UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #10

[Tortoise]

First post on the forum so just wanted to say hello and hope everyone is keeping well.

I've kept up with the case quite well but haven't really had a place to discuss. One thing that struck me was the exchange between LL and her colleague following Baby I (I think?) where her colleague states the parents aren't happy about a post mortem being done and LL disagrees and states she thinks a PM is for the best to find out what went wrong. Difficult to find the exact quote apologies. However, why would she state a PM is good if it MAY point to foul play and she could be to blame?

The only thing I can think is a senior colleague said they were going to do a PM and LL originally disagreed until the senior colleague told her why a PM was necessary and therefore LL then adopts this mindset with colleagues?

"Another nursing colleague later messaged: “Yeah they (Child I’s parents) weren’t happy she has to have post mortem x.”

Letby replied: “Hmm I can understand that but I think it’s of benefit to know x.”

Letby wrote sympathy card to baby´s grieving parents, murder trial...

I think it's very interesting. If she is guilty of murder, the only thing that explains it, I think, is manipulating her colleague into thinking she had nothing to do with the death. If she is innocent of murder, it's nothing of note.

I think if she injected air into baby I's bloodstream she already knew it hadn't shown up in the post mortems of the earlier babies which would give her confidence to think it was a pretty undetectable method of killing.

JMO

Welcome to WS!

 

[Dotta]

It’s going to be very interesting to hear what the defence’s experts have to say when we get to the defence’s turn. I wonder how big of a name in that speciality the defence has managed to secure.

Sorry, we have already talked about it numerous times throughout the threads.

So,
when do you suggest the famous Defence's turn is going to occur?

The trial has still not reached the half number of victims and the time is flying.
It was announced it would last 6 months (starting in October).
So, it would seem fair Prosecution and Defence were given 50/50 of the time.

But, so far nobody heard of Defence experts.

Because, IMO, these experts we are seeing are the only ones.
And Defence can examine them and ask questions.

So,
I wouldn't wait for mythical Defence's turn.

Their TIME is happening NOW, just as Prosecution's.

JMO

 

[Dotta]

Don't worry! If a baby is on CPAP the stomach is aspirated regularly to empty out any air.

Phew!
What a relief

So, isn't it a mystery that Baby's "I" abdomen was NOT aspirated in due time???

Didn't the radiologist say in his testimony it was due to almost certain "foul play" that the child's stomach was full of air??
And nobody helped the suffering infant?

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[esther43]

I don’t think it’s possible for them to have an equal amount of time if the trial is to end in May. We’re not even half way through the prosecution’s evidence yet. I don’t think the defence are going to have anywhere near as much evidence to get through as we’re seeing from the prosecution. We’d be here until Christmas if they did! JMO of course.

Sorry, we have already talked about it numerous times throughout the threads.

So,
when do you suggest the famous Defence's turn is going to occur?

The trial has still not reached the half number of victims and the time is flying.
It was announced it would last 6 months (starting in October).
So, it would seem fair Prosecution and Defence were given 50/50 of the time.

But, so far nobody heard of Defence experts.

Because, IMO, these experts we are seeing are the only ones.
And Defence can examine them and ask questions.

So,
I wouldn't wait for mythical Defence's turn.

Their TIME is happening NOW, just as Prosecution's.

JMO

 

[Supernovae]

Sorry, we have already talked about it numerous times throughout the threads.

So,
when do you suggest the famous Defence's turn is going to occur?

The trial has still not reached the half number of victims and the time is flying.
It was announced it would last 6 months (starting in October).
So, it would seem fair Prosecution and Defence were given 50/50 of the time.

But, so far nobody heard of Defence experts.

Because, IMO, these experts we are seeing are the only ones.
And Defence can examine them and ask questions.

So,
I wouldn't wait for mythical Defence's turn.

Their TIME is happening NOW, just as Prosecution's.

JMO

That's not how it works. In any trial the prosecution presents their evidence, then they rest, then the defence presents their evidence.

Crown Court Trial - Prosecution Case — Defence-Barrister.co.uk

How does the prosecution prove its case in a Crown Court trial?

www.defence-barrister.co.uk

Crown Court Trial - Defence Case — Defence-Barrister.co.uk

How does the defence present its case in a Crown Court trial?

www.defence-barrister.co.uk

I'll be amazed if the trial is complete by May.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I don't think they're going to bring any experts. I think their case is being presented solely through cross-examination of the prosecution's experts. JMO

If that’s the way they end up doing it, that seems to me to put the defence at a disadvantage. If the defence has consulted experts who disagree with the prosecution’s experts (which I think is clear they have, and they do), it would seem to me that the jury is more likely to entertain that medical evidence if they actually hear it directly from defence’s experts in testimony , as opposed to just hearing it through the submissions made by Ben Myers during his questioning of the prosecution’s experts.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Sorry, we have already talked about it numerous times throughout the threads.

So,
when do you suggest the famous Defence's turn is going to occur?

The trial has still not reached the half number of victims and the time is flying.
It was announced it would last 6 months (starting in October).
So, it would seem fair Prosecution and Defence were given 50/50 of the time.

But, so far nobody heard of Defence experts.

Because, IMO, these experts we are seeing are the only ones.
And Defence can examine them and ask questions.

So,
I wouldn't wait for mythical Defence's turn.

Their TIME is happening NOW, just as Prosecution's.

