UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #8

[squish]

I think I'll ask for this all to be deleted, it's probably sub judice actually.

I don’t see how this is subjudice.

 

[Tortoise]

Ben Myers KC, defending, has no questions for Dr Evans on his evidence

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

 

[Tortoise]

I don’t see how this is subjudice.

It's information that's not part of the trial. Extraneous information that could lead to the trial collapsing/an unfair trial if it's discussed. IMO

 

[Tortoise]

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

Medical expert Dr Sandie Bohin, who reviewed Dr Evans' findings, is now in the witness box. She's asked if she agrees with Dr Evans that this was a case of insulin poisoning via TPN bag. 'Yes', she says

Again, Mr Myers has no questions for the witness. That concludes her evidence.


Police intelligence analyst Claire Hocknell is now in the witness box, she is taking the jury through sequencing evidence

 

[Tortoise]

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

A summary of Ms Letby's police interview, carried out in 2019, in relation to Child F is read to the court. In that interview Ms Letby denied adding insulin to a TPN bag

 

[Tortoise]

That's it for today and that concludes evidence related to Child F. Tomorrow the court will move on to Child G.

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

Lucy Letby trial: Astonishing level of insulin found in baby, jury told

Lucy Letby is accused of trying to murder a premature twin boy by intentionally giving him insulin.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Marantz4250b]

I don’t see how this is subjudice.

It could very well be. The fact that the operation is still ongoing could very easily be seen to have significant influence on the court (jury).

 

[JosieJo]

So no defence cross examination at all for the two experts claiming the insulin was if the TPN

 

[EC2000]

Hi

New to the forum (bit of a confusing layout on here!)

Can someone direct me to the forum rules please, before I start posting?

 

[May72031]

So no defence cross examination at all for the two experts claiming the insulin was if the TPN

BM has not really tested the expert witnesses, so far.

The big question is whether BM has found expert witnesses that dispute the opinions of the expert witnesses so far, because if he hasn't, then the implication of that is that all the experts defence and prosecution sought out, all agreed with the opinions expressed by the expert witnesses so far.

 

[notsure]

Hi

New to the forum (bit of a confusing layout on here!)

Can someone direct me to the forum rules please, before I start posting?

Welcome! The Admin and Mod notes on page 1 of this thread should give most of the info you need for this discussion.

 

[Anxala]

Hi

New to the forum (bit of a confusing layout on here!)

Can someone direct me to the forum rules please, before I start posting?

Hi, welcome, here you are : The Rules

And have a read at the beginning of the thread where what's allowed and what isn't is outlined.

 

[Becci]

If i was a nurse i'd want to quit after reading all this.

 

[katydid23]

BM has not really tested the expert witnesses, so far.

The big question is whether BM has found expert witnesses that dispute the opinions of the expert witnesses so far, because if he hasn't, then the implication of that is that all the experts defence and prosecution sought out, all agreed with the opinions expressed by the expert witnesses so far.

This is very interesting to me. I would think, that IF the defence was going to put forth witnesses that had solid arguments countering this TNP theory, Murphy would give some cross examination, hinting to the jury that was upcoming.

Asking no questions at all seems kind of damaging to the defense, as it appears to signal the jury that there is no counter argument to be made. It is curious to me because Murphy has been aggressive and effective in cross examination for the most part.

 

[Tortoise]

So no defence cross examination at all for the two experts claiming the insulin was if the TPN

Yes, the defence accepts baby F was deliberately poisoned.

They say there is nothing in the experts' opinions to say it was LL.

It's a shame we're not getting decent reporting now, two days out of every week. Today they went through the agreed summary of the police interviews and all we got in a tweet was that LL denied it was her. We also know there was a stock bag requisition at some point in June, might be that day, might not be. This reporter doesn't report even half of what's going on. On Monday this week F's designated nurse on that night-shift was repeatedly asked if she had added insulin to the bag, and it was a "dramatic moment" in court, according to one article. No reference to her even being asked in his tweets.

Mail Online

We're getting far better daily blog coverage on trials that aren't anywhere near the size of this one.

I can only gather that the only reason the prosecution had to present evidence for this charge was to get all of LL's colleagues denials that it was them on record. I can't think of any other purpose, if the defence agrees in principle that baby F was poisoned by someone.

 

[Tortoise]

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

A medicines requisition booklet from summer 2015 is now being shown to the court - this was used by nurses to request more stock.

We're being shown an entry from June which shows there was a request for a babiven maintenance bag

Actually I wonder if this was a typo now. Baby F was given insulin in his TPN on 5th August!

 

[katydid23]

Lucy Letby trial: Astonishing level of insulin found in baby, jury told

Lucy Letby is accused of trying to murder a premature twin boy by intentionally giving him insulin.

www.bbc.com

 

[katydid23]

Yes, the defence accepts baby F was deliberately poisoned.

They say there is nothing in the experts' opinions to say it was LL.

It's a shame we're not getting decent reporting now, two days out of every week. Today they went through the agreed summary of the police interviews and all we got in a tweet was that LL denied it was her. We also know there was a stock bag requisition at some point in June, might be that day, might not be. This reporter doesn't report even half of what's going on. On Monday this week F's designated nurse on that night-shift was repeatedly asked if she had added insulin to the bag, and it was a "dramatic moment" in court, according to one article. No reference to her even being asked in his tweets.

Mail Online

We're getting far better daily blog coverage on trials that aren't anywhere near the size of this one.

I can only gather that the only reason the prosecution had to present evidence for this charge was to get all of LL's colleagues denials that it was them on record. I can't think of any other purpose, if the defence agrees in principle that baby F was poisoned by someone.

I think that is going to be a problem for the defence, if they are trying to pinpoint one of designated nurses as the culprit in this particular insulin case.

Is the jury going to be suspicious of one specific nurse from this one case, if she was not the one present in the many other cases?

 

[ColourPurple]

This is very interesting to me. I would think, that IF the defence was going to put forth witnesses that had solid arguments countering this TNP theory, Murphy would give some cross examination, hinting to the jury that was upcoming.

Asking no questions at all seems kind of damaging to the defense, as it appears to signal the jury that there is no counter argument to be made. It is curious to me because Murphy has been aggressive and effective in cross examination for the most part.

Could the defence be holding back on questions about Baby F because they want to bring them up when they get to Baby L's insulin poisoning case, and if they ask them now the prosecution would be pre-warned of their strategy, and therefore better prepared for their questions about Baby L's case?

 

[Tortoise]

'It wasn't my client' is the only real defence to this charge. They can't dispute blood sugar results or insulin readings.