Lucy Letby Case #7

[CoffeeandCookies]

4:32pm
Our coverage of the Letby trial has concluded for today.

We will be back tomorrow for the resumption of the trial as the prosecution continues to give evidence.

I’m confused are we on agreed facts or prosecution evidence or is this prosecution evidence that is agreed facts?

 

[avabella]

4:32pm
Our coverage of the Letby trial has concluded for today.

We will be back tomorrow for the resumption of the trial as the prosecution continues to give evidence.

I’m confused are we on agreed facts or prosecution evidence or is this prosecution evidence that is agreed facts?

I’m almost certain they’ve moved on from agreed facts. When Stars trial was on, the agreed facts were only around 4/5 points long.

 

[nevertoheaven]

I’m almost certain they’ve moved on from agreed facts. When Stars trial was on, the agreed facts were only around 4/5 points long.

If this is the prosecution’s evidence it isn’t very compelling

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

I had the opposite experience when I had my first baby after a traumatic labour and birth. The older midwives were shocking and made me feel like a stupid little girl who had no clue about my own baby. It really messed up my head which was all over the place at the time and I would call my OH up crying my eyes out to come take me home. I ended up really depressed. The younger midwives were lovely and considerate throughout our stay in hospital.

Just wanted to say I 100% agree based on my experience!!. My 2 times in the maternity ward after having my babies it was the younger midwives and staff who were the kindest, understanding and actually HELPFULL!! It was the aul wans who were judgmental, snotty b*tches!!

 

[Bexx77]

This is one thing I am clueless about but Lucy refers to Child A’s death being passed to the coroners ? So would a coroner not have noticed anything suspicious about it ? And if she knew that was happening with what is reported to be the first death we know about her alleged involvement with wouldn’t that have scared her or stopped her from carrying out any more murder ? This isn’t my opinion I’m just trying to make sense of it all .

On the news this morning they were discussing failings in a Kent hospital. One of the issues was that cases were not being referred to the Coroner, in one case a girl lived nearly 24 hours and was classed as a stillbirth as her case wasn’t referred on. Which to be honest made me go cold! But what I’m saying is maybe that is very very normal practice to involve the Coroner.

 

[EllsBellsWells]

I’m not saying she’s innocent, and I’m not saying she’s guilty. I don’t think any of us can truly tell at this stage. But failings in maternity care recently have become much more commonplace now. Which is utterly appalling.

I don’t think they’re trying to blame it on her to hide their failings, but I also do not think what was going on was rare. Look at other hospital trusts? These ‘scandals’ aren’t scandals anymore and that is heartbreaking. How many babies (and mums!) die because of these failings. it seems to be happening more and more. Whether she’s guilty or not I hope all the other people involved are also held to account.

 

[freaknasty]

4:32pm
Our coverage of the Letby trial has concluded for today.

We will be back tomorrow for the resumption of the trial as the prosecution continues to give evidence.

I’m confused are we on agreed facts or prosecution evidence or is this prosecution evidence that is agreed facts?

This is what is confusing with the reporting! I was certain these were still agreed facts.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

I feel like we (those of us following the trial but not on the jury) can't make any accurate judgements at all. The information we are getting from the media is shoddy at best and is just leading to confusion and misinterpretation.

 

[Lucyxxxx]

Number 1 top trending thread on here.

 

[bluevanilla27]

Hey guys, I’ve been lurking here from the beginning and you have all made some impressive points.
i do have to say, I can’t believe the media already painting her as a murderer. I was brainwashed into thinking, yes she must be guilty, she definitely is guilty but it’s just not all adding up to me anymore, not since following the trial everyday. The case against her seems weak to me, with regards to looking up the parents on Facebook in my opinion isn’t strange or weird, ive looked up people I’ve shared a traumatic experiences with just to check in on them…. just based on that she cannot be labelled as a murderer. Most people I know look up the most random people, we are all nosey to some degree. Maybe she was so upset and really worried about them after they lost their little one. The note, first of all I was like yep she’s definitely guilty but actually I think those notes were of someone who was desperately scared and doubting herself because she had been accused of the worst possible crime. Can you imagine if you had been accused of something you didn’t do, especially to this degree! It would mash up your head so much. Watching a programme on tv about hospitals can not be a reason for someone to be painted as guilty, there clearly has been severe hospital negligence here. I don’t know, I’m keeping an open mind and will wait for more “evidence” to come out, but life is a weird one and coincidences do actually happen. If she is innocent can you imagine what hell she is going through, it goes unsaid about the parents losing their little ones but her life could potentially be ruined because of what could be accusations. I need hard solid proof here, they are failing at the moment imo. I hope the correct outcome is met. X

 

[Notworthy]

I followed the Depp/Heard trial. It is shocking how the media 'present' facts. Miss a sentence out ir even 1 or 2 words and it entirely changes the narrative. In this case if just 2 or 3 of these babies are proven to have died of something other than reported, the whole case falls apart becauae they're relying on statistics and that would change the entire statistical probability

 

[bluevanilla27]

By the way I’m not saying she’s guilty or not guilty. I just think their so called “evidence” is shocking. If the police looked on my Facebook I’d be absolutely screwed if it was just based on that!!

