UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #25

[katydid23]

A barrister can only present a theory of their case in opening speech and closing arguments. He can't put a table he has created, with a member of his team, on the witness stand. What he was saying was that the prosecution's table -

"does not show the 'individual health of the children concerned, or any problems they had from birth, or the risks, or the course of treatment and/or problems encountered by said treatment'.
The chart does not show 'other collapses or desaturations' for the children when Letby is not present.

12:44pm

The table does not show 'shortcomings in care' which 'could have impacted the health of the baby', or 'how busy the unit was', or 'what Letby was actually doing at the time of the event', My Myers tells the court.

12:44pm

It doesn't show 'whether Lucy Letby was anywhere near to a child at the time of the event' or if there was 'a problem which could be traced before Letby's arrival'."
Lucy Letby trial recap: Prosecution finishes outlining case, defence gives statement

All of these elements he has examined, rigorously, with the doctors concerned with the care of the babies, the medical experts, and also the defendant herself to try to show she was busy elsewhere. It's a bit much, IMO, to blame him for not making an effort - he has thoroughly prodded and poked every witness, accused them of being less than capable, attacked their practices, tried to show biases and unprofessionalism, painted a picture of an unsanitary, understaffed unit in chaos, and put the prosecution to proof over every claim, quite formidably, IMO.

He is not to blame for whether there aren't medical experts of standing who would give a different opinion, or opinions which wouldn't withstand cross-examination, or for not putting up experts who would undermine his case because they agree with the prosecution. He is a silk and he knows not to lead his case into trouble, which he could so easily do by putting up certain less than credible individuals, or cranks of the internet realm, who have not paid any attention to the evidence.

If he were to present a chart in his closing arguments, it would have to be the prosecution's chart with Letby's name rubbed out because their case is that she didn't cause the events. I doubt we will see one.

MOO

I was wondering if he could have brought in a medical expert, who would say that they found a few more unexpected collapses on days LL was not in the unit.

And the expert would have to give his expert testimony trying to back up why those particular collapses should have been included in the chart. I really thought he was going to at least attempt something like that, to create some doubt about the staffing chart.

Or at the very least, bring in some former patient's families, to describe suboptimal care they received. But perhaps no one wanted to be seen as being supportive of LL?

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I'm not sure we do actually do plea bargaining here, though. At least not in the way you see in US cases whereby it's done essentially as a way to avoid the expense of a trial. Or, as it appears to me - the accused gets threatened with a much more severe crime which isn't applicable to the facts and intended to scare them into pleading to a slightly lesser one. Which, to my mind at least, is not "justice" at all.

Yes, you can put forward certain defences, such as the various diminished responsibility or "not guilty by reason of insanity" ones, and suchlike. There are also some statutory considerations as to sentence for an early guilty plea but these are set in law and aren't the same as offering a plea to a lesser crime.

There are plenty of miscarriages of justice here in the UK. There’s recently been a tv show called ‘wrongly accused’ that is solely based on miscarriages of justice in the UK. They don’t seem to get as much publicity over here IMO as they do in the US. You have to remember m, the US is a much bigger country with a larger population than the UK so there are naturally going to be more cases of wrongful convictions.

I don’t see that this has much relevance to LL though, she was arrested multiple times before finally being arrested and charged. Charges were dismissed (found not guilty of the murder of baby K before trial) aswell as charges being added. If you go right back to the first thread on this case when LL was just known as ‘a healthcare worker’, you will see the timeline before her final arrest. Many people posted that she may have been scapegoated or wrongly accused at that time. This wasn’t a rush to charge, it’s clear IMO a complex investigation took place before it was deemed there was enough evidence to charge. This trial has been a long time coming, there has been long enough for both sides to track down and contact any possible witnesses and any evidence the prosecution found that would help LL’s case had to be turned over by law. So the fact we just had the grand finale of the plumber yesterday speaks volumes to me anyway but that’s JMO.

BM can only work with what the facts are. If there was anything that would help prove LL’s innocence that was admissible in court I believe it Would have been presented.

All MOO

 

[Marantz4250b]

How interesting , I never knew that. What’s with the ten minutes though ? Seems very random, even if it has now been dropped

It'll be something ancient which probably was very relevant at the time. If I had to guess, maybe there was a situation where the jury deliberation room was five minutes away by carriage or something similar?

 

[Tortoise]

I'm sure I read two hours but forget where now. I think someone may have posted a link the the relevant statute way back in the mists of time.

Ah, I think I might have been mistaken. What I've found is that the judge can't give a majority direction before they've deliberated two hours.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/rule/25.14/made

Directions to the jury and taking the verdict​

25.14.—(1) This rule applies where there is a jury. [...]

