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

[Parker Knoll]

I am sure by the time Counsel has finished for the day, had a full debrief with their team for an hr or so, popped into his chambers, driven home, had dinner and gone through tomorrows notes the LAST thing they would want to do is look at what the crack pots with their “ theories “ ( now banned on Reddit I understand thankfully ) have to say about the case.
I would expect that the Police will check SM for any reporting breaches but they won’t be looking for anything else.
The lawyers will be able to “ read “ the jury better than anyone else.
MOO

 

[Tortoise]

I am sure by the time Counsel has finished for the day, had a full debrief with their team for an hr or so, popped into his chambers, driven home, had dinner and gone through tomorrows notes the LAST thing they would want to do is look at what the crack pots with their “ theories “ ( now banned on Reddit I understand thankfully ) have to say about the case.
I would expect that the Police will check SM for any reporting breaches but they won’t be looking for anything else.
The lawyers will be able to “ read “ the jury better than anyone else.
MOO

I expect the jurors feel the same. Get home and try and have a break from all the distressing details they've had to sit through all day, and enjoy their downtime and families. As a juror there's no way I would be curious to find out what other people are saying about stuff when the public has probably not even half the information they've been given, including being able to assess the credibility of the witnesses firsthand. In fact, true crime discussion forums are probably not even on the radar of the average juror.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Totally agree. They must be utterly exhausted.

 

[Dotta]

Totally agree. They must be utterly exhausted.

What a "cold shower" for "Internet experts and pundits"
hahahaha
Reality knocks

JMO

 

[ColourPurple]

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.

I don't think Johnson would need to read opinions online to work out how the jurors were likely to be interpreting LL's tears . It's not his first rodeo.

But there's also a danger in assuming that because something is discussed a lot online, that it must be terribly important. Sometimes it can be down to something as simple as one person continually raising the same point repeatedly, day in day out, across various forums under various user IDs.

JMO

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I don't think Johnson would need to read opinions online to work out how the jurors were likely to be interpreting LL's tears . It's not his first rodeo.

But there's also a danger in assuming that because something is discussed a lot online, that it must be terribly important. Sometimes it can be down to something as simple as one person continually raising the same point repeatedly, day in day out, across various forums under various user IDs.

JMO

I agree that can absolutely happen online.

But I also think (and my comment was in relation to both the defence and the prosecution ) that after you’ve lived with the all evidence for at least a few years (as both legal teams have by this stage ) spending hours upon hours poring over the details, not to mention all the evidence that both sides have seen which is inadmissible in court for various reasons, it becomes very difficult to put yourself in the shoes of people who are hearing this evidence for the first time and try to assess how they are receiving it and which bits they think are the most important .

In that respect , it can be interesting to check in with how random members of the public who are following the trial are perceiving the evidence . In the past, this would be done with in person focus groups, but of course you don’t need to actually go to that trouble of convening such groups now when you have all these online forums.

I have a couple of friends who are criminal barristers and they have said they’ve had cases where the pieces of evidence that they themselves thought were going to be the most important actually tends to be far less important than other evidence in the minds of the jury .

 

[katydid23]

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.

What about the other 21 incidents of sudden collapse? That was an unprecedented amount of collapses, never seen before or since.

It's is easy to talk about one incident at a time, and come up with an unlikely, but possible alternative. But that does not explain the big picture. Why were so many babies collapsing in that unit and whenever LL was on duty?

Let's take LL out of the equation-----The consultants said it was a sudden wave of unexplained and extraordinary incidents, where babies needed several shots of adrenaline and then some would quickly recover, while others would die. But they had dissimilar symptoms in some cases----some had dollops of unexplained air, others had unexplained throat wounds and ingternal bleeding, some had purplish mottled rashes, others had bright blue veins, and some had insulin poisoning.

How did all of the above happen in a one year period?

 

[Cluedoneit]

I agree that can absolutely happen online.

But I also think (and my comment was in relation to both the defence and the prosecution ) that after you’ve lived with the all evidence for at least a few years (as both legal teams have by this stage ) spending hours upon hours poring over the details, not to mention all the evidence that both sides have seen which is inadmissible in court for various reasons, it becomes very difficult to put yourself in the shoes of people who are hearing this evidence for the first time and try to assess how they are receiving it and which bits they think are the most important .

In that respect , it can be interesting to check in with how random members of the public who are following the trial are perceiving the evidence . In the past, this would be done with in person focus groups, but of course you don’t need to actually go to that trouble of convening such groups now when you have all these online forums.

I have a couple of friends who are criminal barristers and they have said they’ve had cases where the pieces of evidence that they themselves thought were going to be the most important actually tends to be far less important than other evidence in the minds of the jury .

Unless you are talking about high profile expensive civil trials, where both sides are paying for their own KC, in person focus groups do not exist for UK trials.
To be specific, as both the prosecution and defence are being paid for by the public purse in Letby’s trial, no way would the costs for focus groups be Permitted.
It’s also a complete waste of time to look at our opinions and the opinions of groups like ours as we aren’t representative of the general public, we are heavily self selected because of our interest in the case or true crime in general.
I agree that some things a barrister thinks will be important turns out to not resonate with the jury as they have the background context that the jury may not, but as we also have access to stuff the jury is not allowed, our opinions would also be as problematic.
obviously all my own opinion

 

[Tortoise]

I agree that can absolutely happen online.

