Lucy Letby Case #15

[StatusWoe]

I think if BM didn’t try question the prosecutions evidence, even if they answer it with something which reinforces their original evidence, he wouldn’t be doing his job. If he doesn’t question the prosecution witnesses then wouldn’t it appear he was agreeing/accepting their evidence? So even if he doesn’t have much to go on it it’s a weak line of questioning, maybe he has to do it to give her a fair trial.

You could argue that he's clarifying the evidence via his questioning. The questions he's posing might already be thoughts the jurors are having. Though in @Tofino's example this is counterproductive to the defence because the dr's replies are working to eliminate doubts/other possibilities rather than create doubt. Hope this makes sense and I'm not just babbling.

 

[jhm9rhs]

I think we are still on agreed evidence, anything agreed by both sides can be read out as a statement, but anything the defence don’t agree on they can question the witness about in court. This is the prosecution’s turn so I think the witnesses we have heard from are all witnesses for the prosecution, but defence can question them. So I think it’s a mix of agreed evidence and the prosecution’s case atm. Someone can probably put their legal hat on and give you a better answer than mine though. I think also this case isn’t being presented just quite the same as other cases usually would. I think it’s the agreed evidence for each baby presented one at a time, along then with the prosecutions witnesses for each baby too. After all that defence will start their case

Thank you so much.

 

[struggs123]

Ok Fella I’ll bite. I have said in my posts about a million times. Even with all the negligence on that unit, it is still not enough to explain all these sudden collapses/deaths. If for whatever reason one example of negligence caused a collapse, then the treatment administered to counter act that particular problem (from the alledhed negligence) would reverse it. These babies did not respond clinically how they should have done, like the resuscitation attempts did not have the normal affect they should have. I’m explaining badly but even if a collapse was due negligence, the baby should still respond to any treatment given to counter act, and they didn’t. There’s loads of doctors and nurses and experts dismissing BMs defence theory on negligence being the cause, and then proving why said negligence couldn’t have been the cause. I also found Bohin so credible today because she acknowledged all the medical issues on the unit, as did the experts acknowledge underlying conditions in all babies we’ve heard so far and why they couldn’t have enough alone be the cause. Then when you add of all the circumstantial evidence that has been discussed in depth the last pages and last thread it’s a slam dunk for me. Just out of interest have you re read the wiki on babies E-Q? It seems those that have re read ahead have much different views to those following in real time and only looking at A-D and considering them as stand alone events, not looking at the bigger picture


What you said
I’m also at the point where I give up trying to explain why I think the way I do, people just seem to not actually read the posts. I spent ages copying and pasting so much from wiki and articles to back up every point I’ve made, to show how her behaviour is sinister, I’ve shown examples from further cases where you can’t make excuses anymore. And still some just refuse to read what’s been written. This is not aimed at anyone, but I feel like I’m repeating myself and no one is taking anything on board or actually reading what’s been written. Perfect example of how your view may change if you actually read page 4 of wiki before dismissing what we are trying to say regarding what we know now and using the rest of the cases e-q, @Weeder was on the fence, but was completely open to LL being guilty or not guilty. We’d discussed yesterday various reasons LLs behaviour became sinister. It was suggested Weeder re read page of the wiki. Suddenly lots of things that some of us keep repeating made complete sense, and swung weeder to probably guilty. She’s not completely there yet with all the medical evidence which is fair enough with weeder’s medical background. But the view on the circumstantial changed and all the points we had been making weeder could now see too. Sorry weeder just using you as an example of someone that actually went and read page 4 of the wiki. This is why I think some of us are at a cross roads. Many following this in real time are obvs only going on A-D which is all we’ve heard so far. But please before you keep dismissing our ideas just go and read page 4 of the wiki first. Anyone that has actually done that I think will understand our points a lot more clearly than anyone that hasn’t, and hopefully see why the overall bigger picture of all these cases put together is so important

People are allowed their own opinions though. Even all of the stuff we have heard so far for all of the charges it's not like anyone conclusively knows the truth.

On a separate note lots of comments about what she was like and her upbringing, do we know this or is it assumptions?

