Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind pt. 5

[Typicalwave]

New thread

Part 4 here - https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5400564-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind-thread-4?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Originally started by @kittybythelighthouse

Daily Mail article https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15110301/Lucy-Letby-defence-expert-slams-unfair-justice-says-appalled-wasnt-called-evidence.html

We're momentarily talking about a different case, didn't realise posters automatically believe the same thing for every healthcare serial killer case (though it explains a lot if they do). At least with the Letby case the alternative is "natural causes" not "another serial killer". I don't understand the logic of believing there IS a serial killer it's just not the one that was convicted despite all evidence pointing that way.

They charged a nurse before Chua because she had form for stealing meds IIRC. Which is fair enough she was investigated (though I have so much sympathy for what she went through) then another person was poisoned AFTER the female nurse was removed. So they realised they had the wrong person. If it'd ever gotten to trial I'm confident the first nurse would've had plenty of evidence to support her innocence. As it happened it fell apart long before trial and the real culprit was caught, tried and convicted.

Er care to elaborate on what you mean here? You have no idea what posts I've made elsewhere. And I don't see how my posting history here is any different to the others that are keeping this thread going. I only came back and commented because a poster was judging the parents about how they choose to tell their children what happened. So yeah you can keep your insinuations to yourself mate.

How can he be appalled when it was Lucy's own decision not to have him give evidence? It wouldn't have helped her since he has no explanation for some of the collapses. It's obvious to see why he wasn't called.

Obvious if someone happens to be closely looking at the bags. Just goes to show it's not outside the realms of possibility a serial killer would choose this method though doesn't it?

Most likely Lucy's decision was heavily influenced by the advice given to her by legal team, if they're advising against it then most clients would go along with what the legal team say obviously.

And he explains in the article what he's appalled about.

No one ever said it was outside the realms of possibility - there was no evidence of tampering.

Agreed. Do adult nurses like Victorino Chua hang bags and administer medicines in pairs, as Letby and her colleagues did on the NNU? As a patient, that hasn't been my experience, so there's surely no comparison.

I think he explains himself fairly clearly in the article. He was appalled because he thought it would give the impression that no medical expert was willing or able to speak in Lucy Letby's defence, and he knows this to be untrue.

He's mad he didn't get to have his say. Shades of Shoo Lee there...
It's a bit unfair to direct all this criticism at the defence when the decision would've come from LL. She's not a shrinking violet, she does what she wants when she wants (we've seen many examples of this from her days as a nurse) and I'm sure she would've been advised not to take the stand for one. She should've listened cos we all know how that went...

Only because the bags weren't kept.

Nope. Because the bags are checked before being hung.

Obviously didn't happen in the Stepping Hill case though did it.

You have such a simplistic way of looking at things.

I'd say he feels a lot of complex emotions, as would anyone who was there in court ready to give evidence and then watched as the case closed without the other side of the case being put forward, watching as the Myers brought in a plumber and then said 'and that's the case for Miss Letby' or something like that.

Dr. Shoo Lees paper helped to convict her, and he's saying that it was completely misused, I would imagine that for most in that situation they would feel compelled to get involved afterwards in some way.

While I agree that I think it's likely they advised that she didn't take the stand, we don't know that for sure, but this notion that you have that she insisted that she take the stand and then insisted that they didn't call any witnesses and just wanted to stand alone is ridiculously unlikely, this is the woman who brought her parents to the meeting or whatever it was at the hospital.

It's incredibly easy to see why he might be appalled. He could feel that way about LL for making that decision, think she's an idiot. He might blame her defence, fairly or not, for not advising her or not successfully persuading her to call him. He also clearly doesn't agree with the way the system functions in the first place.

And as you don't know the jury's rationale for their verdict, you're not in a position to comment on whether his evidence would've helped or not.

Adult nursing. Neonatal requires two people working together.

I'd say he feels a lot of complex emotions, as would anyone who was there in court ready to give evidence and then watched as the case closed without the other side of the case being put forward, watching as the Myers brought in a plumber and then said 'and that's the case for Miss Letby' or something like that.

Well everyone was shocked when no one but the plumber was called. But ultimately it is the defendant's decision. Unless she waives privilege we can only guess if it was solely down to her or just something she went along with for some inexplicable reason.

@OnTheRoof

And as you don't know the jury's rationale for their verdict, you're not in a position to comment on whether his evidence would've helped or not.

