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!

Thank you that is so helpful. I literally couldn't understand what happened and have never understood before (like when having treatment) what it actually does.

It really does seem like the air "evidence" is a bit flimsy and more of a theory. However, it is very early in the trial. Will see what else is presented later on and if that shows the air discussion in a new light.

The doctor this morning said that the air was an unusual presentation and that in Child A there was a line of air along the spine. He said that might also be seen in a child with sepsis.
Then this afternoon the nurse being questioned said that Child A was given medication for 'suspected sepsis' on the 7th. Have I got that right? If so, it seems very flimsy evidence!

I agree that sounds flimsy on its own but this is why multiple cases are brought together. One instance may well be another cause, multiple instances of similarly unlikely but possible health outcomes, that only occurred when LL was there, then you get a pattern. Which is for the prosecution to show and wouldn't start to be evident until much further into the trial.

The summing up of the cases could take days for each side on their own as the patterns each side seek to show are woven together.

I have a query about the witnesses - I’ve been following the Chester Standard coverage. The doctor and the NNP today were named, but the nurse who gave evidence this afternoon was not - anyone know why some are named and some not?

It could be to protest her identity if she's an ordinary nurse still working in the hospital

I believe it’s theorised in some of the babies that so much air was pushed in to their stomach that the pressure on their diaphragm stopped them from being able to breathe. Which is different from an “air embolism, which is a bubble of air in the bloodstream as a PP explained.

I recall some had suspicions regarding the large volume of air seen in babies’ bowels. This is also the type of air that could also be introduced by CPR or produced post Mortem as the body breaks down (sorry couldn’t think how the phrase that better).

Because it shows that where there are serious shortcomings that there is an investigation and a report produced attributing blame. Not one person just scapegoated and put on trial for murder. So for someone to be on trial for murder, there must be evidence which sets this case apart from cases of institutional negligence/multiple failings

That Trust in that report (and a few others in similar reports) didn’t admit their failings. They lied and covered up. It was parents and other relatives who dragged the truth out.

But the point is a report was finally produced. There wasn’t one person scape goated. There have been lots of failings in our hospitals, lots of people died who could have been saved. How many of them end up with murder charges?

Yeah, there’s scapegoats that are sacked etc but not put on trial for murder

Scapegoat talk seems very speculative. I think we ought stick to what is coming out in court so we don't risk deletion of this thread.

A flimsy case doesn’t get stronger in conjunction with other cases. It’s still a flimsy case - either with other equally flimsy cases or with stronger cases.

The Shrewsbury and Telford report took 20 years!

You don’t know how criminal evidence and corroboration works

Nice try.

not sure what that means, but you clearly know nothing.

Yes I mean obviously we're only hearing snippets rather than the full evidence of the witnesses but I'm assuming there must be some more definite medical evidence coming to prove that Child A was definitely murdered.

From what I read they said that the air could come from post mortem or resuscitation. They also said it could be seen in infants with SIDS. Well SIDS is sudden infant death syndrome, and we don't know what causes it, so how can they rule out the same unknown natural cause in this infant who has died suddenly?

On the sepsis point, I don't think it's necessarily that noteworthy. Both my (non premature) kids wound up in NICU at birth, one profoundly ill and one less so. Both were treated for sepsis on admission. The doctors told us it takes 24-48 hours to test for sepsis, by which point a newborn that does have it would be seriously ill. So they prefer to start treating immediately and then stop if tests come back negative. Both my kids have "suspected sepsis" on their discharge papers, neither actually had sepsis.

Uhuh.

NNUs have different layouts, but it's not uncommon to go into another room for various reasons - checking drugs, covering for breaks (joke), assisting with emergencies for example.

Anyone know where the live feeds are today? Cant find the Chestier Standard one

Struggling to find it also. They haven't even linked it on Fridays page.