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

[esther43]

Silks?
Nice term, I love silk
But my favourite is KC Nick Johnson - he seems to be on a mission here haha
What a pity a Court artist doesn't draw HIM

silly me, I meant Nick Johnson in the above comment! I'm not sure where I'm getting Andrews from, I thought he stepped in for Johnson once or twice and the name has stuck with me!

 

[Dotta]

silly me, I meant Nick Johnson in the above comment! I'm not sure where I'm getting Andrews from, I thought he stepped in for Johnson once or twice and the name has stuck with me!

Maestro is only one!!!

 

[esther43]

Maestro is only one!!!

Forgive me dotta, what is maestro?

 

[esther43]

Silks?
Nice term, I love silk
But my favourite is KC Nick Johnson - he seems to be on a mission here haha
What a pity a Court artist doesn't draw HIM

I wonder they keep / print any of the art of themselves

 

[Dotta]

Forgive me dotta, what is maestro?

The best of the best!
Ha!

 

[Imogenia]

RBBM
I truly don't believe I have seen a defence quote that was not Myers. Is he on his own?
He really is going to have to rip apart the investigation. I could be completely wrong, but I cannot see how he could do this.
He isn't a doctor, but neither is the prosecution, AFAIK. (Please let me know if I am incorrect).
With this said, I am extremely curious about his witnesses.
Myer seems like he is asking irrelevant or confusing, for lack of better words, questions, but I have consistently wondered if it is part of a bigger scheme.
What is he playing at?
JMO

I agree that Myers’ asking questions of a medical nature must be part of a bigger scheme.

These medical questions will not be formulated from his own (no doubt substantial) stores of general knowledge. As you say, he is not a doctor.

I think that therefore he will be seeking advice from his own appointed medical practitioners.

Cause of Death Arguments.

Suppose the accused had admitted to doing one thing, or forgetting to do one thing. Myers would try to get his expert medical witness to argue that it was not the action (or inaction) of the accused that resulted in a death, but it was the action (or inaction) of the medical team concerned that had this result.

This placing causation on another person, after an initial alleged event from the accused, is known as a new act intervening.

The accused in this scenario has not admitted to any wrongdoing at all.

 

[JosieJo]

I'm struggling to imagine how ..once cross examined any defence medical experts could effectively contradict the medical experts already presented...surely the three experts...along with the other specialist experts would not be putting their necks so firmly on the line if there were very reasonable prospects that there were natural causes?
We saw one charge dropped .. surely once evidence was fully exchanged there would have been more if the prosecution didn't have reasonable chance of conviction based on medical evidence.
Perhaps I'm being niave?
I would have thought other factors such as linking LL to the deaths would be more what this trial rests on. Jmo

 

[esther43]

I agree that Myers’ asking questions of a medical nature must be part of a bigger scheme.

These medical questions will not be formulated from his own (no doubt substantial) stores of general knowledge. As you say, he is not a doctor.

I think that therefore he will be seeking advice from his own appointed medical practitioners.

Cause of Death Arguments.

Suppose the accused had admitted to doing one thing, or forgetting to do one thing. Myers would try to get his expert medical witness to argue that it was not the action (or inaction) of the accused that resulted in a death, but it was the action (or inaction) of the medical team concerned that had this result.

This placing causation on another person, after an initial alleged event from the accused, is known as a new act intervening.

The accused in this scenario has not admitted to any wrongdoing at all.

 

[esther43]

I'm not convinced that all of Myers' 'bravado' has hidden meaning. I've seen him try to build up momentum around points that end up falling flat and not helping his case at all.


Ben Myers KC, defending, asked the witness: “Is it right she made it plain that she preferred to work in the intensive care aspect of operations?”
“Yes,” replied Mrs Percival-Calderbank.
Mr Myers said: “Did she use the word ‘boring’?”
The witness said: “Yes, that’s what she said.”
Mr Myers said: “There were times when she ended back in nursery one and everyone would be ready to help when there was an issue, wouldn’t they?”
“Yes,” said the witness.
Mrs Percival-Calderbank agreed with Mr Myers that Letby would be “particularly keen to assist” and “would be there very quickly if an issue arose”.
She also agreed the concern among nursing staff was it could be “very stressful and upsetting” to work long periods in intensive care and it was beneficial for mental wellbeing to spend time away from nursery one.
Mr Myers said: “But she didn’t really want to hear that and she wanted to do the intensive care, is that right?”
“Yes,” said the witness.
Letby, originally from Hereford, denies all the alleged offences said to have been committed between June 2015 and June 2016.

More about​

PA ReadyCountess Of Chester HospitalLucyCPSManchester Crown CourtHereford

Nurse Lucy Letby found caring for less poorly infants ‘boring’, trial hears

Letby is accused of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder 10 others at the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neo-natal unit.

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Parker Knoll]

BM could have any number of medical experts called to the stand for the defence to refute / confuse / throw doubt on what the prosecution experts have testified- we don’t know yet.
It will be up to the jury as to who’s version of events they believe.

 

[marynnu]

silly me, I meant Nick Johnson in the above comment! I'm not sure where I'm getting Andrews from, I thought he stepped in for Johnson once or twice and the name has stuck with me!

To quote Lewis Carroll "We're all a little mad here".

