Lucy Letby Case #7

[Tofino]

I don't think anyone has argued that pleading not guilty means you aren't guilty. I was merely pointing out that if the defence felt the evidence against her was overwhelming they would have advised her to plead guilty or gone for a diminished responsibility defence. The fact they didn't do that suggests to me that the evidence is woolly. But that doesn't mean she didn't do it.

how do you know what the defence advised her? They might have done all you said and she chose to ignore it.

 

[justheretoread99]

Is anyone else feeling more and more on the fence as this goes on??

Also, was in a YouTube rabbit hole last night of court documentaries. This one features Nick Johnson KC prosecution for Letby’s trial.

 

[chocolatepanda6]

In other news, I have been listening to report of maternity services in East Kent. It’s awful poor parents.
Regadless of outcome here I think Chester hospital also has failings which I am sure will be addressed after this trial.

It’s really scary how many hospitals have such reports at the moment

 

[OH.FFS]

Of course we can have an opinion on it. I see lots of professionals in the medical world for my son, along with school staff. I don’t care if it’s the ‘norm’ in that environment, it’s unprofessional and crosses boundaries and I’d have a lot to say about it if I learned someone my son works with is snooping on me and our family on Facebook. My profile is private but that doesn’t excuse the behaviour.

100% this. When I read earlier I recalled when my son had a serious heart operation and I thought if the surgeon had searched for us, and I knew, then they wouldn’t be the surgeon doing the operation and either way I’d be reporting them.

 

[pommobear]

how do you know what the defence advised her? They might have done all you said and she chose to ignore it.

I don't know. See my previous post.

 

[raspberryjuice]

There seems to be a bit more detail in the live feed today, and they’re regularly pointing out that it’s agreed facts. I wonder if somebody read the criticism of the reporting here yesterday?

Just to point out though, as it is still agreed facts/evidence - you’re not supposed to be reading anything that convinces you either way of her guilt or innocence. This is evidence both sides agree are true, and neither side would weaken their case by presenting anything that goes against their narrative at this stage. They are still ‘setting the scene’.

 

[nothinonyou]

Facebook was huge back then I remember everyone was on it all day every day, now I barely ever use it. So I could see how you would search certain things on there if you were on it all day and someone you were working with passed your mind you might look them up out of curiosity. My point being I guess she was probably on it anyway and was just searching crap. The same way SB seemed to never be off her phone and constantly was googling things and texting.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

Alcohol actually seems like a very reasonable explanation for her not remembering. Wonder will this come up or not...

Further to this, it would make the Christmas Day search of the family make more sense too. Still wholey inappropriate but if she was drowning her sorrows and thinking back on incidents that really upset her it would be make more sense to me.

But of course, we have no idea really. Just speculating.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

I really wish you wouldn't project onto me - I am in NO WAY minimising deaths of babies. I have clarified on the previous thread that babies/pregnancies/childbirth etc is all absolutely precious and absolute miracles that shouldn't be taken for granted.

But the FACT is that the babies were very poorly. They were in a neonatal unit and the Dr today has been QUOTED as saying 'she didn't know what baby to attend to first' - that doesn't sound like two healthy babies to me.


Copied and pasted from the Dr's evidence;

Further ventilation support was given to Child A with the neopuff device "for a short time" to reduce the pauses in between breathing.
She recalls 'chest compressions' were seen on Child B, which she interpreted as "a bad sign".
"It was difficult to know which baby to assist," Dr Beech recalled, as Child A was still not yet stable.
Dr Beech's note at 2.50pm asked for an "urgent post-mortem" for Child A to look for signs of thrombosis, "as this may have implications for [Child B]".
An x-ray review had shown Child A had a symptom of newborn respiratory distress syndrome.

Excuse me, I, and others are not ‘projecting’ on to you. You are the one constantly making these statements. Maybe if you just owned that and stopped trying to play the victim it would be better.
People can disagree with me but I’m not going to start crying or claim they’re ’projecting’ or picking on me.

 

[lookwhatthecatdraggedin1]

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.

When I had my first born at the womens hospital they failed me by not providing me with medication needed but lied that I had refused it when everything happened, 3 weeks later I was blue lighted to the hospital and got told a day later and I’d of been dead. This was all due to them just being absolute failures and not doing the job they needed to do. It’s so common now it’s heartbreaking

 

[Daisydunn15]

Facebook was huge back then I remember everyone was on it all day every day, now I barely ever use it. So I could see how you would search certain things on there if you were on it all day and someone you were working with passed your mind you might look them up out of curiosity. My point being I guess she was probably on it anyway and was just searching crap. The same way SB seemed to never be off her phone and constantly was googling things and texting.

