UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #23

[Tortoise]

Her defence statement had to be in before trial.

What sort of ideas are you referring to, that we've seen in her evidence?

 

[Dotta]

Apparantly 23 hour lock up for prisoners like letby as they can't integrate with the rest of the prison.

It would be like being buried alive for me!

 

[JosieJo]

Her defence statement had to be in before trial.

What sort of ideas are you referring to, that we've seen in her evidence?

Being a scapegoat? Gang of 4 ?

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I think remand prisoners have more rights that convicted prisoners. I always thought they were allowed daily visits but I see that at HMP Styals state that remand prisoners are only allowed three visits per week in their facility. I don't know whether it's different when the defendent is testifying under oath. But I would expect her to be able to have access to visits throughout the trial. It would seem unreasonable to have a remand prisoner have to no visits for 8 months.
I do think that those who are supporting her are reading online material and potentially feeding back ideas of public opinion. Which is why it was annoying that some members of the public spent the duration of the prosecution, presenting 'new ideas' of what the unheard defenses evidence might be and why it's important that we don't 'pr empt' explanations for the defence, whilst they are still giving evidence. Jmo

^ I wondered about that. My feeling is that surely it wouldn't be allowed?

You can't (thankfully) police people from accessing the internet so the only way visitors could be prevented from passing on online theories and opinions would be for restrictions to be imposed on them - eg. not to discuss anything they've read online that might 'influence' the defendant - while a trial is underway and most specifically when the defendant has taken the stand.

How would they do that? I suppose by listening in on visits since how else could they monitor what's being said - although that sounds unlikely/a breach of a person's human rights to me. I don't know.

I did a google re this but failed to find anything pertinently useful. Learned a lot about prison life though!

Maybe there's a legal eagle on here who might be able to throw some light on things.

I have been having a slightly different thought .

I’m sceptical as to whether any of us online (not to downplay the considerable experience and knowledge that you all possess) in any of our comments (whether they be pro guilt or pro innocence) has said anything in terms of actual evidence that either Nick Johnson or Ben Myers or their many minions haven’t already thought about.

But I have wondered whether Myers and/or Johnson get their team to go online and read these forums in terms of getting feedback as to how certain aspects of the evidence is being received by the general public (ie us) and hoping that is broadly representative of what the jury is thinking , and then use that as something of a compass to assist their questioning.

For example, so many people on here have repeatedly said that LL never cries about the babies in court but does cry when talking about herself. And lo, the first question out of the gate from Nick Johnson to LL on cross is about her crying patterns, which is a smart move if the theory holds that the jury’s strongest opinions are largely mirroring those in these forums regarding LL crying.

 

[Dotta]

I have been having a slightly different thought .

I’m sceptical as to whether any of us online (not to downplay the considerable experience and knowledge that you all possess) in any of our comments (whether they be pro guilt or pro innocence) has said anything in terms of actual evidence that either Nick Johnson or Ben Myers or their many minions haven’t already thought about.

But I have wondered whether Myers and/or Johnson get their team to go online and read these forums in terms of getting feedback as to how certain aspects of the evidence is being received by the general public (ie us) and hoping that is broadly representative of what the jury is thinking , and then use that as something of a compass to assist their questioning.

For example, so many people on here have repeatedly said that LL never cries about the babies in court but does cry when talking about herself. And lo, the first question out of the gate from Nick Johnson to LL on cross is about her crying patterns, which is a smart move if the theory holds that the jury’s strongest opinions are largely mirroring those in these forums regarding LL crying.

I don't think Mr Nick J KC employs "minions".
What a strange term!

I thought such workers are called "assistants" or just lawyers.

Also, I don't think this barrister "mirrors" anybody.
He doesn't need to.
He is intelligent enough to observe and judge by himself.

Respect!
It doesn't cost anything.

JMO

 

[esther43]

I have been having a slightly different thought .

I’m sceptical as to whether any of us online (not to downplay the considerable experience and knowledge that you all possess) in any of our comments (whether they be pro guilt or pro innocence) has said anything in terms of actual evidence that either Nick Johnson or Ben Myers or their many minions haven’t already thought about.

But I have wondered whether Myers and/or Johnson get their team to go online and read these forums in terms of getting feedback as to how certain aspects of the evidence is being received by the general public (ie us) and hoping that is broadly representative of what the jury is thinking , and then use that as something of a compass to assist their questioning.

For example, so many people on here have repeatedly said that LL never cries about the babies in court but does cry when talking about herself. And lo, the first question out of the gate from Nick Johnson to LL on cross is about her crying patterns, which is a smart move if the theory holds that the jury’s strongest opinions are largely mirroring those in these forums regarding LL crying.

I agree completely. I remember on Facebook they researched everything on Evans and publicised it far and wide. Then a week later the court had 'legal discussions' which they all speculated were about Evans and then low and behold, Myers went in on him big time about the exact matters being discussed in those groups.

Edited to say; not this groups, other groups!