(5) When the court directs the jury to deliver its verdict or verdicts, the court must ask the foreman chosen by the jury, in respect of each count—

(a)whether the jury has reached a verdict on which all the jurors agree;

(b)if so, whether that verdict is guilty or not guilty;

(c)if not, where the jury has deliberated for at least 2 hours and if the court decides to invite a majority verdict, then—

 

[Tortoise]

It'll be something ancient which probably was very relevant at the time. If I had to guess, maybe there was a situation where the jury deliberation room was five minutes away by carriage or something similar?

You're right. It was to do with the time it took them to get to the jury room, get settled and begin deliberations.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I was wondering if he could have brought in a medical expert, who would say that they found a few more unexpected collapses on days LL was not in the unit.

And the expert would have to give his expert testimony trying to back up why those particular collapses should have been included in the chart. I really thought he was going to at least attempt something like that, to create some doubt about the staffing chart.

Or at the very least, bring in some former patient's families, to describe suboptimal care they received. But perhaps no one wanted to be seen as being supportive of LL?

IMO if the evidence was there and was deemed admissible BM would have presented it. I too at the start was expecting BM to bring in his own expert, maybe prior colleagues too to back up the claims of how badly the hospital was. As time went on though it became more and more obvious that any issues found weren’t a factor in any of the collapses. A blocked sink does not poison babies with insulin. Personally I think the insulin cases are the hardest to explain away. LL herself agreed those babies were poisoned with insulin, and instead of BM introducing an alternate suspect or evidence that the police found that someone else may have been involved, he presented a plumber to testify about blocked sinks.

Any exonerating evidence found by the prosecution had to be turned over to the defence by law so if there was ever any question of someone else poisoning those 2 babies with insulin or administering air to any of the others then the defence would have made mention of it at some point IMO. It’s quite telling that she agrees they were poisoned, claims it wasn’t her but has absolutely no alternate theory as to what could have happened but that’s JMO.

MOO

 

[Marantz4250b]

Ah, I think I might have been mistaken. What I've found is that the judge can't give a majority direction before they've deliberated two hours.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/rule/25.14/made

Directions to the jury and taking the verdict​

25.14.—(1) This rule applies where there is a jury. [...]

(5) When the court directs the jury to deliver its verdict or verdicts, the court must ask the foreman chosen by the jury, in respect of each count—

(a)whether the jury has reached a verdict on which all the jurors agree;

(b)if so, whether that verdict is guilty or not guilty;

(c)if not, where the jury has deliberated for at least 2 hours and if the court decides to invite a majority verdict, then—

That may have been the part I was thinking about but I'm sure I read that the minimum deliberation time was two hours for some reason. I even recall thinking it was strange because if it was a very easy case with little evidence of a defence then why would that be insisted on.

I lose track of everything a bit though given all the stuff we've heard over the past few months.

 

[MsBetsy]

Thanks so much for listing all this. I appreciate it.
Definitely made me see what everyone was talking about. The “I don’t know what embolism is” in the police interview but filling in a datix form about it earlier is just bizarre. Why would you say you don’t know what it is.

Consciousness of guilt is the only reason I can think of for saying she didn't know what an air embolism was and also the denial of owning a shredder, if guilty. Imo

 

[Tortoise]

I was wondering if he could have brought in a medical expert, who would say that they found a few more unexpected collapses on days LL was not in the unit.

And the expert would have to give his expert testimony trying to back up why those particular collapses should have been included in the chart. I really thought he was going to at least attempt something like that, to create some doubt about the staffing chart.

Or at the very least, bring in some former patient's families, to describe suboptimal care they received. But perhaps no one wanted to be seen as being supportive of LL?

But that assumes that evidence existed in the first place.

He has been through the babies' histories and there were no other unexpected collapses, according to the treating doctors and the experts. Maybe there was one for baby I which Dr Bohin flagged I think, but one desaturation looked at over the course of a year doesn't really make a case.

I think there have been quite a few critical parents.

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

That may have been the part I was thinking about but I'm sure I read that the minimum deliberation time was two hours for some reason. I even recall thinking it was strange because if it was a very easy case with little evidence of a defence then why would that be insisted on.

I lose track of everything a bit though given all the stuff we've heard over the past few months.

I thought I'd seen that too. Will have another look later.

 

[marynnu]

Consciousness of guilt is the only reason I can think of for saying she didn't know what an air embolism was and also the denial of owning a shredder, if guilty. Imo

In her defence, she never said she didn't know what an air embolism is. That was inaccurate reporting.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I think deliberation time will depend on what the court classes as a ‘day’, we’ve been having 10.30 starts for the trial and early finishes on many occasions.

