Lucy Letby Case #51

[jedwad87]

Usually what we called agreed statements were what the defence is willing to agree to (essentially admit to!) so they’ll respond, line by line, to what the prosecution has said in their statement, they’d put forward their version of events as to what happened and why LL is guilty.

what the defence will agree to is usually only foundation stuff i.e. we agree that LL worked at Xyz hospital, we agree that witness X note about LL’s arrival time was accurate. Then anything they contest is usually how it was agreed to have a trial in the first place i.e. we contest that LL was present for every incident (as an example).

I’m not surprised the jury doesn’t have the agreed statements, I’m more surprised that they need that basic foundation of information at this point in the trial. Like after everything they’ve heard they’re going back to that? I’d be pissed.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

It’s mad how much automatic trust is instilled in us regarding nurses, paramedics, plod, fire people etc

You can’t flick a ciggy in a city centre without being caught on CCTV and fined but it’s unreasonable to expect CCTV in areas where our most vulnerable are

Obv not every emergency service worker is a Lucy Letby or a Wayne Couzens but for duck sake it’ll just happen over and over again

That has more to do with the privacy of the patient than anything though. Patients will be undressed, incontinent, distressed etc. and there needs to be no doubt that that footage will ever be misused.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

I’d be scared to report someone as surely that would automatically result in a mistrialcouldn’t bear to imagine that happening in a case of this length and severity

Massive congrats to @Tofino!

True, but anyone coming out with that is very likely to decide be brainwashed enough to think not guilty.

 

[gigilouxx]

That has more to do with the privacy of the patient than anything though. Patients will be undressed, incontinent, distressed etc. and there needs to be no doubt that that footage will ever be misused.

Literally there’s just no happy solution is there

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

Literally there’s just no happy solution is there

Nope... just wish there was a way to filter out these types of warped sickos from care professions. But again there is no way to do that without things getting Orwellian

 

[CabalofBolorneaise]

Usually what we called agreed statements were what the defence is willing to agree to (essentially admit to!) so they’ll respond, line by line, to what the prosecution has said in their statement, they’d put forward their version of events as to what happened and why LL is guilty.

what the defence will agree to is usually only foundation stuff i.e. we agree that LL worked at Xyz hospital, we agree that witness X note about LL’s arrival time was accurate. Then anything they contest is usually how it was agreed to have a trial in the first place i.e. we contest that LL was present for every incident (as an example).

I’m not surprised the jury doesn’t have the agreed statements, I’m more surprised that they need that basic foundation of information at this point in the trial. Like after everything they’ve heard they’re going back to that? I’d be pissed.

It might just be something really small that one member of the jury remembers one way and another remembers slightly differently so it’s better to ask. The thing is they’ve heard a lot of different information about a lot of different charges over a long period of time that’s been hugely broken up by various breaks, I’d be more surprised if there weren’t requests for clarification on things tbh. It’s a complicated case and they can’t refer to the tattle wiki to refresh their memories!

 

[jedwad87]

It might just be something really small that one member of the jury remembers one way and another remembers slightly differently so it’s better to ask. The thing is they’ve heard a lot of different information about a lot of different charges over a long period of time that’s been hugely broken up by various breaks, I’d be more surprised if there weren’t requests for clarification on things tbh. It’s a complicated case and they can’t refer to the tattle wiki to refresh their memories!

it’s just usually such basic stuff in my experience, it’s odd to need to revisit the agreed statements.
however, the way it’s been reported at least, BM’s style of expert challenging + LL’s bus throwing, it probably feels like for the jury that it’s torn in two parts of the agreed statements (esp stuff she’d admitted in the police station before) so I can understand from that perspective needing to see what the defence originally admitted.

 

[Thegirlwhouk]

I know this is frustrating but picture this.

They are almost there but one or two jurors are in doubt. One says "but don't forget what the Dr from Arrowe Park said, he said the desaturations didn't seem to be related to anything". A few jurors don't remember this, they discuss it and say, ok well let's listen to that part again. So they do and it's clarified...

