UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #3

[merrypason]

The defence don't have to prove anything. The onus is on the Crown to prove guilt.


Basic principles of our system of law:

1. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty, according to law.

2. The right to a fair trial


Burden of Proof

Guilt must proven 'beyond reasonable doubt'. This means that a jury 'must be sure', in order to return a guilty verdict.

Yes, I'm aware. By the defence 'proving' something, I'm referring to how the jury or a layman would understand it in the context of that particular post. The prosecution proves guilt, and the defence does their best to disprove guilt or 'prove' innocence. Being conscious that this site is not an English court of law and my language is intended to be understood by all who read here.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I’ve been at work all day so only just caught up on todays posts in a massive chuck. I noticed someone mentioned munchausens by proxy? I don’t know much at all about it, but it kind of clicks for me? The comment to me really sounds like something a grieving mother would say, does LL see herself as the victim in these situations? Does she almost see their deaths as her loss?

I don’t know, I feel like this is the biggest insight so far into LL.

I'm not convinced it gives any insight into her at at all. It's a passing comment made under extreme circumstances, presumably recounted to police years after the event. This isn't to imply that the mum is in any way not being honest, of course. Witness accounts are notoriously unreliable as evidence so I think statements like that which aren't back up by notes made at the time, or by other witnesses or corroborating evidence, must be considered very carefully.

 

[gitana1]

I’ve been at work all day so only just caught up on todays posts in a massive chuck. I noticed someone mentioned munchausens by proxy? I don’t know much at all about it, but it kind of clicks for me? The comment to me really sounds like something a grieving mother would say, does LL see herself as the victim in these situations? Does she almost see their deaths as her loss?

I don’t know, I feel like this is the biggest insight so far into LL.

Why would a nurse become a serial killer? - BBC News

German nurse Niels Högel is just the latest health professional to be jailed for killing patients.

www.bbc.com

 

[Gardenista]

Ah , apologies, am genuinely not familiar with the correct terms. I assumed that the information presented in court such as referring to patient documents, quotes from parents, medical staff and LL would be referred to as evidence, is this simply just information at this point to support the initial opening argument?

It's what the attorney expects the evidence will show. In the US, opening and closing are called opening arguments and closing arguments because they are argument, not evidence. Jurors are warned prior to hearing these statements by the attorneys that what the attorneys say is not evidence and they cannot take it as such as it may not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

From what I've read here on other UK cases, it works the same there.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think she will get not guilty or hung jury purely because of her defence barrister. Without a good defence she would probably be toast. He has a very good track record of securing not guilty verdicts I don't think he would have took the case if he didn't think he had a good chance as it would affect his career.

This is totally incorrect. Barristers operate on the "cab rank" principle meaning they take the next instruction that comes along without question. It's part of their ethical duty to the law. Cab drivers aren't supposed to use the excuse "sorry mush, but I don't go sarf of the river" and barristers can't say "sorry, you're clearly guilty as sin and won't help my career when I lose so try the Cambers' next door".

 

[Music2022]

I think she will get not guilty or hung jury purely because of her defence barrister. Without a good defence she would probably be toast. He has a very good track record of securing not guilty verdicts I don't think he would have took the case if he didn't think he had a good chance as it would affect his career.

She really does have a super strong defence lawyer.
Looking at his page, he managed to get a dad acquitted of murder after he caused catastrophic deadly injuries to his 3 month baby.

Benjamin Myers QC secures Not Guilty to Murder | Exchange Chambers

And another successful defence of murder of a 7 week old by shaking.

Boyfriend found Not Guilty of role in death of baby | Exchange Chambers

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Ah , apologies, am genuinely not familiar with the correct terms. I assumed that the information presented in court such as referring to patient documents, quotes from parents, medical staff and LL would be referred to as evidence, is this simply just information at this point to support the initial opening argument?

1. The Crowns (prosecution) opening statement is just setting out the evidence that they will be bringing to try and prove their case.

2. After the prosecution have completed their opening statement (tomorrow) then the defence will outline the basis on which they intend to defend the case.

3, The prosecution will call their witnesses to give evidence. The defence can then cross-examine each witness. The prosecution can then ask their witness more questions, if they need to.

4. LL may then give evidence, although she is not compelled to. The defence will take her through what happened in her eyes. The prosecution can then cross-examine her. This can be risky, which is why she may not take the stand. If she does however, then finally her defence barrister can ask her some more questions to clear any ambiguity up.

