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

[Becky53]

A plumber, Lorenzo Mansutti, was the only person called to give evidence on behalf of the nurse as the defence closed its case on Wednesday.


Letby, 33, denies murdering seven children and attempting to kill 10 others on the neo-natal unit at the Countess of Chester hospital in the year to June 2016.

Mansutti, who has worked as a plumber on the hospital estate since 1986, confirmed Letby’s recollection of an incident she suggested may have contributed to the unexplained deaths of babies.

Giving evidence last month, Letby, 33, said parts of the neonatal unit were “not a safe working environment” because there were “often plumbing issues”.

She told jurors: “We used to have raw sewage coming out of the sinks [and] coming out on the floor in nursery one.”

Plumber tells Lucy Letby murder trial of drainage problems at hospital

Lorenzo Mansutti gives evidence after nurse said parts of neonatal unit were not a safe working environment

www.theguardian.com

 

[Marantz4250b]

If convicted, there will be appeals, surely.

There have to be grounds for appeal, though. You can't just appeal because you fancy another go because you didn't like the original outcome or sentence.

 

[marynnu]

Just sat down, ready to catch up on all the defence witness evidence from today, and...


... oh...

Same here. Long lunch out with friends, finally got home to a nice cuppa & settled on the sofa to read - the testimony of the plumber!! It's very hot here in England, maybe I have heatstroke & it's just a hallucination.

 

[marynnu]

Five days!

30 seconds is my guess.

 

[Sweeper2000]

There have to be grounds for appeal, though. You can't just appeal because you fancy another go because you didn't like the original outcome or sentence.

I was wondering what on earth would happen beca LL has said she was relying on mr Myers. Would that mean that ineffective counsel would then be the grounds for appeal? Im just a bit surprised the defence closed the case without anything on top of that. this got really messy and chaotic at the end. Again though I don’t know if mr Johnson more or less got Her to admit to something that goes against that. I kind of gave up when she started refuting everything.

 

[DianaWW]

Yes, it will be interesting to see on what grounds if she is found guilty.

There have been so many apparent experts online putting forward alternative explanations. Maybe they simply fall apart when scrutinised; or maybe they are being saved for an appeal.

I think definitely the former. I don’t they can save anything for a potential appeal. JMO.

 

[Tortoise]

Pressed further by Mr Johnson, Mr Mansutti said he was not aware any of issues meant there had been no hand-washing facilities in the neonatal unit.

"We have portable hand-washing facilities if it comes to that extreme," he said.

Mr Mansutti's evidence concluded the defence's case.

Both the defence and prosecution are expected to give their closing statements next week after more than nine months of evidence.

The judge, Mr Justice James Goss, will then sum up the case before the jury are sent out to begin their deliberations.

Lucy Letby trial: Plumber tells of sewage issues at hospital

Murder-accused Lucy Letby previously described drainage issues on the neonatal unit where she worked.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[notsure]

There have to be grounds for appeal, though. You can't just appeal because you fancy another go because you didn't like the original outcome or sentence.

But if not guilty, you would spend your life trying to fight for justice, as many have done before. Not saying LL is not guilty. Just a general observation. IMO, etc.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I think it is to counter the impression that many people had of her, which is that she completely fabricated events which took place on the unit.

Many people on here expressed complete disbelief that any plumbing issue like this could have existed and that raw sewage could have been leaking into the unit. The Plumber is giving evidence that LL did not invent this.

So I think it is somewhat helpful in that counters the impression that she is wildly inventing things on the stand. But I agree that it doesn’t help in relation to the actual causes of the collapses.

IMO it doesn’t do much to counter anything to me anyway but I’m not on the jury, it could suggest that the only thing they can prove LL didn’t lie about was the plumbing. Which in the grand scheme of things, compared to alll the things she testified to on the stand, the plumbing was a non issue IMO.