 

[DipsyDoodle]

I’m not saying she’s innocent, and I’m not saying she’s guilty. I don’t think any of us can truly tell at this stage. But failings in maternity care recently have become much more commonplace now. Which is utterly appalling.

I don’t think they’re trying to blame it on her to hide their failings, but I also do not think what was going on was rare. Look at other hospital trusts? These ‘scandals’ aren’t scandals anymore and that is heartbreaking. How many babies (and mums!) die because of these failings. it seems to be happening more and more. Whether she’s guilty or not I hope all the other people involved are also held to account.

I think sadly it's indicative of everything within the NHS at the moment. A few years ago it was shocking to see 10 or 15 ambulances queueing outside an A&E department, now it's almost an everyday occurrence. Someone at my partner's work was recently told she had breast cancer, went along to start her treatment and the staff were confused because her blood test results didn't look as they were expecting, turns out someone had mixed up the details and told her she had cancer when she didn't. A huge relief for her of course, but the flip side being that someone else was told they were clear, and then had to be contacted to say they did actually have cancer after all. The years of chronic underfunding, staffing issues etc are now showing, to the point where as you say, scandals aren't scandalous any more.

 

[just_nicole]

Sorry still catching up so here are a few thoughts, cba quoting because the message would be huge. Still will be but, ah well.

Sorry in advance if I pick up on something you've said it's not directly aimed at anyone.

Tv programme wise, I can't see the prosecution pushing it heavily. Or at least it wouldn't be smart prosecution if they did.

They are wanting to highlight how uncommon crashes are and the significance of air in the bowels- programme shows that happens without a twisted nurse making it happen. Maybe they could use it to play into Lucy's boredom of having to do general feeding duties

In respects of the eye witness testimonials, Defence has already outlined their approach to it.
There was a line in the opening can't remember the wording but essentially making a point of.
How a nurse standing by a cot would not be unusual or arouse suspicion. However, cast a shadow of guilt on that nurse alters people's perception of the event entirely.

Personally if I had been through the trauma those parents had, I'd drive myself insane going over, and over every interaction that nurse had with my baby.

Would I see a sympathetic smile as malicious, probably.
Would I pick up on everything that nurse said to me and look back at it differently, yes.

I'd want justice for my child.
I have nothing but absolute respect for every single one of those families, doesn't mean that their testimonials are mis remembering or fabricated. It means that they now have a different perception of the event.

It's the reason that eye witness testimonials are the easiest to disprove. They are also the most emotive for the jury though.

There is one statement that I don't think can be disproved and that was the mother who dropped off the feed at 9pm, there are phone records and other details surrounding that one in those instances.

Sorry for the essay, I had a lot to catch up on thread wise

 

[Former_Antelopee]

So the ward will have their own stock of commonly used medicines, these are kept in a locked drug room, inside a locked cupboard. What’s in here will change slightly ward by ward, eg maternity will have tonnes of epidurals, nicu would have things babies use like caffeine, geriatric wards probably have a lot of blood pressure and water tablets.

What you’re talking about with needing an on call pharmacist, is where whatever you need isn’t in one of the ward cupboards. Either because they’ve used all their supply or because it’s something unusual. So an on call pharmacist would have to come in and get it out of the pharmacy. Normal hospital staff can’t just help themselves to whatever they like out of the pharmacy. Theoretically they can only get to whatever they have in their own ward cupboards, and even then there’s stock checks etc

Thank you, it was an unusual thing so I thought that may be the case. They’d only had to give it once last year they said and they didn’t originally think they kept it in stock. They did say she’d been called in three times that night though, feel bad for her

No you're not being dumb at all. It's all very confusing.

The milk would be given as well as TPN. Not one or the other. Small amounts of milk given at the start wouldn't be enough to hydrate baby or give complete nutrition.

Baby was started on a stock bag of TPN on admission, then the bespoke bag started at 12:30am (even though it was delivered 8 hours before). I assume this was to 'make the most' out of the stock bag already hung, instead of just chucking it after a few hours. TPN is pretty costly. Most units have their own routine for switching fluids. We do our bag changes on the day shift, some do theirs on the night shift. So this could also be the reason.

More info is needed and hopefully they expand on the whole TPN and insulin situation.

Hope I explained all that clearly enough? It's all so confusing when there are bits missing from the reporting.

