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

Probably my naivity in understanding how court works, but how on earth are the juree going to come to a conclusion on guilty or not guilty. There is so much information to process and it is all so confusing and muddled.

Yes it must be so hard.

I’m quite surprised she didn’t request a bench/judge-only trial. In a case this emotional I’d be worried about the decision-making of the jury

No evidence. But we don’t know for sure she didn’t talk to her family or friends outside work; or if she’s the kind of person who does open up like that. Some people don’t share their worries.

She seems quite obsessive - all the googling of people - either that’s because she’s guilty and fascinated by the consequences of her actions - or she’s anxious and obsessive and thinks about her patients and potentially her interface with them long after.

I don’t disagree the comment sounds disengaged but it’s not clear what’s going on behind it.

Ah didn’t know that was an option!

Sure.
It wasn’t one comment but consistent responses to any sympathy from colleagues that struck me. Like I said before, it was just an impression that struck me after listening again to the evidence.

I’d prefer to focus on that that speculate on stuff that isn’t presented in court, and that we don’t even know exists - I think we’ve been asked not to do that.

It's not an option. Magistrates don't deal with murder cases

I Knew that but ca you not get a bench trial in the crown court? I have to say I’m basing this question on watching the film ‘denial’ set in the 50s in the UK, and listening to (mostly US based) true crime podcasts so apologies if it’s a dumb question!

Nope. Crown Court is always jury trail unless there is a risk of jury tampering and an application has been made (and accepted) for a non jury trial by the prosecution

Well that explains why she didn’t request one then!
thanks

I wonder if she was checking on their FB to see if they were criticising the hospital and the care their child received?

The other kind of cases heard in the crown court without a jury are protracted complex highly technical fraud cases

So a lot in common with this case

It's a logistical nightmare having 17 back to back murder/attempted murder charges heard in one very long sitting

A quick reminder, as the start of thread 1 was ages ago to be mindful of what can and can't be discussed in an ongoing court case. Or MN will pull the threads and overall it's been fairly balanced discussion so far so would be a shame.

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

Thank you for this I wasn’t aware that you couldn’t express whether you thought someone was innocent or not. Well thousands of people on FB are in contempt of court!

I hadn’t even considered that possibility. Hopefully they can make the rest of her search history available for the jury to put things into context ?

It does seem to vary a lot between different places Websleuths are very quick to delete - whereas Tattle seems to let anything stand free for all

But anyway the sub judice rules are there for good reason to try and ensure a fair trial and protect innocent vulnerable individuals

Having just read the guidance it is dreadful to think the trial could be pulled.

I really would hate to be party to that.

I think in this case the allegedly murdered babies' names are in the public domain already, they were disclosed by the CPS if I recall correctly and many press outlets reported on them accordingly. I believe the family members' details remain anonymous which is only right considering what they've been through.

A media outlet accidentally named one of the children and there was trouble over it. I think they left court for the day. Naming the babies makes the families easily identifiable so the babies aren't being publicly named.

From court today (discussing LL noticing that baby I looked pale despite it being dark in the room):

Mr Johnson asks how Letby could spot something Ashleigh Hudson could not, as mentioned from her police interview.
LL: "I had more experience so I knew what I was looking for - at."
NJ: "What do you mean looking 'for'?"
LL: "I don't mean it like that - I'm finding it hard to concentrate."

Wonder if she’s slipped up or is genuinely getting herself all confused and mixed up. Possibly a little bit of both.

She has been very self assured when criticising her colleagues and not so sure when questions are put to her relating to various accounts of the same situation.

Today she even corrected a court document that showed the Rota from 8 years ago - yes 8 years ago and stated that particular person wasn’t on the night shift that night but was on the day shift!

Actually, I take that back - you're correct that there has been a court order issued since prohibiting discussing the victims and their families involved by name, that's really important to note here and I take this on board.

I think the bit before may be more problematic. first saying the room was light because the lights aren’t turned completely off. Then being shown both her police statements saying the room was dark because they were always turned off. Then having to backtrack on being able to see immediately she walked in the room by admitting when you go from a light room into a dark room you can’t see properly while you eyes adjust. Just after saying she doesn’t know what happens when you walk from light to dark.

Nursing staff - how common would it be for a baby to desat significantly and it to be put on the chart but for neither the doctor or nurse to mention it in their notes? Assume errors happen and things aren’t always written up sometimes but is it likely 2 people wouldn’t.

@Quitelikeit It doesn't look great if you couple it with her subsequent tears and inability to answer questions - it looks like a breaking point, even though I don't think, personally, that it's a bad slip-up. I can see why you'd say 'for' and not 'at' in the context of anticipating potential issues with a patient, but I think the fact that she then couldn't deal with further questions makes it look at best like the prosecution is in her head, and at worst like she's realised that she's made a terrible Freudian slip.