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 @MrsFionaCharming .

It does still leave me wondering why LL would swing wildly between methods, though. If, hypothetically, you were a medical professional who got your emotional kicks from killing infants and wanted to stay out of prison for long as possible, would you try new things all the time, or would you focus on refining your "technique" so you could learn from experience and maximise your chances of staying free?

I think this case is going to have to be really tight and consistent to be won.

Someone may vary methods due to opportunism

Is there no live feed today?

That’s odd a I’ve had GD more than once and was told babies often had low sugars and had to be checked and given formula and one sugar water apparently it’s really common as they get used to elevated sugar levels when in utero and then when born can have low sugars and need monitoring

Chester Standard published a piece today that states Dr Bohin said “I think the pneumonia contributed to not surviving the resuscitation". The writer also says that Letby told police she found Child C's death very hard, which may account for her odd behaviour. She comes across as someone who is very intense. I've no idea if she is guilty or innocent, I'm just making observations. Whichever way this trial goes few people are going to feel certain with the safety of the verdict.

Many of the deaths may have so many other contributory factors that it would be very difficult to ascertain, beyond reasonable doubt, the definitive cause. I wonder if LL being viewed as intense by colleagues could possibly be one of the reasons she was more likely to be seen to be the problem. Very difficult case.

my goodness the mum of Child D's testimony is awful, and they haven't even got to the poor baby crashing.

No matter what happens with the verdict of this trial the reputation of this hospital will be in tatters. I really feel for the mothers who have to go there and for the staff's morale who still work there.

It's interesting to see the perspective of Child D's parents. They describe staff as almost uninterested and unconcerned but I wonder would staff think they presented themselves as calm and reassuring (just pondering, I don't know what went on). She also seems unsure that Letby was there and says there was a nurse was hanging around with a clipboard. However, emergencies don't always mean a rush and action, sometimes monitoring or obeserving is necessary or someone needs to scribe as others carry out different actions. I wonder how communication was between patients and staff at the Countess.

The testimony of Child D's parents almost brings to the eyes. I wonder why they chose to testify? I presume it is a joint decision between the parents and the lawyers.

Witnesses get called to testify rather than choosing to.

For the parents of A, B and C they have used agreed testimony. Where the defence and prosecution agree on the evidence they can read out witness statements which both saves the court time (especially important in very long trials) and also spares the witness turning up in court and distress caused.

I can only guess at why the parents of child D were called but my guess would be because perhaps the defence wanted to highlight the especially poor care and staff saying a baby was 'fine' when the parents disagreed. Also in their testimony there is some debate over where LL was and what she was doing - the mum thinks she probably was there, the dad didn't notice her.

Plenty of ups and down with the health of Baby D to give enough doubt as to whether they passed from illplay or ill health.

Someone on Facebook has pointed out the mother thinks she saw and spoke to Lucy Letby at 7pm yet Swipe date shows LL didn't enter the unit until 7.26pm. even so plenty of people are a bit social awkward or unaware and it doesn't make them murders.

For these babies I'm not seeing the prosecution even presenting a clear opportunity for Letby to have administered an air embolism or insulin. Particularly when she's not been their primary nurse at the time of the crash.
Lots of witnesses very vague on where she was at a specific time. For Letby to be working when all of the crashes happened is certainly statistically unlikely but statistically impossible? I just don't know.

It is statistically impossible.

Did the Chester Standard stop updating the live feed at 14:34? I've refreshed the page but not seeing anything more.

I meant it is not statistically impossible!

The cases have been gathered because she was working on them. Be interesting to compare with the deaths when she wasn’t.

This isn't striking me as a coherent, clear case. The babies may or may not have died as a result of malicious intervention, LL may or may not have been there, she may or may not have been getting emotional kicks from it but no other concrete motive has been suggested, and she employed a whole range of murderous methods for no articulated reason.

Even if there were zero infant deaths when she wasn't on shift, it still doesn't mean she did it.

None of the people speaking now seem able to explain this specific rash. They clearly are going down the air embolism route, yet they would know if the rash was a symptom of that.

That none of them have ever seen a rash like this before suggests its not linked to an air embolism. Its all very odd.

Why would they be familiar with a rash secondary to air embolism? Not sure it’s a common neonate presentation…

No indeed, but there were other deaths. She was linked to the excess ones.

Was she? Because that's not really clear at the moment. Wonder what will come up over the next five months because so far things are messy, vague and weak. That could be because she didn't do it or because they do not have a strong case. We'll see what comes up.

I remember reading there were something like 3 deaths in 2013 and 4 in 2014 then 15 over 2015-16. Given she was originally charged with 8 then one dismissed they basically charged her with every single excess death compared to the previous 2 years.

Absolutely. That's my impression too. For child D the dedicated nurse is saying she was on her break between 1 and 2 when the first collapse occurred. But the medical notes have her signing for administering meds and doing observations during this time. So either her notes are unreliable or her memory is.

For the other 2 collapses she seems to suggest that she (dedicated nurse) was in the room, or that she can't remember. I wonder if the prosecution will be alleging that LL could have done this while other nurses were in the room?

Im assuming she did the meds etc before she went on her break, not unusual.

But in that case the time on the notes cannot be relied upon. And the prosecution are using those timings to build their case.