5. The other defence witnesses are called to give evidence. Once again they can be cross-examined by the prosecution before the defence ask any final questions.

6. The prosecution then sum up the prosecution case to the jury.

7. The defence then sum up the defence case to the jury.

8. The judge then gives the jury guidance on relevant points of law.

9. The jury then retire to consider their verdict on each charge....I recall 22 at the present time. This could take many days or more!

10. At some point the jury will return to deliver their verdict on each charge. There are some possible variations, but we don't need to consider those at this stage.

11. LL is either sentenced (guilty verdict/s), acquitted (all not guilty verdicts) or the jury can't reach a verdict on some or all of the charges.....this creates the possible nightmare scenario of a re-trial (don't go there)

Hope it clears up any uncertainty as to the basic process in play.

 

[Dcflag]

I'm not convinced it gives any insight into her at at all. It's a passing comment made under extreme circumstances, presumably recounted to police years after the event. This isn't to imply that the mum is in any way not being honest, of course. Witness accounts are notoriously unreliable as evidence so I think statements like that which aren't back up by notes made at the time, or by other witnesses or corroborating evidence, must be considered very carefully.

While I agree I am making the assumption that it is a true account. I disagree it gives no insight if indeed it is a true account. It’s interesting it’s been included in the opening and I’ll look forward to see any extra information given as and when it’s covered during the course of the trial.

 

[mucbetam]

Somebody who knows the game is up but can still proceed to indulge in their utterly sadistic and psychopathic behaviours might continue to do so in the knowing there is nothing to lose. The payoff to them must be a kind of euphoria.

 

[Music2022]

It will be interesting to hear the defence regarding the insulin blood works. Will they say this happened naturally, which the prosecution experts say is impossible, or will they accept it is sabotage but will say someone else injected the insulin.

 

[jiffajaffa31]

1. The Crowns (prosecution) opening statement is just setting out the evidence that they will be bringing to try and prove their case.

2. After the prosecution have completed their opening statement (tomorrow) then the defence will outline the basis on which they intend to defend the case.

3, The prosecution will call their witnesses to give evidence. The defence can then cross-examine each witness. The prosecution can then ask their witness more questions, if they need to.

4. LL may then give evidence, although she is not compelled to. The defence will take her through what happened in her eyes. The prosecution can then cross-examine her. This can be risky, which is why she may not take the stand. If she does however, then finally her defence barrister can ask her some more questions to clear any ambiguity up.

5. The other defence witnesses are called to give evidence. Once again they can be cross-examined by the prosecution before the defence ask any final questions.

6. The prosecution then sum up the prosecution case to the jury.

7. The defence then sum up the defence case to the jury.

8. The judge then gives the jury guidance on relevant points of law.

9. The jury then retire to consider their verdict on each charge....I recall 22 at the present time. This could take many days or more!

10. At some point the jury will return to deliver their verdict on each charge. There are some possible variations, but we don't need to consider those at this stage.

11. LL is either sentenced (guilty verdict/s), acquitted (all not guilty verdicts) or the jury can't reach a verdict on some or all of the charges.....this creates the possible nightmare scenario of a re-trial (don't go there)

Hope it clears up any uncertainty as to the basic process in play.

Very helpful indeed , thank you.

 

[MsBetsy]

I think she will get not guilty or hung jury purely because of her defence barrister. Without a good defence she would probably be toast. He has a very good track record of securing not guilty verdicts I don't think he would have took the case if he didn't think he had a good chance as it would affect his career.

What is her defence? Are they going to present their own case and provide evidence? I'm not sure how that works in the UK. I'm sure they will have their own expert witnesses, but I haven't yet heard what they are claiming. I doubt they will try to put the blame on the Dr who raised the alarm about her. I can't think what they will present without accusing someone else. There was nobody else present when the babies died or during any of the attempted murders, apparently.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The prosecution proves guilt, and the defence does their best to disprove guilt or 'prove' innocence. Being conscious that this site is not an English court of law and my language is intended to be understood by all who read here.

Language is important. Wrong terminology can cause confusion and misunderstanding.

1. The prosecution try to prove guilt
2. The defence seek to rebut the prosecution evidence and thereby create reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury

To say that the defence try to 'prove innocence' is fundamentally wrong. There is already a presumption of innocence so a defendant cannot be 'proved innocent'......only guilty.