 

[Tofino]

It’s going to get to the point where people say “duck you fella”! And it’s ok cos they said fella*

*Joking of course fellas

you always have the best fella jokes! Do you have any more?

 

[jabee]

Still Team Guilty. At this point unless someone else stands up in court and says “it was me”, I don’t think anything could change my mind. And if that happened I think I’d still have my doubts about LL - that’s how convinced I am of her guilt.

She admitted it in her note.
She is a monster.
My heart goes out to all the families.

 

[klarakluckbag]

But she did say this basically! I found this part of her evidence to be ridiculous today. She was basically denying the tit care poor baby d had pre and post birth. She also said the dads perception was that she went floppy and lifeless and it could be a blocked airway from how he was holding her. No one I know who's had a newborn baby has had that happen to their baby from holding them! I genuinely feel like this discredits her. Total denial of the poor care the baby had and suggesting dad's way of holding her could contribute.

I'm delurking just to answer this, and to explain what the doctor may have meant when she spoke about how a parent's handling of a baby may cause a collapse.
We had two women on the postnatal ward in my hospital, whose babies collapsed within a few weeks of each other, both for the same reason. The mum, in both cases, had been holding their baby on their chest, whilst scrolling on their phone. They hadn't noticed that the baby's head had flopped, cutting off the airway and causing a sudden collapse. What is worse is that in one case, the mum didn't even notice, it was spotted by a support worker on the ward, who had popped her head round the curtain to see if mum needed anything to eat or drink while the baby was sleeping. Our matrons put an immediate stop to women having curtains drawn around their beds after this, and women are told to put their baby down if they're on their phones etc. Both babies made a full recovery, thankfully.

 

[Tofino]

It wasn't about 'biting' at all - we've had our fair share of arguments on here that the last thing I want to do is start another riot. What I don't/can't understand is the 'slam dunk' at this part of the trial - it's the prosecutions case at the moment so everything they present will be to that narrative. Their witnesses will back up the picture they want to paint. It's all neat and tidy at the moment. Who knows what the defence will bring?

I guess I'm just of the belief that just because it got this far to trial, or just because some witnesses say x,y and z, that that's that. The Dr today blamed a parent on the first collapse of the baby. I was really shocked at that.

As for not responding to how they should be - I have seen lots of talk about how sats went down etc, but were 'not a concern' because of the overall picture. If these babies conditions were declining over a period of time, they may not respond to intervention because it's too late? Maybe that's simplifying it a little.

Maybe I"m not explaining it very well. I feel like I'm listening to a very one sided story at the moment and it would be easy to get caught up in the typical response, there's just something niggling at me that I can't shake. Maybe time will tell either way for me.

I know you already know this fella, but it’s the prosecution’s job to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Then the defence have to try and put reasonable doubt in peoples minds. It might feel one sided but remember a lot of what we are hearing is actually agreed evidence and defence have had chance to cross examine.

I know they will only present witnesses that support their case but the sheer volume of witnesses they have must count for something? child C had 11 staff members give statements, 9 of which took the stand. Most if not all said pretty much the same thing about the collapses and this is also backed up by 3 medical experts so far. I just can’t ignore that.

this is just my thinking but so far I think the prosecution have proven that babies a, c and d died from deliberate air administration. I’m basing this on the colleague statements and testimonies, medical experts and the description of the X-rays in particular. And for me they have also addressed the poor care and why that wouldn’t cause this type of response. Defence have cross examined the witnesses and have so far not been able to put reasonable doubt in my mind.

So then that brings me to, ok I believe it’s deliberate so who did it? And so far in all 3 cases it’s been proven that Lucy was with the baby just minutes before (ETA and Lucy is the only constant staff member prior to collapse), even when it wasn’t her designated baby.

it’s not a done deal as I’m aware we have a long way to go before defence make their case. But i’m not feeling confident that they are going to pull out anything compelling based on what we’ve heard so far. We’ve heard their opening statement and plenty of cross examination so it gives us some idea what direction they are going to take and unless he brings out multiple expert witnesses of different professions to counter the prosecution then I’m going to find it hard to accept that sub-optimal care was the cause.