It’s only JMO but I know many of us were hoping to hear something to back up everything BM said in his opening statements, or even someone who could give another view to the cause of death in any of the babies, as the cause of death never mentioned AE… All of the accusations against LL over the last several months and all we are left with is ‘atleast she didn’t lie about the plumbing’.. but what does that have to do with any of the collapses?

All MOO

 

[Tortoise]

IMO it doesn’t do much to counter anything to me anyway but I’m not on the jury, it could suggest that the only thing they can prove LL didn’t lie about was the plumbing. Which in the grand scheme of things, compared to alll the things she testified to on the stand, the plumbing was a non issue IMO.

It’s only JMO but I know many of us were hoping to hear something to back up everything BM said in his opening statements, or even someone who could give another view to the cause of death in any of the babies, as the cause of death never mentioned AE… All of the accusations against LL over the last several months and all we are left with is ‘atleast she didn’t lie about the plumbing’.. but what does that have to do with any of the collapses?

All MOO

Think he's been relying on the original post-mortem findings for many of the deaths.

As regards collapses, he's been through the babies' medical histories in cross-examination of the prosecution's experts, and it's up to the jury if they accept the experts' dismissals of any 'issues' highlighted, but if the prosecution has shown that LL fabricated deteriorations and doctored the records, and/or was responsible for destabilising the babies so that they had a bad night and she could take over again the next morning, even the medical histories gone through by Myers with the experts (such as a referral by LL to an unnamed SHO) have to be examined for reliability and credibility.

JMO

 

[Jayney404]

I don't think motive (whether any were proved or not) will be a factor here when it comes down to it. The prosecution does not need to demonstrate any motive at all and that may even me mentioned by the judge. What the judge certainly will say is that the only thing which matters is whether the evidence presented by the prosecution has made them sure as to her guilt. Why she did it (if guilty) is basically irrelevant.

The prosecution don’t have to demonstrate motive but the jury will deliberate on it. The prosecution introduced the idea of attention seeking behaviour being a motivating factor behind these attacks. Specifically to gain attention from doc choc.

The jury will have to consider this as part of the evidence. Motive will undoubtedly enter the discussions at points.

With so much evidence for the jury to consider I think it’ll take a while to settle on a verdict. I could be totally wrong though, only time will tell.

Moo

 

[Blondiexoxo]

There is also the fact that from what was reported atleast, in BM’s brief redirect last week he didn’t seem to ask LL about the alleged forging of documents. I was really surprised that we didn’t hear if he asked her about that. It’s quite a big part of the prosecutions case IMO because, if LL was indeed adjusting medical notes to either show a decline, change times or write that doctors had said x y z on a visit that allegedly didn’t happen then we are left with the question of why would she do it? What valid, good reason could there be for a nurse to adjust medical notes?

That’s what the prosecution allege, and IMO it’s quite a serious allegation because if you believed she did forge documents then you are left to wonder why did these records need changing, why did LL feel the need to write down things that allegedly didn’t happen minutes/hours before the collapsed of these infants she is charged with murdering and attempting to murder?

BM could have shown us other instances where LL or other staff members had changed times or added conflicting notes on medical records, or could have somehow suggested that the babies were indeed declining just as LL had recorded. He could have discussed earlier entries for each baby she’s accused of altering the notes for that might have shown a poor blood gas report or minor desat that occurred while LL wasn’t on shift or on holiday. The fact he didn’t suggests to me IMO that he might not have had much to work with, especially since LL testified and contradicted many of her own words. JMO

MOO

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Think he's been relying on the original post-mortem findings for many of the deaths.

As regards collapses, he's been through the babies' medical histories in cross-examination of the prosecution's experts, and it's up to the jury if they accept the experts' dismissals of any 'issues' highlighted, but if the prosecution has shown that LL fabricated deteriorations and doctored the records, and/or was responsible for destabilising the babies so that they had a bad night and she could take over again the next morning, even the medical histories gone through by Myers with the experts have to be examined for reliability and credibility.

