UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #13

[Marie Bell]

@Marie Bell

Here's the transcript Tortoise posted on a previous thread, and a link to the podcast(really interesting podcasts, if you've not had a chance to listen before):

"We thought it was probably worth getting an expert in to help us with all of this, David Banks, he's an expert in media law...

One of the things in this case David, which maybe you can explain whether this is unusual or not, is that the babies at the centre of these allegations are not going to be named, there are quite tight reporting restrictions on this case aren't there at the moment?"

David Banks - "The fundamental principle of the courts here in this country is that we have what they call Open Justice, where everyone gets named, the defendant, the witnesses, the lawyers, everyone involved with the case is named and the public get to see those names and they know who it is. But in some circumstances the courts can order anonymity... It's unusual though to have adult witnesses in court granted anonymity, but in this case an Order has been made doing that, because the view of the court and the judge in the case is that that will allow those witnesses...their evidence will be better for the court if they are granted that anonymity, but what that means though is that the babies have to be given anonymity as well, because if the babies were named then that would lead to the identification of their parents. So it's an unusual situation, it's not unheard of, but it is quite unusual."

The Trial of Lucy Letby, Episode 2: A scrawled post-it note

www.mailplus.co.uk

UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #11

"I might assume yesterday’s events work in her favour. she wasn’t screaming, she didn’t exit the dock, she headed for the doors had a little chat and then resumed her place. Apparently composed enough but a bit tearful. She seemingly has control and emotion" I'm not so sure..she didn't just...

www.websleuths.com

Thank you. I did go off and find, and listen to some of this podcast, but it didn't seem to me to relate to the witnesses particularly. I can perfectly understand the reason to keep the babies and their parents anonymous, but aren't following why this entails restrictions on the reporting re the many medics treating them. The only reason that I can think of, other than those I supposed existed, would be that it is a long and expensive trial and it would be a disaster if any press or social media commentary caused any of these witnesses to suffer defamation of some sort. It's just my opinion, but I would be astonished if there were *not* other legal/regulatory proceedings that will follow after this trial.

 

[ColourPurple]

I wonder what's been going on in his head the last few years. Romantically or not, he obviously got on well with her. It must all be incredibly hard for her colleagues. I'm not surprised he wanted to remain behind a screen.

It would be hard enough to get your head round a friend being accused of these kind of horrific crimes, let alone somebody you were possibly more than friends with. Plus, in this case her work friends were all working as a team taking care of these babies, so to find she is accused of doing the opposite would be ,even harder to get your head around.

With the Dr, he's texting about the joys of cuddling a tiny baby to somebody who's later accused of killing tiny babies, and of deliberately causing pain to them, in doing so.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Doesn't sound like their paths crossed with him asking if she's handed over yet and telling her to take the chocolate and his car.

This person is someone she's more involved with then we realise, I think. It's not common to lend cars to people because of insurance reasons and suchlike so she's maybe on his insurance as a named driver?

It could be that she's insured to drive other people's cars but that's not as common as it used to be and bearing in mind she was barely 25 at this point and driving other people's cars isn't generally allowed until about 25.

 

[ColourPurple]

Thank you. I did go off and find, and listen to some of this podcast, but it didn't seem to me to relate to the witnesses particularly. I can perfectly understand the reason to keep the babies and their parents anonymous, but aren't following why this entails restrictions on the reporting re the many medics treating them. The only reason that I can think of, other than those I supposed existed, would be that it is a long and expensive trial and it would be a disaster if any press or social media commentary caused any of these witnesses to suffer defamation of some sort. It's just my opinion, but I would be astonished if there were *not* other legal/regulatory proceedings that will follow after this trial.

This is saying the opposite though, that the reason the babies are anonymous is because of the order to grant the adult witnesses anonymity, and that identifying the babies would identify those of the adult witnesses who are their parents. And thinking of other cases, they do usually report the names of victims, even when they are children.

