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

[JosieJo]

Mr Myers puts it to the medic whether vigorous CPR could have caused the injuries found in Child O's liver - he says no. Mr Myers asks whether it can be categorically excluded as a possibility

The medic goes a bit leftfield with his response. He says to the court that if a man is found dead in the Sahara desert with a pot next to him, it could be possible that a helicopter flew over and dropped it on his head - but it's not probable

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[JosieJo]

Mr Myers puts it to the medic whether vigorous CPR could have caused the injuries found in Child O's liver - he says no. Mr Myers asks whether it can be categorically excluded as a possibility

The medic goes a bit leftfield with his response. He says to the court that if a man is found dead in the Sahara desert with a pot next to him, it could be possible that a helicopter flew over and dropped it on his head - but it's not probable

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Love that response

 

[Dotta]

He says to the court that if a man is found dead in the Sahara desert with a pot next to him, it could be possible that a helicopter flew over and dropped it on his head - but it's not probable

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I guess the Jury is delighted with this expert

 

[ColourPurple]

Mr Myers puts it to the medic whether vigorous CPR could have caused the injuries found in Child O's liver - he says no. Mr Myers asks whether it can be categorically excluded as a possibility

The medic goes a bit leftfield with his response. He says to the court that if a man is found dead in the Sahara desert with a pot next to him, it could be possible that a helicopter flew over and dropped it on his head - but it's not probable

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I bet Myer's resposnse was still "So you agree that it's possible then "

 

[marynnu]

I bet Myer's resposnse was still "So you agree that it's possible then "

Equally brilliant.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I love this expert !

 

[Anxala]

I bet Myer's resposnse was still "So you agree that it's possible then "

I really hope he did say that because it would be perfect knowing response to such an obvious scene-stealing tactic!

Equally brilliant.

Have to say (and I know this trial is no laughing matter etc etc and I'm not trying to make light of anything) but there's always room for pleasure when we get treated to such good quality adversarial dialogue and wordsmithery. They know they're on stage.

Dr Marnerides' analogy is so funny and I'm sure BM (and the court at large) was as amused and delighted by it as we are.

 

[Dotta]

Update

'Forceful CPR' can't explain baby's liver damage, Letby trial hears

The infant, referred to as Child O, is said to be one of 17 babies that the nurse targeted between June 2015 and June 2016 at the Countess of Chester neo-natal unit.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[marynnu]

I really hope he did say that because it would be perfect knowing response to such an obvious scene-stealing tactic!



Have to say (and I know this trial is no laughing matter etc etc and I'm not trying to make light of anything) but there's always room for pleasure when we get treated to such good quality adversarial dialogue and wordsmithery. They know they're on stage.

Dr Marnerides' analogy is so funny and I'm sure BM (and the court at large) was as amused and delighted by it as we are.

I

I'm sure the jury needed this, as did we all.

 

[Sundial]

Update

'Forceful CPR' can't explain baby's liver damage, Letby trial hears

The infant, referred to as Child O, is said to be one of 17 babies that the nurse targeted between June 2015 and June 2016 at the Countess of Chester neo-natal unit.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The doctors response to the defence given in this update was very telling imo. He definitely stood his ground and sounds very certain of his findings. Taken in consideration with the other medical reports, I feel this is not looking good for the defence.
All my own opinion.

 

[Tortoise]

The trial continues on Friday, March 31. The Standard will be providing live updates throughout the day.

Letby trial: ‘Forceful CPR’ could not be cause of baby’s liver damage

“FORCEFUL CPR” could not explain liver damage suffered by a baby allegedly murdered by nurse Lucy Letby, a court has heard.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Marantz4250b]

DBM: Duplicate.

 

[Marantz4250b]

It could just be that we’re looking for a conventional relationship, when lots of people these days don’t have that, especially I’d imagine in such a demanding career.

Agreed. I think that people have become conditioned to what constitutes a "normal" relationship when those relationships which may not be "normal" are actually far from uncommon.