JMO

Just posted about this as that’s what popped into my head as soon as I posted what you’ve replied to! If the jury find the prosecution have proved she altered medical notes then IMO they are left with the question of why she would? What is a good reason for doing so? Conveniently on the same day babies collapsed. It makes so little sense that IMO it makes sense if you catch my drift….
IMO anyway it’s the jury’s that matters after all!
They’ve heard evidence we likely haven’t, there were some dodgy reporting days at points, so may well interpret it completely differently.

 

[Marantz4250b]

But if not guilty, you would spend your life trying to fight for justice, as many have done before. Not saying LL is not guilty. Just a general observation. IMO, etc.

Agreed, but there still have to be grounds for the appeal. "I never done it Guv" doesn't cut it. Grounds has to be in the form of new evidence - generally - and it's difficult to see where that might come from, IMO.

 

[Tortoise]

The prosecution don’t have to demonstrate motive but the jury will deliberate on it. The prosecution introduced the idea of attention seeking behaviour being a motivating factor behind these attacks. Specifically to gain attention from doc choc.

The jury will have to consider this as part of the evidence. Motive will undoubtedly enter the discussions at points.

With so much evidence for the jury to consider I think it’ll take a while to settle on a verdict. I could be totally wrong though, only time will tell.

Moo

What the barristers say isn't evidence. I'm sure the judge will instruct the jury not to deliberate on motive. It doesn't play any part in deciding if what the prosecution alleges were her actions and intentions have been proven. JMO

 

[Lincoln34]

30 seconds is my guess.

If I was a juror I’d hope all agreed verdict quickly , then put our respective feet up and enjoy a proper chat and nibbles before announcing verdict.

If G or NG a really quick verdict would make it look like they hadn’t deliberated enough on such a complex case . IMO

 

[esther43]

I'm thinking a lot of the info we don't have right now will come out later, particularly if she's found guilty. I think it'll be open season on all the info the journalists have on her but can't (yet) reveal.



If she plead guilty that's 100% a jail sentence. If she pleads not guilty then at least there's the chance that you can go free even if it's only a 1%, 10% or 50% chance you get a jury who takes your side.

You'd only plead guilty IMO if a) there was a bargain on the table and you knew it was most likely you'd be convicted anyway and b) there was literally no chance any jury wouldn't convict, ie if there was CCTV of you committing the crime and all you could do was do some plea bargaining


I think her best chance at plea bargaining would have been to admit to incompetence but based on her testimony she does not seem to be the kind of person who would ever ever do that even if it meant going free. I think this regardless of her guilt or innocence.

edit: I'm assuming UK does plea bargaining?

Yeas, they do do plea bargaining but in this case with so many charges I think she fancied her chances.

 

[Tortoise]

Just posted about this as that’s what popped into my head as soon as I posted what you’ve replied to! If the jury find the prosecution have proved she altered medical notes then IMO they are left with the question of why she would? What is a good reason for doing so? Conveniently on the same day babies collapsed. It makes so little sense that IMO it makes sense if you catch my drift….
IMO anyway it’s the jury’s that matters after all!
They’ve heard evidence we likely haven’t, there were some dodgy reporting days at points, so may well interpret it completely differently.

A good reason for doing so (IMO) would be because everyone was talking about the suddenness and unexpected nature of the early deaths.

 

[esther43]

I think two.

I don't think they'll want to look inappropriately hasty. JMO

Omg, I gave a month for deliberations before, given the defence I think I grisly underestimated. What a joke.

 

[Tortoise]

new podcast

Episode 40, ‘A very calculating woman’ - The Mail

www.mailplus.co.uk

June 14, 2023

Episode 40, ‘A very calculating woman’​

In this episode Caroline and Liz explain what Lucy Letby said at the conclusion of her cross-examination.

They discuss the prosecution claims that she was out on the razzle, drinking with colleagues in the months before her arrest. And how it’s alleged that she’s a calculated murderer who killed babies for attention and sympathy.