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

[Ruby12345]

.

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

No, they don't know if there was insulin in the bag. The police didn't have it, it would be long gone by then.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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.

Welcome @Noseyposy76,

Great first post

 

[Music2022]

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.

Some barristers are better than others though. Is he better at presenting alternative theories? better at finding technicalities? who knows..

 

[merrypason]

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

The literal dictionary meaning of 'innocent' is not guilty of a crime or offence. That's the meaning most people are familiar with.

So proving someone is innocent = proving someone is not guilty of a crime or offence.

So Prosecutor = proves guilt: Defence = proves innocent [as a basic concept]

Unless someone is interested in HOW guilt and innocence need to be proven technically (by rebutting evidence, reasonable doubts etc), there's no confusion for most people when explaining WHAT a prosecutor and the defence need to do in court, as a basic concept.

Also, language and terminology isn't important. Concepts are. You would use different language and indeed terminology explaining concepts based on your audience e.g non English speakers, children, non specialists, people with learning difficulties etc.

Obviously good to share all the legalese and correct terminology as well so those who want can learn it. But if the concept is correct, the terminology shouldn't matter. It's why so many people run scared of complex subjects because they think they need to use all the right technical terms or they're wrong. They don't, if their understanding is correct.

 

[Dcflag]

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

Totally agree with this. If I consider what I would think is appropriate in such a situation (obviously I’m not any kind of expert!) it would be to assist where necessary (so for example it can be nerve wracking picking up your deceased child initially, you’re also very used to muscle tone of a living baby, so when baby has none, head flops back. Mouth drops open etc etc, a nurse would be instrumental in helping a bereaved parent navigate all of this demonstrating how to hold or even just placing baby in their arms to start that initial contact) and to become invisible during private moments. Their role isn’t to be intrusive or to converse with the parents or become a “part” of the experience. It’s to support and enable the experience. Smiling could be perceived as you say as compassion, or trying to give reassurance. Theres a fine line between the grief, and trying to maintain a positive experience in spending time with your baby before saying goodbye.

I’m going to guess we’ll be hearing from this particular parent whether a statement or as a witness at some point. It seems the interaction is considered important. The mother clearly didn’t feel comfortable with it.

 

[Marantz4250b]

The literal dictionary meaning of 'innocent' is not guilty of a crime or offence. That's the meaning most people are familiar with.

So proving someone is innocent = proving someone is not guilty of a crime or offence.

So Prosecutor = proves guilt: Defence = proves innocent [as a basic concept]

Unless someone is interested in HOW guilt and innocence need to be proven technically (by rebutting evidence, reasonable doubts etc), there's no confusion for most people when explaining WHAT a prosecutor and the defence need to do in court, as a basic concept.

Also, language and terminology isn't important. Concepts are. You would use different language and indeed terminology explaining concepts based on your audience e.g non English speakers, children, non specialists, people with learning difficulties etc.

Obviously good to share all the legalese and correct terminology as well so those who want can learn it. But if the concept is correct, the terminology shouldn't matter. It's why so many people run scared of complex subjects because they think they need to use all the right technical terms or they're wrong. They don't, if their understanding is correct

You're missing the point though. The defence doesn't have to prove anything. They have to undermine the prosecution's case to the point that it cannot be proved.

A person who is formally accused of a crime is just that - accused. You cannot prove them innocent because they ARE innocent as a legal principle.

Language and terminology is extremely important, especially in legal cases. If the parties are operating with different definitions as to the words and phrases they are acting in respect of then how can a court determine a proper outcome?

The "concept" at it's very basic level isn't correct the way you are putting it. A defence lawyer does not prove innocence.

 

[yellowxo]

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.

Her defence is they are trying to say she killed babies because she was there with them. Based on statistics they suspected her, many babies didn't have PMs. We don't have yet have a picture of how many babies died that year in total at CoC, not all were LL? Babies do die in NICU of natural causes what other staff were present then. how much overtime did she do? That the medical experts jumped to the conclusion of murder and were being biased could it have been infection? They will probably have their own independent witness. I believe Gill summed this up on an earlier post about unreliable statistics being used in medical murder cases.


I'm not saying she's not guilty just the defence will poke holes in the case. I have no idea if she did or didn't do it.

 

[29 Acacia Road]

The literal dictionary meaning of 'innocent' is not guilty of a crime or offence. That's the meaning most people are familiar with.

So proving someone is innocent = proving someone is not guilty of a crime or offence.

So Prosecutor = proves guilt: Defence = proves innocent [as a basic concept]

Unless someone is interested in HOW guilt and innocence need to be proven technically (by rebutting evidence, reasonable doubts etc), there's no confusion for most people when explaining WHAT a prosecutor and the defence need to do in court, as a basic concept.