Are deliberations the same as the US where the jury can decide to stay later or at 4pm will they be told that’s it for the day? Are the allowed to deliberate through lunch and dinner too? Or does the judge decide these things?

You often hear in US trials that the jury have ordered pizza for example and will be staying as late as they like, can’t say I’ve ever heard the same for a UK jury so maybe the rules are different. If they have to stop for an hour for lunch and only do 10.30 til 4 for example you’re only talking 4.5 hours per day, which is almost unheard of in US cases IMO

 

[Blondiexoxo]

In her defence, she never said she didn't know what an air embolism is. That was inaccurate reporting.

Did she not? Maybe a mod could edit my post from last night and cut that bit out. I didn’t realise that she hadn’t said that in her police interview! I remember quite a big deal being made about that at the time too.

 

[Tortoise]

I think deliberation time will depend on what the court classes as a ‘day’, we’ve been having 10.30 starts for the trial and early finishes on many occasions.

Are deliberations the same as the US where the jury can decide to stay later or at 4pm will they be told that’s it for the day? Are the allowed to deliberate through lunch and dinner too? Or does the judge decide these things?

You often hear in US trials that the jury have ordered pizza for example and will be staying as late as they like, can’t say I’ve ever heard the same for a UK jury so maybe the rules are different. If they have to stop for an hour for lunch and only do 10.30 til 4 for example you’re only talking 4.5 hours per day, which is almost unheard of in US cases IMO

I can only speak for my own jury experience at the Old Bailey, which was same hours as trial sitting hours for deliberations, including set lunch hour. I think it's because the judge has to be available at same time as jury is deliberating.

 

[MsBetsy]

In her defence, she never said she didn't know what an air embolism is. That was inaccurate reporting.

If I remember correctly when she was asked about air embolus she said she didn't know exactly what it was?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Did she not? Maybe a mod could edit my post from last night and cut that bit out. I didn’t realise that she hadn’t said that in her police interview! I remember quite a big deal being made about that at the time too.

It took quite a while to clear up as it was about half way through the trial it was clarified, I think. Basically, she said something to the effect of not knowing what the specific symptoms and effects might be, rather than not know what it was. She did say that every nurse knew it was dangerous.

 

[Tortoise]

Did she not? Maybe a mod could edit my post from last night and cut that bit out. I didn’t realise that she hadn’t said that in her police interview! I remember quite a big deal being made about that at the time too.

12:59

Were you playing daft in your police interview, Letby asked​

The court was told that in her police interview Lucy Letby said she didn't know what the dangers of injecting air were.
She says now that she meant she didn't know the exact pathological danger, but did know that ultimately it would end in death.
Nick Johnson KC: "Were you playing daft?"
Lucy Letby: "No, it’s something every nurse would know."
Nick Johnson KC: "Why didn’t you say something?"
Lucy Letby: "I know the ultimate outcome would be death - how that would appear in terms of symptoms for a baby - I don’t know."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65602988/page/2

 

[marynnu]

Apologies to admin if this is a bit too far off topic!

I recently watched a Channel 4 documentary following the police as they built a case against Benjamin Field for the murder of Peter Farquar. It was fascinating to see how painstaking and difficult it was, and how high the bar is to satisfy the CPS. There is some footage of Field, and an interview with his ex-girlfriend, and a more unassuming, caring person you couldn't imagine on the surface. But he is brutal and uncaring underneath. Though very different to this case, there are definitely echoes IMO.

Part of the 'Catching a Killer' series.

Peter Farquhar - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I can only speak for my own jury experience at the Old Bailey, which was same hours as trial sitting hours for deliberations, including set lunch hour. I think it's because the judge has to be available at same time as jury is deliberating.

Wow if they only do trial sitting hours for deliberation then IMO a week or more to reach a verdict doesn’t sound too unlikely! 4.5 hour average for full days doesn’t seem long atall. Hopefully they’ll have a bit longer than that, even 10-5 would atleast be 6 hours if they have to break for lunch. From how this trial has gone so far I’m surprised that we still have 12 jurors! Hopefully no issues or appointments come up and interrupt deliberations once they start, I don’t think days off in between would be helpful at all.

MOO

 

[MsBetsy]

12:59

Were you playing daft in your police interview, Letby asked​

The court was told that in her police interview Lucy Letby said she didn't know what the dangers of injecting air were.
She says now that she meant she didn't know the exact pathological danger, but did know that ultimately it would end in death.
Nick Johnson KC: "Were you playing daft?"
Lucy Letby: "No, it’s something every nurse would know."
Nick Johnson KC: "Why didn’t you say something?"
Lucy Letby: "I know the ultimate outcome would be death - how that would appear in terms of symptoms for a baby - I don’t know."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65602988/page/2

Didn't she also say it would be very difficult to push air through the line?