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

[notsure]

Hope everyone's okay on here? It has been a harrowing and distressing trial to read about.

 

[Marantz4250b]

No idea either but when the final words of the confusing sentence was 'that the defendant is responsible' I'm suspecting he's strongly guiding them to find LL guilty and all his statements seem to lean that way IMO

I most certainly disagree here. A judge will never do that and will be very careful in his words so as they do not give that impression.

His directions on the way in which to arrive at a verdict will be almost a standard formula.

 

[Dotta]

I didn’t realise that guidance could be given to the jury before the closing arguments by both counsel. Is this unusual does anyone know? @Tortoise ?

It was the 1st part.
The second will be before they retire for deliberations.

But it is my opinion only.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I didn’t realise that guidance could be given to the jury before the closing arguments by both counsel. Is this unusual does anyone know? @Tortoise ?

I’ve seen this happen in many cases, jury instructions before closings then usually the judge will give final instructions before sending them off to deliberate.

Maybe it’s done so that the jury know how to consider what is said in closing arguments. As what legal counsel says isn’t considered evidence and during closings it can get quite heated with accusations. The jury should be told at some point that only the evidence presented by witnesses during testimony can be considered when deciding a verdict in deliberations. For example NJ saying ‘you killed them for attention didn’t you?’ Is not considered evidence. Telling them this before closings means the jury will know what to note down as an important point, and what cannot be considered as evidence if they are taking notes.
MOO

 

[esther43]

I’ve seen this happen in many cases, jury instructions before closings then usually the judge will give final instructions before sending them off to deliberate.

Maybe it’s done so that the jury know how to consider what is said in closing arguments. As what legal counsel says isn’t considered evidence and during closings it can get quite heated with accusations. The jury should be told at some point that only the evidence presented by witnesses during testimony can be considered in deliberations. For example NJ saying ‘you killed them for attention didn’t you?’ Is not considered evidence. Telling them this before closings means the jury will know what to note down as an important point, and what cannot be considered as evidence if they are taking notes.
MOO

I just hope they get print outs / digital text and don't have rely on memory!

 

[SusanDonim]

I hope these poor innocent babies and their families get justice and closure. What a horrific case. MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

How can a person can be arrested, released without charge, and then be told they’re “not allowed” to live in their own home?

Good question!

 

[Tortoise]

I didn’t realise that guidance could be given to the jury before the closing arguments by both counsel. Is this unusual does anyone know? @Tortoise ?

Yes, it's normal, and the jury will be handed printed copies of his legal instructions to have at hand. I think it's so that they are freshly informed on the matters of law they are going to have to apply to their deliberations, before they hear the closing arguments. After each side has given their arguments - which goes prosecution-defence-prosecution (they have the final word because they have the burden of proof and it's like their reply to the defence closing arguments) the judge will sum up ALL the evidence, of every witness. That is likely to take a long time, perhaps most of a week I think likely. Then off goes the jury to deliberate!

 

[Dotta]

I hope these poor innocent babies and their families get justice and closure. What a horrific case. MOO

At last this trial is drawing to an end.
What a relief for all, especially the poor families.

 

[Tortoise]

I most certainly disagree here. A judge will never do that and will be very careful in his words so as they do not give that impression.

His directions on the way in which to arrive at a verdict will be almost a standard formula.

Absolutely. And it will have been fine-tuned to fit the peculiarities of this case with input from both sides.

I think what was most notable to me, probably at the insistence of the defence, was the prompt to look first to consider the likelihood of a collapse being from natural causes. And only if it wasn't considered likely, moving onto the alternative explanation proffered by the prosecution witnesses. So not considering the explanation of harm before all else.

JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

Absolutely. And it will have been fine-tuned to fit the peculiarities of this case with input from both sides.

