Lucy Letby Court Case

[Pebble21uk]

Today has been the first day of the trial, which is expected to last for six months. One thread has already been pulled on the subject. Upon deletion MNHQ said that a thread about the case is fine but please read the rules around contempt of court before posting... these are copied and pasted here:
Publicly commenting on a court case:

You might be in contempt of court if you speak publicly or post on social media.
For example, you should not:
say whether you think a person is guilty or innocent
refer to someone’s previous convictions
name someone the judge has allowed to be anonymous, even if you did not know this
name victims, witnesses and offenders under 18
name sex crime victims
share any evidence or facts about a case that the judge has said cannot be made public

If any of the above take place then new threads will also be pulled. Let's please try and keep it going!

Re the note (I genuinely won't comment again after this), having done CBT I can totally see how a person in distress could write a note like that and it could come across as very unstable. In CBT as others have said one potential exercise to help get control of anxiety is to write out the very worst things you are thinking (the things you are catastrophising about) and then dismantle them.

Bear in mind this nurse had already been moved away from ward duties (which in itself would be a stressful process with lots of rumour surrounding it), then she will have been questioned by the police and possibly interviewed under caution before this note was ever written. If the note was written after any of that had occurred then it seems totally plausible to me that it could reflect fear and self loathing and guilt even if that has no proper basis in reality. If care on the ward was poor then she could have been reflecting on her personal part in that but it doesn't necessarily reflect an intentional desire to harm or that she had intentionally harmed. Some of the reflections could be her fear of what other people are saying about her (certainly some of the reflections are concern about that) and her feelings towards them. It will have to be seen in its context. This is not to say that I think it's an indication of innocence any more than it could be an indication of guilt - just that it seems ambiguous to me.

Amber and Pebble : yes, re the CPS and police interviews I agree. I once would have thought that for someone to be charged, they really just be guilty. And to get to court, well...!
I had to go through a trial, the prosecution case fell apart as soon as the first prosecution witness spoke. The prosecution evidence actually showed the truth, it didn't even fit a narrative they may have tried to create.

Of course they often get it right, I just mean that I'm a little more open minded than I may once have been.

All one can say from a CPS decision to prosecute is that there is sufficient evidence for a case to be tried in court.

The idea that the CPS only prosecute cases in which the defendant is guilty is demonstrably false.

Unfortunately this case is catnip to newspapers who want salacious and sensational stories. A pretty young nurse killing babies is irresistible and click bait heaven, especially when you can report on evidence like the note.

I am keeping an open mind on the case and I don’t personally think much can be made of the note when you see it in its entirety. I used to keep a diary when I was at a very low point in my life and some of what is written in it is extremely dark and could be used to paint me as a bad person. whilst the Facebook searches could be viewed as creepy, they don’t provide evidence of guilt. She could be a creepy, weird, morbid person and not be a murderer.

I think it’s going to be a hard trial to prove beyond reasonable doubt for many of these deaths/ near fatal incidents, and I am interested to hear what the evidence is in detail and how the defence counter it.

my heart goes out to the families, whether LL is responsible for their childrens’ deaths or not this is an awful ordeal to be going through.

When I said she was charged, I meant the nurse in the other case. So the CPS thought there was enough evidence, and evidence to come, to charge, when in fact it wasn't that nurse at all who had done anything.

I'm saying this as a general comment about taking the fact that the CPS have thought there's enough evidence as meaning something. Sometimes it means nothing at all.

It's really relatively easy to panic and confuse innocent people into confessing, particularly if they are tired, disoriented, or in any way vulnerable. Even more so in this case, I'd say, because a mistake or lack of care in nursing could also leave someone feeling responsible for a bad outcome.

Look at Amanda Knox: the Italian police went at her until they got her to confess to having been somewhere she wasn't and hearing something she hadn't. She was interrogated in relays until she barely knew her own name, much less what she had done or hadn't done.

If there was an actual treating therapist who was seeing her at the time she wrote the note, they would be a vital witness. I am not clear though, when the note was supposed to have been written? Around the time of any of the alleged offences? Or much later, when she was under investigation?

The post-it is undated and there is no context at all

The existence of a 'therapist' is speculation - someone thought it looked like notes from a CBT session/task

There will have been at least one psychiatric assessment (for the CPS), but nothing along mental health lines seems to have been mentioned in the prosecution opening (it has to happen but does not have to be introduced in evidence). The defence are not using a psychiatric defence, but they might have psychiatric evidence about the content of the note?

It seems then rather interesting that the prosecution KC didn't mention any context of the note. It had shock value for the jury, and it might have been that taken out of possible context, this shock value increased. Time will tell, I guess, but the initial "shock" and possible of confirmation bias is now built in.

No live reporting from Sky News today? I wonder if they've finished for good and will now only provide occasional updates?

It's still being covered on The Standard website

@Blueink someone could blame themselves if they think they’ve been bad at their job in an extreme way I.e life or death scenario. One may then berate themselves very harshly even to the point of feeling useless and suicidal.

However there is the use of the phrase “on purpose” which is what the prosecution are leaning towards.

I once had an impossible situation at work and afterwards, I was very self-critical. A much more experienced colleague talked me through the situation and showed me that whatever I had done, I couldn't have done better, and sometimes situations are just hard. So I can understand lots of negative emotions expressed but I do struggle to understand 'on purpose'.

Unless she was under so much pressure ,she was questioning herself did she do anything on purpose,? she must have Been under a huge amount of pressure, being suspended from duty and having to face a disciplinary is one thing ,but being accused of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder 10 more is huge ,your whole life would be effectively over if found guilty

That's not the only note though, so the prosecution have chosen it from amongst the others which refer to her innocence and to colleagues for maximum shock value.

To be fair, if I was the prosecution, I'd choose that note, too. It's literally their job to make the charges stick using any evidence they can.

I wonder how criminal cases would change if each bit of prosecution evidence was rebutted in a turn by turn manner? The way court cases run, with all the prosecution evidence followed by all the defence evidence means that the jury has to think back to the prosecution evidence long after they've heard it, to decide which evidence carries more weight.

Also the full sentence is "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough"

Had she been told after hours of interrogation that she was both bad at her job and she is a murderer and caused the deaths. It could be an interpretation in her head of what she's been told about herself. Or a manifestation of her her worst fear, that she HAD done it on purpose even if she doesn't think she did

Or it could be an admission.

It's the other evidence that will bolster one argument or the other.

Can you imagine if she's innocent what this whole process will have done to her. Her life will never be the same whatever the outcome.

To be fair, if I was the prosecution, I'd choose that note, too. It's literally their job to make the charges stick using any evidence they can.

Yes of course! I probably wasn't clear - I meant it isn't the only note.

There are degrees of unwell. If you wanted to go for diminished responsibility or insanity she’d have to be diagnosed with a serious mental illness (a psychotic disorder, bipolar, schizophrenia, personality disorder etc) the former or insanity for the latter.

If she is guilty the obvious course would be to try to get her diagnosed and go for diminished responsibility. But she may not be sufficiently unwell. Or she may actually be innocent.

But there are many degrees of mentally unwell underneath the level of serious mental illness. She may be unwell enough to doubt her sanity under pressure or doubt her innocence or to confess to something she hasn’t done because she holds herself responsible in some way. Or the note may be repeating phrases the police said to her. (I don’t know what the time frame is).

Agreed.

@IrisVersicolor I'm really sorry but I've no idea what you said as the curse of the missing text after quotes has hit! If you asked me something or said something that needed a reply I'm not just ignoring it!