Lucy Letby Case #20

[DianaBanana]

I’m still following too, but with the break last week and the dire reporting in the days before that, there hasn’t been a great deal to say I guess!

Plus I think we’re all a little distracted with the Stephen Bear trial

 

[stardust1]

Not followed as closely with the days off, will hopefully get back into reading. Think the threat of permanent banning has scared people off

 

[MmmB777]

I’m still following closely. Hope everyone comes back this week, it’s been very quiet without all the usual posters

Hey Following when I can and when there’s something to follow and wowzers it’s been a strong day for the prosecution imo I would be interested to hear @Haveyouanywool and @docmum (aka Emma Thompson/Claudia ) opinions on the medical details today as always

 

[DianaBanana]

I agree it’s been very strong today from what I’ve seen. I find Dr Evans evidence to be consistently credible, and I think the defence see him as their biggest threat. Hence trying to discredit him all the time.

 

[raspberryjuice]

Hey Following when I can and when there’s something to follow and wowzers it’s been a strong day for the prosecution imo I would be interested to hear @Haveyouanywool and @docmum (aka Emma Thompson/Claudia ) opinions on the medical details today as always

Really pleased to see you back posting @MmmB777 . Hope your little break from posting has helped
I agree, very strong day from the prosecution. I feel so sad for Baby G’s parents having to hear all this. That poor little girl

 

[IGiveUp22]

I feel like the medical evidence today has been very damning (still camp guilty for me anyway) but I don’t think BM did what he set out to do when questioning one of the drs. This stuck out for me:


Mr Myers says that does not rule out an infection being present prior to the vomiting.

Dr Evans: "There is no clinical evidence to back up that hypothesis."

He adds: "I don't deal with 'ifs', I deal with evidence."

 

[stardust1]

Just read over the live following, still camp guilty for me and the type of evidence I am expecting tbh

 

[Rippedjeanmaybe]

The way they are describing that vomit is awful. I can’t even imagine such a forceful vomit flying out of a baby that is lying down, poor child.

 

[DianaBanana]

Both medical experts have now confirmed it’s not possible for the baby to take in ‘a lot of air whilst vomiting’, contradicting what Letby told police in her interview.

 

[lampielooloo]

Poor baby G Tough reading and it's only the first of three alleged attempts

I thought this was an odd point. Perhaps out of the orbit of LL, sudden and unexpected collapses of stable babies are far more uncommon.

 

[FastAndTheCurious7]

I’m still very much camp guilty. The defence are going to have to do more than just cast doubt with me. That being said, what I think is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I’m not the one on the jury.

 

[Blockedbyadmin]

Oh if anyone is on the fence after today then I can’t see how they aren’t swaying one way. The doctors are all saying the same thing. And they’ve all said what Lucifer has said about taking in air is false so she’s fucked.

Oh dear Lucifer. Ben tried today to rattle the docs but it’s not happened because they’re the ones with the correct evidence

 

[Daisydunn15]

Oh if anyone is on the fence after today then I can’t see how they aren’t swaying one way. The doctors are all saying the same thing. And they’ve all said what Lucifer has said about taking in air is false so she’s fucked.

Oh dear Lucifer. Ben tried today to rattle the docs but it’s not happened because they’re the ones with the correct evidence

I think it still depends on whether the defence have docs to say anything different.
Bet it was tense in the courtroom listening to those two.

"He also says a baby on a naso-gastric feed would not vomit." .. I mean, this just isn't true

 

[slingo16]

Im sure this will come as a surprise to everyone but I disagree that the prosecution had a good day ersonally don’t think dr evans did himself any favours today, I’m obviously not in court and it’s all paraphrased but he seemed to be moody af and pretty snappy he was also dismissive of any questions. He didn’t really explain anything just seemed to be offended that his mighty opinion was being challenged. “I don’t deal in ifs and buts I use evidence” yet his main point, about the amount of vomit was never actually recorded. So it would seem he deals in what ever suits his opinion and ifs and buts can be used when it points to LL being guilty. This isn’t the first time either where he’s added things to his opinion that weren’t in his reports (the plunger), which is odd to me anyway, he seems to like giving extra speculative details which he’s not written down anywhere and aren’t based off evidence they want me to believe he’s done multiple reports and is only realising important details now? Also the whole “I’ve not seen unexpected collapses happening regularly since so I’ve changed my opinion” seems reasonable until you realise the hospital was downgraded following these incidents, he’s contradicting what he’s said in to police with everything more fresh in his mind, If LL was out here changing her opinions on things it would be fishy behaviour, but the expert does it and no one bats an eye lid

From the questions BM asked today, there seems to be plenty of room for other causes, I’m speculating but given these questions I’d say it’s likely there’s a defence expert willing to disagree with mr evans conclusion here.

and just to add my NICU son had a milk protein intolerance ( something like that anyway I can’t remember exactly ) he would regularly projectile vomit right from birth. We were told it wasn’t unusual and his “allergy” wasn’t even noticed until he was maybe 6 months. Often he’d be given extra feeds to replace the milk that he had lost and it wasn’t documented. I don’t think my son was anywhere near as poorly as the children in these cases though so it may be totally irrelevant.

