Letby Case (part 2)

[OneFrenchEgg]

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4652340-lucy-letby-court-case?reply=121815754

follow up, remember rules around discussion of active cases

what if there’s nothing at all natural about the other 8 deaths though or the other incidents.

Did person a do those as well or was that person c and person b was incredibly unlucky to be present at all of them?

Well there’s the insulin poisoning

and also there’s coincidence

but there’s a coincidence and then there’s too many coincidences

Police combed over all of the rotas, etc before she was arrested. And they had to get the green light to arrest and prosecute her.

If there was other evidence pointing to someone else then there case means absolutely nothing

However if there was another person present for the majority of situations then im sure they would have been looked at closely. This is not a case that the police want to bring or even anyone wants to think could even happen

It is these arguments and the legal aspects of the case that I find more interesting. The case itself is, by its very nature, sensational and media reporting forever has bias so I'll struggle to draw a conclusion on guilt or innocence having not been a juror and thus I've limited interest. The legal aspects and the validity (? is that the term) or interpretation of evidence is intriguing.

I don’t think the media has been reporting much on this at all!!

There was lots of media initially but as the trial has gone on for so long already the interest has waned. I've only seen reports when "LL cried in the dock" or "LL had a secret lover" You know the really important reporting 🤔

They’ve self-selected all the ones she was present at. It would be interesting to put them in the context of all neonat deaths and sudden deteriorations over timescale and compare the data on the ones she was and wasn’t present at.

This is what interests me.

Her answers to questions by the police seem to contradict the evidence we've heard from colleagues called as witnesses. If she is not guilty that would mean those colleagues have all lied. The nurse claiming LL couldn't have seen how pale a baby was from where she was standing, LL claims they put the light on, then says she would have seen from a small amount of light coming in. Which is true? It wasn't that poorly lit or the light was on? So much to pick through in this trial. I think the defence will be long. Sympathies as always to the parents.

Not lied necessarily, the statements - including Letby's - will be affected by memory and also by bias. As well as potentially malicious or unfair motives, but I would think more probably memory or bias.

@whatausername True. This it what must make the jury's job so difficult.

me too. I think that would be very valuable information

@Fourteenhouses I'd like that too although I imagine if it exonerated her, her defence team would already be doing that.

Really interesting and this is the sort of thing that makes me really uneasy about biased media coverage where they are not considering things like this.

The defence has started with Lucy Letby giving evidence. It's being reported on BBC and Chester standard

I read online today that she is giving evidence.
I've been following this case on and off.

The defence must be confident of it's case to put her on the stand. I wonder how long they expect the defence to last......

Yes. And be confident she'll come across sufficiently sympathetically. The poor jury must be overwhelmed with it all, this might add an interesting dimension...

The defense must be fairly confident in their argument if she is taking the stand.

Stunned she took the stand. I think it might work in her favour though. The jury have a job on their hands, that’s for sure.

Wait till the prosecution get to cross examine her, wouldn’t be quite so sure. Her explanations in the stand today for the actual note confessions are weak.

She doesn't need it to be strong though - just enough to provide doubt, not to prove innocence.

It would be difficult to prove they show guilt. At best they show the mind dumping of a woman in a time of immense stress.

Not sure why you are explaining away single thing. When circumstantial evidences stacks up to this degree, witness statements, as well as evidence in the form of actual handwritten notes relating to an accused crime that is plenty. Most trials of this nature do not have one smoking gun piece of evidence.

I don’t feel like she explained why she wrote “on purpose”, at all. Or
acknowledged that writing that would seem to admit culpability.

I struggle with the on purpose. Absolutely believe it was a mind dump in a time of stress. I understand the thinking behind questioning if you did kill the babies when in that mindset and innocent given the situation. I cannot get my head round the On purpose and it did seem to get brushed over.

That being said I’m not sure if it’s a critical piece of evidence because it is the clearly distressed ramblings of someone under huge pressure.

Hopefully the Jury will make the right call when it comes to the note. If there is doubt, they will have to find her not guilty.