God yeah this was back when people uploaded an album of every night out

 

[noharmdone]

Watched an interesting YouTube video regarding Lucy, not sure if I can share the link but if you're interested the channel name is 'analysing language, detecting lies'. There's only 3 vids, the other 2 are the Star Hobson case. It's 7months old but I found it a useful watch as sometimes struggle to make sense of reports etc

 

[nothinonyou]

God yeah this was back when people uploaded an album of every night out

exactly lol so I think in context of those searches it's important how popular it was. If she was looking for signs of grief she could probably see it on these parents pages because I even remember privacy settings weren't really a thing, everything was visible and everyone was posting very personal things. Glad that's blown over now

 

[Bexx77]

I just think it’s vulgar that a baby died and her first thought was to search them on Facebook when she new they were still in hospital. There was no need to see how they were doing online and then it’s even more strange considering she was texting saying that she didn’t want to see the parents (Baby A).

could it be she was seeing what the parents were saying about the care and/or her specifically? Would tie in with not wishing to face them but looking them up on FB

 

[avabella]

Excuse me, I, and others are not ‘projecting’ on to you. You are the one constantly making these statements. Maybe if you just owned that and stopped trying to play the victim it would be better.
People can disagree with me but I’m not going to start crying or claim they’re ’projecting’ or picking on me.

Honestly your replies are really boring now. I can say what I want, and I can also say it constantly if I want. Do not claim that I am minimising baby deaths. That's disgusting. Maybe if you just owned the fact you are so swayed by your own bias that you're trying to drag me down then you'd leave me alone.

God yeah this was back when people uploaded an album of every night out

And put it in separate albums!!

 

[LilyRose1234]

Can anyone with legal knowledge explain if the CPS can cherry pick charges or if they had to proceed with them all?

It worries me that if she’s guilty, some of the “better” evidence will be undermined by cases where the evidence is weaker and she will get away with them all, or vice versa that the sheer amount of charges will see an unsafe conviction because the jury will think there’s no smoke without fire.

There’s also the possibility that she’s guilty of some but not others isn’t there?

There’s no good outcome here - the “best” would seem to be if she’s guilty and changes her plea so that the families don’t have to go through six months of this, but even then so many people have had their loss compounded by the stress of a trial and the protracted proceedings.

Nope, you can’t cherry pick a charge. Each charge has to meet the full code test based on evidence and public interest. You can’t just throw as many at the wall as possible and hope one sticks. That said, often the evidence of one charge is bolstered if there are further similar charges but it’s fairly rigorous (in theory, obviously sometimes mistakes are made etc)

 

[corriefan175]

Yeah, if you found out definitely. People probably search you all the time and you don’t realise it.

The majority of people I know have their settings set up private anyway so they’d only get a profile photo. I think it’s just human nature for some people to be a bit nosey or ‘socially curious’ I wouldn’t be that freaked out about someone looking me up in social media but if I found out her car tracking was showing her going past my house or workplace every day then I may find that a bit too far

 

[Tofino]

I don't know. See my previous post.

You said ‘the fact they didn’t do that suggests the evidence is woolly’.

Your response to PP was ‘I meant generally if your defence team felt the evidence against you was overwhelming then they'd advise you to plead guilty.’

I’m not disagreeing with you that the defence team would likely advise her to plead guilty if the evidence is overwhelming, just that you can’t say it suggests the evidence is wooly’ because Lucy plead not guilty. you don’t know if they did actually advise her and Lucy ignored them.

 

[pommobear]

You said ‘the fact they didn’t do that suggests the evidence is woolly’.

Your response to PP was ‘I meant generally if your defence team felt the evidence against you was overwhelming then they'd advise you to plead guilty.’

I’m not disagreeing with you that the defence team would likely advise her to plead guilty if the evidence is overwhelming, just that you can’t say it suggests the evidence is wooly’ because Lucy plead not guilty. you don’t know if they did actually advise her and Lucy ignored them.

I said it SUGGESTS to me that the evidence they have is woolly. It would be quite unusual for someone to go against the advice of their lawyers.

Nothing I have seen so far of the evidence disproves that. The evidence thus far IS woolly. Maybe it won't be further down the line, I don't know.

 

[Lyla001]

I don't think anyone has argued that pleading not guilty means you aren't guilty. I was merely pointing out that if the defence felt the evidence against her was overwhelming they would have advised her to plead guilty or gone for a diminished responsibility defence. The fact they didn't do that suggests to me that the evidence is woolly. But that doesn't mean she didn't do it.

I totally agree with this, and this is what ive been trying to point out. Nobody knows what she was advised . Nobody knows for a fact whether she is guilty or not, only her. BUT from personal experience, if the evidence was overwhelming from the onest she would probably have been advised to plead guilty, thats all people are trying to say.