"What we are left with is coincidence.
"In the events that happened. Sometimes what happened was the result of deterioration in a baby.
"Sometimes, no-one can say what caused a deterioration.
"Sometimes, things have gone wrong, or the necessary standards of care have not been met, irrespective of anything to do with Lucy Letby. For that, she should not get the blame."
Exactly as I said previously, defence going down the route of ‘coincidence’.
I’ll repeat…I’m finding it very difficult to buy into the ‘coincidence’ theory/reasoning (that I’m sure the defence will use). in cases of isolated incidents, absolutely. However, for 7 deaths and 15 near-deaths to occur in little over a years period under the care/eye of
one staff member (who in a large number of the instances wasn’t even their designated nurse) is damning (IMO). Especially when in some instances these were infants who had been otherwise ‘well’ then suddenly deteriorated with no known cause. Additionally, many of these infants ‘collapsed’ in similar manners and presented with similar symptoms (mottling/vomiting/air in abdomen etc). Also, in the attempted murder charges - these infants made remarkable recoveries when removed from LL’s care.
That to me is no coincidence. (Again, MOO).
Edited to add: quote above from The Leader Live (live trial coverage)
LIVE: Prosecution to finish outlining its case in Lucy Letby trial