VERDICT WATCH UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #29

[ColourPurple]

I don't understand the question at all. I thought both the prosecution and defence agreed that it was a deliberate act of poisoning and the jury were told by the judge to not play detective.

Concerning to say the least unless I am totally missing the point.

I don't see it as particularly concerning. More like considering all possibilities and dotting the Is and crossing the Ts.

 

[katydid23]

They’re trying to establish (I think) if those results would have been likely if only the original TPN bag was poisoned, and then a period of time elapsed before the blood test was taken. The thing they might be questioning is this alleged pre-emptive poisoning of a stock bag.

But if they accept that the original TPN bag was poisoned, then what? There were only 2 nurses who handled that bag at that time.

 

[JosieJo]

They do have the blood sugar readings though.

Exactly yes thats what they should be focusing on not the case peptide and I think that's what the judge hinted at

 

[Sweeper2000]

It did correlate with it though. The blood readings for F returned to normal when the second bag was stopped.

Yeh but they are probably thinking that the results needs to correlate with what is known to happen when the insulin stops ie would it taper off back to normal or otherwise. It’s surprising me tbh we had a professor in blood but he didn’t say what you could expect if insulin was in the second bag and then was stopped. One might think that he or she would say “yes these results are exactly what one could expect if insuli was in both bags including when the insulin is no longer being administored”.

 

[Sarahlou]

I'm slightly concerned. But I still have faith they will come to the right verdicts.

 

[ColourPurple]

I wonder, if (hypothetically) the jury decide she is guilty of murder, could they use that to decide she more than likely intended to kill the victims she is charged with attempting to murder? In other words, if she’d already killed, is she more likely to be trying to kill the babies who survived as opposed to just seriously harming them instead?

I know the judge said the jury could use guilt in some cases to decide guilt in others. But I don’t know if that applies to deciding on intent to kill vs seriously harm.

All MOO and just an example…

Yes they could. Whether they will is a different matter. Which is why it would make more sense IMO to start with any cases where they are sure she is guilty of murder. If there are any such cases where they feel that, if guilty JMO etc.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

The insulin cases are also confusing because while the babies had very abnormal blood test results, their clinical symptoms weren't what one might expect from such results. Or that was my interpretation.

But as said, the defense didn't try to dispute that they were given insulin by someone.

It's only in looking at the big picture that I can say I feel confident the insulin cases match the big picture.

Standing alone, they aren't the two most clear-cut cases, IMO.

So hoping the jury saved them for last.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

I’m really surprised at that question from the jury today. Baby F and L for me were 2 of the strongest cases. It has already been established that those 2 babies were poisoned with insulin IMO. The question seems to suggest that jurors are trying to work out the discrepancy about whether a second bag was poisoned, how blood glucose continued to fall whilst LL wasn’t on shift and possibly trying to rule out someone else having poisoned either or both babies.

It’s undisputed by the defence that these babies received synthetic insulin. It’s just a case of deciding if LL was the perpetrator IMO and establishing intent to kill, it would be known IMO by any nurse that administering insulin to a baby who’s blood glucose was already low would only cause the baby to deteriorate and likely die. IMO had the insulin been injected directly in one single dose the intent is slightly less obvious than what is alleged here. By poisoning the TPN bag, whoever did it knew that insulin would slowly and continuously drip into the child’s system throughout the day/night. One single dose given all at once would be more likely to successfully be rectified with dextrose than a slow and continuous administration over a period of hours. Each dextrose infusion would be counteracted by more insulin, leading to more likelihood of death.

Perhaps things are tense in the jury room with some jurors believing certain cases are solid and others believing the prosecution doesn’t have strong evidence. Baby F and L are 2 cases where we know harm was done intentionally to these babies. If they are only just debating the timings of blood glucose readings etc, perhaps they haven’t even moved onto intent to kill yet. I think it may be the first week in August before we see a verdict. I can’t see it being this week anyway.

