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!

We have to careful to stick to facts here and not speculate in a prejudicial way. Be as neutral and dispassionate as possible.

Otherwise the thread will be pulled!

It',s an ongoing case so we can't assume she's guilty of anything .

Thank you @DysonSpheres

I tried my absolute best to do that but clearly it’s harder to do than I thought! I’ll just leave the thread as I clearly can’t do this

It is hard as there are loads of things I would like to discuss but as it's ongoing, it has too be facts

Ok, firstly, the police have been investigating this for years. They need serious evidence for the CPS to approve a charge. The CPS will only do so if they think there is a realistic chance of conviction based on the evidence the police provide.

The media have been quiet due to court orders so as not to prejudice her trial.

The jury service of 12 peers isn't perfect but it's literally the best system that exists.

Lovely to give her the benefit of the doubt, but there must be strong evidence against her.

It is hard. It's that sort of case. The way some of the newspaper headlines are worded isn't helping in terms of keeping an open mind either.

I get that but it's the fact they have been investigating this case for years that confuses me
I assume there must be evidence that the deaths were suspicious, but why did it take so long ro charge her and she was let ho several times .

The daily mail has been shocking ,really unfair in an ongoing case

I've to say if somebody wanted to do something nefarious, wouldn't it be pretty stupid to be so obviously in the proximity? Then the milk with child G. That simply would be a dumb move. So obviously out of the norm.

It would be like sticking a huge 'look at me' sticker on your forehead. So it makes me more inclined to be skeptical.

(I hope this post is ok, please report if not)

They've been pretty disgusting

xboys, it is because you can arrest someone over and over but not have the evidence to charge. So they are bailed. In this case she was remanded. Probably for her own safety.

A long period of arrests and bails/remands is often just because they're not meeting the criteria for a charge.

They clearly got the evidence or the CPS wouldn't touch it.

She will have been on a vulnerable prisoner wing.

The length of time and the interim support for her from colleagues (alleged colleagues) makes me keep an open mind. I've been in roles where interaction with families happens and visa versa (received services) and I do think boundaries can get crossed so the Facebook stuff is less meaningful at this stage.

So many papers have used the most salacious headlines possible hoping people ignore that they are in quotation marks. It has sparked some vile comments on Twitter. I'm not sure how anybody has a fair trial when the media and social media is ablaze like that.

@DysonSpheres I can’t remember the specifics of Child C apart from what I previously listed. But she has been accused of creating fraudulent records with the other cases to create alibis for herself.

So one example was with Child E. The mum always came at the same time (9pm) every evening as she brought the baby’s breast milk for the scheduled feed. But for whatever reason, she was recorded by LL as coming at 10. She also recorded that the mum and Reg met and had a conversation that neither of them ever remembered having.

She also recorded being with a different baby during Baby D’s incident, but the nursing notes indicated that she and another nurse both called the on call doctor to Child D’s room. The prosecution suggest she was trying to create an alibi for herself in someone else’s medical records.

It might be the case that things look obvious in hindsight once you dissect through all the evidence that you didn’t have at the time. However the prosecution do state there’s the possibility that she wasn’t being fraudulent but was genuinely bad at keeping accurate records.

The Facebook thing doesn’t surprise me

I can’t mention my role but me and colleagues search people all fine on social media and news

its common

You see, posts like this concern me. "pure evil". She's (supposedly) innocent until proven guilty. And another poster who's effectively implying that if the police have charged her and the CPS have brought the case to court it can only because they have very good reasons to have done. This is how miscarriages of justice happen. I remember Sally Clarke.

Thanks!

You conveyed all that in a very even handed way too.

It should'nt be allowed really. There ought to be fines for newspapers who use these tactics.

Not necessarily. "Guilty but insane".

This is such a heartbreaking case, I don’t know how the jury will cope having to hear all the distressing evidence. 6 months is a long time to have to have your head in a case like this, I don’t envy them at all. I wonder if they get any support regarding their mental health.

I hope that the truth comes out whatever that is and that those poor families get some form of justice and closure.

I will say these type of cases I always find particularly disturbing, when it’s a person in an ultimate position of trust…

Countless of Chester is a seriously failing hospital according to news reports.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-63081685.amp

I suppose that's a possibility i imagine NICU,s are pretty full it must be very difficult if you have very vulnerable babies with high medical needs ,to remember exact times things happen.

However the prosecution do state there’s the possibility that she wasn’t being fraudulent but was genuinely bad at keeping accurate records

Could be bad record-keeping. Could be deliberately fraudulent. It's interesting that if there are conflicting notes as to where LL was, the prosecution are stating the correct evidence is the one that fits their narrative. Obviously they will state this.

I thought another interesting piece of evidence from the prosecution was when they claimed LL was present at the collapse of a baby (I forget which) and a colleague interviewed said she had been sitting with LL elsewhere at the time. The prosecution said the colleague must be wrong in her recollections...