I rest my case, Your Honour

 

[Gardenista]

What is her defence? Are they going to present their own case and provide evidence? I'm not sure how that works in the UK. I'm sure they will have their own expert witnesses, but I haven't yet heard what they are claiming. I doubt they will try to put the blame on the Dr who raised the alarm about her. I can't think what they will present without accusing someone else. There was nobody else present when the babies died or during any of the attempted murders, apparently.

Who knows? Maybe their expert is wrong about cause of death and a defense expert will refute the findings. Maybe the hospital's blood testing equipment is faulty. Maybe LL wasn't trained properly. Maybe the families are lying about interactions. I'm really looking forward to hearing from the defense. AFAIK, we've heard nothing about their theory of the case.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

She really does have a super strong defence lawyer.
Looking at his page, he managed to get a dad acquitted of murder after he caused catastrophic deadly injuries to his 3 month baby.

Benjamin Myers QC secures Not Guilty to Murder | Exchange Chambers

And another successful defence of murder of a 7 week old by shaking.

Boyfriend found Not Guilty of role in death of baby | Exchange Chambers

A barrister can’t get someone off. What they can do is ensure that a conviction is based on solid evidence in line with all points of the law - if it weren’t for barristers rigorously testing and pulling apart prosecution cases there’d be wrongful convictions. As hard as it must be to defend heinous criminals, anyone following a criminal law career is doing so because they believe in justice.

 

[Rhomal]

It feels like what is missing so far (albeit recognising this is just introductory) is a character profile with info from people who knew or worked with LL. The staff who shared breaktimes with her, people who knew of her locally, family friends. A psychological profile might be very useful.

 

[MsBetsy]

It will be interesting to hear the defence regarding the insulin blood works. Will they say this happened naturally, which the prosecution experts say is impossible, or will they accept it is sabotage but will say someone else injected the insulin.

If they say it happened naturally, it will contradict her statement to investigators that it could not have happened accidentally.

Also, wasn't there insulin found in the bag she used? She asked investigators if they checked it. That would be something she would want to know. Imo

 

[Dotta]

It feels like what is missing so far (albeit recognising this is just introductory) is a character profile with info from people who knew or worked with LL. The staff who shared breaktimes with her, people who knew of her locally, family friends. A psychological profile might be very useful.

And I really would be interested in psychiatrists' assessment of this person.

 

[Noseyposy76]

Hi all, a newbie here! I have found all your insights incredibly informative, but what is most refreshing about this thread, especially given the nature of the case, how many of you are remaining impartial until being presented with all the arguments. That seems to be a rarity these days.

The only opinion I really want to offer is and apologies if I am repeating anyone else’s perspective or it is no longer being discussed, but I do not believe looking up people you don’t know on SM is out of the ordinary at all. There seems to have been an awful lot of focus on that so far. We are all curious ourselves, otherwise we wouldn’t be on this forum. LL will be of the generation that Facebook was originally intended for, so will most probably come as second nature and inconsequential to her to look up anyone she meets. Her repeatedly looking could be to check up on the families to see how they were coping and yes, especially on Christmas Day, that is a time I would think of those the most who had lost a loved one. If she is innocent of these charges, she may still feel responsible due to the babies being in her care and by seeing happy social media posts by these families, might offer some comfort and alleviate any guilt. I think we need to wait for the context with the “I don’t remember“ responses. It may well be that she just didn’t remember when specifically she looked them up or quite rightly so, extremely embarrassed as whilst not illegal, in her position at the time, completely unethical.

I find it very interesting that a few of you have wondered if maybe she was a surviving twin, as this occurred to me earlier on in the week too.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Her smile when a baby has died is strange behaviour that's all

Not necessarily strange. The smile is basic human communication and can have many meanings.

A few extracts.

People also use smiles to reassure others, to be polite, and to communicate trustworthiness, belonging, and good intentions. Smiles like these have been characterized as “affiliation” smiles because they function as social connectors.

A gentle smile is often perceived as a sign of compassion

The sheer dexterity of human emotion is astonishing. So, we’re able to smile in the midst of both emotional and physical pain.

Experts at the National Institutes of Health think that the ability to smile and laugh during the grieving process protects you while you recover. Interestingly, scientists think we might smile during physical pain for protective purposes, too.

10 Main Types of Smiles and What They Really Mean

Researchers have identified 10 main types of smiles. Here’s an explanation of these smiles, what they mean, and how they may affect the people you encounter.

www.healthline.com