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 think a lot of people might get confused after a day of questioning tbh. And she’s had days of it.

I would agree, being a witness in court is very tough. Even some professional experts waver after intense questioning.
At the start of her testimony they did talk about her memory issues due to PTSD and the need for breaks and she does seem to get confused towards the end of the day.
Although anyone would need breaks during 9 days so far of questioning.

Also if someone asked me if the lights were on or off 9 years ago or even yesterday I wouldn't have a clue! But then I regularly am convinced things like my keys are somewhere else to their location, so I'd make a terrible witness.

Yes this has happened twice now - one day last week when she was being questioned on something and he had conflicting evidence that she clearly wasn’t aware of and then she became very upset and proceedings were closed for the day.

It’s also interesting how Mr J has stated that there had been a falling out between LL and three other nurses.

I wonder if we will get to hear more about that and the reasons why

Also today she said she believed a child was not cared for properly as none of the Gang of Four had enough experience of chest drains.

She stated that she didn’t have enough knowledge on chest drains to be managing them

But then I thought if she had no knowledge on them how did she know the Gang of Four were not managing the drains properly?

Honestly if I had to account for my working practices 8 years ago I’d be clueless.
and if someone interrogated me on them for days under intense pressure, I’d be stumbling and make errors.

I had a 6 hour phd viva once. One of the examiners was so unpleasant that by the end I simply shut down and stopped offering any decent responses. I was done.

I can see that being a psychological response to a situation like this

Yes I agree with you there and to that end there would literally be no point in me taking the stand. And to be fair she is doing very very well judging by the amount of things she is able to remember. She is able to recall exact timings for example.

Taking the stand is an interesting choice - there are risks:
” another risk defendants face when testifying is that it often shifts the burden of proof onto them and away from the prosecution. In other words, a jury might subconsciously put more weight on whether the defendant proved their own innocence, rather than focusing on whether prosecutors proved their guilt. “

https://time.com/6129830/high-profile-defendants-testifying-ghislaine-maxwell-kim-potter/?amp=true

I think this is shown to some extent by some of the posts above.

But what we know is it was her decision to take the stand

I am guessing that BM offered her an opinion on whether to or not

But I wonder if she came across quite well to him in previous meetings and he felt assured of her ability to manage the stand well

I am still surprised how swiftly BM took her through the incidents - it wasn’t many days

On that note I wonder if that’s because he didn’t think she’d be good on the stand

Yes of course it was her choice, it always is the defendants choice as far as I’m aware - that’s why I used the phrase ‘interesting choice’

it wouldn’t exactly be a stellar strategy to put a reluctant uncoached defendant on the stand! 😂

just because she is on the stand it doesn’t mean she was keen to do it

Maybe it was his idea?

we don’t know whose idea it was

but if he tells you he recommends it are you going to go against him

When you talk about coaching do you know how much time she will have spent with BM roughly? Or how it all works?

Almost no defence barristers recommend it as far as I’m aware.

it’s still a choice in response to recommendation (either way)

I’ve no idea what I would do🤷‍♀️

As far as I’m aware all court witnesses are coached/practised to some extent by the ‘side ‘ that calls them. The old adage is that no lawyer asks a question in court s/he does not already know the answer to, and they want the witnesses to practise the delivery and ensure they’re clear and coherent.

Something that is also v interesting is that all parents are attending the court.

I think that speaks volumes

Can I ask if you have been reading the live feed? And if you have how do you think her taking the stand is going so far?

I would agree with her being under a lot a pressure but she had her statements to remind her of what she had said previously. It's not like she is being asked to remember this for the first time in 8 years.

She does a very good job of not recalling some things and also being able to call other people's recollections blatant lies if they are incriminating/would put her in the presence of a baby at a crital moment in time. I mean take the parent who phoned her husband regarding the state her baby was in at 9 and LL saying she is wrong with such clarity. A parent would have that etched into their brain forever, plus she made a phone all which is logged just after. The parents want the truth, they don't gave any agenda but to know what happened to their children so why would the parent not say if they were unsure??