JMO

That’s not how it works. They don’t decide that a trial is going to take eg 6 months and then split the time equally between the defence and the prosecution. The prosecution provides an estimate to the court of how long it thinks it will take it to present its case, and the defence does the same, and that then results in the court providing an overall estimate of the trial’s duration to the jury/ the public.

The prosecution may be taking longer than it anticipated due to delays juror illnesses, and subsequent impacts on availability of witnesses , but that doesn’t mean the defence’s time to present its case gets cut short.The trial may overrun past the original estimate, but the overriding objective is the administration of justice .

 

[esther43]

Has it been made clear who has called the witnesses to the stand so far? Has it been the prosecution every time?

 

[marynnu]

Phew!
What a relief

So, isn't it a mystery that Baby's "I" abdomen was NOT aspirated in due time???

Didn't the radiologist say in his testimony it was due to almost certain "foul play" that the child's stomach was full of air??
And nobody helped the suffering infant?

Curiouser and curiouser.

Not 100% certain, but I think the collapses were quite sudden. I don't think she was on CPAP at all when the first incident occurred. In at least one case air +++ was aspirated. There was also a lot of air in the bowel too. I can't see any indication that CPAP was a factor.

 

[Supernovae]

Has it been made clear who has called the witnesses to the stand so far? Has it been the prosecution every time?

They'd all be the prosecution's witnesses at this stage.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Has it been made clear who has called the witnesses to the stand so far? Has it been the prosecution every time?

Yes, we are still going through the prosecution’s case . The defence gets to question the witnesses put up by the prosecution as we go along, but then when the prosecution has finished presenting its case, the defence gets its turn to put forward witnesses.

 

[Supernovae]

In fact I think there's a fair chance they don't even get through the prosecution evidence by Easter. Child I is apparently the longest of the cases, and there are 8 babies to go after that. I also suspect after they've covered the case for each individual baby there'll be some time afterwards where they'll deal with matters of the investigations, searches, interviews etc, then the defence will have their time.

 

[esther43]

Yes, we are still going through the prosecution’s case . The defence gets to question the witnesses put up by the prosecution as we go along, but then when the prosecution has finished presenting its case, the defence gets its turn to put forward witnesses.

That's how I thought it was being delivered. I also wondered if the defence might re call the medical experts and question them again. The medical experts are meant to be impartial aren't they?

 

[Supernovae]

It's not unheard of for trials to overrun their time allocation by a significant amount:

Jubilee line corruption trial - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DianaWW]

It has already been extended. When it re-started in January, the judge stated it was now expected to go on until May. (Of course this may change again). So although the defence will get their turn, I still don’t think they will have as much to go through as the prosecution have. I can’t see them going through each baby one by one again, there just isn’t the time. But we’ll see. JMO.

 

[Tortoise]

If that’s the way they end up doing it, that seems to me to put the defence at a disadvantage. If the defence has consulted experts who disagree with the prosecution’s experts (which I think is clear they have, and they do), it would seem to me that the jury is more likely to entertain that medical evidence if they actually hear it directly from defence’s experts in testimony , as opposed to just hearing it through the submissions made by Ben Myers during his questioning of the prosecution’s experts.

I'm not suggesting it's because the defence is required to do it that way, but that it's their choice to do it that way, by trying to elicit uncertainty or biases, for example. IMO. If they do have experts I think the jury would hear directly from them, not merely through cross-examination of the prosecution experts. That's just my opinion.

 

[Supernovae]

It has already been extended. When it re-started in January, the judge stated it was now expected to go on until May. (Of course this may change again). So although the defence will get their turn, I still don’t think they will have as much to go through as the prosecution have. I can’t see them going through each baby one by one again, there just isn’t the time. But we’ll see. JMO.

Certainly not in the same detail. A lot of the time has been devoted to basic facts and chronology over which there is little dispute.

 

[Tortoise]

That's how I thought it was being delivered. I also wondered if the defence might re call the medical experts and question them again. The medical experts are meant to be impartial aren't they?

The defence doesn't get to call prosecution experts.

They cross-examine them on testimony that the prosecution brings into evidence.

Experts are impartial witnesses, there to assist the court and the jury with understanding the evidence.

Expert Evidence | The Crown Prosecution Service

Definition of Expert Witness​

Expert evidence is admissible to furnish the court with information which is likely to be outside the experience and the knowledge of a judge or jury (Criminal Practice Direction V Evidence 19A Expert Evidence).

An expert witness can provide the court with a statement of opinion on any admissible matter calling for expertise by the witness if they are qualified to give such an opinion.

The Duty of an Expert Witness​

The duty of an expert witness is to help the court to achieve the overriding objective by giving opinion which is objective and unbiased, in relation to matters within their expertise. This is a duty that is owed to the court and overrides any obligation to the party from whom the expert is receiving instructions - see Criminal Procedure Rule 19.2 CrimPR 19.

 

[esther43]

I'm not suggesting it's because the defence is required to do it that way, but that it's their choice to do it that way, by trying to elicit uncertainty or biases, for example. IMO. If they do have experts I think the jury would hear directly from them, not merely through cross-examination of the prosecution experts. That's just my opinion.

I didn't think that the experts were there for the prosecution. Maybe the witnesses but not the experts. They are meant to be non biased. They could be recalled later? JMO

 

[Dotta]

If they do have experts I think the jury would hear directly from them, not merely through cross-examination of the prosecution experts. That's just my opinion.

Besides, will Defence call experts of "alternative medicine"???

How can any medical doctor offer explanations other than those we already have heard from impartial medical experts???

JMO