I think the prosecution’s case will just get stronger and stronger (that’s just my prediction based on opening statement).

The other stuff around it like Facebook, parents feeling uncomfortable etc just adds to it as being sinister behaviour but not proof in itself. I do think her selective memory is highly suspicious too.

 

[BanditHealer]

I've been trying to keep up, but a bit behind. I just wanted to comment on the expert witness stuff as someone who has been one before. You are instructed by either the prosecution or defence, and funding comes from Legal Aid for the defence work. But your duty is to the court, so it means that it shouldn't matter who instructed you, you present your findings even if the instructing party aren't going to like them.

You include a statement of truth in your report and there are standards for expert witnesses we adhere to.

 

[od12839]

I totally agree with people regarding witnesses, that just because a witness states X,Y,Z it doesn't make it necessarily true.

But I would like to throw out there; we don't actually have much reason to doubt them based on what we've heard so far. To me if I'm suggesting a medical professional is purposefully lying, or that multiple medical professionals have gotten something majorly wrong, I should have some logic behind that conclusion. And I just don't feel like "sometimes people get things wrong" is a good rebuttal to a medical professional providing their peer reviewed findings in court. If the defence has an expert willing to contradict the previous ones though, then I'm all ears.

Obligatory disclaimer as always: I acknowledge we're not the jury and we don't need to fully justify our opinions. People are allowed to have gut feelings and knee jerk reactions and that's fine.

 

[Rosebud2022]

you always have the best fella jokes! Do you have any more?

I’m sure I’ll swoop in again with something fella, when it’s not expected

 

[BillingtonArms]

I totally agree with people regarding witnesses, that just because a witness states X,Y,Z it doesn't make it necessarily true.

But I would like to throw out there; we don't actually have much reason to doubt them based on what we've heard so far. To me if I'm suggesting a medical professional is purposefully lying, or that multiple medical professionals have gotten something majorly wrong, I should have some logic behind that conclusion. And I just don't feel like "sometimes people get things wrong" is a good rebuttal to a medical professional providing their peer reviewed findings in court. If the defence has an expert willing to contradict the previous ones though, then I'm all ears.

Obligatory disclaimer as always: I acknowledge we're not the jury and we don't need to fully justify our opinions. People are allowed to have gut feelings and knee jerk reactions and that's fine.

This is exactly how I'm thinking. I just don't understand what they would have to gain by lying. Or misinterpreting the findings. And to accuse another person of something as serious as this? I wonder how many times in their lifetimes they've ever had to review and conclude on something this serious. I can't believe for a minute they would exaggerate or misconstrue events- why would you?! If anything, I'd be pushing to prove that this didn't happen and it was all just a natural decline of these poor precious babies.

 

[iLoveNectarines]

Not sure I can continue reading this thread with all the use of 'fella'

Yes it's lighthearted but it's being used too much imo

 

[BillingtonArms]

And just to add that really what I cannot get away from is that a full term baby with fully developed lungs (albeit with pneumonia) would pass in the same way as a teeny premmie who is less than 1kg and with very under developed lungs. That just doesn't make sense to me. They both have the sudden collapses and unexplained rashes and lack of response to resuscitation. How can that be?

Not sure I can continue reading this thread with all the use of 'fella'

Yes it's lighthearted but it's being used too much imo

I think people are just very concerned about offending or upsetting people in such an emotive topic so throwing it in to keep everything light-hearted (if you can). There were a few threads back there that were intense and maybe fighty!

 

[Emsie]

I've been dipping in these threads and reading the wiki... whoever is keeping that updated is an absolute legend.
Still unsure. But I think it's because my brain won't go there. I've tried to make it but it won't accept woman, nurse, baby, harm, killer. I know I'm stereotyping but Jesus this case is overwhelming.
It seems like there isn't one peice of ahaaaa! Got ya!!! evidence, but lots of little bits that are getting harder and harder to excuse.

 

[Hannah_204]

Fellllaaaaaasss .. only joking @iLoveNectarines

If you’ve swayed from innocent to guilty what was the evidence that made you do that?

same for guilty to innocent? What’s been the stand out evidence?