If Hall couldn't agree on there being no deliberate harm for even just one of the babies then it's game over for her. And that sounds like it was the case. Is it smart to risk that? Not sure how you could possibly think that would help her. She obviously didn't think it would.

While I agree that I think it's likely they advised that she didn't take the stand, we don't know that for sure, but this notion that you have that she insisted that she take the stand and then insisted that they didn't call any witnesses and just wanted to stand alone is ridiculously unlikely, this is the woman who brought her parents to the meeting or whatever it was at the hospital.

ALL of this is only unlikely if you think she's innocent. Try coming at it from a guilty perspective for just one minute and you'll be surprised how everything suddenly neatly fits into place! From what we know of the parents her dad probably insisted on being at that meeting rather than Lucy actually wanting him there.

Why would there be any difference when hanging a bag between adults and neonates? Seems like you'd need two for both.

But you don’t. Not all medicine administrations require a second person to check, especially if that medicine is a simple hydration fluid.

If Hall couldn't agree on there being no deliberate harm for even just one of the babies then it's game over for her. And that sounds like it was the case. Is it smart to risk that? Not sure how you could possibly think that would help her. She obviously didn't think it would.

Don't attribute to other people things you've made up.

I didnt say whether his evidence would help, because we don't know why the jury came to the verdict they did, and that information would be needed in order to assess how useful he might've been.

You needed two people to administer any medication or treatment on the neonatal unit, which just isn't the case with adult nursing in my experience (as a patient), or according to NHS guidelines.

OK well I know they needed two in the neonatal unit. I'm surprised that isn't the case in adults as well.

Yes they were, but he was obviously more invested than a lot of people but yet you reduce his reaction down to just being 'mad'..

There is absolutely no need to waive privilege yet but if it's necessary for her then she will do so.

Completely disagree that it would have been game over for her if he couldn't agree there was no deliberate harm for even one, I know if I was a juror leaning towards guilty and then an expert threw doubt on a lot of the cases I'd be looking at the other ones even more closely and thinking, hmm it can't be ruled out but is there real proof here that this happened? It would have only taken 3 jurors having doubts to be a mistrial...or 2 in this case because they were down to 11 jurors as it was.

It literally doesn't neatly fit into place though, you have said on various threads how her behaviour was textbook this and that, yet none of the experts giving their opinion to the media about the psychology of LL assuming she's guilty are in agreement at all about her behaviour and the place where it would fit.

In the new documentary the parents that were interviewed were not parents of a baby was charged with harming.
https://archive.is/WSTbG

Yes they were, but he was obviously more invested than a lot of people but yet you reduce his reaction down to just being 'mad'..

I'm sure he has lots of feelings about it, but it's a bit late now and he can only really be mad at Lucy herself. He was needed to give evidence only (and that turned out to be surplus to requirements) not weigh in on the entirety of the justice system. I do think he feels somehow personally offended at not being asked.

There is absolutely no need to waive privilege yet but if it's necessary for her then she will do so.

It would answer a hell of a lot of questions though wouldn't it. Surely her new barrister would quite like to know as well.

Completely disagree that it would have been game over for her if he couldn't agree there was no deliberate harm for even one, I know if I was a juror leaning towards guilty and then an expert threw doubt on a lot of the cases I'd be looking at the other ones even more closely and thinking, hmm it can't be ruled out but is there real proof here that this happened? It would have only taken 3 jurors having doubts to be a mistrial...or 2 in this case because they were down to 11 jurors as it was.

Personally I wouldn't want a defence expert who can't even commit to saying there wasn't deliberate harm, and can't explain some of the collapses. And this is what he's said in interviews, never mind on the stand being cross-examined by the prosecution! But hey we're all different. I suppose.

It literally doesn't neatly fit into place though, you have said on various threads how her behaviour was textbook this and that, yet none of the experts giving their opinion to the media about the psychology of LL assuming she's guilty are in agreement at all about her behaviour and the place where it would fit.

Well it does because someone innocent would want to call as many experts as possible because they're secure in the fact they're innocent. Someone guilty wouldn't. That's why you're all perplexed all the time over the decisions that were made (in her best interests) by the defence. It makes a lot more sense if you come at it from a different perspective.

But since you mentioned it, it seems like there's more coming out about her behaviour around parents in the new doc, you'll be glad to know.