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

Please read my post again. I'm not suggesting it is a TV drama or disrespecting the families.

I won't repeat what you suggested about the KC as it's been deleted now. But they are professionals that should follow the law. The case would've been prepared ages ago, he would be unlikely to be getting witnesses day by day and cancelling them.
All just very strange all round.

Perhaps they can’t find a differential diagnosis. Or a medical expert that says there is one.

Don’t forget that this was only passed to the police because 2 inquiries (one internal, one external) concluded there was no natural medical explanation for the deaths of these babies.

The defendant is entitled to a defence to the best of their lawyers ability. It doesn’t mean people have to perjure themselves in court just to try and introduce some reasonable doubt.

Interesting that they don’t seem to be calling any of her colleagues in her defence either. And at no point when they were talking about staffing levels etc being responsible did they ever really give a mechanism for how that happened.

When Letby got on the stand she was asked case by case if staffing was an issue. In the majority, if not all, cases she said 'no'. I don't know what people expect her lawyer to do if there are no medical experts willing to refute the prosecution's experts.

I don’t know how it all works?!

Why would he not call other medical experts? Does he have the funding? How does funding work here does anyone know?

Im sure thinking about it wasn’t there only two or three expert witnesses called?

What if the other experts simply agreed with the previous experts? Hence why there is no one to call

There was evidence of falling out with colleagues and so I guess he couldn’t call these, He might have wanted to but they might have refused

Can you imagine giving evidence in her favour? You’d feel perhaps a backlash might be possible-

maybe some people have agreed to
give evidence in private and it’s not allowed to be reported?

Yes you are right and I couldn’t believe it ……day after day she said it wasn’t the cause (I think only once she said they might have been short staffed) due to unexpected arrivals

When she kept saying no to staffing, and staff negligence etc I thought eh? She’s blowing what Myers said in her defence to pieces

Yes, true.
I suppose looking back he did introduce possible doubt in the cross examination of prosecution witnesses and perhaps is leaving that there rather than calling any new witnesses.
I'm thinking of things like staff admitting they signed for each other etc.

It just looks stark with the length of the prosecution and defence although there was a lot of agreed evidence too.

But they have to adapt to what happened when the prosecution cross examined her, I imagine a lot of her defence is unusable now.

I have re-read, unfortunately I still find the comparison disrespectful. If not to the families then to other people following the case that you are belittling.

Thinking about it though I felt his questioning of her on the stand was very abrupt. Almost like he didn’t like her. I didn’t think he did a great job there. They could have surely exposed much more of her arguments as to why she didn’t do it but he didn’t

@GemmaN17

thats really interesting I wonder if there’s any legal people on here who would know if that could happen (the witnesses not coming as she spoiled the defence)

So I wonder if certain barristers defend and certain ones prosecute.. or if it varies, or they pick their cases as they come. .. because surely they must believe in what they are doing in order to do a good job. Or is it all just driven by the fact they are paid to do that. I don't understand it. I'm so clueless as you can tell.

The defence also said when opening that there were cases when she wasn't present. The prosecution have managed to place her at every incident, many of which are logged or even the time she admitted to going in to do her notes at nearly mignight because it's quieter. Her barrister must have been beside himself with that one, she practically admitted she came and went outside of work hours as she pleased.

I also found it quite shocking to find out she had waited an hour and a half to fish that chart out of the confidential waste bin. I assumed perhaps the Dr had left it somewhere and she may gave scooped it up with her own papers, but the prosecution suggested she waited specifically for him to leave to get it.

I'm unsure if a defence KC can change the case whilst it's ongoing. I thought they had to submit the witness names to the court so it can all be scheduled in.

To answer earlier questions if someone is summoned as a witness they have to do it.
They can provide anonymity and other modifications as has happened in this case.
The trial is public in our law, so there can't be any secret evidence given. What we've heard is the evidence given apart from some names and details that may be identifying.

To clarify I mean I'm unsure if Mr Myers can tell someone not to come once the trial is underway. Pretty sure the prosecution is set beforehand but now I'm wondering if defence has to be?

But a witness can't decide not to come themselves. To reverse a mumsnet phrase it's a summons not an invite.

I have no idea either, I just assumed they would be able to. I may be completely wrong. It would just make sense if a witness was there to make the case for something that LL has admitted to/stated she agrees with for the prosecution.... Why would they still be called?

Surely the possibility of the prosecution getting to cross examine them would potentially do more harm than good for her case. I assumed it would be damage limitation?? But if this isn't an option then I apologise.

Also she agreed that the two insulin deaths were deliberate, the defence case is based on failings at the hospital so it would be tricky to now push forward with inadequate care and mistakes being made surely?

I haven't done but it would be interesting re look at the defence opening statement and then where we are now. To see if she has contradicted her own defence statement, I have a feeling she has.

It would be interesting if someone with defence knowledge can give some insights.

I know the prosecution is set in advance because the defence have to know what they are defending against, and have time to prepare, if that makes sense.

Although I have seen witnesses sent away by judges usually when the evidence isn't in dispute. For example there's no point having an expert analysis for a day on when a fire started if all parties agree when it started. Rubbish example but trying to be vague!

As LL's defence was broadly 'not accidental but wasn't me' I suppose it doesn't leave him with a lot to go on as other posters have pointed out.

If she hadn't taken the stand would he have more than just the plumber, who didn't even seem that relevant?

I still feel like there’s something really odd about this whole case. I can’t put my finger on why though?!

I mean the media has been virtually silent on it.

Its like something else is going on behind the scenes or something

Media reporting has been incredibly restricted on this. The press are hugely cautious due to these restrictions which is why it feels very quiet reporting wise in comparison to the 'normal' newsworthiness of such an awful case.

www.cheshire.police.uk/police-forces/cheshire-constabulary/areas/cheshire/campaigns/operation-hummingbird/important-information/

I feel that... she's pleading not guilty but not defending herself in any way shape or form. Like the prosecution say she is deceptive/liar murderer etc. I'm not sure it comes across that way.. innocent or guilty she doesn't seem that clever or calculated to me, because if she was, I can think of numerous ways she could protect herself.... I agree it's all just very odd and I'm slightly flummoxed as a prev hcp. As I said right at the beginning I could totally see how all of these incidents could happen through negligence and conditions/culture at a hospital but then she hasn't provided that as an excuse or explanation. So I'm.not sure what is left to say really.

So it might happen that a baby would get full of air due to negligence?

genuine question how would that happen?

and what about insulin? How would that find its way into the bags?

or what about the bleeds in throats?

or tubes dislodged in sedated babies?

im being genuine - how could these types of errors happen?

Didn’t she say she felt it was being blamed on her by 4 drs to cover up failings? But then hasn’t elaborated any further on that ?

I think it’s hard as it’s human nature to defend yourself in situations and yet here there’s nothing in a situation that is so huge and important and what we all think we would do is not reflected in someone else so it makes it all very hard to interpret

I’d be interested to hear from anyone who has worked with babies of this age if they can just stop breathing and require resuscitation for no reason - and if neglect can cause that?

I work on a large level 2 nicu, we take from 26 weeks and no they don't just stop breathing and need resuscitation. Yes they have apnoeas and need stimulation or a bit of neopuff but they do not need full resuscitation. We've had 2 babies needing cpr in the past year, one was seriously ill with sepsis and the other had a prolonged apnoea due to severe reflux. Neither died. We've had 2 deaths in the past year, one was a palliative baby.
These babies do not just die.

@fairgame84

thanks for that it’s really insightful

if you have been following the trial can I ask if you have been able to think of other reasons why these things would have happened?

less sinister reasons?

Thank you for explaining. I always wondered!