So could anyone have spiked the bag between when it was delivered and 8 hours later when it was used?

 

[Weeder]

Just to point out I'm ND and I see traits within LL , getting overly obsessed with things being awkward etc. That doesn't mean that people with ND can't be bleeps or evil we are all different and I've worked and nursed many people with ND. I'm high functioning and I've learnt to mask incredibly well so thankfully I've learnt not to put my foot in it very often.

Ahh.. I knew I liked you. Me too. I'm terrible for saying awkward rit. I don't pay attention to societal norms... I'm learning because I didn't even realise.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

Sorry if this has already been said. But hearing all this evidence/ text message etc is awful, and certainly points to Letby from a circumstantial point of view - ie she was alwayson shift etc.
But....the jury have got to her find her guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. I think that is going to be the difficulty here, and the reason why she has chosen to run a trial rather than plead guilty at the earliest opportunity .
Apologies if this has already been said- these threads are moving at such as fast pace!

Beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond ALL reasonable doubt.
Therefore they’re allowed to have a reasonable doubt.

 

[LilyRose1234]

Hi all, I’ve been lurking for a long time but haven’t plucked up the courage to get involved, but thought it might be helpful to understand the case from a criminal justice perspective…

In an investigation like this, the police will make contact with the CPS early doors to look at the investigation, reasonable lines of enquiry etc - this includes looking into the accused but also considering avenues that point away from them (so they can’t just hone in on one person and ignore anything else). Once they think they have everything they will submit their evidence to the CPS for a charging decision. The CPS can then decide to either charge, no further action, or send it back asking for further evidence, or other things to be done. The charging decision cannot be made until the majority of the evidence has been provided and disclosure requirements met and this can take some time. The CPS will then decide whether there is at least a 51% chance that a jury will find the accused guilty and that a prosecution will be in the public interest. So the test for the CPS is a guilty verdict on the balance of probabilities (more than 51%) but once the case reaches court the jury must find the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt on each charge.

A fundamental principal of our legal system is innocent until proven guilty, and in this case this means the prosecution needs to show a) that each baby was murdered/attempted to murder AND b) that the person who committed the murder/attempt was the defendant. They cannot prove this until the evidence has been tested in court. IMO it’s far too early for the prosecution to have met this hurdle for each individual baby, given we haven’t really heard a lot of evidence yet. The opening statement is simply the prosecution summary of the evidence they will rely on, and is not the same as the evidence being tested. With the best will in the world, if they could prove their case to the requisite standard after opening statements, we wouldn’t need a 6 month trial.

I’m trying not to rely on my gut feeling because I’ve been wrong before, but it’s really interesting reading all the different perspectives and my heart hurts for the families of these poor babies, regardless of the outcome.

Sorry this ended up being really long, feel free to ignore if it isn’t helpful!!

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

Hi all, I’ve been lurking for a long time but haven’t plucked up the courage to get involved, but thought it might be helpful to understand the case from a criminal justice perspective…

In an investigation like this, the police will make contact with the CPS early doors to look at the investigation, reasonable lines of enquiry etc - this includes looking into the accused but also considering avenues that point away from them (so they can’t just hone in on one person and ignore anything else). Once they think they have everything they will submit their evidence to the CPS for a charging decision. The CPS can then decide to either charge, no further action, or send it back asking for further evidence, or other things to be done. The charging decision cannot be made until the majority of the evidence has been provided and disclosure requirements met and this can take some time. The CPS will then decide whether there is at least a 51% chance that a jury will find the accused guilty and that a prosecution will be in the public interest. So the test for the CPS is a guilty verdict on the balance of probabilities (more than 51%) but once the case reaches court the jury must find the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt on each charge.

A fundamental principal of our legal system is innocent until proven guilty, and in this case this means the prosecution needs to show a) that each baby was murdered/attempted to murder AND b) that the person who committed the murder/attempt was the defendant. They cannot prove this until the evidence has been tested in court. IMO it’s far too early for the prosecution to have met this hurdle for each individual baby, given we haven’t really heard a lot of evidence yet. The opening statement is simply the prosecution summary of the evidence they will rely on, and is not the same as the evidence being tested. With the best will in the world, if they could prove their case to the requisite standard after opening statements, we wouldn’t need a 6 month trial.

I’m trying not to rely on my gut feeling because I’ve been wrong before, but it’s really interesting reading all the different perspectives and my heart hurts for the families of these poor babies, regardless of the outcome.

Sorry this ended up being really long, feel free to ignore if it isn’t helpful!!

Very helpful, thank you

 

[nevertoheaven]

The standard is reporting she sent a text to a colleague 12 hours after Child B’s crash saying "Will you let me now if any change with [Child B]."
This seems like something said from genuine concern? I’m wondering what motive may she have had to ask that if guilty?