"It's unusual though to have adult witnesses in court granted anonymity, but in this case an Order has been made doing that, because the view of the court and the judge in the case is that that will allow those witnesses...their evidence will be better for the court if they are granted that anonymity, but what that means though is that the babies have to be given anonymity as well, because if the babies were named then that would lead to the identification of their parents"

 

[marynnu]

It would be hard enough to get your head round a friend being accused of these kind of horrific crimes, let alone somebody you were possibly more than friends with. Plus, in this case her work friends were all working as a team taking care of these babies, so to find she is accused of doing the opposite would be ,even harder to get your head around.

With the Dr, he's texting about the joys of cuddling a tiny baby to somebody who's later accused of killing tiny babies, and of deliberately causing pain to them, in doing so.

And can you imagine what the gutter press would make of any hint of a romantic relationship once the trial has finished? Doesn't bear thinking about.

 

[Tortoise]

I wonder if they will delve into this 'relationship' when he next gives evidence.

She only worked as a nurse for about one more week after she returned from her holiday.

If they dated after that I'm thinking it could be beneficial to the defence. Was he the doctor she texted and asked if she needed to be worried? (not that we know the answer to that but I'm thinking it's likely)

25th June -

10.46pm –
LL text to a doctor: do I need to be worried about what Dr G was asking?
Doctor replied that Dr G was only asking to make sure that the normal procedures were carried out.
LL replied that after Child Q had collapsed she (LL) had walked into the equipment room and Dr G was asking a nurse 'who was present when Child Q collapsed and how quickly someone had gone to him because LL had not been there'.
She continued her texts to the doctor, telling him that she had needed to go to her designated baby in room 1.

 

[DinerMite]

Just voicing my own irrelevant perspective on this:

- At 8.04pm she sent a text saying that she was going to “Google” haemophilia. 7 minutes later Letby texted her coleague: “complex condition, yeah 50:50 chance antenatally”.

Feels quite conscious imo. I wonder if she felt there was a need to have this documented. Also could be the reporting but personally I wouldn't tell someone I was going to Google something over text, I'd just do it and feedback. Curious that suspicions were at a high at this point too.

 

[Marie Bell]

This is saying the opposite though, that the reason the babies are anonymous is because of the order to grant the adult witnesses anonymity, and that identifying the babies would identify those of the adult witnesses who are their parents. And thinking of other cases, they do usually report the names of victims, even when they are children.

"It's unusual though to have adult witnesses in court granted anonymity, but in this case an Order has been made doing that, because the view of the court and the judge in the case is that that will allow those witnesses...their evidence will be better for the court if they are granted that anonymity, but what that means though is that the babies have to be given anonymity as well, because if the babies were named then that would lead to the identification of their parents"

I believe that this is just garbled reporting and interpretation as to why the order has been made. It's absolutely true that the reason for anonymity of babies and children is for the privacy of the parents. It doesn't have any bearing on the restrictions re the witnesses, though, in my view. The 'best evidence of the witness' is a separate matter, and would tend to relate to whether anything they say is going to prejudice that witness, or anyone else in other areas, including any other proceedings.

 

[WaxLyrical]

Just voicing my own irrelevant perspective on this:

- At 8.04pm she sent a text saying that she was going to “Google” haemophilia. 7 minutes later Letby texted her coleague: “complex condition, yeah 50:50 chance antenatally”.

Feels quite conscious imo. I wonder if she felt there was a need to have this documented. Also could be the reporting but personally I wouldn't tell someone I was going to Google something over text, I'd just do it and feedback. Curious that suspicions were at a high at this point too.

Considering the hospital didn’t even have factor 8 on the premises, I’m not surprised nurses were having to Google it.

 

[DinerMite]

Considering the hospital didn’t even have factor 8 on the premises, I’m not surprised nurses were having to Google it.

Of course - my point was in regards to documenting it via a text that she was going to use Google.

 

[Tortoise]

"It is also important to decide if a witness is compellable and, if not, whether she or he will give evidence voluntarily. This may affect the decision to prosecute."

Competence and Compellability | The Crown Prosecution Service

 

[Dotta]

Of course - my point was in regards to documenting it via a text that she was going to use Google.

