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

[marynnu]

Fortunately the jury doesn't need to worry about how to approach this, because the judge will give them a very clear map, which looks something like a flowchart, answering yes or no to questions they must ask and answer, to get to a verdict

Now, that's very interesting. It certainly helps make some kind of sense of how on earth the jury will be able to deal with all this. Thanks!

 

[Marie Bell]

Alleged Clinical Negligence

The ‘competent doctor’ standard in UK law is that which is comparable with other doctors practising their particular art.

Thus, if any commission or omission can be argued to have caused harm to a patient, what the solicitor or barrister does is to get expert witnesses to testify that they, as doctors, would have/would not have done the same thing.

This is known as the Bolam test.

Other case law has modified this in some respects, eg Bolitho and Montgomery.

Link: “A responsible body of medical men”

This isn't a civil trial or tribunal about clinical negligence or anything else. The phrase 'competent doctor' was used by a witness to deal with a certain line of questioning. So the defence can use it in its own 'are you the jury quite sure' way.

 

[marynnu]

Many apologies if this has been discussed previously, but does anyone know if anything is known about the other post-it notes?

 

[Imogenia]

I've been thinking a lot lately that if someone swears that they are innocent, and if there is no absolute proof of their guilt, maybe nobody but that person will ever know the real truth. Because we have no way of seeing into another person's mind. If only they could create some kind of lie detector that really works.

I wish that this kind of lie detector, or other reliable ways of establishing the truth, could be manufactured too.

Years ago, those accused of serious crimes, but who maintained their innocence, were offered the ‘truth drug’, to see what they said then. I think it was sodium amytal or sodium pentothal.

I think that Dr Jeffrey MacDonald was offered this when undergoing the trial for murder of his pregnant wife and two little girls.

 

[Dotta]

I wish that this kind of lie detector, or other reliable ways of establishing the truth, could be manufactured too.

Years ago, those accused of serious crimes, but who maintained their innocence, were offered the ‘truth drug’, to see what they said then. I think it was sodium amytal or sodium pentothal.

I think that Dr Jeffrey MacDonald was offered this when undergoing the trial for murder of his pregnant wife and two little girls.

Re lie detector

In former times, those accused of witchcraft were thrown into the river.
If they floated it meant they had pact with the devil.
If they drowned - they were considered innocent

 

[katydid23]

I disagree. I think you have misunderstood my point , so apologies if I wasn’t clear in my explanation.

The medical evidence is relevant to whether an AM took place because before you get anywhere near considering who committed the act and what their intentions were, you have to decide whether this baby collapsed because of something done to it by a third party (ignoring whether it was intentional or accidental, or intended to cause death), or was the collapse because of extreme prematurity or antibiotics being given later than they should have been or one of the other things the defence has said?

That is surely the first question in any of these cases and the nub of the difference of opinion between the defence and prosecution for every case (except the insulin cases, where the defence seems to accept something was done and the only dispute is whether or not it is LL).

IMO, you have to consider each case separately on the first question of whether someone has done something to each baby. Once you’ve got your group of charges where you think something has been proven to have been done, then I agree, you can consider patterns which occur across the cases.

If I was a juror, I'd have to decide if I was going to trust the work done by the medical experts, who did the exact investigation that you are describing.

What they did, through assessing the medical tests, observation notes, post mortems and staff testimonials, was to compile a report upon each collapse and death. The experts decided through this investigativeprocess that these particular charged incidents were caused intentionally and maliciously.

The jurors will have to decide if they trust this investigative process or if they agree with the defense and think the process was flawed and came to incorrect conclusions.

As to the question about having to decide this by looking at each case individually-----I think I'd tend to look at the whole pattern, not just a case by case. So for child O, for example. Besides just looking for any potential underlying medical causes, I'd also take into account any suspicious circumstances.

I would look at the fact that the very day that nurse L returned to the NICU, after 10 days, this baby had a sudden unexplained collapse. And I would take into account that the doctors had as a group decided she may have been responsible for some of these incidents.

So I would ask the question, is each baby a victim or could it be natural causes. But I would also take into account the entire set of circumstances and the pattern that was seen. JMO

 

[Parker Knoll]

Many apologies if this has been discussed previously, but does anyone know if anything is known about the other post-it notes?

No not as yet, all these details will come after we have heard the prosecutions case about baby Q.

 

[esther43]

I think you have to go through each case first and decide whether the medical evidence has proved a murder or attempted murder (no considerations of LL or any of the evidence against her at this stage).

Then once you have decided which , if any , cases you are satisfied are murders or AMs, you discard the other ones and then go through the evidence to consider whether LL is guilty.

Otherwise, I think the danger will be that issues will be improperly conflated.

Many apologies if this has been discussed previously, but does anyone know if anything is known about the other post-it notes?

The only details i'm aware of are in the prosecutions opening speech. They do reference colleagues names being mentioned on the notes. Not sure if this is other notes, yet to be presented by the defence or the widely speculated cousins/cats/brothers/hamsters Tom and Matt that we all know and love.
The feeling I got from the opening speech was that there was going to be more to come from the defence on this, otherwise not sure why prosecution would reference 'other notes' in the opening speech. JMO

 

[esther43]

It's been bothering me lately how Myers' got his hands on that email written by Evans addressed to the national crime agency. What possible motivation could an administrator from the national crime agency have for disclosing an email to the opposition's lawyer?
I can only speculate that the email was either sent in error to the defence or it was sent to somebody deliberately who did not want this case to work out in favour of the crown. Hmmm...