That's literally what happened in the jury case I did. We were very close but a few were sceptical. We literally needed to point out one thing in the CCTV that a few people had missed. We did that, then an hour later were all sure.

It's a huge trial and loads of evidence and I'm glad they are revisiting things. They haven't got it all written down like us.... Think of it like a history exam. You can only remember so much, no matter how important it is, you will need to revise and revisit topics and having your friends there will also help! You'll all remember different things.

 

[kabukigirl]

Nope... just wish there was a way to filter out these types of warped sickos from care professions. But again there is no way to do that without things getting Orwellian

Boring social care interlude - CCTV is used in parent and child residential homes (mum and baby assessment placements) in bedrooms/ private areas etc - so it is used / able to override adult privacy etc to safeguard children in this respect - but I guess this is because it is with adults with known risks - and placements are part of the court process to a child potentially being removed from the parent’s care.
It isn’t something that should have to be used in a hospital though -

 

[CabalofBolorneaise]

it’s just usually such basic stuff in my experience, it’s odd to need to revisit the agreed statements.
however, the way it’s been reported at least, BM’s style of expert challenging + LL’s bus throwing, it probably feels like for the jury that it’s torn in two parts of the agreed statements (esp stuff she’d admitted in the police station before) so I can understand from that perspective needing to see what the defence originally admitted.

I think the way I see it is they’ve heard so much complex medical stuff that they probably really really had to concentrate on trying to understand and take in that it’s probably the basic stuff that they’ve ended up forgetting… I‘ve never been on a jury but I remember when revising for exams I’d spend ages on the complex stuff and then realise the basics had vanished from my brain so I’d expect the same sort of thing would happen in a complex trial.

 

[SnoopySnooper86]

Literally there’s just no happy solution is there

Besides tethering nurses together in pairs so there’s always a witness I’m outta ideas.

 

[oldjamfan]

Nope... just wish there was a way to filter out these types of warped sickos from care professions. But again there is no way to do that without things getting Orwellian

True. And even then if you’re sick enough and determined enough to want to do dastardly and evil things, you’ll find a way round anything, unfortunately.

 

[Ghostranch]

I find it baffling that they don't have copies of agreed statements. How are they meant to remember everything? To be honest I don't get why they can't have transcripts of everything!

 

[cantthinkofaname2]

I can’t get my head round that out of hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence in these bundles, they don’t have the parents statements.
What exactly do they have?

 

[Beigerac]

If they’re going through the attempted murders after having gone through the murders I wouldn’t be shocked if they serve up a verdict on Friday afternoon. But who the hell knows.

One things for sure, if we get the inevitable BBC/ITV drama it’ll go on for about 50 episodes as opposed to the usual 3 or 4.

 

[DM Me Hun]

Has anyone else noticed that a lot of the people you interact with don’t seem to even know about the case? Or they vaguely remember seeing something in the news a while ago about a nurse killing babies but they didn’t realise she was on trial? I feel like a bit of a nutter mentioning it to friends and colleagues when they have no idea what I’m talking about but I think this is huge!

 

[Lucyxxxx]

OT but Sinead O Connor has died!!!!

 

[Okgolightly]

OT but Sinead O Connor has died!!!!

Noooooo I love her!

 

[MmmB777]

Has anyone else noticed that a lot of the people you interact with don’t seem to even know about the case? Or they vaguely remember seeing something in the news a while ago about a nurse killing babies but they didn’t realise she was on trial? I feel like a bit of a nutter mentioning it to friends and colleagues when they have no idea what I’m talking about but I think this is huge!

Yeah definitely. Going to blow up when the conviction comes in though and then people will want to talk!

 

[kata420]

OT but Sinead O Connor has died!!!!

Just came here to say this. Such heartbreaking news. She never got over the death of her son last year. Such an immensely talented but troubled soul. I hope she is with Shane now somewhere.