A medic who has to google "hemophilia"!
Wow

 

[ColourPurple]

I believe that this is just garbled reporting and interpretation as to why the order has been made. It's absolutely true that the reason for anonymity of babies and children is for the privacy of the parents. It doesn't have any bearing on the restrictions re the witnesses, though, in my view. The 'best evidence of the witness' is a separate matter, and would tend to relate to whether anything they say is going to prejudice that witness, or anyone else in other areas, including any other proceedings.

He isn't saying that though. He's not saying the children aren't named to protect the privacy of the parent. He's saying the adult witnesses' anonymity order is what's preventing the children from being named(as naming them would identify the parents, who, as adult witnesses are included in the order) He's an expert in media law and it's a direct quote from him, so IMO reliable, but you are of course entitled to your opinion.


From his webite:

As well, as being legally qualified, David draws on years of experience as a journalist – working for national and regional newspapers, magazines and the web – in the training and advice he delivers.

David was co-author of three editions of McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists, the ‘bible’ of law for the media. He has advised the Ministry of Justice and when the Crown Prosecution Service wanted its top prosecutors to be trained in the law and ethics of the media who report on their cases, they called on David to deliver the training.

About

David Banks has trained thousands of people for hundreds of organisations over 20 years as a trainer. He has worked with newspapers, magazine, broadcasters and web publishers. He also works w…

davidbanksmedialaw.com

ETA to add more info about David Banks

 

[marynnu]

A medic who has to google "hemophilia"!
Wow

honest

To be honest, most nurses wouldn't know about haemophilia in any detail, and even less so the implications for a neonate. I was an NNU nurse for over 30 years and never saw a single case. I think it's perfectly reasonable to do a bit of research.

 

[ColourPurple]

A medic who has to google "hemophilia"!
Wow

I did find that strange. I thought it was common knowledge what haemophilia was. But then thinking about it, I think the reason I know exactly what it is is probably because it was a massive news story in the UK in the 1980s when a lot of haemophiliiacs contracted AIDS through blood transfusions. Which was a bit before LL's time.

 

[ShireChe]

I did find that strange. I thought it was common knowledge what haemophilia was. But then thinking about it, I think the reason I know exactly what it is is probably because it was a massive news story in the UK in the 1980s when a lot of haemophiliiacs contracted AIDS through blood transfusions. Which was a bit before LL's time.

I would suspect that most people would have a basic idea of what it is, but it's an entirely different matter knowing what it is, to dealing with a tiny baby that has it and the effects. That's why they were making arrangements to transfer, because CoC didn't have the expertise or correct resources (factor 8) to deal with it.

ETA: I'm not stating that CoC not having the knowledge or resources was/wasn't the cause of anything that happened, but it wouldn't be a surprise that someone might do a bit of basic research. After all GPs themselves often have to do far more googling than they would admit, when things crop up in daily practice

 

[marynnu]

I did find that strange. I thought it was common knowledge what haemophilia was. But then thinking about it, I think the reason I know exactly what it is is probably because it was a massive news story in the UK in the 1980s when a lot of haemophiliiacs contracted AIDS through blood transfusions. Which was a bit before LL's time.

She would know the basics I am certain, but it's rare to come across it personally. So researching it is fair enough, IMO.

 

[Dotta]

I did find that strange. I thought it was common knowledge what haemophilia was. But then thinking about it, I think the reason I know exactly what it is is probably because it was a massive news story in the UK in the 1980s when a lot of haemophiliiacs contracted AIDS through blood transfusions. Which was a bit before LL's time.

I know it from history.
It was,after all, Royal disease.
Im sometimes really baffled by this case

 

[ColourPurple]

I would suspect that most people would have a basic idea of what it is, but it's an entirely different matter knowing what it is, to dealing with a tiny baby that has it and the effects. That's why they were making arrangements to transfer, because CoC didn't have the expertise or correct resources (factor 8) to deal with it.

It would be interesting to see when Alder Hey did send the Factor 8 clotting agent. I was assuming it was around the time of the first collapse on June 3rd but could be wrong. They've reported that he was nearly ready to go home by 15 June, but after the bleeding and collapse that day (that LL is accused of causing) he was transfered to Alder Hey.

 

[thisismyusernamealso]

Regarding sub judice - if there was pretty damning evidence given it court pointing to guilt, can the media report that? Or no?