 

[tay65]

I’m only just catching up from last night. I know we’ve moved on but just few bits from last thread quickly that need no reply

@MmmB777 and @Faith61 I’ve been saying the past two days baby I is horrific, and to be one of the ones that really shows her guilt, far more suspicious stuff concerning that baby that some of the others

Somewhere in the middle of last thread I posted SS from a journalist that confirmed their were 8 witnesses connected to trial judge had ordered anonymity for, suggesting this was to do with them not being able to give evidence to the best of their ability if identity was revealed, suggests this is them maybe still working at hospital rather than connected to babies (I’d had the connection thought too which is why I asked the journalist Nice Fella Dan)

@Tofino excellent find on the photo taken of two triplets by LL I couldn’t find the info anywhere. Also glad we are hearing from radiologist today so hope this means we are getting pathologist soon

Well done to the fellas that managed to find sinister patterns of her FB search’s. Also last thing about handover notes. Loads saying handover notes she had could be a sheet that has other babies on it, BUT prosecution or defence did not mention her having the info for any other babies at home, than ones for this case. Plus with one baby it was a list of its drugs she had, so plenty of evidence at her home THAT SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD

Everyone is entitled to believe what they believe, and that’s what this thread is all about respecting others’ opinions and being able to discuss them in a respectful way (unlike them FB huns). I just can’t see anything but guilty, sorry fellas. I would suggest anyone with doubts go reread page 4 of the wiki, I know it helped @Weeder sort out some of her doubts. One thing I can definitely say though this case is going to get worse as it it’s goes on, it’s going to be incredibly difficult to hear about some of the later babies, especially the suggested physical trauma she inflicted on them leaving them crying in pain(crying is not something neonates like this do)

There’s prob more points I wanted to say from last thread, but have forgotten now. So fellas I will just move on from old thread and start from what we are hearing this morning

I've also found these Facebook searches weird. The babies have lived for such a short time she's not really built up a relationship with the families and doing FB searches in some cases months after the deaths and even on Christmas morning in the early hours and then saying she cannot remember. All this sounds really very odd.

 

[Milktray]

Not sure I can continue reading this thread with all the use of 'fella'

Yes it's lighthearted but it's being used too much imo

Its just the buzz word of the moment. Its just a little something to keep a post from being too fiesty or heavy. I don't know where is came from though?! Did someone go off on a tangent and it stemmed from there?
But I do agree it can be used alot, that's why I added a comment in first post, so new members knew what it was about and theres nothing mean in it.

 

[Faith61]

I’m finding the medical experts pretty compelling again. Defence cross examination is just not giving me any cause for reasonable doubt as the other issues they raise, like blockage in the bowel, are explained away. It helps there are X-rays as it’s more tangible than just notes and memories.

View attachment 1722056

I'm slowly catching up but loving how none of them are taking any tit off the Ben fella!!!

I will see if I can find my sons scan he had a bowel blockage and later a twisted bowel. Both things you can visibly see on his scan from an untrained eye that there is an issue. He also had emergency surgery resulting in a stoma so what that doctor is stating seems accurate to me.

Aww bless him..hope he's doing ok and not sure about babies or neonates, but I know "adult obstructions" are very typical in presentation and also obvious on x ray

I think Prof Arthur’s evidence has been incredibly strong, and this is why Dewi Fella said he’d rather defer that particular bit to the radiologist. I think he was excellent at disagreeing with BM theory on bowel blockage as he states clearly there was no medical sign of this, and more importantly it would have been found during PM and it definitely wasn’t. I also think Dr Bohin has been fantastic this morning, she’s acknowledged all the problems within the hospital, acknowledged that D should have been given antibiotics sooner etc BUT has then gone on to explain why they alone could not be responsible for the sudden and unexpected collapses. I think she’s a very strong witness for prosecution, certainly for D anyway. I think the pathologist will be just confirming what Prof Arthur’s, has already said on the defence’s theory of blockage in C being cause of death, there was no sign of this in PM

He can't get away from pm results....no matter how he tries!!!

