UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #24

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
katydid23 said:
It is not 'confirmation bias' that she was the only nurse on duty for all 22 unexplained collapses.
It is not 'confirmation bias' that the collapses stop when she is on vacation or when she switches from night shifts to day, and then begin again when she returns to the unit.

Meyers has not been able to explain that set of coincidences yet. JMO
Click to expand...
And they would have to have been experts at crystal ball reading to predict that she would continue to be on duty for the unexpected collapses and deaths until June 2016, because they drew attention to the association by October 2015.

It's not even the 'on-duty' part either. It's the combination of that with other 'co-incidences' such as parents and nurses leaving the cotside, and the unexpected nature of the collapses, and the similarities with vomiting and distension.

MOO
 
Last edited:
CS2C said:
Am I right in saying the defence haven’t called any medical experts to give evidence so far in this case ? Are they expected to ?
Click to expand...
They haven't even started their turn.

LL taking the stand started after Prosecution finished.

Although Defence could cross examine the experts.

Who knows what surprises Defence has prepared? :rolleyes:
 
Tortoise said:
They have entered all the swipe data of all the staff for the relevant periods into evidence. They were speed reading hundreds of data tiles into evidence for every case, and if you recall on one occasion the judge made a remark about it sending them to sleep and called a break. But the reporters have obviously not managed to report all that data in the updates.

That is how Mr Johnson can now refer LL to there being no swipe data for her, on the night she wasn't working but went in at around 11pm and texted her friend about baby G's condition.

He's also pointed out that LL often stayed on the ward for hours after her shift ended, as evidenced in her texts, which also would not be reflected in the swipe data.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed, NJ can refer to the issue of “no swipe data” because he has already admitted into evidence all the data files.

What interests me is why he didn’t bring this up during the presentation of the prosecution’s case, which is why I hypothesised that this is a bit of a change of approach for the prosecution from what they originally intended.

Clearly the prosecution wants to present all of the evidence on which it is basing its case, draw the jury’s attention to it, and make arguments in relation to it during its case. The prosecution did not seem to have raised the argument that anyone including LL could have been accessing the ward outside of shift hours without leaving a digital footprint when they were presenting their case in chief. Which raises the question of why not? If it is important to your case, you want to raise it when you are presenting your case.

Now you could make the argument that they were waiting to raise it when LL testified, but that doesn’t make sense as it seems like a huge gamble to hold onto the argument until LL testifies because you risk the fact that she is not going to testify and then you lose your opportunity to bring in the evidence and make a real point about it. LL doesn’t have to testify and even if she had been indicating all along that she planned to testify, she could have pulled out at any point prior to beginning her testimony. The prosecution simply did not know for sure whether she was going to testify.

So to me, that indicates that this idea of people accessing the ward without leaving a trail was not originally part of the prosecution’s master plan and this is something which they have had to come up with fairly recently in order to address what they are concerned is potential problems with some of the evidence as it has emerged during the presentation of their case.
 
GoodDayToYouSir said:
Yes indeed, NJ can refer to the issue of “no swipe data” because he has already admitted into evidence all the data files.

What interests me is why he didn’t bring this up during the presentation of the prosecution’s case, which is why I hypothesised that this is a bit of a change of approach for the prosecution from what they originally intended.

Clearly the prosecution wants to present all of the evidence on which it is basing its case, draw the jury’s attention to it, and make arguments in relation to it during its case. The prosecution did not seem to have raised the argument that anyone including LL could have been accessing the ward outside of shift hours without leaving a digital footprint when they were presenting their case in chief. Which raises the question of why not? If it is important to your case, you want to raise it when you are presenting your case.

Now you could make the argument that they were waiting to raise it when LL testified, but that doesn’t make sense as it seems like a huge gamble to hold onto the argument until LL testifies because you risk the fact that she is not going to testify and then you lose your opportunity to bring in the evidence and make a real point about it. LL doesn’t have to testify and even if she had been indicating all along that she planned to testify, she could have pulled out at any point prior to beginning her testimony. The prosecution simply did not know for sure whether she was going to testify.

So to me, that indicates that this idea of people accessing the ward without leaving a trail was not originally part of the prosecution’s master plan and this is something which they have had to come up with fairly recently in order to address what they are concerned is potential problems with some of the evidence as it has emerged during the presentation of their case.
Click to expand...
We simply don't know what the prosecution's case is, fully, until they make their closing arguments. That's what closing arguments are for, laying out their arguments with the evidence that's been presented. We don't know as a matter of fact that when the officer was presenting the swipe data, and LL's text messaging that night, the prosecutor didn't say to her words to the effect of 'and was there any swipe data for LL showing her entering the ward that night?'. The reporting hasn't been good enough to know what was or wasn't brought to the jury's attention earlier.

However, we still don't know what the prosecution is going to argue about its relevance to the individual cases. I don't believe they will say it's their case that LL could have hung the second TPN bag for baby F, for instance, but that's just my guess. I think the prosecution has shown that the investigation and presentation of these cases has been meticulous, so I see no argument for this being a change or problem in their case at all. IMO they have shown recognition of the limitations of witnesses being interviewed by police years after the events and of not trying to prove colleagues were necessarily wrong in their memories, but had made no nursing note of a new bag number at the time.