 

[Marantz4250b]

It could just be that we’re looking for a conventional relationship, when lots of people these days don’t have that, especially I’d imagine in such a demanding career.

Agreed. I think that people have become conditioned to what constitutes a "normal" relationship when those relationships which may not be "normal" are actually far from uncommon.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I don't think my post was understood.

I meant she was not considered "lethal" as her quirks might have been seen as just weird.

Because I am certain that IF GUILTY there were red flags in abundance.

JMO

The problem with this is that IF she is guilty then any "Red Flags" are obvious in hindsight, even if they are actually nothing of the sort because, ultimately, who's going to challenge them?

 

[Marantz4250b]

C'mon Dan, it's not the time to leave us on a cliff edge.

Is it just me or is it actually the case that we get this hanging feeling from the reporting when it's the defence who is doing the questioning?

 

[Dotta]

The problem with this is that IF she is guilty then any "Red Flags" are obvious in hindsight, even if they are actually nothing of the sort because, ultimately, who's going to challenge them?

Do you really think that the defendant allegedly started to kill out of the blue???
That her mental state was never noticed as strange?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Do you really think that the defendant allegedly started to kill out of the blue???
That her mental state was never noticed as strange?

No. I'm suggesting that it's very easy to identify red flags after someone has been convicted. Putting it crudely; you can say essentially anything you want after someone has been convicted of a series of horrendous murders because who is going to challenge you? Certainly not the convicted person.

There are an endless number of murder documentaries on TV these days about serial murderers with the usual talking-heads giving their opinion on what drove the criminals in question to do what they did. It's all, IMO, largely pseudo-science, though. There is no scientifically rigorous way in which to test it so it's mostly just speculation and opinion - helped in no insignificant part by the fact that a good living can be made from it.

IF LL is convicted, I'm sure we will have thousands of hours of TV documentaries and Internet videos to rake through filled with people picking over the minutiae of her life since birth claiming to be able to identify particular points or acts as "red flags" leading up to the crimes she was convicted of. Very easy to do after the fact.

Edit: to answer your last question, from the evidence so far presented (which is what this thread is about), no, I don't. There is nothing to suggest that she was anything other than pretty normal, even boringly normal, as far as I can see. One consultant even said "...not nice Lucy..." when she was suggested as potentially being involved.

 

[Dotta]

No. I'm suggesting that it's very easy to identify red flags after someone has been convicted. Putting it crudely; you can say essentially anything you want after someone has been convicted of a series of horrendous murders because who is going to challenge you? Certainly not the convicted person.

There are an endless number of murder documentaries on TV these days about serial murderers with the usual talking-heads giving their opinion on what drove the criminals in question to do what they did. It's all, IMO, largely pseudo-science, though. There is no scientifically rigorous way in which to test it so it's mostly just speculation and opinion - helped in no insignificant part by the fact that a good living can be made from it.

IF LL is convicted, I'm sure we will have thousands of hours of TV documentaries and Internet videos to rake through filled with people picking over the minutiae of her life since birth claiming to be able to identify particular points or acts as "red flags" leading up to the crimes she was convicted of. Very easy to do after the fact.

Edit: to answer your last question, from the evidence so far presented (which is what this thread is about), no, I don't. There is nothing to suggest that she was anything other than pretty normal, even boringly normal, as far as I can see. One consultant even said "...not nice Lucy..." when she was suggested as potentially being involved.

As far as I am concerned, I don't see anything "pretty normal" - quite the contrary.
And I will leave it at this.
We have to agree to disagree.

 

[squish]

With regards to the liver injuries, baby P’s was in the same place as baby O’s, but baby P’s wasn’t as bad and may feasibly have been caused during CPR attempts.

If guilty, Letby has form for appearing to do normal medical procedures while surreptitiously doing something bad, eg putting air into feeding tubes instead of milk, injecting air during normal intravenous procedures etc.

<modsnip>