 

[docmum]

hiya Fella, firstly this case is not built on Letby’s weird behaviour or being a bit odd. The case comes after two independent reviews concluding that the significant rise is deaths and crashes was not the result of failings. It also comes as a result of multiple consultants being concerned with the correlation of Letby being there for the unexplained events. This is typical of this crime. I imagine we are going to see a similar statistical picture as there are in many other healthcare serial killer cases - eg you become statistically a high percentage more likely to die or nearly die whenever Letby is on shift. Then you can see clearly that not only is she on shift but for multiple multiple charges, she is there at the time of the collapse or has recently administered/given “care” within the last 15 minutes or so. Again, that is a familiar picture for this type of crime. You cannot be that unlucky.
We are of course looking at every baby’s case in intense detail- do I think every detail of the care given has been perfect? No some has been poor. Most I feel has been more than ok. Sometimes they’re busy. Sometimes they’re not. Sometimes the babies are in worse shape. Sometimes they’re clearly doing well. Do I think this will have been the picture every year for this unit? Yes. Then why did they sometimes lose one baby a year? 2. 3. They’re losing this many a month with Letby the last to intervene every time. I’ve heard from a huge varied amount of staff that were there- do I think everyone of them are misremembering or deceiving the jury. No I don’t, I have no evidence for that or logical reason for it whatsoever. Many of them will be parents themselves and they’d be almost as evil as Letby to not give the truth and breaking serious laws. Some of the nurses and staff had worked in this unit for decades and some for much less than that. If they are all so hopeless and missed so much then why haven’t they been doing that for years on end? Why weren’t 4 babies dying every month or so with this team every year? But it’s only one person that’s there every time isn’t it! The junior doctors have become consultants, they are working for the WHO, they have nursed for 20+ years, why is it more believable that alllll these people got it wrong on these babies. Then you have the fact there are at times multiple hospitals involved who must have also been hopeless or bad at their jobs.
Why do the babies with air by their spines all have different reasons for it getting there when it is most likely air administered? The kind of air in volume and placement that they’ve never seen before from trauma? They had different conditions and different awful treatment and yet their presentation was the same in the way they collapsed and they have huge amounts of air. So this is just a coincidence and combination of varying poor care yet it produces the same conclusions for these babies . When the only person that’s stayed the same is Letby.
When we talk about Letby being weird, it’s not oh she dips her chips in chocolate or even she shops at bonmarche as a 25yr old weird that matters- not knowing what an air embolism as a level 6 nurse- more than weird. Standing in the dark watching a baby desaturate is the kind of weird I’m concerned with. Predicting babies that others thought were doing well wouldn’t leave alive weird. Searching families of multiple babies in this case before any link can be found to a supposedly innocent person weird - but they are linked. Some have air by their spines. That’s a big link. Some had insulin poisoning. That’s a big link. That’s some bad luck again for Letby that before all this comes out she’s linked them. It’s bad luck she got so anguished she wrote that she’s evil and killed on purpose despite also presumably thinking there would be nothing that could link her to these babies and nothing that could show she ever harmed them.
I do not believe these babies would have died had it not been for Letby sabotaging them and no accidental phone call, writing on a paper towel, dodgy note keeping is going to convince me otherwise. Yes in theory it makes the case look weaker to some but it doesn’t for me because therr Is far too much to say it cannot have been anything other than sabotage. There is no mistake in the insulin. There has to be another murderous nurse. Or is it more likely that she did that and she put air and milk and breathing tubes with force and venom because in her words ‘she’s evil. She did this. She killed them on purpose’.

and what worries me is how many notes were reviewed by the hospital then the police that had a similar pattern but didn’t have clearly documented descriptions of a strange rash etc.. I genuinely believe they we’re only able to raise the cases to the cps with enough evidence for some justice at least. I can’t believe for a second that she was kind to any patient, more likely that she was only lethal when opportunity presented such as night shifts or those more medically vulnerable - and hence why those are what we are hearing of here.

 

[candyland_]

Not sure I can continue reading this thread with all the use of 'fella'

Yes it's lighthearted but it's being used too much imo

I don’t want to be shot down but I do think it’s a bit overused at times