 

[Imogenia]

BM could have any number of medical experts called to the stand for the defence to refute / confuse / throw doubt on what the prosecution experts have testified- we don’t know yet.
It will be up to the jury as to who’s version of events they believe.

A defence barrister will try to demonstrate that the chain of causation for alleged murder has been broken.

This is because there needs to be mens rea, actus rea, and an unbroken chain of causation for a murder charge to be fulfilled.

Breaking the Chain of Causation

Novus actus interveniens is the Latin legal maxim, meaning that there is a new intervening act (or omission) alleged to have occurred, (by others), breaking the chain of causation.

The chain of causation may not be alleged to be absolutely broken, it can be argued that others contributed to it being broken, eg by action, inaction, unconscionable delay.

Such contributions could be seen as medical accidents or negligence.

The others who legally may be alleged (by the defence) to have broken or contributed to the breaking of the chain of causation can include other professionals (and even an Act of God, in some circumstances).

 

[Dotta]

To quote Lewis Carroll "We're all a little mad here".

"A question that sometimes drives me hazy
Am I or are the others crazy?"

To quote Einstein

 

[esther43]

To quote Lewis Carroll "We're all a little mad here".

" I have been through many things in my life, some of which actually happened"

To quote Mark Twain.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I'm struggling to imagine how ..once cross examined any defence medical experts could effectively contradict the medical experts already presented...surely the three experts...along with the other specialist experts would not be putting their necks so firmly on the line if there were very reasonable prospects that there were natural causes?
We saw one charge dropped .. surely once evidence was fully exchanged there would have been more if the prosecution didn't have reasonable chance of conviction based on medical evidence.
Perhaps I'm being niave?
I would have thought other factors such as linking LL to the deaths would be more what this trial rests on. Jmo

I would assume if it could be done the defences experts would have to testify that the events were more consistent with something other than what the prosecution allege. For instance when dr bohin said something like it can’t be ruled out without a post mortem. If they can find someone who can.

the part in bold is something I have noticed. They can and have provided evidence to suggest when LL is around but actually not much in the way of proving she was in a position to do as alleged and that’s a big part IMO. Yeh we have sound reason for the docs to allege AE only thing is those docs didn’t have the evidence to suggest someone had the opportunity to do it without detection. So the med notes say AE but witness statement, other med notes, etc say it’s not that so what do you do then?

 

[esther43]

A defence barrister will try to demonstrate that the chain of causation for alleged murder has been broken.

This is because there needs to be mens rea, actus rea, and an unbroken chain of causation for a murder charge to be fulfilled.

Breaking the Chain of Causation

Novus actus interveniens is the Latin legal maxim, meaning that there is a new intervening act (or omission) alleged to have occurred, (by others), breaking the chain of causation.

The chain of causation may not be alleged to be absolutely broken, it can be argued that others contributed to it being broken, eg by action, inaction, unconscionable delay.

Such contributions could be seen as medical accidents or negligence.

The others who legally may be alleged (by the defence) to have broken or contributed to the breaking of the chain of causation can include other professionals (and even an Act of God, in some circumstances).

In view of the above, I wonder, if they didn't have that note then they wouldn't have been able to have charged with murder or attempted murder at all?

<modsnip: sub judice>

 

[Dotta]

In view of the above, I wonder, if they didn't have that note then they wouldn't have been able to have charged with murder or attempted murder at all?
<modsnip: sub judice>

<modsnip: Quoted post was modsnipped>

The texts aiming at distracting from the real causes of collapses, bombarding with nonsensical diagnoses.

Plus snooping for info from colleagues.

JmO

 

[esther43]

<modsnip: Quoted post was modsnipped>

The texts aiming at distracting from the real causes of collapses, bombarding with nonsensical diagnoses.

Plus snooping for info from colleagues.

JmO

If guilty, the level of calculation and pre meditated behaviour would be immense regarding the texts. Paricularly the normalising of deaths at 34 weeks gestation.

<modsnip> ... in the witness testimonies, To have so many drs and nurses describing inappropriate behaviour. I'm also interested to hear about how the trend changed once she left. Given that most of the babies in this case were only in a level 2 unit due to it being in the nearest facility.

 

[JosieJo]

BM could have any number of medical experts called to the stand for the defence to refute / confuse / throw doubt on what the prosecution experts have testified- we don’t know yet.
It will be up to the jury as to who’s version of events they believe.

I have a feeling it may be more to try and confuse or plant small seeds of doubt rather than directly refuting ..the medical evidence around the majority of cases seems pretty sound ..a few may have some wriggle room for the defence not many though imo (purely regarding the medical evidence)

 

[Dotta]

<modsnip> ... in the witness testimonies, To have so many drs and nurses describing inappropriate behaviour. I'm also interested to hear about how the trend changed once she left. Given that most of the babies in this case were only in a level 2 unit due to it being in the nearest facility.

Add to your list:

- failure to help while standing by the incubator (observed by a doctor)
- FB searches of parents
- documents found at home
-obsession with memory boxes
-creepy excitement while dealing with dead Babies
-playing ignorant about AE (Police questioning)
-weird Card sent to parents of a dead Baby

And the red flags (FOR ME) go on and on.

But maybe Defence will explain all these??

JMO