UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #18

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #741
I guess Prosecution is keeping it for the final Closing Speech.
It will be damning IMO.

Although I still remember Judge's remark about KC Nick J's timbre of voice inducing sleep o_O

JMO
Ikr. On the other hand I expect Myers will be on the Tennis court this weekend getting hyped and ready to influence the jury using the following 'bench marks' to prove his case.

"The defence say there are five 'important' considerations for the evidence:

1. The birth condition of the infant.

2. If there were any problems in the care leading up to the event - events 'can come up from nowhere'

3. Whether the prosecution expert evidence concludes there was deliberate harm done

4. Whether Lucy Letby was present at the relevant time, and what she was doing

5. Whether there were failings in care by other people or the neonatal unit as a whole"

 
  • #742
Ikr. On the other hand I expect Myers will be on the Tennis court this weekend getting hyped and ready to influence the jury using the following 'bench marks' to prove his case.

"The defence say there are five 'important' considerations for the evidence:

1. The birth condition of the infant.

2. If there were any problems in the care leading up to the event - events 'can come up from nowhere'

3. Whether the prosecution expert evidence concludes there was deliberate harm done

4. Whether Lucy Letby was present at the relevant time, and what she was doing

5. Whether there were failings in care by other people or the neonatal unit as a whole"


I think this is exactly what the defence case will depend on IMO. And in return if I were on the jury I'd be asking, ok explain why if its systemic that only LL was there for every case? And the next highest present was there less than half, more like about a third of the cases? Explain why it always stopped as soon as she was off the floor? These are the glaring questions that they don't seem to be able to answer, so I'm interested in how they'll account for that or even try.
 
  • #743
Ikr. On the other hand I expect Myers will be on the Tennis court this weekend getting hyped and ready to influence the jury using the following 'bench marks' to prove his case.

"The defence say there are five 'important' considerations for the evidence:

1. The birth condition of the infant.

2. If there were any problems in the care leading up to the event - events 'can come up from nowhere'

3. Whether the prosecution expert evidence concludes there was deliberate harm done

4. Whether Lucy Letby was present at the relevant time, and what she was doing

5. Whether there were failings in care by other people or the neonatal unit as a whole"

In every single case, and every single charge, Meyers has an explanation to roll out for the jury. And if each of these cases was being tried, one at a time, Lucy would be acquitted of each one, most likely. If there was a new jury for each charge, there would be reasonable doubt for each individual situation.

But one jury, looking at the entire year full of events, is going to see the bigger picture. How many times can you try to write it off as coincidence that LL was right there, every time? And babies were allegedly collapsing with no warning, sometimes 3 nights in a row, with no medical explanations in post-mortem exams, other than a mysterious dollop of air found internally, or unexplained wounds in the internal organs. And these collapses don't happen when she goes on vacation but allegedly start up immediately when she returns.

I think it might be hard for them to make it seem like these were because of the Neo-natal unit as a whole. Or because of the birth conditions of the infants. JMO
 
  • #744
I didn't get this from the evidence we saw yesterday but according to the Daily Mail, the doctor who was there for 7 of the incidents was doctor choc! If this information is true and IF LL is guilty, this is huge IMO and could lead to motive if guilty.

Also, not only was she on duty for all 24 cases but she was also present for each incident! This cannot be coincidence, IMO if guilty etc.


The jury was shown a chart detailing which members of staff were on duty for the shifts when babies in the case collapsed.

Letby's name, with individual crosses highlighted in light blue, is the only one to feature in all 24 columns.

The prosecution also presented a 'heat map' showing which nurses and doctors were present at the time of each incident.

Again Letby features in all 24 of them. Five nurses and one doctor – the one Letby said she loved – were each present at the time of seven of the events.

 
  • #745
I didn't get this from the evidence we saw yesterday but according to the Daily Mail, the doctor who was there for 7 of the incidents was doctor choc! If this information is true and IF LL is guilty, this is huge IMO and could lead to motive if guilty.

Also, not only was she on duty for all 24 cases but she was also present for each incident! This cannot be coincidence, IMO if guilty etc.


The jury was shown a chart detailing which members of staff were on duty for the shifts when babies in the case collapsed.

Letby's name, with individual crosses highlighted in light blue, is the only one to feature in all 24 columns.

The prosecution also presented a 'heat map' showing which nurses and doctors were present at the time of each incident.

Again Letby features in all 24 of them. Five nurses and one doctor – the one Letby said she loved – were each present at the time of seven of the events.


Jmo ..but I do think that if guilty some of the latter cases were in order to get Dr Choc back on the unit Or for her to show off her skills to him ..I think across the whole time frame the "reason" She caused these deaths/collapses varied (if guilty) but a common factor was her own need at the time ..be it frustration , anger , not getting her own way etc jmo if guilty
 
  • #746
Jmo ..but I do think that if guilty some of the latter cases were in order to get Dr Choc back on the unit Or for her to show off her skills to him ..I think across the whole time frame the "reason" She caused these deaths/collapses varied (if guilty) but a common factor was her own need at the time ..be it frustration , anger , not getting her own way etc jmo if guilty
I agree. The intense way they spoke about and reminisced about each resuscitation was kind of over the top. They spoke glowingly about each other and how well they got on together and wouldn't want anyone else to be there for each other because of how perfectly they work together, etc etc...

