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

I found it interesting that a parent said she’d been hovering with a clipboard at 19:00 yet swipe data showed she didn’t enter the unit until 19:26.

@Jojobees I think the parent has either got the time wrong or it was someone else. Her shift started at 7.30pm.

I'm not a KC but I suspect what Ben Myers has been doing so far, is to try to project the human side of Letby. Until now, to the jury she has been a 2D character, so he's trying to fill that out. In doing so, by making her more real, he's trying to create doubt that she could have committed such a heinous crime. She must be convincing in saying she's not guilty as he asked her in the stand if she had committed these crimes. It is NOT the Defence's job to prove their side, the burden of proof lies with the CPS. I know you know, but the jury will be told they have to be completely convinced she did it, not pretty certain.

I would imagine he'll have a retinue of expert witnesses lined up to cast further doubt, medical and maybe technical, i.e. door access data etc.

Court was adjourned on the 5th until today

Now todays and tomorrows sessions have been cancelled due to juror sickness

Seriously this is so long. How will the jury be able to keep a timeline of everything and remember all the evidence? Goodness.

The jury have ipads or tablets with the tinelines on, shift patterns and other evidence.
Also the jury can ask for any evidence to be read out again once they are deliberating.
I did jury service on a long case (but not this long!) back in the days of pencil and paper notebooks and some things had to be read out again. It will be expected in such a long case although the ipads will help.

This is crazy long though. Don't they really legally only need ten people? And I'm imagining there are 12 in the current jury?

There's 12 on a jury and in this case they have some spare jurors following along. 4 iirc. I'd assume this to cover any long term sickness of a juror so they'd still have the 12.

If it's a short term sickness they will stick with the original 12 and wait. It's inevitable in a case this long there will be viruses and illnesses.

There have been rare cases when juries have gone down to 11 or 10. Such as cases where the jury have been influenced and people have been thrown off or long term illness or even jurors passing away.

Just had a Google. They have used one of the spares.

"It is also the end that the jury sits as 14 members, as one juror has indicated they can no longer serve on the jury. The reserve juror has taken their place.
The second reserve juror has also been discharged.
The jury will now sit as 12."

Crikey, some can't go the whole distance, I don't blame them it's been so long for a really emotionally taxing and possibly mentally disturbing case. It's not something I'd be keen to go back to after any sort of extended break either.

They don't get to simply decide to drop out. To do so would be a serious criminal offence.
It could be any number of reasons but could be a very serious illness which they'd have to prove or a serious family issue where time off could not be avoided.

Judges are extremely strict on excusing jurors for long cases as obviously a retrial would be an expensive, emotional and time consuming nightmare for all involved.

Thanks Pear.

Thanks for explaining @PearWhere

Yesterday jurors were asking the judge when the trial would be over

Answer could be as late as end of July and he will inform their employers

I feel so sorry for the jurors having their life disrupted to this extent. It must be so frustrating every time there is a delay and everytime Court only sits for 2 days instead of 5. I bet they just want to get it over with. Same for the parents of the babies as well.

I'm late to this so sorry if it's been mentioned but has there been any discussion regarding her life before this? Perhaps during school/university/training periods at the other hospital? I find it really hard to fathom that somebody accused of this would just start killing vulnerable babies one day?

Me too @GemmaN17 but that's the thing with this case - none of it makes sense to any decent person.

I've been following since the start and no, neither the prosecution or defence have brought up her early life. Likely because it isn't relevant to either of their cases.
The defence has only just started so they may call people related to that but I'd guess the main witnesses would be medical or technical rather than character witnesses from childhood.

There has been discussion of her nursing training during her evidence, and she's only been on the stand the last couple of weeks so that's available to read through.

One thing that I don't understand is why the prosecution keep going on about a doctor she might have been more than friends with. It doesn't seem that relevant to a case where medical evidence is key. Unsure what they are trying to imply here, if anything.

She's doing a terrible job on the stand. Coming across as an obstinate smart arse. Majority of answers are "I can't recall" yet she has outstanding recall for details that she thinks makes her look innocent. Disputing everything everyone else is saying, even when there's no need.

I can't believe how much she can lie and with such confidence. She will little say one thing then completely contradict in the next breath and expect people to believe all the different things she's saying simultaneously.

Regarding the unnamed doctor. I think he was present for most of the later collapses (he only started working there half way through this time period). The inference being that she could have been trying to get his attention and play super nurse in front of him.

Even if, as they both assert, nothing happened, they clearly fancied each other.

That's what I mean though, surely there would be some inclinination of psychopathic tendencies in other aspects of her life/career?

It reads as though they are trying to suggest that shes hurting them to try and bring the doctor in question to her work space? Is that right? Perhaps they are suggesting an unhealthy infatuation to see this doctor is motive. Sounds out there, but ultimately if she did it there is a reason, whether it makes sense to use or not.

I do agree with the other person regarding her saying she cannot remember when asked critical questions. But perhaps she's been told to say that as answering them could open up more difficult questions.

Have they tried to find some sort of link between the babies that were chosen as victims? I would imagine many of the babies under care in such places are multiple births but it seems even worse somehow that many of the targeted victims were siblings.

I'm very much somebody who looks for reasons to believe someone at their word, but it's getting very difficult to believe this many coincidences can exist without the outcome being her guilt.

One thing is for sure someone murdered most if not all of those babies and if she's found not guilty/is innocent they cannot drop the case can they? If they find evidence in the future could she possibly be retried?

I'm with you @GemmaN17

I don't know what I think on her guilt or innocence, it is so complex and contradictory and there is no smoking gun. The note has been jumped on by the press as a confession but they ignore all the other things she'd written which looked like ramblings of a mentally unwell person in a heightened emotional state which is not surprising under the circumstances.

It really surprised me to see youtubers are putting videos out declaring her evil, I can't believe that's allowed while the trial is ongoing. I don't know how she can ever have any kind of normal life if she is ultimately found not guilty