 

[Anxala]

I suppose the only way to enforce it would be in the way mentioned, supervised visits. I wonder if that is accommodated.
So interesting the things you learn incidentally when chasing up details on this case.
Last night I watched a documentary of Hmp Styals on you tube. Was a real eye opener.
Apparantly 23 hour lock up for prisoners like letby as they can't integrate with the rest of the prison.

It is very interesting. While I was doing my googling, the thing that kept coming up in my searches was jury-related, and how justice in the age of the internet is testing the very core of what trial by jury attests to and promises.

There's just no realistic way of determining if a juror has accessed info outside of his/her commitment to the T&Cs of their jury commitment.

 

[esther43]

I don't think Mr Nick J KC employs "minions".
What a strange term!

I thought such workers are called "assistants" or just lawyers.

Also, I don't think this barrister "mirrors" anybody.
He doesn't need to.
He is intelligent enough to observe and judge by himself.

Respect!
It doesn't cost anything.

JMO

Nobody puts NJ in the corner!

 

[esther43]

It is very interesting. While I was doing my googling, the one thing that kept coming up was how justice in the age of the internet is testing the very core of what trial by jury attests to. There's just no realistic way of determining if a juror has accessed info outside of his/her commitment to the T&Cs of jury commitment.

Hopefully I am never called for jury service as I don't think I'd be able to stay off the internet for 8 months!

 

[Dotta]

Hopefully I am never called for jury service as I don't think I'd be able to stay off the internet for 8 months!

Think of it as
"Sacrifice for the common good"

 

[ColourPurple]

But I have wondered whether Myers and/or Johnson get their team to go online and read these forums in terms of getting feedback as to how certain aspects of the evidence is being received by the general public (ie us) and hoping that is broadly representative of what the jury is thinking , and then use that as something of a compass to assist their questioning.

For example, so many people on here have repeatedly said that LL never cries about the babies in court but does cry when talking about herself. And lo, the first question out of the gate from Nick Johnson to LL on cross is about her crying patterns, which is a smart move if the theory holds that the jury’s strongest opinions are largely mirroring those in these forums regarding LL crying.

RSBM
Re the crying... don't you think its more likely that Johnson is just using what he and the jury (and reporters) have seen with their own eyes in court? He would score a massive own goal if he opened with a line like that, if it was the opposite of what the jury themselves had witnessed. JMO

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I don't think Mr Nick J KC employs "minions".
What a strange term!

I thought such workers are called "assistants" or just lawyers.

Also, I don't think this barrister "mirrors" anybody.
He doesn't need to.
He is intelligent enough to observe and judge by himself.

Respect!
It doesn't cost anything.

JMO

I didn’t say NJ mirrored anyone.

I said the jury’s strongest opinions might mirror the ones expressed online by people discussing the case in groups such as these.

And there is only so much any barrister would be able to discern from observing the jury’s reactions in court in relation to how the evidence is being perceived. The jury certainly isn’t allowed to provide a daily commentary on the quality or reliability of the evidence presented that day, which is what people in these forums do. That is very useful evidence for a barrister to know because it is the general public’s initial reactions to what it has heard. And if you work on the assumption that the jury is supposed to be a representative cross section of society, as are the people in these groups, then you would expect to see similar reactions to the evidence . That was my point .

 

[Tortoise]

Being a scapegoat? Gang of 4 ?

That was already her defence, without using those words.

 

[Enquirer-2019]

The history from birth to death/ collapse surely is not that relevant...because despite all the said history..and other possibilities each medical expert has summarised their overall cause of death and why.
The jury are not going to try and make their decision on all the history and symptoms they will use the cause presented

Respectfully, I fundamentally disagree that a patients recent clinical history (e.g., since admission) at any age is irrelevant, let alone a premature baby.

Furthermore, in this instance the time window was only the day before the cardiopulmonary arrest of child C.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, October 27

THE trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

ETA- Notwithstanding, some said experts testimonies, appear to have changed since their original medical notes or interviews. Thus, I suspect some degree of self-preservation and/or social-group influences, may be at play. I remain sceptical.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

RSBM
Re the crying... don't you think its more likely that Johnson is just using what he and the jury (and reporters) have seen with their own eyes in court? He would score a massive own goal if he opened with a line like that, if it was the opposite of what the jury themselves had witnessed. JMO

I don’t doubt that the jury has witnessed what NJ expressed (although LL was crying when Ben Myers questioned her about baby E when she talked about the bleeding from the nose and mouth, but I agree that she has predominantly cried over things relating to her personally rather than the babies ).

My point was that Johnson can’t get a proper read on how the jury is receiving what they are witnessing regarding when LL cries . What they are thinking is usually a mystery. I suppose you might catch the odd eye roll from a juror or a huff or sigh if they were particularly unimpressed with some evidence , but they would get reprimanded by the judge if he caught them doing it.

