UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #25

[Sundial]

It is very strange. The Chester Standard reported that it was a wipe towel, so unlikely to have writing on it IMO.

eta And Daily Mail says a piece of white cloth!

Pumber called as the only witness in the defence of nurse Lucy Letby

Thinking more about this reference as a white cloth/re wipe;
The dry wipes that come in packets are actually quite similar as a white cloth. When wet they swell to absorb the water and in a way do resemble like a large flannel. Standard UK flannels, if you imagine when these dry style wipes are wet; they can expand to about roughly twice the size of a flannel, they do appear like a cloth- particularly when left in the sink.

I’m not saying that’s definitely what it is of course; no-one really knows, but just interesting reports and the circumstances around everything else.

JMO just throwing some thoughts out.
Moo

 

[esther43]

He never gave any indication that the defence had their own experts though. It was only with the two-day hearings without the jury this week that there was whispering of a possible last minute expert being brought before the court for sanction. I think it comes down to whether you had expectations that he would have experts, and it's not true that anything actually changed for the defence. From my perspective.

JMO

I never expected him to have any medical experts but had higher expectations around character witnesses.

 

[Anxala]

Is anyone aware that Lucy Letby's Chester home backs onto a graveyard and Chester crematorium ?

What's the relevance?

 

[Tortoise]

I never expected him to have any medical experts but had higher expectations around character witnesses.

I've never seen 'good-character' witnesses of a general nature in a murder trial before. Think it could even open the door to the prosecution bringing people who are less complimentary tbh, if that were allowed to happen, but I don't know the laws on this.

I believe all evidence has to relate to the case. For instance in this case it would be diligence, admitting mistakes, perhaps positive reports about her from patients' families, and that has already been sought from her colleagues when giving evidence and evidenced in her colleagues' and doctors' text messages. All of that 'you're an excellent nurse Lucy' blah blah is in evidence. Also the manager who gave evidence to say she was personally devastated to have to remove her and how she tried to get her back by showing she was competent.

JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

I never expected him to have any medical experts but had higher expectations around character witnesses.

I can't see what relevance a character witness could be in a trial, especially for the defence. The prosecution isn't alleging that she's gulity because she's not a very nice person. How, then, can someone attesting to her good character be of relevance?

As the judge said today in his directions to the jury, the accused is to be judged according to the evidence and not what they may personally think of her, or of the crimes she is accused of. The only things which are relevant are the actual facts and the conclusions arrived at by the people accepted as expert witnesses.

I can see how character references might be relevant when it comes to sentencing - but only to a degree. If a person has been convicted of what is something totally out of character having previously led a blameless life then, yes, I can see the relevance of attestations to previous good character. In this case, though, if she's convicted of even only some of these charges I cannot see how character references will be relevant. The sentencing requirements are statutory with very little room for manoeuvre and what movement there is is defined by those requirements.

 

[Tortoise]

Articles have been updated, not permitted to copy it all over so see links below -


"Mr Justice Goss told jurors it was not their role to “resolve every conflict in the evidence”.

He said: “It would, you may think, be a remarkable and exceptional case in which a jury could say we know everything about what happened in any case and why.

“You are not detectives.

“If you are sure that someone on the unit was deliberately harming a baby or babies, you do not have to be sure of the precise harmful act or acts. In some instances there may have been more than one.

“To find the defendant guilty, however, you must be sure that she deliberately did some harmful act to the baby the subject of the count on the indictment and the act or acts was accompanied by the intent and, in the case of murder, was causative of death.”

He told the jury they also did not need to certain of any motive for deliberately harming a baby.

Mr Justice Goss said: “Motives for criminal behaviour are sometimes complex and not always clear. You only have to make decisions on those matters that will enable you to say whether the defendant is guilty or not of the particular charge you are considering.

[...]

“If you are satisfied so that you are sure in the case of any baby that they were deliberately harmed by the defendant then you are entitled to consider how likely it is that other babies in the case who suffered unexpected collapses did so as a result of some unexplained or natural cause rather than as a consequence of some deliberate harmful act by someone.

“If you conclude that this is unlikely then you could, if you think it right, treat the evidence of that event and any others, if any, which you find were a consequence of a deliberate harmful act, as supporting evidence in the cases of other babies and that the defendant was the person responsible.

“When deciding how far, if at all, the evidence in relation to any of the cases supports the case against the defendant on any other or others, you should take into account how similar or dissimilar, in your opinion, the allegations and the circumstances of and surrounding their collapses are."

Letby jurors told to set aside emotion as baby murders trial winds up

The nurse is accused of murdering seven babies and trying to murder 10 others while working on the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Judge tells Lucy Letby trial jurors to set aside emotion

Jurors in the trial of murder-accused nurse Lucy Letby have been told to approach the case in a “fair, calm, objective and analytical way”.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Letby jurors told to set aside emotion as baby murders trial winds up

The nurse is accused of murdering seven babies and trying to murder 10 others while working on the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

www.standard.co.uk

 

[esther43]

I've never seen 'good-character' witnesses of a general nature in a murder trial before. Think it could even open the door to the prosecution bringing people who are less complimentary tbh, if that were allowed to happen, but I don't know the laws on this.

I believe all evidence has to relate to the case. For instance in this case it would be diligence, admitting mistakes, perhaps positive reports about her from patients' families, and that has already been sought from her colleagues when giving evidence and evidenced in her colleagues' and doctors' text messages. All of that 'you're an excellent nurse Lucy' blah blah is in evidence. Also the manager who gave evidence to say she was personally devastated to have to remove her and how she tried to get her back by showing she was competent.

JMO

Ah I did not know that that was not a thing because I've seen a character witnesses in another trial concerning GBH so assumed it may be similar...