But I also think (and my comment was in relation to both the defence and the prosecution ) that after you’ve lived with the all evidence for at least a few years (as both legal teams have by this stage ) spending hours upon hours poring over the details, not to mention all the evidence that both sides have seen which is inadmissible in court for various reasons, it becomes very difficult to put yourself in the shoes of people who are hearing this evidence for the first time and try to assess how they are receiving it and which bits they think are the most important .

In that respect , it can be interesting to check in with how random members of the public who are following the trial are perceiving the evidence . In the past, this would be done with in person focus groups, but of course you don’t need to actually go to that trouble of convening such groups now when you have all these online forums.

I have a couple of friends who are criminal barristers and they have said they’ve had cases where the pieces of evidence that they themselves thought were going to be the most important actually tends to be far less important than other evidence in the minds of the jury .

How did your barrister friends find out what turned out to be most and least important evidence in the minds of the jury?

 

[Tortoise]

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!

I just dug out what the judge said about this


12:33pm

The jury are being advised they are not prohibited from using social media, but they should ignore comments made on there in relation to the trial, and to understand that media reports will be "selective" and focus on only parts of the trial.
Jurors are also urged not to research additional evidence, outside of the courtroom, in relation to the case in any way.

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

How did your barrister friends find out what turned out to be most and least important evidence in the minds of the jury?

After the fact from the court officers who were in charge of shuffling the jury about etc. They tend to hear quite a lot!

 

[Tortoise]

After the fact from the court officers who were in charge of shuffling the jury about etc. They tend to hear quite a lot!

Jurors aren't allowed to discuss the case in front of anyone. The role of those court ushers is to ensure the jury understands and follows their oaths, and to report jury problems to the judge, and to ensure jurors only discuss the case when they are all together in a locked room with no one else in earshot. Court ushers would be very unlikely to hear, let alone report back to the barristers, matters of deliberation which would be classified as contempt of court. MOO

"The jury is also being told that any deliberations they make at the conclusion of the trial have a "lifetime prohibition" from being revealed in public, and each juror takes the contents of what was discussed in the deliberation room in relation to the case as secret "for as long as they are alive".
Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Jurors aren't allowed to discuss the case in front of anyone. The role of those court ushers is to ensure the jury understands and follows their oaths, and to report jury problems to the judge, and to ensure jurors only discuss the case when they are all together in a locked room with no one else in earshot. Court ushers would be very unlikely to hear, let alone report back to the barristers, matters of deliberation which would be classified as contempt of court. MOO

"The jury is also being told that any deliberations they make at the conclusion of the trial have a "lifetime prohibition" from being revealed in public, and each juror takes the contents of what was discussed in the deliberation room in relation to the case as secret "for as long as they are alive".
Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

I wasn’t saying that the court staff reported anything to barristers while trial or deliberations were ongoing .

Court staff can quite often overhear discussions from outside the jury room and when they go into the jury room to speak to the jury (because discussions are ongoing ) . Then after the trial is all over, court staff may relay what they overheard to barristers they are on good terms with (or indeed “friends” with ). Lawyers who are attending court regularly often have good relations with court staff and will discuss things informally in the nearby favoured watering hole.

 

[Bakers]

You admit, that you, just like me, have no medical training or medical degrees. Should we be questioning the conclusions of several highly experienced, fully trained, elite medical minds, with many decades of hands on experience with premature babies ? They have supported their findings with scientific research and post mortem investigations, so it seems kind of a stretch to think we can come up with some medical finding that would negate theirs.

The routine aspiration of an NG tube is not the same thing as injecting air in someones bloodstream through the lines. AFAIK

Isn't that what the jury will do ?? I think everything should be questioned or what's the point of a trial

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Interestingly I was researching HCSKs over the weekend (I won’t mention any in this thread as not to derail it) and discovered that 1. The defence strategy of claiming it was hospital failings is a common one, almost every HCSK I read about claimed during their defence case that the hospital was inadequate in some way and that’s the reason for the deaths. And 2. The prosecutions theory of LL was present for all of the events, no other staff member was present for even half of the incidents, yet coincidentally LL happened to be there for every single one. Is also a common claim by the prosecution in other cases. So I don’t think there is anything unusual in that respect.

The main thing I find shocking is the sheer number of crimes LL is charged with against neonates, there are quite a lot of HCSK’s who target the elderly or adults. A small handful who target children. But tiny newborn babies in a neonatal unit? I haven’t found any yet that fall into this category. There are a few who harmed babies on other wards, but none I’ve seen that were in a NICU. I think that’s why I’m so fascinated by this case, it’s going to be unprecedented if guilty. It’s the ultimate betrayal and abuse of a position of trust IMO, it should qualify for a whole life order if guilty. I know here in the UK they are only passed occasionally for the most heinous crimes, but IMO, murdering tiny babies you were trusted to care for by parents who literally trusted you to look after their whole world is absolutely heinous and cruel, calculated and sick. The betrayal is beyond words, complete abuse of a position of trust. Every element should mean that a WLO is considered. If guilty of course.