Also, language and terminology isn't important. Concepts are. You would use different language and indeed terminology explaining concepts based on your audience e.g non English speakers, children, non specialists, people with learning difficulties etc.

Obviously good to share all the legalese and correct terminology as well so those who want can learn it. But if the concept is correct, the terminology shouldn't matter. It's why so many people run scared of complex subjects because they think they need to use all the right technical terms or they're wrong. They don't, if their understanding is correct.

That isn't the basic concept of the defence though, they are not required to 'prove' anything, not innocence and not even reasonable doubt. Their aim is to have enough members of the jury be persuaded there is enough reasonable doubt, those members may not even believe all of the reasonable doubt is 100% accurate, but enough of it is so that they cannot say the person is guilty.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

Read the opening post about sub judice, which states in part:

Scandalizing the court (disparaging judges, lawyers, any officer of the Court) is off limits

Websleuths doesn't make this stuff up ... it's law.

 

[Dcflag]

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.

I imagine her defence will largely consist of showing there is doubt that the babies were murdered by having their own expert testimonies on other causes of death.

They don’t even have to accuse someone else. For example, the alleged insulin spiked bag no longer exists. You cannot prove if it in fact had insulin in it, and if it did, how it came to be there. All they have to do is show the jury it’s not unreasonable to consider the bag may have been manufactured in error, mislabelled/human error etc etc.

If they can give other potential causes of death for the air embolus babies, and place doubt in terms of the bags used for the insulin babies, it could be an effective defence.

I think this is why this case will be extraordinarily hard to navigate. I’ve noticed already people struggling to understand the “non pattern” in her alleged killings. But it’s also pretty well accepted that the charges relate only to the strongest cases they have.

 

[Officer Dibble]

2:54pm

The designated nurse said Child N was stable and left for a break at about 1am. He would have asked a colleague to look after Child N, but he could not recall whch one.
Letby had two babies to care for, in room 4.
At 1.05am, Child N's oxygen saturation levels fell from 99% to 40%.
"Unusually", fr a baby, he was described as crying and "screaming".
Child N recovered quickly, while the doctor was then called to another emergency.
Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans said he believed the deterioration of Child N "was consistent with some kind of inflicted injury which caused severe pain".
Dr Sandie Bohin said such a profound desaturation followed by a rapid recovery, in the absence of any painful or uncomfortable procedure, suggested an inflicted painful stimulus.
She said – “this is life threatening. He was also noted to be … ‘screaming’ and apparently cried for 30 minutes. This is most unusual. I have never observed a premature neonate to scream.”

Recap: Prosecution continues opening of Lucy Letby trial

The prosecution continues its opening in the trial of Lucy Letby, accused of multiple baby murders at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

omg that poor baby. JMO MOO

 

[annpats]

Who knows? Maybe their expert is wrong about cause of death and a defense expert will refute the findings.

But would the medical experts be wrong in all 7 cases of murder and all 10 of attempted murder..??

 

[MsBetsy]

.


No, they don't know if there was insulin in the bag. The police didn't have it, it would be long gone by then.

Sorry, I think it was in the baby L's blood that high levels of insulin were found.

Letby's excuse for this was "there must have been insulin in one of the bags."

Unless hospitals reuse IV bags, I don't believe her. Imo

 

[merrypason]

You're missing the point though. The defence doesn't have to prove anything. They have to undermine the prosecution's case to the point that it cannot be proved.

A person who is formally accused of a crime is just that - accused. You cannot prove them innocent because they ARE innocent as a legal principle.

Language and terminology is extremely important, especially in legal cases. If the parties are operating with different definitions as to the words and phrases they are acting in respect of then how can a court determine a proper outcome?

The "concept" at it's very basic level isn't correct the way you are putting it. A defence lawyer does not prove innocence.

This was my original post.

"Even for arguments sake, if there were other unexplained and similar incidents - does it really prove LL was innocent, or could it be that that someone else has also committed a similar crime? That's the point, the defence needs to show that LL's actions were NOT murder, not that others made similar mistakes."

'Does it really prove LL was innocent' is the incorrect terminology that was picked up on.

Let's rephrase that to - Does it really refute evidence that LL didn't commit the crimes?

Think my overall concept - other unexplained incidents being irrelevant, still holds.

That was my point around the concept mattering, not terminology.

 

[Gardenista]

But would the medical experts be wrong in all 7 cases of murder and all 10 of attempted murder..??

Yes, they could.

 

[Gardenista]

Sorry, I think it was in the baby L's blood that high levels of insulin were found.

Letby's excuse for this was "there must have been insulin in one of the bags."

Unless hospitals reuse IV bags, I don't believe her. Imo

I'm not saying this happened, but who knows:

Texas doctor arrested on federal charges in colleague’s tainted IV death

The anesthesiologist, Dr. Raynaldo Rivera Ortiz Jr., is accused of tampering with bags, "resulting in at least one death and multiple cardiac emergencies," authorities said.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Tanzanite]

The Facebook thing - visiting pages of the family. If LL is guilty of harming those poor babies, and part of her motivation is the profound emotional distress that the family will suffer, then the FB visiting is akin to returning to the scene of the crime.