Did you know the house she bought whilst she was at the hospital backed onto the local cemetery too.

And in some cases she has changed her statement or added in new information

@GemmaN17 witness testimony is well-documented as being unreliable. I would also imagine people are subconsciously looking for an answer, they want a reason of some kind.

I suppose one thing to consider is how does the prosecution's case look without the witness' statements.

I have yet to catch up on the last couple of days of the live feed, hopefully will over the weekend.

Yes I understand but it just seems to be the same things over and over again. I'm actually one to look for reasons to accept people at their word. I think I come across on this thread as wanting to find fault but it really not the case. I was hoping it will all be a terrible case of the hospital failing in care (not good but not murder). I do believe the prosecution has done enough to present the baby deaths as deliberate, I know many disagree, for me it's the volume of deaths with doctors with many years of experience that have never seen anything like it before. The insulin ones... Well I think most people agree.

Whether it is the person on trial remains to be seen. There's another layer of complication just to add to this already complex case where whoever did it was in a position to falsify their own records and potentially make it look like they were somewhere else or babies ere declining over a longer period before they collapsed. My own record keeping is pretty shocking, I often make little errors in people's notes but nothing like is claimed here, it's one thing after another.

Saying that though I have just read a few reports into maternity failings and in some trusts over a hundred babies have been identified as dying through failings of the trust. Some were brain damaged etc. (not clear how that come to be but was it because no one responded to those babies) as in this hospital it appears that staffing was good and people were very responsive

one other thing though is that during the same time period the maternity ward had 12 stillbirths - that was very high compared to previous and subsequent years

There was a poster on here who mentioned how dangerous wards can be though - but so far I cannot see what was dangerous about that particular unit. Yes sewage has been mentioned, and that LL believes a nurse was under qualified to look after a certain baby and also that the Gang of Four didn’t know how to manage chest drains.

The chest drain thing - maybe those Drs administering them should be questioned

I’m like you I don’t want her to be guilty so I’m trying to look at it from other angles!!

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/oct/19/east-kent-nhs-trust-might-have-avoided-45-baby-deaths-with-better-care-inquiry-says

@Quitelikeit I find it hard to believe that 2 consultants and 2 registrars didn't know how to manage a chest drain. The registrars rotate every 6 months so probably did them at other units.
We do chest drains few and far between but the medical staff still know how to do them from their simulation training.
From a nursing point of view, you just need to make sure they are still in at the correct length and are swinging or fluttering. Chest drain babies are always minimal handling.

I think what they are referring to is when the chest drain was placed in the wrong position and a needle was accidentally left in the chest by the doctor.
Have to go way back as it was when he was cross examined during the prosecution case.

Well that’s the interesting thing because you’d feel safe to assume someone knew what they were doing.

Thats why I’m thinking why would she say it if her team couldn’t prove it - I’m assuming (dangerous thing to do) that they are going to be cross examined on this particular issue

I didn’t know about the needle. This baby had four collapses.

Agree it’s very confusing, all the evidence seems to be circumstantial at best. I think there is reasonable doubt anyway. Very tough for the jury.

Wasn’t that chest drain in a suboptimal position but not one that was an issue. And its position was confirmed by ultrasound as being in an OK position.

I think the prosecution referred to it yesterday or the day before.

Yes probably. Must admit it find it all tricky to follow and remember which letter baby was which.
It's good the jury have ipads with the evidence on as a lot to keep track off over the many months.

I think the drain, like a lot of the things in this case are incidents where the care has been below what it should be. Such as babies left on trollies, monitors turned off, maternity errors, sewage etc. But the prosecutions position is these things are not enough to be cause of death.

Going back to the post about why the parents are there. Anyone can go to the public gallery to watch a trial, unless it's full. LL's parents are also there.
It's not something relevant to the case - I'd say it's fairly normal that they'd want to hear all the evidence, I know I would.