I think what was most notable to me, probably at the insistence of the defence, was the prompt to look first to consider the likelihood of a collapse being from natural causes. And only if it wasn't considered likely, moving onto the alternative explanation proffered by the prosecution witnesses. So not considering the explanation of harm before all else.

JMO

Yes, agreed.

Personally, I think that those among us who are predicting a rather brief period of deliberation may be sorely mistaken!

 

[Kemug]

It would be good to know which room and which day it happened. Are there any cases the accused is said to be around/caused within this same or around the timeframe?
It could be a sibling of one of the babies but given the poorly nature of the babies in the unit; I don’t know how an adult/parent wouldn’t see this flood happening/water spilling over the floor as the plumber described.

This doesn’t sound to me like the sewage point she appeared to imply on the stand.
If guilty etc.
MOO

Maybe it was intended to cause flooding, as another indication of a poorly run hospital.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Maybe it was intended to cause flooding, as another indication of a poorly run hospital.

Indeed. Or a distraction?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Regarding cause of death, unless I've literally had some kind of memory blank, the court hasn't heard any opposing arguments.

The only scenarios put forwards for all causes of death are those described by the prosecution, those were then agreed by LL as being things that would result in death and cannot be accidental. Her barrister did not argue and no expert came forth to dispute the prosecution scenarios.

So how can any jury possibly not find her guilty on all counts? JMO MOO

 

[Parker Knoll]

So we have the next two working court weeks for closing arguments and summing up.
I wonder if they will actually be 5 working days next week or short weeks again ?
I have got quite used to the shorter weeks now !
I do wonder what she is thinking sat in her cell tonight as it moves ever closer to the verdict ? The most baffling criminal trial I have ever followed as almost over.
Such sadness and for what exactly.
MOO

 

[Sundial]

Indeed. Or a distraction?

Wasn’t this the evidence that CB reported? Flooding/some issue with the pipes that day?

Didn’t he go on his break when the baby he was designated to care for collapsed in his absence?

Strange though that CB was the one who had allegedly reported to maintenance but when he took the stand quite early on, the only thing he was asked about by the defence (if I recall) was about LL being upset/crying with everyone else. If suboptimal care/hand-washing or pipes etc was an issue, I’m a bit surprised the defence didn’t utilise this discussion further with CB as part of their evidence at least.

Probably irrelevant anyway on the whole really, just interesting.
If guilty etc. Moo

 

[katydid23]

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

“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."

I think this might be helpful to the prosecution. I think it says ' if you are convinced LL harmed one or more of of the babies, then you can decide if it is more likely that the other babies were also harmed by her as well, as opposed to a natural cause.

JMO, IMO

 

[katydid23]

I think it was for her own safety as her name and address was put out there in the media on July 6th.

She may have had to sell her home anyway because I doubt she was going back to work after the arrest.

 

[katydid23]

I might be silly when I say this but how can the jury possibly be “sure” and without ANY doubt of something which wasn’t witnessed?

There are instances where a doctor had just done observations on a baby, said things looked good, no reds flags---and LL is the next to care for the baby, and 6 minutes later, the baby is suddenly desaturating, then has a fatal collapse.

And a designated nurse will spend all day with her baby, who is eating well, settled, having no issues. Nurse goes on her break, LL takes over care, and when the nurse returns, she sees the child receiving CPR, and then dying.

LL goes on vacation, no babies having unexplained collapses during that entire week. The very day she returns there are three in a row, back to back to back. And she was in direct contact with all 3, minutes before the collapses.

Cases like that, IMO, do not need a direct witness. Especially when those incidents stack up, over and over. Nurse Letby is the only common denominator in 24 incidents.

 

[katydid23]

I thought his guidance was quite brief and I'm not sure if he will 'guide again' after the summing up. It would make more sense to guide afterwards imo but perhaps that's not how it works.

I think they will have written guidance, in the form of the paperwork that needs to be filled out. If you look at the questions that need to be answered [daily mail recorded them] it is specific about how you answer each question on the form.