 

[MmmB777]

I think it’s quite clear the evidence today was highlighting that it is the way in which the baby vomited that was highly unusual. The baby could not have had an allergy or a condition that made it vomit excess milk to which it had been fed. In my opinion, that cannot be accidental (due to the nature of how this baby is being fed and because once this baby came into trouble and nobody admits their mistake that’s no longer accidental either) that is somebody causing serious harm with intent to seriously trouble or kill the child. If it was accidental, which I do not believe, we are to assume that it’s coincidental it happens again when Letby is there and that the person doing this would not admit their mistake either at the time or now, the same with the insulin if accidental (again completely not possible in my eyes for multiple reasons). There is also no evidence before or since other than the episodes when Letby is there, which to me shows that this baby doesn’t have an allergy or a condition that would require surgery.
I think it was an incredibly strong day for showing that somebody was intentionally harming this baby.
Link to bbc write uphttps://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-63947039.a

 

[Treesy19]

Have a lot of us stopped following the case as closely? I’ve just been dipping into the odd bit recently.

Nah, I refreshed the Chester page at the end of day just now.

Im sure this will come as a surprise to everyone but I disagree that the prosecution had a good day ersonally don’t think dr evans did himself any favours today, I’m obviously not in court and it’s all paraphrased but he seemed to be moody af and pretty snappy he was also dismissive of any questions. He didn’t really explain anything just seemed to be offended that his mighty opinion was being challenged. “I don’t deal in ifs and buts I use evidence” yet his main point, about the amount of vomit was never actually recorded. So it would seem he deals in what ever suits his opinion and ifs and buts can be used when it points to LL being guilty. This isn’t the first time either where he’s added things to his opinion that weren’t in his reports (the plunger), which is odd to me anyway, he seems to like giving extra speculative details which he’s not written down anywhere and aren’t based off evidence they want me to believe he’s done multiple reports and is only realising important details now? Also the whole “I’ve not seen unexpected collapses happening regularly since so I’ve changed my opinion” seems reasonable until you realise the hospital was downgraded following these incidents, he’s contradicting what he’s said in to police with everything more fresh in his mind, If LL was out here changing her opinions on things it would be fishy behaviour, but the expert does it and no one bats an eye lid

From the questions BM asked today, there seems to be plenty of room for other causes, I’m speculating but given these questions I’d say it’s likely there’s a defence expert willing to disagree with mr evans conclusion here.

and just to add my NICU son had a milk protein intolerance ( something like that anyway I can’t remember exactly ) he would regularly projectile vomit right from birth. We were told it wasn’t unusual and his “allergy” wasn’t even noticed until he was maybe 6 months. Often he’d be given extra feeds to replace the milk that he had lost and it wasn’t documented. I don’t think my son was anywhere near as poorly as the children in these cases though so it may be totally irrelevant.

When you’re giving evidence in the witness box, you should answer the question asked - more often than not, that means a short reply. It may sound snappy when written down on a reporting website like that, but Dr E answered what was asked. To carry on needlessly isn’t good and a witness should only really answer questions that they’re asked. It means those listening get the answer rather than the answer being lost amongst them going on and on.

 

[Parsnipface]

I'm not able to dip in with this as much as I've never once doubted guilt and I really was invested to hope some doubt would be cast and it was all a horrid mistake.
Not happened fellas. I just hope life for her is filled with the horrors she deserves x

 

[IGiveUp22]

I do find it baffling how others can have such different opinions after todays reportings but I respect that not everyone thinks the same.

i am keen to know myself if the defence have medical experts which can provide explanations to counter what the prosecution have said.

However, based on the evidence from these experts today, I believe someone deliberately over fed that baby.

Then it comes down to the whole thing of LL being there…again. It’s just too much at this stage.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

I do find it baffling how others can have such different opinions after todays reportings but I respect that not everyone thinks the same.

i am keen to know myself if the defence have medical experts which can provide explanations to counter what the prosecution have said.

However, based on the evidence from these experts today, I believe someone deliberately over fed that baby.

Then it comes down to the whole thing of LL being there…again. It’s just too much at this stage.

It is too much at this stage, this whole trial is too much tbh.

I just hope she gets put away for the rest of her life and never harms another innocent again. She's evil incarnate.

 

[Treesy19]

I may need to re-read too, the bit about can’t vomit when being fed like that. Surely by that, it means when being fed correctly, and with the correct amounts. My interpretation so far with this bit, was Dr E was getting that that’s the case when no infection anyway and being fed correctly. Baby G was doing fine up until after this 2am thing, no sign of infection or anything. The vomit amount seems substantial and vomit comes from the stomach so a lot more must have been in there than the planned 45ml.