Am I just imagining this, but that time that Dr Choc had just helped LL when one of the babies collapsed, and after the baby stabilised, Dr Choc and a female doctor were discussing the case and they decided to go get tea in the cafeteria.

Within minutes, before they even got their tea, they were called back because the baby coded once again. Did LL maybe, allegedly, instigate that emergency because he was walking off with the female doctor and LL was miffed?
 
Last edited:
  • #747
  • #748
I note how JJK, AS and ML (LL's friendship group) don't seem to have been present at many incidents.
 
  • #749
Chart showing staff on duty:
Re the alleged insulin poisonings:

If I'm reading the chart right the only two nurses on duty for both alleged insulin poisonings F and L ,were LL and BS (Belinda Simcock) .

The only other babies BS was on duty for were E, M and N.

So in total BS was on duty for five babies E,F,L,M,N (inc 2 sets of twins)

LL was on duty for A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q



FuynSzrWIAIkJ8X


 
Last edited:
  • #750
Re the alleged insulin poisonings:

If I'm reading the chart right the only two nurses on duty for both alleged insulin poisonings F and L ,were LL and BS (Belinda Simcock) .

The only other babies BS was on duty for were E, M and N.

So in total BS was on duty for five babies E,F,L,M,N (inc 2 sets of twins)

LL was on duty for A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q



FuynSzrWIAIkJ8X


So I guess what the defense will now do, is show their own spread sheet.

Are they going to have lots of other collapses and deaths, which happened on the unit, where LL was not present?

Are they going to say that these other collapses were also unexplained?
 
  • #751
So I guess what the defense will now do, is show their own spread sheet.

Are they going to have lots of other collapses and deaths, which happened on the unit, where LL was not present?

Are they going to say that these other collapses were also unexplained?
I think the chart is agreed evidence . One of the doctors has already said on the stand that LL was present for all of the unexpected collapses during that time period.
 
  • #752
I think the chart is agreed evidence . One of the doctors has already said on the stand that LL was present for all of the unexpected collapses during that time period.
That's what I think too but I see LL's defenders claiming there are other unexplained collapses in which LL was not there. I guess we will see very soon if that is true or not.
 
  • #753
That's what I think too but I see LL's defenders claiming there are other unexplained collapses in which LL was not there. I guess we will see very soon if that is true or not.

I'd be suprised if that's the case as I would have thought Myers would have asked the consultants about this during cross examination?
I suppose there's a small chance he did and it was not reported
 
  • #754
So if Dr Choc was present for 7, then he must’ve been at the hospital for longer than we thought?

Edit: I realise now the chart only lists nurses.
 
Last edited:
  • #755
The stats look damning. I suppose the only way they could be undermined is if LL was also present 100% of the time at all the explained collapses too, or has a shift rate that far far exceeds everyone else on the chart (unlikely). JMO.
 
  • #756
That's what I think too but I see LL's defenders claiming there are other unexplained collapses in which LL was not there. I guess we will see very soon if that is true or not.
I am n
That's what I think too but I see LL's defenders claiming there are other unexplained collapses in which LL was not there. I guess we will see very soon if that is true or not.
I wonder if at the time that Shipman was being tried, whether there was all manner of scepticism about why he didn't kill 'all his patients' or the fact he had a 'small surgery' so of course the death toll would fall on him.
Like what we see here with reference to why other babies collapsed or died so not down to LL or how she worked extra shifts so was in the firing line.
Human nature I guess. Jmo.
 
  • #757
dbm
 
Last edited:
  • #758
There is something a bit weird in all this and I can’t help but wonder why more senior management that have been mentioned haven’t been (yet) asked to attend/give evidence. Will they be part of the defences turn in due course I wonder. If not I feel this would be rather odd. Will dr choc be part of further defence teams points too?
It will be interesting to hear more around their POV in due course.

Whats also really strange to me as they haven’t addressed the whole handover sheet thing as much as I thought they might, will they revisit this, will she stand?
Absolute nightmare.

Moo
 
  • #759
There is something a bit weird in all this and I can’t help but wonder why more senior management that have been mentioned haven’t been (yet) asked to attend/give evidence. Will they be part of the defences turn in due course I wonder. If not I feel this would be rather odd. Will dr choc be part of further defence teams points too?
It will be interesting to hear more around their POV in due course.

Whats also really strange to me as they haven’t addressed the whole handover sheet thing as much as I thought they might, will they revisit this, will she stand?
Absolute nightmare.

Moo
I'm frustrated that the prosecution did not call the medical director or CEO.
 
  • #760
So if Dr Choc was present for 7, then he must’ve been at the hospital for longer than we thought?

I got from somewhere that the most likely time would be February as that's when registrars rotate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
121
Guests online
16,701
Total visitors
16,822

Forum statistics

Threads
633,305
Messages
18,639,400
Members
243,477
Latest member
LaMorenita35
Back
Top