Lucy Letby Case #9

[White]

I'm not sure how objective the FB groups are. I noticed the ones I had a look at approved all posts, or not, so obviously one sided one way or another, unlike here. I quickly left them. Lots of comparing to Rebecca Leighton there too, who was quickly released after a month and she didn't go to trial, so not very helpful.

Dr (?Professor) Arthurs was brought by the prosecution, opened questioning by saying his final opinion was that air was administered and he'd only seen another case with such a large amount of air in another baby in this trial. Guess he's saying air can be distributed through other ways/procedures too but not in a large amount, then he starts citing a study .. Well we'll see after lunch!

 

[MmmB777]

"He said such a finding is not found in cases of 'natual causes' death in babies."
"or "very occasionally" outside of hospital in 'sudden unexpected death in infants'."

This is confusing me, could be the reporting though.

Exactly. Only one other time he has seen it and it’s in this case. To me the other stuff sounds like he’s scrutinising the research this is based on. Saying that his judgment it has to be administered with force or huge amount of overwhelming sepsis is wrong because it’s not based on premature babies. To me that just goes to show that it’s extremely unlikely to happen to prem babies and considering they’re almost always hooked up to the sort of equipment that could potentially cause it then I think he should have seen more of it? Again feel like I’m never making any sense!

 

[Tofino]

They’re not leaning towards guilty in the fb group I’m in. You’re even getting: Pray for Lucy .
I suppose I should change groups before I get another stint in fb jail

it’s both extremes on Facebook. And it was happening before the trial had even started. There is no middle ground and it’s extremely frustrating to read. I gave up on the fb groups very quickly!

 

[MmmB777]

Another thing that struck me is suggesting it was caused by the cpr…. Well why did the baby need cpr? If reason the baby crashes is air embolism which I think there’s no evidence to suggest it was anything else. It can’t be then the cpr is the cause of the air later found.

 

[slingo16]

But he has helped the prosecution? His finding was that the air was administered. The defence asked if there were other reasons the air could be there post mortem and he has truthfully stated there could be. Obviously he doesn't believe it did happen post mortem as that wasn't his conclusion at the time. With all medical evidence, there can be a second opinion. It comes down to who and what the jury believe.

I believe he’s mentioned several reasons other than LL for it occurring and I think he’s mentioned two separate studies which haven’t included any premature babies, as a witness I don’t think he’s helping there case

 

[Haveyouanywool]

it’s both extremes on Facebook. And it was happening before the trial had even started. There is no middle ground and it’s extremely frustrating to read. I gave up on the fb groups very quickly!

Yeh, I go back just to snipe occasionally.

 

[Lucyxxxx]

Personally I avoid fb for cases, the star trial sealed that for me

Corrine called.

 

[Windowtothewall]

I believe he’s mentioned several reasons other than LL for it occurring and I think he’s mentioned two separate studies which haven’t included any premature babies, as a witness I don’t think he’s helping there case

Yes, but irrespective of all the other reasons it could happen, he has stated HIS belief is it was administered deliberately. He's the expert and has considered the other reasons and still came up with the conclusion he did. And is defending it now.

That's the prosecution's evidence - that the expert testimony is it was administered, not any of the other reasons the defence has come up with. Obviously the defence's job is to poke holes in his testimony but unless he admits he could have made the wrong conclusion, his evidence is for the prosecution. Obviously only the jury know whether it's given them doubts or just convinced them the expert is right.

 

[slingo16]

Yes, but irrespective of all the other reasons it could happen, he has stated HIS belief is it was administered deliberately. He's the expert and has considered the other reasons and still came up with the conclusion he did. And is defending it now.

That's the prosecution's evidence - that the expert testimony is it was administered, not any of the other reasons the defence has come up with. Obviously the defence's job is to poke holes in his testimony but unless he admits he could have made the wrong conclusion, his evidence is for the prosecution. Obviously only the jury know whether it's given them doubts or just convinced them the expert is right.

So does it just fall on which experts you think are right if they don’t agree?

 

[Windowtothewall]

So does it just fall on which experts you think are right if they don’t agree?