So if I’m NJ, yes , I know the jury has seen LL cry more about herself than the babies . But I don’t know if that’s seen by the jury as notable or important . I will however get a good idea if I go online as read the comments in these groups where every other person comments on it. So that tells me that it seems pretty important and my case might be well served if I push this point .

Take the Facebook searches. Some people think that is important evidence whereas others dismiss the relevance entirely . But unless you come on these groups, you wouldn’t know there was such a split in opinion.

 

[JosieJo]

That was already her defence, without using those words.

It just sounds more "severe" or bizarre..than the deaths being due to staffing and sub optimal care and LL just having to be around.
It maybe the way I read it but it almost sounded like they purposefully chose her knowing she wasn't to blame if that's make sense.

 

[Dcflag]

Respectfully, I fundamentally disagree that a patients recent clinical history (e.g., since admission) at any age is irrelevant, let alone a premature baby.

Furthermore, in this instance the time window was only the day before the cardiopulmonary arrest of child C.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, October 27

THE trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

ETA- Notwithstanding, some said experts testimonies, appear to have changed since their original medical notes or interviews. Thus, I suspect some degree of self-preservation and/or social-group influences, may be at play. I remain sceptical.

The expert testimonies have come from medical persons who have been hired. They have no personal stake in whatever they produce with their reports. They don’t know any of the people involved in the case or the babies. They’ve simply read what they’ve been given and made a conclusion on the cause of death. There’s not exactly a need for self preservation in a situation that has nothing to do with them?

I also think if there were experts who could credibly give a different opinion, the defence would have them. I don’t think they do because I don’t think it’s possible for any medical expert to be able to truthfully say an air embolism isn’t possible. Meaning any medical expert, while they may be able to offer an alternate opinion, cannot rule out what has already been put forward.

 

[Dotta]

It just sounds more "severe" or bizarre..than the deaths being due to staffing and sub optimal care and LL just having to be around.
It maybe the way I read it but it almost sounded like they purposefully chose her knowing she wasn't to blame if that's make sense.

Ravings of a sick mind IMO.

"A Gang of 4 scapegoated Modern Mother Theresa/Nurse Lucy of Chester".

And guess what?
Some believe it - go figure!

The Myth is born.
The ballads will be sung.

JMO

 

[Enquirer-2019]

Add to that the defendant's changing evidence.

evidence in chief -

Ms Ellis said she went briefly to the nurses' station and whilst there she heard Child C's monitor sound an alarm. When she re-entered nursery one, Ms Letby was already standing next to the cot and told her: "He's just dropped his heart rate and saturations."

Ms Letby says she does not recall saying that or recall when she entered nursery one

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

Letby tells the court she has no recollection of any of the events leading up to Child C's collapse. She says it was "a normal shift" and has "no memory" of what happened until Child C's collapse, which was a "significant event".

Letby is asked why she can now confirm she was in room 3 of the nursery, having not been able to remember to that in police interview. Letby says she was able to remember being in nursery room 3 after since being made aware of which babies were in room 3 that night.

She says she was said to have been in room 1 based on the statement by Sophie Ellis, but she tells the court she had not been in that room prior to Child C's collapse. She says she had been 'put' in that room 1 based on Sophie Ellis's statement.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, May 5 - defence continues

Cross-exam -

Johnson then says: "Have you ever sent texts to your friends while performing a tube feed?" Letby replies: "No, absolutely not."
Johnson asks: "Where would that fall in the scale of infractions?"
Letby responds: "It would be inappropriate and I don’t know how you could do a feed without using both hands."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65602988/page/3


Mr Johnson says text messages were exchanged between Letby and Jennifer Jones-Key between 11.01pm and 11.09pm.
Letby says she does not accept she was in room 1 at the time of Child C's collapse. She says she has "no memory" of it.

Letby says she "disputes" that, as she has "no memory" of it.

Letby is asked why she let a band 4 nursery nurse look after her designated baby.
Letby says it's "not unusual" for band 4 nurses to assist her in her duties.
LL: "I have no memory of that".
Mr Johnson says the text at 11.01pm sent by Letby to Jennifer Jones-Key meant she must not have been in a clinical area, and would not have had time to feed her designated baby in room 3.
LL: "I can't answer that."
Mr Johnson says it took her out of the nursing area. Letby said she would have been "in the doorway" of the unit.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, May 19 - cross-examination continues

The most poignant fact I note from her statements, is that her last text on the 13th June was sent 6 minutes prior to Child C’s collapse (e.g., at 11.15 PM).

Meaning LL would have had less than 6 mins. to open the incubator and harm child C (i.e., as per charges) before nurse SE walked in; I also note the designated nurse stated she fed child C at 11pm.

Lucy Letby trial: Murder-accused nurse told police she found baby’s lingering death ‘quite hard’

A NURSE accused of multiple baby murders at the Countess of Chester Hospital told police she found it “quite hard” when one of her alleged…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[esther43]

That was already her defence, without using those words.

I found Myers' opening statement referring to 'confirmation bias' left a lot of room for interpretation.