The prosecution hasn't charged LL for one or two events that the experts flagged as possibly suspicious, at times she wasn't on shift, and I haven't seen them confronting her over these events, because they have no reason to with no allegations, but I think what they have done is to take the wind out of the sails of the defence case, that LL wasn't on duty for a few (non-charged) events flagged up by the experts. Time will tell.

Opening speech isn't going to cover allegations that haven't been made against LL.

MOO
 
Last edited:
"No new evidence was heard on Tuesday or Wednesday, and the court is not sitting today (Thursday).

Should the trial resume on Friday, it will do so from the later starting time of 1pm.

Once the trial resumes, Letby is expected to continue to be cross-examined in the case of Child I."

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Lucy Letby trial due to resume on Friday, June 2

THE trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…
www.chesterstandard.co.uk www.chesterstandard.co.uk
 
Live link from Chester Standard ready for later

10:12am

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is expected to resume today (Friday, June 2), following a delay of more than a week.
We will be bringing you live updates throughout the day, in what is the 30th week of the trial before a jury.
For a recap of the trial so far, visit our index here: Countess nurse Lucy Letby: What has happened in trial so far

10:51am

The trial is expected to resume at 1pm today, with Lucy Letby continuing to be cross-examined in the case of Child I.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 2 - cross-examination continues

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…
www.chesterstandard.co.uk www.chesterstandard.co.uk
 
squish said:
Let’s hope all goes well in court today, I’m further than Milton Keynes this time, currently past Birmingham!
Click to expand...
Good luck squish!

I have to say I'm a little surprised that they've scheduled to start at what would normally be the court staff's break for lunch. I hope it does start at 1pm and not 2pm!
 
Last edited:
Will today go ahead? I’m not sure there’s much point in getting everyone into court just for the sake of 2 hours or so but any time in court is a step closer to justice being served IMO, I wonder if LL has thought up something to explain her Freudian slip at the end of last Thursday? I also wonder if that’s where NJ will pick back up as it was quite a moment to end on….

MOO
 
Sky link

news.sky.com

Lucy Letby trial: Facebook searches of nurse accused of murdering babies read out in court

Lucy Letby, a former neonatal nurse, has been back in court for another day of cross-examination by the prosecution on Friday. She is accused of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of 10 others, and denies all the charges.
news.sky.com news.sky.com

23m ago12:26

Good afternoon​

Welcome back to our coverage of the trial of former nurse Lucy Letby. The court will be sitting from 1pm, until approximately 4.15pm.
Sky News is back at Manchester Crown Court where Letby stands accused of murdering seven babies, and the attempted murder of 10 more.
She denies all the charges.

20m ago12:31

Where did court finish last Friday and what can we expect today?​

The prosecution cross-examination of Letby, led by barrister Nick Johnson KC, will continue this afternoon. This is now day six of her cross-examination and 10th day on the witness stand.
It has already been a lengthy trial - proceedings have entered their 30th week.
On Friday, proceedings were cut short after Letby became tearful on the stand and Mr Justice Goss intervened.
It is most likely Mr Johnson will pick up where he left off, with the case of Child I. Letby is accused of attempting to murder this infant four times before succeeding and so far, she has been questioned on the first two incidents.
Mr Johnson was previously questioning Letby on incident two, which occurred on the night shift of 12 -13 October 2015 . Letby has previously claimed she was standing in the doorway of the child's nursery when she spotted the infant had grown pale.
The prosecution has questioned how Letby could see from the brightly lit corridor into the dark nursery.
Letby has previously said this was because "she knew what she was looking for". While she said she "didn't mean it like that" the prosecution claims she knew what she was looking for because she had injured the infant.
 
Tortoise said:
It's not even the 'on-duty' part either. It's the combination of that with other 'co-incidences' such as parents and nurses leaving the cotside, and the unexpected nature of the collapses, and the similarities with vomiting and distension.
Click to expand...

speaking of “co-incidences” I was reading on another website (don’t think a link would be allowed) about the insulin cases both coinciding with “Black Wednesday” when all junior doctors who are on training programs rotate to new placements. Given that the results were missed and not acted upon is quite relevant with the timings of this - moo.
Baby F was 5th Aug 2015 and baby L 8th Apr 2016


I can only find a link for 2015/16 dates on the Scottish Government website but believe dates relate to the the UK as a whole.

 
Becky53 said:
speaking of “co-incidences” I was reading on another website (don’t think a link would be allowed) about the insulin cases both coinciding with “Black Wednesday” when all junior doctors who are on training programs rotate to new placements. Given that the results were missed and not acted upon is quite relevant with the timings of this - moo.
Baby F was 5th Aug 2015 and baby L 8th Apr 2016


I can only find a link for 2015/16 dates on the Scottish Government website but believe dates relate to the the UK as a whole.

Click to expand...
Are you talking about the dates the blood results came back or the dates of the poisonings? Because Baby L was poisoned on a Saturday, day of the Grand National.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 133 more.
Total: 2,123 (members: 134, guests: 1,989)

Online statistics

Members online
134
Guests online
1,989
Total visitors
2,123
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,132
Messages
18,104,418
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top