Yep, which is why these medical trials are so complex and difficult. It's hard enough when you're getting medical treatment to decide which doctor's opinion is correct, so I feel for the jury having to decide on a murder conviction.

 

[Tofino]

So does it just fall on which experts you think are right if they don’t agree?

Pretty much. Which is why the defence will try and discredit the experts to put in reasonable doubt. If we only get limited reporting it will be hard for us to decide but hopefully it’s clearer for the jury.

i think if the prosecution have five expert witnesses all saying the same that will strengthen the case and it will be hard for the defence to discredit all of them.

 

[White]

I'm finding Professor Arthur's testimony so far to be quite interesting. Looking at his profile on GOSH's website it seems that he would know his stuff. Must be difficult for non-medics, including lawyers etc, to fully grasp and understand the situation a lot of the time. I think all the medics so far have provided interesting testimony. Inclined to believe them on the medical side of things than lawyers, anyhow.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

voted guilty on every other thread, first thread I've voted unsure

I'm back to guilty again I'm sure it will change again, or perhaps not actually... totally depends on how this goes.

 

[Stiltoncheese]

Just caught up on lunch break. I have voted undecided on all threads so far and still voting undecided. Just too early for me to draw any conclusions yet.

This chap is quite interesting though. I presume he is saying that it's possible for air to get in there in other ways, but not to the extent that he saw it in Baby A, which implies it was deliberate (along with another baby in this trial) and he assessed that against many other cases to draw his conclusion.

Wonder if the defence have their own witness who will provide their own study/analysis to contradict this one, or just rely in him saying its possible it could have been one of the other ways even if the stats are improbable.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

To be fair, the Radiologist answering ‘Yes’ to possibilities isn’t answering the question of probably.
He’s already given his account of what he thinks happened in this particular case.
The probably of something happening could be 1 in 10,000, but that still makes it a possibility.
I’d like a bit more clarity on these points.

That's how I interpret it too, he can't say flat out "no" when there is a possibility, even a minute one.
I think he's pretty clearly saying, this is not seen in natural deaths. Not in the hospital environment anyway.

 

[slingo16]

Pretty much. Which is why the defence will try and discredit the experts to put in reasonable doubt. If we only get limited reporting it will be hard for us to decide but hopefully it’s clearer for the jury.

i think if the prosecution have five expert witnesses all saying the same that will strengthen the case and it will be hard for the defence to discredit all of them.

Scary to think the jurors have to make a decision on something that even experts disagree on

 

[Milktray]

So does it just fall on which experts you think are right if they don’t agree?

The expert evidence can only be used in light of other evidence.

Its important to note that the expert must be unbiased. They're not there to give their opinion on if LL is guilty. Prosecution would have called him up as they believe his 'evidence' works in their favour.

I think also important to remember that some doctors will be giving evidence as a witness and others will be giving evidence as an expert.

A lot of experts will bring up studies that they have completed. And you'll likely hear that alot in high profile trials.
The problem with studies is that they can be flawed/biased. For every study, there is an alternative study.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

That's how I interpret it too, he can't say flat out "no" when there is a possibility, even a minute one.
I think he's pretty clearly saying, this is not seen in natural deaths. Not in the hospital environment anyway.

Yes. Lots and lots of things are possible in healthcare. That’s why you have to sign consent forms before procedures.
For example surgery, you have to sign a consent form stating that you know the anaesthesia risks.
Doesn’t mean you’re going to die on the table when having your vasectomy. Although it could happen.

 

[crumpets2]

I wonder what the legal discussion was this morning!

 

[Faith61]

The thing I keep coming back to is that in some of the deaths (eg. the insulin poisoning) there is no doubt that someone had deliberately tampered with the baby to harm them.

Therefore someone working on that ward has to be responsible.

Both with evidence, witness accounts and statistics LL is the most probable suspect by a huge amount.

In the cases of child A and B, I can see that the evidence is not overwhelming so far. However as we proceed through the case I think that will change drastically.

This is exactly where I'm at right now!!!!