That said, I'm not a FB user, but I find FB profiles absolutely compelling in the context of world events. By that, I mean seeing current events (Afghanistan, Ukraine, etc.) thought the lived experience of people there. It's a real window on the world sometimes, that's real, but not reported news. I sometimes return to profiles to see what's happening in their lives, but its in the context of me being interested in people living in places I've never visited and keep reading about. I know that's different to LL, but offering it up anyway. I think mainly to point at lots of people having weird FB behaviour (as in, this is mine), that might look odd in the wrong circumstances.

Secondly, although the prosecution's case was seemingly damning, my feeling is growing that this case will turn sharp corners on the evidence of medical experts - and the defence will have plausible alternative explanations for what LL did/what happened. There seems to be a LOT of circumstantial, but fairly granular medical evidence is going to be central to establishing guilt.

Also, basics like training, supervision, reporting of concerns, moving LL to admin duties (this is v weird to me) instead of more meaningful action... I'm starting to understand that generous trial window.

 

[ZaZara]

This was my original post.

"Even for arguments sake, if there were other unexplained and similar incidents - does it really prove LL was innocent, or could it be that that someone else has also committed a similar crime? That's the point, the defence needs to show that LL's actions were NOT murder, not that others made similar mistakes."

'Does it really prove LL was innocent' is the incorrect terminology that was picked up on.

Let's rephrase that to - Does it really refute evidence that LL didn't commit the crimes?

Think my overall concept - other unexplained incidents being irrelevant, still holds.

That was my point around the concept mattering, not terminology.

LL is presumed innocent, until proven guilty.
Evidence should support the accusations. It is up to the prosecution to present this evidence.
If there are other unexplained and similar incidents - before LL worked there, while she was working there and after she worked there - the defense may (must) raise the question why these incidents were not taken into account or why they were rejected. In that case, if the prosecution does not present convincing answers, the threshold of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' cannot be reached.

 

[Kasmeer]

Already having a feeling I'll spend most of the next six months moving from one side of the fence to the other, there's going to be a whole lot of things to go through here. Before it opened I leaned towards her innocence, and still do in a way, as I really don't want to believe that someone so "normal" appearing, could be as evil as portrayed. The opening so far, certainly makes the case strongly, and indeed, if taken at face value, horrifyingly... but as others have said, it's the prosecution's job to make a defendant look as bad as possible.

I had so many questions enter my mind reading through this thread so far... How many of the collapses could also be explained by natural causes? Could anyone else have been responsible for those which definitely couldn't have been natural (just two insulin cases? More?)? Even if there is no-one/nothing other than LL who could be the cause, could it have been carelessness/negligence instead of malice (thinking of the air in tube cases here)? Were there any similar suspicious incidents when she was not on duty? Was it common for more experienced nurses to check on patients not assigned to them? Was there any possibility of external contamination of fluids etc? Is there a contemporary paper trail of the suspicion doctors etc had of her or is this suspicion shown with hindsight only? Did she keep paperwork relating to patients who had no suspicious incidents, or only those included in the case?

Hopefully the evidence will clarify many of these, as full context makes so much difference.

And as someone on the autistic spectrum, both the looking at facebook pages and the smiling/talking about first bath things sound entirely normal and things I could/would do myself as a slightly nosy person who's very good at putting my foot in my mouth!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The Facebook thing - visiting pages of the family. If LL is guilty of harming those poor babies, and part of her motivation is the profound emotional distress that the family will suffer, then the FB visiting is akin to returning to the scene of the crime.

That said, I'm not a FB user, but I find FB profiles absolutely compelling in the context of world events. By that, I mean seeing current events (Afghanistan, Ukraine, etc.) thought the lived experience of people there. It's a real window on the world sometimes, that's real, but not reported news. I sometimes return to profiles to see what's happening in their lives, but its in the context of me being interested in people living in places I've never visited and keep reading about. I know that's different to LL, but offering it up anyway. I think mainly to point at lots of people having weird FB behaviour (as in, this is mine), that might look odd in the wrong circumstances.

Secondly, although the prosecution's case was seemingly damning, my feeling is growing that this case will turn sharp corners on the evidence of medical experts - and the defence will have plausible alternative explanations for what LL did/what happened. There seems to be a LOT of circumstantial, but fairly granular medical evidence is going to be central to establishing guilt.

Also, basics like training, supervision, reporting of concerns, moving LL to admin duties (this is v weird to me) instead of more meaningful action... I'm starting to understand that generous trial window.

It's always a privilege to read such an objective, considered and honest post, such as yours @Tanzanite