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!

Presumably the defence will reference the catheter in their commentary, and the possibility that this could have contributed to the death.

However, some posts on this thread significantly shift the focus into these areas as if the hospital or all of its neonatal staff were on trial.

No they are considering the deaths in the context of the hospital unit in which they occurred. If such discussions don’t interest you that’s fine, but you can control other people’s response.

All staff who treated these children should be required to take the stand, the presentation of written statements from them is not adequate

Equally, one could argue that none of the staff should be involved at all (including LL) and the number of deaths should be assessed outside of a criminal trial as it is in other trusts/hospitals.

In relation to the ridiculous obsession with the Prosecution about Facebook searches for family members. Let me ask everyone on this forum and the prosecution what and who they have searched for online and should they be defined by this searches?
Did Ms Letby every search online:
'' how to murder babies'' . That has to date not been stated by the ProsecutionI
If I was to judge her on her messages between colleagues, sending a sympathy card, I see a very thoughtful, emotional person.
Maybe this is not considered ''normal'' behaviour in the UK.

So far there has not been enough detail from the defence to even validly consider any such arguments

Equally, the same could be said of the Prosecution.

Not quite, prosecution's opening was more comprehensive. However, it is right to say there isn't enough evidence on either side yet to consider, I agree.

I'm not "not interested" in clinical negligence posts, I am pointing out these arguments haven't been raised or supported with evidence at all yet, but some posters are absolutely hellbent that this must have happened and this was the cause. Equally, nowhere did I say this evidence won't be relevant - on the contrary, I said it will be relevant to her defence. Again, some posters are way too keen to misconstrue.

CheapAsChip · Today 14:18
And to add - Clinical negligence or murder are not the only two options.. ! There is natural death and everything in between.

Well there would not be a criminal trial nor a medical negligence accusation, if experts believed '' natural death and everything inbetween'' explained the cause of death of these babies.
Don't forget the damning CQC report!

I'm not seeing any recent posts where anyone is hellbent on anything - just posts commenting on the possible alternatives.

It's so important that we keep an open mind in this case. Crucial. It literally could be either or any reasoning.

BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz ·
I completely agree.

How can you agree to keep an open mind but state earlier that it’s EITHER negligence OR murder?

Please refer to the CQC reports for this hospital.

Where are the staff that have been struck off for medical negligence?
You can have an overall failing trust without individual staff members being guilty of negligence.

@PurplePansy05

Neglience is not necessarily the point - understaffing, poor communication, inadequate monitoring, deficient supervision, could contribute to suboptimal care resulting in unnecessary deaths without one medic professional or another being specifically negligent. Equally it’s not impossible that one or other babies died naturally if unexpectedly.

I don’t see any poster “hellbent” on any line thus far. I see a balanced evaluation of the case. There has not been enough evidence on either side to form any judgement.

Well put

Let us all wait for the opinions of the medical experts called by the Defence.

This thread is so, so strange.

Posters are claiming over and over that they are taking no stance on her guilt or not but are actively peddling the idea that it could have been anyone and the hospital was most at fault.

From an outside view point it does appear that most people posting have already decided and not based on evidence.

And if it appears that way to me then it will probably appear that way to any of the victims families that happen upon this thread. Perhaps something to think on.

The deliberate sensationalism by the UK media is shocking. How they cherry-picked hyperbolic statements made by the Prosecution for their headlines but theynow fail to use current statements made in court for their headlines.

Just a feeling?

You have misinterpreted. No-one is saying the hospital was at fault. No-one knows whether the hospital was at fault. They are simply saying that hospital failings could explain the deaths. So until there is hard incontrovertible evidence that LL harmed the babies, that remains an alternative

And that’s as it should be - the burden of proof rests with the prosecution.

I don’t see any decisions here at at all, there’s isn’t simply enough evidence. A discussion is not a conclusion.

Believing that the defendant is innocent is fine - everyone is innocent until proven guilty. However, as we're only days into a 6 month trial, it might be worth holding back on judgements about guilt or Innocence.

Fair enough, but a belief is not a decision. Presumably if presented with incontrovertible evidence of her guilt, you’d change your mind.

Lougle · Today 15:18
Believing that the defendant is innocent is fine - everyone is innocent until proven guilty. However, as we're only days into a 6 month trial, it might be worth holding back on judgements about guilt or Innocence.

Please direct that statement to the British media.

There is a major problem with the way the U.K. media cover trials in general.

They make a habit of presenting prosecution statements as ‘fact’. Over time I think it’s prejudicial and I find it irresponsible.

I think press regulations should restrict the practice.

We are way too early into the trail for anyone to know this. You might want for her to be innocent. Everyone should be operating from a starting point of innocence, but to claim here and now that you are going with innocence is staggeringly ignorant.