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!

I think the note is ambiguous at best
Time will.tell.

So I’ve been in a situation in which 2 adult relatives were having an argument and one fell and hurt themselves. Because I was there and did not intervene despite considering it - I asked myself - is that what I wanted? Did I not intervene on purpose, did I will it in some way? I was pissed off with them both for their boring arguments, at the same time I had a duty of care for both. I certainly hold myself responsible for what happened despite not actually being involved.

Diminished responsibility has to go alongside an admission that the event happened at the hands of the accused. You can't simultaneously plead that you 'didn't do it' and that your mental state means you weren't responsible for what you did.

Lucy Letby has said she had nothing to do with the deaths/injuries.

It's such a long time to face in court for everyone.

No worries I just agreed with you.

Which no-one has suggested.

My point was that if she is guilty the obvious defence would be to try to get diagnosed and go for diminished responsibility.

That she hasn’t indicates that she’s either not seriously mentally unwell enough to hope to qualify for diminished responsibility or she’s innocent.

But like I said there are many levels of mental illness below serious mental illness.

I think the note is a wash. It's undated (and very possibly dated after charges and questioning), nonspecific and contradictory - all you can reliably conclude from it is turbulent emotions, which is compatible with either guilt or innocence.

That's where, I believe, availability bias vs anchoring bias would come in and would probably depend on the individiual juror.

There are plenty of reasons, it's just that you can't see them. You are being judgemental re. the trial on an online public forum. Which is exactly what the court has instructed people not to do.

@PurplePansy05
Because this sentence is subject to interpretation too, she may have genuinely believed she wasn't doing anything wrong at the time or that she had the right to do so, or that it was best for them and she was 'saving' them from poor care or a lifetime of health troubles. Who knows. The post it not may be chaotic but there certainly is a way of reconciling these two statements as above.

This is such an interesting point. Should the case be proven the motive is likely this complex.

@Novum Completely agree. It's also incredibly irresponsible. I remember the couple who were accused of flying drones over Heathrow airport and bringing flights to a standstill. They were named and shamed in the media before reliable evidence was brought to bear and the couple's lives were turned upside down. It wasn't anything to do with them in the end. I still remember the wife breaking down in tears as they gave a brief statement to the press on their doorstep.

Or the note may be repeating phrases the police said to her. (I don’t know what the time frame is).

It's highly unlikely that the police told her she wasn't good enough to care for infants or that she didn't deserve her mum and dad. They are not making an allegation that she has been criminally negligent, after all. The tone would be quite different. The focus would be on what she actually did, not what she failed to do properly. Many posters here are imagining what they might have said and done and felt in the second situation but that's a far cry from a murder charge which is what she would have been questioned in relation to.

I wonder if she has been assessed for a serious personality disorder.

she may have genuinely believed she wasn't doing anything wrong at the time or that she had the right to do so, or that it was best for them and she was 'saving' them from poor care or a lifetime of health troubles.

Then why aren't the prosecution detailing evidence of the clearly deeply troubled and dangerous state of mind that this would have arisen from?

We're past opening statements in a 6 month trial. We will see what comes out going forward.

@whatausername Thank you. Age and perspective helps. I really value being older. I still get moments of catastrophising, but I try to catch myself and do the exercise mentally now where I challenge my thoughts. But I also will go to people ask for their perspective now as well because my brain is often not my friend.

If you're being accused of such a serious crime I imagine the people you can turn to for support becomes quite small and you get locked in your our mind.

Was court not in session today?

Live updates from court today:

www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23047700.live-lucy-letby-trial-friday-october-14/

Mostly educational background information about NICU for the jury.

Oh sky must have been booted out again

I agree the note is open to interpretation and could be helpful to both the prosecution and defence.

It could be the confession of a killer, who thinks that she was sparing the babies from a lifetime of health issues.....hence "I killed them on purpose, I did nothing wrong."

It could be that she believes she has killed them through incompetence, or they've died due to the hospital being sub-standard rather than any evil intent.

It could be that she is innocent, cracking under immense pressure and this is a CBT exercise as previously stated. It's certainly a jumble of thoughts and shows she was in turmoil.

We literally do not know yet. It is one piece of evidence that will have to be weighed up against all the other pieces of evidence. The media aren't helping with impartiality at all.

If you watch footage of police interrogating someone for murder, trying to get a confession out of them- they wouldn’t ‘tell’ her that as you put it. (And I wasn’t referring to the line about her mum and dad).

They’d say something like - you killed these children didn’t you. Admit it. Maybe you thought you were putting them out of their misery, maybe don’t feel up to the job, maybe you you’ve never felt up to it etc.

I don't think we can possibly know what the police said to her. It's my understanding that false confessions areobtained under duress and are made in an attempt to go home and stop the painful conversation. But Lucy was already at home. She also seems to have excellent critical thinking skills generally based on other notes as and when they pertain to the case against her.

Of course we can’t know. It’s simply that, depending on the timings, the context of the hospital and police investigation may be relevant to the notes that’s all.

Re Sally Clarke and Roy Meadows. He wasn't a statician but his made up stats swayed a jury who saw a highly educated man.

Beverly Allit's case was so similar, deaths peaked, unusually (statistically) when she was in shift. Stats are important.

No point saying what I think either way, because I don't know.

False confessions come about under different circumstances. False internalised etc...

Basically, she could, quite easily be made to believe she did it.

So today the first witness Dr Dewi Evans was called by the prosecution. He is the expert who had advised the prosecution on most of the technicalities / medical matters concerning the children. He was quoted a lot by the prosecution in their opening statement.

He was cross examined by Mr Myers KC for the defence who said that being an 'expert witness' rather than an active consultant medic had been his chief activity since 2009. Mr Evans agreed it has. His main occupation is now in safeguarding / accusations of negligence and advising the court in such cases.

He stressed however that one doesn't forget 30 years of previous practice and he was instrumental in advances in neonatology in the 1980s. He is a Consultant Paediatrician who retired from clinical practice in 2009.

If you want to read further here is a summarised transcript:
www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23047700.live-lucy-letby-trial-friday-october-14/

Beware the “expert witness” especially when they are not currently practising. 2009 was a long time ago in medicine.