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!

To be fair that poster is simply upholding the mechanism of the presumption of innocence.

We have a medical professional [Band 6 nurse] who treated Child A present in court and taking the stand. Her addendum in the medical notes stating: '' the UVC was in the wrong position, and was reinserted, but was still in the wrong position.
Notes shown on the screen record: "Aware no fluids running for a couple of hours," adding a long line was inserted by the registrar.''

This is the same UVC that was stated by the colleagues of the unnamed ''trainee doctor'' who inserted it, to be '' not in an ideal position ''

Let us hope the British media use her statement in their headlines tomorrow.

And prosecution, you meant to add.

The hellbent posts were definitely on multiple now removed MN threads and earlier on on this thread.

I don't think people are trying to say she's innocent or make excuses. I think most posts on this thread are measured attempts to understand the evidence and exchange knowledge rather than discuss guilt or innocence. It would be pulled if there was too much of that. It's very, very early in the trial so I doubt anyone can draw a conclusion yet.

I think I was so disgusted by the sensationalist reporting that I wanted to counter it - may have looked like belief in innocence rather than neutrality.

Sorry - I have reported this. Please read the rules around contempt of court that I stated in the OP. You will get the discussion pulled.

trialbymedia you clearly have strong beliefs (and do not think I disagree) but this is an interesting thread and posters are being pretty fair and balanced, so please be careful with what you post as the thread may be removed.

@IrisVersicolor

I am just telling you all how it comes across to someone who stumbles across the thread. The sense I get is that the evidence is all being viewed as bollocks unless it supports the idea that she’s been framed.

And there is a lot of projecting from
posters who seem to identify with LL’s situation. It comes across as quite a close minded echo chamber. Just something to keep in mind.

@Legrandsophie

It might be worth keeping in mind that you may have misinterpreted.

Do read it with contempt of court rules in mind. People likely have fairly strong views but are deliberately moderating their language, possibly over correcting, to ensure that we can have a discussion about the case at all.

Being gung ho in either direction would be ill advised.

To me this thread reads as people who are just treading carefully.

I was wondering if it would be possible for the defence to use the recent Kent maternity report?

In response to defence asking why babies temp wasn't recorded every hour as normally required.

"Mr Myers asks if handling babies (for example, to take their temperature) could led to an increase in the baby's stress, which would lead to an increased risk of deterioration.
Miss Taylor: "...to a certain degree, yes."
She adds if a temperature is recorded for one hour in a stable reading, the baby's temperature would not necessarily be taken on the following hourly check"

A agree re the way we are commenting. It's probably an element of human nature to go down the "no smoke without fire" route and assume one way over the other. Only by keeping abreast of the daily court updates and being open minded to potential other explanations can we really keep that other side of our nature at bay.

Also, the general media red top reporting of this is actually disgusting, so I'm mindful that my comments have to almost counteract that too.

I said exactly the same thing to Dh last night!

I'm reading the daily court updates and I agree I see a very different reporting to what is in the newspapers.

Hand on heart I am totally open minded and do not have clear cut/pre conceived opinion, I will go with the court reporting. My parents do read newspapers and do not read the court updates and they have a very different outlook. It's the closest I've ever followed a trial, mainly because my twins were in NICU for a short time.

I think it's important to have a forum to discuss this, so we must must keep it neutral.

Agreed - I am grateful to Mumsnet for letting this run and moderating as they see fit rather than just choosing to delete any LL threads.

I think that would be more helpful to the prosecution than the defence.

How so 🤔

I'm not very scientifically minded (probably similar to a number of members of the jury) but I don't know what to make of this air evidence. It doesn't seem particularly convincing to me.
Can anyone share any light?

What air evidence

I'm finding it a bit confusing tbh.

The Dr said it looks like the air was administered, but then agreed it could have been post mortem changes or due to CPR? Have I understood that correctly? If it could easily have been any of the 3, what is it that made him initially conclude it was sure to air administration?

I'm also not sure I understand the GOSH study. That seems to have concluded that air can appear in "sudden unexpected death of an infant", but the Dr also said there was no explanation other than administration.
Does he mean the volume of air in child a or the location of it?

Currently being reported in Chester Standard who are doing live updates

www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23066881.live-lucy-letby-trial-friday-october-21/

Paediatric radiologist who has testified to unusual amounts of air being present in the babies who died. Appears to be based on results from a fairly small study of other babies and children, none of whom were premature.

If air is introduced to the blood stream it causes a blockage, just as a blood clot, foreign body, or chunk of fat would do. The affect of it would depend on where the blockage is (e.g. in the brain, it would cause a stroke).

Yeah it's just not very clear. Then did they say there DOESN'T appear to be signs of air administration with child B?

That for me is the issue with this case. Air administration appears to be a theory not a fact.

Surely the lack of proof of the air being put there deliberately is enough to show reasonable doubt?