and you) have remained very quiet on this until now?

[Turkish]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Starmer accepted that there could be some difficulties on occasion but these are things that can be dealt with. If we never changed anything just because there might be some problems nothing would ever change. 
If anyone knows what the victims want it is a former DPP and barrister. As for your comment that he should know better Egg, given his experience he clearly knows better than you.

You worked at the fucking CPS and everyone else’s on here knows better than you so I wouldn’t bank on it

[Fan The Flames]

In a parallel universe just about now SOG's opens a thread with how you can't force someone to attend the sentancing and the mob line up to to show how you can. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

39 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Starmer accepted that there could be some difficulties on occasion but these are things that can be dealt with. 

How? 

[Turkish]

30 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

In a parallel universe just about now SOG's opens a thread with how you can't force someone to attend the sentancing and the mob line up to to show how you can. 

Or he might open a thread where he knows the subject matter and doesn’t distort or misrepresent facts to support his view

[Baird of the land]

On 21/08/2023 at 17:46, Fan The Flames said:

Against capital punishment but then a case like this comes along and makes you rethink.

I don't really see why feeding and clothing someone for the rest of their life is superior to a swift end, or why a swift end is barbaric. If you are arguing the potential for miscarriage of justice... well that seems improbable but guess she's never actually verbally confessed to it.