MOO

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Sorry just to add on to my above post. I found this article interesting, particularly when it comes to this quote about possible red flags exhibited by other HCSK’s.

Taken from:

Nurses Who Kill Babies Exploit Systems of Trust

An ongoing trial of a nurse accused of killing babies spotlights both motive and the need for improved safeguards for the most vulnerable patients.

www.psychologytoday.com

From several of these studies and additional cases, we now know that nurses who endangered or killed a number of patients had multiple red-flag behaviors (Ramsland, 2007). They might have gained macabre nicknames from patients or staff; were in rooms where unexpected deaths occurred (and weren’t assigned there); were secretive or deceptive about innocuous things; liked to “predict” that a patient would die; were associated with suspicious incidents at different institutions; craved attention; hung around after a death to experience the reactions; lied about credentials; or falsified their work records or medical access reports. They didn't operate fully under the radar. Colleagues noticed them.

I think we’ve heard at some points throughout the trial that LL exhibited most if not all of these ‘red flag’ behaviours at numerous points throughout 2015-2016.

MOO

 

[marynnu]

What do people think of Dr. J's testimony re. finding LL next to Baby K's incubator? For me, of all the memories which you could argue have blurred over time, I fail to see how anyone could mis-remember this event. It's so specific and stands out to me because of his reason to enter Nursery 1. If another nurse had been in there he would never have gone in. I just cannot fathom why LL is disputing this, not least of all because "standing doing nothing" by the incubator is easily explicable.
All JMO.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

What do people think of Dr. J's testimony re. finding LL next to Baby K's incubator? For me, of all the memories which you could argue have blurred over time, I fail to see how anyone could mis-remember this event. It's so specific and stands out to me because of his reason to enter Nursery 1. If another nurse had been in there he would never have gone in. I just cannot fathom why LL is disputing this, not least of all because "standing doing nothing" by the incubator is easily explicable.
All JMO.

IMO she’s disputing it because of her whole ‘gang of 4 conspiracy’ defence. That’s the only reason I can think of why she’d deny this. Dr J is in that gang of 4, so of course anything said by any one of them is going to be a lie and part of the whole ‘put the blame on LL’ defence theory. I think she’s going to dispute anything that the ‘gang of 4’ have testified to. She wants us all to believe that everyone else is either lying or mistaken except LL. I 100% believe Dr J, because he had noticed the pattern of LL always being associated with the babies who collapsed and/or died. He thought he was being stupid and wanted to go into the room to kind of put his mind at rest. I think he was expecting to see LL caring for the baby like any other regular nurse, instead he was horrified to see her standing over a baby who was actively collapsing and not doing anything to help. Personally, I think that was the moment Dr J had the terrible realisation that it wasn’t all in his head, and that there was something very wrong going on. I think his memory is so clear because that was a big moment for him.

Otherwise she’d have said ‘I was waiting to see if the baby self corrected’ or ‘i was just about to raise the alarm’ or anything else that could be remotely believable. To completely deny that it happened says to me that the moment Dr J saw her sticks out in LL’s memory as a moment she thought she was ‘caught’, and also because she wants to tell the jury that Dr J and the others were all conspiring against her, so if she admits that anything said by either one of ‘the 4’ is true then it takes away from her whole conspiracy claim. I think she absolutely remembers Dr J entering the room, because she was actively trying to kill a child and she was caught in the act IMO. The same as how she’s going to accuse baby E’s mother of either lying or misremembering what she saw on her 9pm visit. She’s gaslighting anyone who suspected her of wrongdoing IMO.

All MOO

 

[notsure]

What do people think of Dr. J's testimony re. finding LL next to Baby K's incubator? For me, of all the memories which you could argue have blurred over time, I fail to see how anyone could mis-remember this event. It's so specific and stands out to me because of his reason to enter Nursery 1. If another nurse had been in there he would never have gone in. I just cannot fathom why LL is disputing this, not least of all because "standing doing nothing" by the incubator is easily explicable.
All JMO.

It was compelling testimony, because he seemed to recall the exact feelings and thoughts he had at that time and described them vividly, almost like a scene from a tv drama. I didn't realise LL was disputing it. Did she say she wasn't there at that point?

 

[marynnu]

IMO she’s disputing it because of her whole ‘gang of 4 conspiracy’ defence. That’s the only reason I can think of why she’d deny this. Dr J is in that gang of 4, so of course anything said by any one of them is going to be a lie and part of the whole ‘put the blame on LL’ defence theory. I think she’s going to dispute anything that the ‘gang of 4’ have testified to. She wants us all to believe that everyone else is either lying or mistaken except LL.

There really is no other explanation as far as I can see. But it seems to me that it's counter-productive on her part.