All MOO

How long has the jury been out?

 

[Sweeper2000]

I don't understand the question at all. I thought both the prosecution and defence agreed that it was a deliberate act of poisoning and the jury were told by the judge to not play detective.

Concerning to say the least unless I am totally missing the point.

I’m not so sure, they probably agree it was insulin poisoning but not necessarily deliberate or the fault of the accused.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I don't understand the question at all. I thought both the prosecution and defence agreed that it was a deliberate act of poisoning and the jury were told by the judge to not play detective.

Concerning to say the least unless I am totally missing the point.

I agree. The prosecution didn’t have to prove exactly how harm was done, just that the victims were harmed/killed by LL. If they have (for example) decided LL is guilty of one charge, for these 2 it should simply be a case of deciding if its more likely that LL is guilty of these attacks vs there being another attacker on the unit. IMO. The poisoning is undisputed, all that need to be decided for these cases is whether LL is the perpetrator and whether intent to kill was proven. To decide this they could use guilt they may have already established in other cases as evidence, so unless the only verdicts reached so far are not guilty ones, I’m confused by their question.

Oh to be a fly on the wall in that room…

MOO

 

[Blondiexoxo]

How long has the jury been out?

I think we are at around 23 hours now - that’s taking off breaks/lunch.

This is the second week of deliberations. 4.5 hour days and this is the 6th day. I think that’s right anyway, the week off last week has thrown me!

 

[Honeybirdette]

When will the judge decide to accept a majority verdict? Usually it’s after 2 hours deliberating time but I’ve never seen it offered that quickly.

 

[katydid23]

I’m not so sure, they probably agree it was insulin poisoning but not necessarily deliberate or the fault of the accused.

It was legally 'agreed upon' evidence, by both sides, that it was deliberate, not accidental insulin poisoning.

 

[WaxLyrical]

But if they accept that the original TPN bag was poisoned, then what? There were only 2 nurses who handled that bag at that time.

Not sure. I’m just annoyed the jury have been left with big questions hanging over them. I feel like the insulin cases are the most important ones, and want them to feel comfortable in their verdicts.

 

[ColourPurple]

I’m not so sure, they probably agree it was insulin poisoning but not necessarily deliberate or the fault of the accused.

...or not necessarily intended to kill. If they accept it was a deliberate poisoning and believe it was LL but don't think she intended to kill the babies then they would have to find her not guilty of attempted murder, and there are no alternative charges. JMO

 

[GoBuckeyes]

I think we are at around 23 hours now - that’s taking off breaks/lunch.

This is the second week of deliberations. 4.5 hour days and this is the 6th day. I think that’s right anyway, the week off last week has thrown me!

Oh, I didn't realize that there was a week off. Okay. Thank you.

 

[katydid23]

I think we are at around 23 hours now - that’s taking off breaks/lunch.

This is the second week of deliberations. 4.5 hour days and this is the 6th day. I think that’s right anyway, the week off last week has thrown me!

It was said that as jury began this morning, they had deliberated for 20 hours previously. I think that's what I read.

So they'd be at 22 hours right now?

 

[ColourPurple]

How long has the jury been out?

This is the sixth day, so around 20 hours but there was juror absence last week so there were no deliberations all week.

 

[JosieJo]

The insulin cases are also confusing because while the babies had very abnormal blood test results, their clinical symptoms weren't what one might expect from such results. Or that was my interpretation.

But as said, the defense didn't try to dispute that they were given insulin by someone.

It's only in looking at the big picture that I can say I feel confident the insulin cases match the big picture.

Standing alone, they aren't the two most clear-cut cases, IMO.

So hoping the jury saved them for last.

There symptoms were controlled because they were in hospital and being checked and treated with glucose

 

[Parker Knoll]

Oh to be a fly on the wall of that jury room.
Don’t forget we have had nine months to discuss, Google and dissect the evidence.