UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #3

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #541
Sickenly, that is being widely reported. Unbelievable.

If correct, It may highly unethical, it may have been for the parents, or other reasons......what it is not, is proof of murder.

Fortunately, the jury have been advised they must look at evidence objectively and dispassionately.
 
  • #542
We could do with seeing the actual notes, media outlets are wording them differently and at times incomplete.

“I don’t deserve to live. I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them. I am a horrible evil person.”

The above statement doesn’t even make sense, ‘on purpose’ means with intent and the ‘because I’m not good enough to care for them’ indicates lack of competence/without intent.
 
  • #543
To see an alive baby in a particular bed in contravention of an order and to abandon an ill child one was tasked to care for the joy that might bring suggests a range of adjectives, none remotely akin to the subject under discussion, I would think?

Yes I agree, abandoning one's vulnerable charge to suit one's needs is not OK.

However, the concept of seeing life where once there was death is not flawed in and of itself, it's a phobia / trauma treatment technique.
 
  • #544
2:45pm

For Child G, the defence say the child was extremely premature, "on the margins of viability" - "there will be problems," Mr Myers said.
Child G was a "high risk baby", "irrespective of anything to do with Lucy Letby".
Child G also displayed "signs of infection".

 
  • #545
May not, but i can guarantee you that was the case, especially with such a shocking case.
It shouldn't have happened.

I have also done jury duty for a murder trial and the Judge's instructions at the beginning were clear.
 
  • #546
From everything I've read, the defence have their work cut out here. Everything they have said sounds quite wishy-washy challenges to the details and mic drop ending of the prosecution opening.
It looks that way now but KC has an amazing reputation which makes me wonder whether the wishwash is merely tactical.

(Well, whereas he has a couple of substantial cases won, I'm realising I read all that off his own website.)

I'm uneasy.
 
  • #547
2:48pm

For Child H, the defence say she was treated with three chest drains and her case, as said by the prosecution, was complicated by "sub-optimal treatment".
Butterfly needles were left in for hours "which may have punctured her lung".
The prosecution experts "appear to have no explanation" for what happened.
The harm "was nothing to do with Lucy Letby" and a cause of Child H's deterioration included "infection".

 
  • #548
It shouldn't have happened.

I have also done jury duty for a murder trial and the Judge's instructions at the beginning were clear.
I'm not telling you what should happen, i'm explaining what did happen from personal experience, what probably happens across the country and what could happen at some point during this court case.
Thankfully, your jury duty service requirements were by the book.
 
  • #549
Regarding the photos the Sky live blog describes it as follows:



That doesn't make it clear whether it was done with or without the parents knowledge.
This is an important point! She may have done this was the consent of the parents, we simply do not know yet.
 
  • #550
2:50pm

For Child I, the defence say her death was a result of "ongoing clinical problems caused by her extreme prematurity".
The air embolus is "not accepted" as a cause by the defence.

2:51pm

The defence say CPAP treatment may have caused 'CPAP belly' in Child I, causing a distended abdomen.

 
  • #551
2:53pm

For Child J, the defence say "there is not a great deal of explanation" for what caused the deterioration from the prosecution experts.
The defence say there is "an assumption of deliberate harm being used to blame her" when it was actually "inadequate care" at the hospital.

 
  • #552
2:53pm

For Child J, the defence say "there is not a great deal of explanation" for what caused the deterioration from the prosecution experts.
The defence say there is "an assumption of deliberate harm being used to blame her" when it was actually "inadequate care" at the hospital.

If "no explanation" is what they are running with for a lot of these charges - they might as well pack up now.
 
  • #553
2:55pm

For Child K, the defence say the tube was dislodged, and the prosecution say that was Letby's doing. "Letby does not agree she did that, nor is she seen to have done that."
The prosecution say Child K had been sedated.
The defence say it is disputed, that Child K was able to move, and there would be evidence to follow on that.
The defence say there was "sub-optimal care" and Child K "should not have been at the Countess of Chester Hospital in the first place", but in a hospital providing tertiary care.

 
  • #554
2:57pm

For Child M, the defence say "there is no obvious cause of collapse" in this case, but it is not established the "obvious" one is an air embolus.
"We are back in the territory of blaming Lucy Letby because there is no other cause.
"The mere fact she is there is being used as an explanation."

 
  • #555
If "no explanation" is what they are running with for a lot of these charges - they might as well pack up now.
Right? It's a lot of "no we disagree" with barely any further detail vs what the prosecution offered.

Is that normal for a defence opening statement? Perhaps the defence opening statement is always less in depth?
 
  • #556
A CCTV system would have cost around £1k to install in these rooms.
 
  • #557
A duty solicitor is available at court.

As I said I'm leaning towards LL and her parents shelling out a small fortune on her defense, with the trial expected to last 6 months.

Yes, duty solicitors are available at Magistrates Court for minor offences, at no cost.

Free legal legal representation is also available for most from the point of detention in police custody all the way through to Crown Court trial and appeal etc. LL may have to pay some costs, if she is convicted of any offences....but these will be very negligible compared to the defence costs.

That's the situation bud!

 
  • #558
For Child K, the defence say the tube was dislodged, and the prosecution say that was Letby's doing. "Letby does not agree she did that, nor is she seen to have done that."
The prosecution say Child K had been sedated.
The defence say it is disputed, that Child K was able to move, and there would be evidence to follow on that.
let’s assume we believe the baby wasn’t sedated and disconnected the tube, why wasn’t the alarm on when the oxygen levels were dropping?
 
  • #559
3:00pm

For Child N, the defence say there are "many reasons" why a baby would shout or scream.
"It was far more likely to be hunger" - "you certainly won't find evidence of anything else".
Regarding the allegation Letby did something to cause Child N to bleed, the prosecution say the intubating doctor already saw blood, because Letby harmed him.
The defence disagree and say blood was "not identified until intubation had already happened, or was in the process of happening".
There were three attempts to intubate him.
The defence say, again, there was "sub-optimal care" for Child N.

 
  • #560
Yes, duty solicitors are available in Magistrates for minor offences.

Free legal representation is available from the point of detention in police custody all the way through to Crown Court trial and appeal etc. LL may have to pay some costs, if she is convicted of any offences....but these will be very negligible compared to the defence costs.

That's the situation bud!

Is legal aid only available if you're unemployed or would aid of that scale be available if you're employed and faced a court case as large as this one?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
127
Guests online
3,363
Total visitors
3,490

Forum statistics

Threads
632,634
Messages
18,629,517
Members
243,231
Latest member
Irena21D
Back
Top