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

[Parker Knoll]

It could be any of the jurors here though but it does always seem to be a Monday.

Super frustrating but if you think about it there are 12 individuals who signed up for 6 months and we are now at month 10. Each of them have lives that have been put practically on hold for an extra 3+ months. We know one of them has been hospitalised and was back pretty much the following day after surgery. They have come in in all weathers and multiple train strikes week after week. They asked for paper notepads to keep a complete record early in the trial and over the last 10 months have been bombarded with the most horrific details day in day out so they do not sound like a feckless bunch to me - far from it. Just a minor point or maybe not but it’s really hard to sit still for months on end on court chairs ( they are NOT comfortable ! ) Everyone wants this trial to reach a conclusion, the waiting for those who have suffered personally not just the likes of me and you must be utterly hideous.
I think we need to cut them a bit more slack.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Plus I for one would certainly find that the cases of the 2 babies poisoned with insulin were attempted murder, as the attacker had to have known the expected result. So then it follows (to me) that from there we can extrapolate that the other babies who survived were also victims of attempted murder.

Again, I'm not sure that the evidence demonstrates that.

And what 'expected' result? Neither of those babies died, after all. Perhaps, if guilty, the result she expected was simply the attention and the saving of lives? That's certainly not an intent to kill even if death was reckoned to be very likely.

 

[Kemug]

There would've been two absences for me. One where I had Covid, and one where I had a migraine and could only see rainbow zigzags (triggered by a flickering ad on Websleuths funnily enough). Multiply that by 12 jury members and we're looking at 24 absences.

But somehow it seems like the jurors are getting more days off than they would have in their normal jobs.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Juror absent
It is Monday afterall

Football yesterday, wasn't there?

 

[Dcflag]

But somehow it seems like the jurors are getting more days off than they would have in their normal jobs.

There are 12 of them though. So that’s 12 lots of days off.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think so.

I'm not sure that he'd know, to be honest.

 

[DianaWW]

Again, I'm not sure that the evidence demonstrates that.

And what 'expected' result? Neither of those babies died, after all. Perhaps, if guilty, the result she expected was simply the attention and the saving of lives? That's certainly not an intent to kill even if death was reckoned to be very likely.

I think it's tricky because these (alleged) acts were done in a hospital setting. If she'd done what she's accused of elsewhere, the babies would very probably have died, and being a nurse, she'd have known that would happen.

But she also knew that as they were in hospital, the medical staff would do everything they could to save them, so that's where it gets complicated I think.

I think the alleged falsifying of notes, with a view to delay treatment could be critical here. JMO.

 

[Dotta]

But somehow it seems like the jurors are getting more days off than they would have in their normal jobs.

But do they listen to horrifying accounts of Babies being tortured in their normal jobs?

They are regular, law abiding folks forced to listen to horror stories.
Were they prepared?

Some might end their duty with PTSD.
Their lives would never be the same.

They will give their verdicts when THEY are ready.

JMO

 

[Kemug]

Again, I'm not sure that the evidence demonstrates that.

And what 'expected' result? Neither of those babies died, after all. Perhaps, if guilty, the result she expected was simply the attention and the saving of lives? That's certainly not an intent to kill even if death was reckoned to be very likely.

Well, maybe not expected, but probable/possible. I should think there are a number of ways to kill someone where there is always a slight chance that the victim could be revived if found in time.

 

[May72031]

So frustrating.

Just hope the end is in sight for the families involved.

 

[ColourPurple]

I think it's tricky because these (alleged) acts were done in a hospital setting. If she'd done what she's accused of elsewhere, the babies would very probably have died, and being a nurse, she'd have known that would happen.

But she also knew that as they were in hospital, the medical staff would do everything they could to save them, so that's where it gets complicated I think.

I think the alleged falsifying of notes, with a view to delay treatment could be critical here. JMO.

BMB
And the alleged turning off/pausing of the alarm that would have alerted everyone to a collapse sooner/increased the chances of the survival.

JMO if guilty etc.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

If its the same repeat offender it needs sorting...I know it might not be ...it doesn't even say illness

Monday again.

This trial is a perfect example of the weaknesses / failings of the jury system.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I didn’t take a sick day for three years. aside from 2 week COVID. Never felt the need if I had of had family I think that would have been different though, hospital trips or dctrs etc I would take a sick Day for them.

When I worked for a large institution that was not actually the civil service but nearest thing, the average annual sick leave per staff was 11 days.

So, assuming a jury of 12 people averaged the similar level over six months, call it five days off per juror, that's over 60 days one person could be missing.

 

[Dotta]

When I worked for a large institution that was not actually the civil service but nearest thing, the average annual sick leave per staff was 11 days.

So, assuming a jury of 12 people averaged the similar level over six months, call it five days off per juror, that's over 60 days one person could be missing.

I agree.
I usually have 2 weeks doctor's leave per school year.
Sore throat mainly in flu season.

I am never ill during holidays

 

[esther43]

Baby C's death is alleged to have been caused by air injected into the stomach through the nasogastric tube, causing splinted diaphragm.

You make a good point! Perhaps that is why experts didn't comment on the restarting heart beat. Maybe these minimal signs of life were because resus went on for too long. Dr G did reflect on the prolonged resus as something he wouldn't wish to occur in the future.

 

[minusfour]

Here we are again. Sigh, how frustrating.

All we can do is wait.

 

[Tortoise]

Again, I'm not sure that the evidence demonstrates that.

And what 'expected' result? Neither of those babies died, after all. Perhaps, if guilty, the result she expected was simply the attention and the saving of lives? That's certainly not an intent to kill even if death was reckoned to be very likely.

Part of the evidence could be construed that she tried to prevent treatment for the two insulin babies. If the allegations are accepted, saving lives doesn't appear to be the intention, IMO.

With baby F it was that a higher blood sugar reading she recorded meant that his blood sugar wasn't checked again for three hours, while insulin was continually being administered.

With baby L it was that insulin was put in the dextrose, the actual remedy used to treat the low blood sugar.

Going off duty and allegedly knowing insulin was still being administered also doesn't stack up with attention seeking, IMO.

 

[Tortoise]

You make a good point! Perhaps that is why experts didn't comment on the restarting heart beat. Maybe these minimal signs of life were because resus went on for too long. Dr G did reflect on the prolonged resus as something he wouldn't wish to occur in the future.

Yes, they continued resus until the priest/minister could get there.

 

[iamshadow21]

Again, I'm not sure that the evidence demonstrates that.

And what 'expected' result? Neither of those babies died, after all. Perhaps, if guilty, the result she expected was simply the attention and the saving of lives? That's certainly not an intent to kill even if death was reckoned to be very likely.

The problem with that, for me, is that this whole case BEGINS with a death, that of Child A. If this was an attention seeking gesture without intent to kill, if guilty, I would expect an escalation of injuries and illnesses culminating in a death, one that scared an attention seeking individual into laying low for a while, or to curtail the actions entirely.

This case starts with a death and just escalates, with brief intermissions when suspicions were raised and when LL was on holiday.

Death was always in the mix.

MOO

 

[CS2C]

Can someone tell me what hours did Letby work on the night shifts and day shifts please.