 

[Tortoise]

It's been bothering me lately how Myers' got his hands on that email written by Evans addressed to the national crime agency. What possible motivation could an administrator from the national crime agency have for disclosing an email to the opposition's lawyer?
I can only speculate that the email was either sent in error to the defence or it was sent to somebody deliberately who did not want this case to work out in favour of the crown. Hmmm...

Dr Evans would have disclosed it himself. There would be a paper trail from beginning to end, showing his involvement in the case, his instructions, nothing is hidden.

 

[Tortoise]

The only details i'm aware of are in the prosecutions opening speech. They do reference colleagues names being mentioned on the notes. Not sure if this is other notes, yet to be presented by the defence or the widely speculated cousins/cats/brothers/hamsters Tom and Matt that we all know and love.
The feeling I got from the opening speech was that there was going to be more to come from the defence on this, otherwise not sure why prosecution would reference 'other notes' in the opening speech. JMO

All the notes found by the police will be presented by the prosecution.

 

[esther43]

Dr Evans would have disclosed it himself. There would be a paper trail from beginning to end, showing his involvement in the case, his instructions, nothing is hidden.

Really? Is he legally obligated to disclose all correspondence in relation to the case ahead of the trial then? Including early conversations with the NCA?

 

[Parker Knoll]

Yes - everything.

 

[esther43]

Yes - everything.

Oh dear. This highlights the resourcefulness of Myers in what is surely a difficult case to disprove.
My personal opinion is that certain people across various groups in this case have attempted to sabotage the reputation of Evans, perhaps because they know the defendant personally or just for fun.
It's been blown out of proportion to such a great extent, utterly disproportionate for the length and success of his career.
I'd be unsuprised if the storm cooked up on social media had a far reaching impact causing particular legal discussions to take place.

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

That is the angle they are going for and I am super curious to see how they will approach this. but I am unconvinced that they will be able to find experts of similar or higher medical standing that will hold up under cross examination, given the full medical context of these babies.
I think the biggest thing the defence have going for them would be if they could prove it was questionable that is was LL who did these things.
Myers' is going to have to rip apart the investigative process to demonstrate that whilst these incidents were likely foul play, it could have been anyone.
He is trying to create medical doubt where he can but he's not a doctor and probably never even taken a step inside the NICU. My guess is many of his initial angles have dried up already and he will not be able to encompass many of the points he proposed at the beginning into his closing speech but let's see!

RBBM
I truly don't believe I have seen a defence quote that was not Myers. Is he on his own?
He really is going to have to rip apart the investigation. I could be completely wrong, but I cannot see how he could do this.
He isn't a doctor, but neither is the prosecution, AFAIK. (Please let me know if I am incorrect).
With this said, I am extremely curious about his witnesses.
Myer seems like he is asking irrelevant or confusing, for lack of better words, questions, but I have consistently wondered if it is part of a bigger scheme.
What is he playing at?
JMO

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

A general question about the legal process: Does the defence counsel have to believe that the defendant is not guilty in order to defend them? If not, how do they square it with their conscience if they succeed in allowing a guilty person to walk free?

I can only speculate but I guess it has much to do with money.

 

[esther43]

RBBM
I truly don't believe I have seen a defence quote that was not Myers. Is he on his own?
He really is going to have to rip apart the investigation. I could be completely wrong, but I cannot see how he could do this.
He isn't a doctor, but neither is the prosecution, AFAIK. (Please let me know if I am incorrect).
With this said, I am extremely curious about his witnesses.
Myer seems like he is asking irrelevant or confusing, for lack of better words, questions, but I have consistently wondered if it is part of a bigger scheme.
What is he playing at?
JMO

I think one of Myers's strengths as a lawyer is he brings the drama. He has a very commanding air about him, I guess we will have to wait until it's his turn to present to see if he can 'bring the receipts'
In respect of his questioning technique of the prosecution witnesses. I feel he's given it good bash but many of lines of questioning have met a dead end. Leaving him with scraps to work with the build a more convincing narrative.

 

[Dotta]

I think one of Myers's strengths as a lawyer is he brings the drama. He has a very commanding air about him, I guess we will have to wait until it's his turn to present to see if he can 'bring the receipts'
In respect of his questioning technique of the prosecution witnesses. I feel he's given it good bash but many of lines of questioning have met a dead end. Leaving him with scraps to work with the build a more convincing narrative.

Bringing more "drama" to this case seems to me scoring an "own goal".
As "mud slinging" the expert.

But hey, a man has to do what a man has to do

Job needs to be done, even when dealing with bad cards.

Too bad.

JMO

 

[esther43]

Bringing more "drama" to this case seems to me scoring an "own goal".
As "mud slinging" the expert.

But hey, a man has to do what a man has to do

Job needs to be done, even when dealing with bad cards.

Too bad.

JMO

Both he Andrews have silks so both are meant to be of exceptional ability.
Andrews has a large portfolio for dealing with white collar offences whilst Myers is more experienced in murder and rape cases. They both specialise in corporate fraud. Probably not the first time they've been up against each other.

 

[Dotta]

Both he Andrews have silks so both are meant to be of exceptional ability.
Andrews has a large portfolio for dealing with white collar offences whilst Myers is more experienced in murder and rape cases. They both specialise in corporate fraud. Probably not the first time they've been up against each other.

Silks?
Nice term, I love silk
But my favourite is KC Nick Johnson - he seems to be on a mission here haha
What a pity a Court artist doesn't draw HIM