 

[Tortoise]

“The defence say that there are possible causes for many of the collapses other than an intentional harmful act, that the prosecution expert evidence cannot be relied on in terms of providing explanations for many of the collapses and that there is insufficient evidence to lead you to the conclusion that these events were related and were a consequence of any harmful act by the defendant rather than a series of unrelated collapses that, in some cases, ended in death.”

When considering the seven counts of murder, Mr Justice Goss told jurors they must be sure Letby deliberately did something to the child that was “more than a minimal cause” of the death.

He said: “The children were all premature and vulnerable, some had mild respiratory distress syndrome of prematurity and some had specific health issues.

“There were also a few cases of delays in the administration of appropriate medicine or other clinical failings. Some of the causes of death were unascertained.

“In the case of each child, without necessarily having to determine the precise cause or causes of their death and for which no natural or known cause was said to be apparent at the time, you must be sure that the act or acts of the defendant, whatever they were, caused the child’s death in that it was more than a minimal cause.

“The defendant says she did nothing inappropriate, let alone harmful to any child. Her case is that the sudden collapses and death were, or may have been, from natural causes or for some unascertained reason or from some failure to provide appropriate care, and they were not attributable to any deliberate harmful act by her.”

[...]

The trial continues on Monday."

Letby jurors told to set aside emotion as baby murders trial winds up

The nurse is accused of murdering seven babies and trying to murder 10 others while working on the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

www.expressandstar.com

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-06-15/lucy-letby-jurors-told-to-set-aside-emotion-ahead-of-decision-making

 

[esther43]

“If you are sure that someone on the unit was deliberately harming a baby or babies, you do not have to be sure of the precise harmful act or acts

Interesting, as this conflicts with what Myers has instructed to jury to consider, for example 'whether a murder has actually taken place'

 

[esther43]

If you conclude that this is unlikely then you could, if you think it right, treat the evidence of that event and any others, if any, which you find were a consequence of a deliberate harmful act, as supporting evidence in the cases of other babies and that the defendant was the person responsible.

I have read this part three times and still don't quite get what he is driving at here..

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

A lot of people have commented that LL going on the stand has been a disaster. But given that in the UK, a jury can draw a negative inference from an accused of not giving evidence, I was wondering how common it in fact is for those accused of serious crimes (such as sexual assault, murder, GBH) to not give evidence. Thinking back to the trials which have been in the news over the last couple of months, the accused all seem to have decided to give evidence.

I don’t suppose anyone knows what the statistics are in the UK for whether an accused gives evidence in their own defence or not?

 

[Tortoise]

I have read this part three times and still don't quite get what he is driving at here..

I've paraphrased what I think it means (taken with the paragraph before it which you haven't quoted) -

If you're sure that any baby was deliberately harmed by her, you can consider how likely it is that other babies collapsed due to natural causes rather than attempted murder/murder. If you think that is unlikely (natural causes), you can treat the evidence of those deliberate events as supporting evidence that she was responsible in the cases of other babies.

So I think in essence he is saying they need more than one case where they are sure, as a supporting basis for deciding further cases, if they need to support a decision. JMO

 

[esther43]

I've paraphrased what I think it means (taken with the paragraph before it which you haven't quoted) -

If you're sure that any baby was deliberately harmed by her, you can consider how likely it is that other babies collapsed due to natural causes rather than attempted murder/murder. If you think that is unlikely (natural causes), you can treat the evidence of those deliberate events as supporting evidence that she was responsible in the cases of other babies.

So I think in essence he is saying they need more than one case where they are sure, as a supporting basis for deciding further cases, if they need to support a decision. JMO

Thanks, that makes it a little easier to understand.

 

[Marantz4250b]

“To find the defendant guilty, however, you must be sure that she deliberately did some harmful act to the baby the subject of the count on the indictment and the act or acts was accompanied by the intent and, in the case of murder, was causative of death."

Is this is a verbatim quote? It is not necessary to show intention to cause death to arrive at a murder conviction.

Intention to kill is only required in the attempted murder charges. That quote clearly says that an intention to cause death is a necessary component for murder.

 

[esther43]

A lot of people have commented that LL going on the stand has been a disaster. But given that in the UK, a jury can draw a negative inference from an accused of not giving evidence, I was wondering how common it in fact is for those accused of serious crimes (such as sexual assault, murder, GBH) to not give evidence. Thinking back to the trials which have been in the news over the last couple of months, the accused all seem to have decided to give evidence.

I don’t suppose anyone knows what the statistics are in the UK for whether an accused gives evidence in their own defence or not?

No, I don't know the statistics but I try to Google this a while back but couldn't find anything on it.
I tend to agree though that UK seems higher and probably due to adverse inference.
I do think in general the adverse inference rule conflicts with the idea that the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt.

 

[Tortoise]

Is this is a verbatim quote? It is not necessary to show intention to cause death to arrive at a murder conviction.

Intention to kill is only required in the attempted murder charges. That quote clearly says that an intention to cause death is a necessary component for murder.

No it's a separate issue. He is saying that whatever was done to the baby must have been a significant factor in the death. And he's saying the act must have been done with the requisite intent.

 

[TheCraig]

Is anyone aware that Lucy Letby's Chester home backs onto a graveyard and Chester crematorium ?

Yes and the baby memorial garden at Blacon cemetery is directly behind the house she had

 

[Music2022]

What if they can’t reach a unanimous vote?

 

[Tortoise]

What if they can’t reach a unanimous vote?

They would eventually be given a majority instruction. 10-2 or 11-1

 

[CS2C]

What's the relevance?

Because that is commonly where you will find dead people ?
I wondered if she chose to buy that house because of the location, considering she purchased the house in March 2015.

There is also a baby memorial park situated there.

If guilty...