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

Again, it’s not for the defence to create reasonable doubt over whether the babies were intentionally harmed, it’s for the prosecution to prove their case.

I think they have pretty much proved their case for most of the babies on that point.

@DollyParton2
Why on earth would you desperately try to grapple at these clear as day statements to find an “alternative interpretation”??
Desperately grappling? Erm no. Did you read the whole evidence from today? How can you not see one note saying 'I did this' and another saying 'I did nothing wrong' as not conflicted? I was simply pointing out that the jury will have to pick through an absolute mess of scribbles that if she's guilty make sense but equally could be the ranting of someone falsley accused. Devils advocate if you will.

Mirabai

of course the defence are needed to create doubt in the jurors mind!!!!

what planet do you live on?!

It’s a question of emphasis.

What that poster said was:

I’m not sure they have managed to create reasonable doubt over whether most of the babies were deliberately harmed or not.

The legal mechanism of the presumption of innocence determines that trial is not based on a position that the babies were intentionally harmed, and the defence have to create reasonable doubt.

The question is whether the prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt not has the defence managed to create sufficient doubt.

The Defence haven't started their side yet. As of yesterday they were still on the Prosecution.

Pear where

yes but in their opening speeches they made the remarks

Also in a case like this where the evidence is circumstantial then the defence is absolutely crucial

Can I join please? I've been following the trial on Tattle but I'm not a member so can't add or ask anything.

Im wondering why some of the witnesses that are her colleagues are named publicly and others aren't allowed to be named?

I work on nicu (not at coch) so it hits close to home.

I see on Tattle they're mostly of the opinion that she's guilty.

Yes and there's a lot of speculation as well on those threads and people getting carried away with themselves to the point of making things up.
The wiki about her on tattle is good thorough and is basically an account of the evidence as it's presented in court.

It's a very complex case. She is accused of 7 counts of murder and 15 counts of attempted murder (the 15 counts of attempted are against 10 total victims).

Each of these will need to be thoroughly examined by both the prosecution and the defense, with evidence from many witnesses, medical evidence from third party expert witnesses and so forth for each case. That is 22 individual counts / occasions which need looking at in depth. And then there's the other evidence which needs to be examined - the notes for example. And there will undoubtedly be extensive debate about the mental state of Letby and her alleged intentions, motivations etc

There is a lot of information to work through from both sides and across numerous victims. The trial has already run over the estimated 6 months due to a few delays (absent jurors in one instance for example). I have no idea how much longer it will run on but I wouldn't be prepared for it to be over soon.

We have to be careful with our opinions on here or the thread could quite rightly be pulled. So far, I think the prosecution have a strong case. The WhatsApp messages to a colleague just before a baby collapsed were interesting.

I wonder why they haven't done each count as prosecution then defence. Why is it every count protection then every count defence?

I wondered that. It must be confusing for the jurors jumping between counts. I'd find it easier hearing each count separately but that's probably just how my mind works.

In all cases the prosecution sets out their evidence first and then the defence will respond. It's got a fairly simple reason behind it - you can't mount a defence before the accusation has been made!

Where there are multiple counts, it is useful for the prosecution of all of the counts to go first rather than go case-by-case, as there may be factors which apply across all of the counts and defence given in one count may then impact how the prosecution approach the next case. It means it keeps it more impartial, if that makes sense.

It’s the notes that nudge me towards Not Guilty actually. To me they look like the ramblings of a very distressed mind, beginning to question DID I really do it? Is it all my fault?

But I accept that the likelihood of her being unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time must be infinitesimally small.

The possibility that she is innocent is too awful to contemplate (but then so is the alternative)

There's been no indication of when any of the notes were written - if written during the time the babies were dying or during the time suspicion was falling on her/being investigated

So makes it hard to know what to make of them

I just don't think anything much can be really gleaned from the notes. I guess the prosecution will argue one possibility and the defence others. It'll be up to to the jury as to which they conclude is the most likely, if any of them!

What would explain the insulin in the bag……..

if everything was circumstantial who physically administered insulin to the baby?

and why write Bergerac down?

The Lucy Letby podcast is quite informative (I'm not going to say good because that feels weird).

Everything is very circumstantial, the notes don't convince me of her guilt though. They look like the ramblings of someone who is spiraling. She alludes to her guilt and her innocence all at the same time.

Based on what I've read, I'm not totally convinced that the prosecution has proved it's case but for LL to be present at every incident seems almost impossibly bad luck. What do you think the defences case will be? Will they evidence other collapses & deaths that LL hasn't been charged with as evidence that this went on even when she wasn't on shift?

Poor familes and jurors having to go through all of this. I hope the jurors are exempt from doing jury service again after this.

I'd imagine that the defence case would be what they laid out at the opening of the trial ie

she's a good respected nurse
simply being present doesn't make anyone guilty
the problems on the unit/staffing

Based on what I've read, I'm not totally convinced that the prosecution has proved it's case but for LL to be present at every incident seems almost impossibly bad luck

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.

For the sake of argument - let’s say 2 of 10 putative incidents were poisonings by person a and the others were natural occurrences. If, in the light of the 2 definite nefarious incidents it is noticed that person b was present at all 10 putative incidents them, it’s a reasonable argument that person b was responsible for all. But wrong.

Rebecca Leighton was originally held to be responsible for the crimes of Victorino Chua.

Or to refine that slightly for the sake of argument -

2 poisonings by person a. Person b comes under suspicion they were present at both, and 8 other questionable (but natural occurring) incidents they were present at are included in the investigation.