UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #4

Status
Not open for further replies.
ADMIN NOTE:

This is a trial thread to discuss the trial only. It is not a general discussion thread.

Although WS is based in the USA, we do try to manage the various discussions according to laws of other countries.

As this trial is in the UK, the case is under sub judice so please stick to discussing the trial content without posting anything that violates the following principles:

Basically anything that may prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial
Any suggestion, opinion, or direct accusation that the accused is either guilty OR innocent
(i.e. the accused cannot be called "the killer"; use "the accused", "the alleged killer", or "the defendant")
A defendant’s previous history of any offences is off limits
Scandalizing the court (disparaging judges, lawyers, any officer of the Court) is off limits
Broadcasting anything about proceedings which happen in the jury's absence is off limits
Any non compliance with an Order of the court is off limits

Note in the event of an Appeal subsequent to verdict:

Appeals are usually heard by senior judges who are not likely to be influenced by the media, therefore responsible comment is usually considered acceptable once a trial has concluded, regardless of if there is going to be an appeal.


Reference: UK Contempt of Court Act 1981
 
Please read the above Admin Note and continue discussion here.

If your post is considered in violation of sub judice, it will be removed.
 
ADMIN NOTE:

Read the opening post about sub judice, which states in part:

Scandalizing the court (disparaging judges, lawyers, any officer of the Court) is off limits

Websleuths doesn't make this stuff up ... it's law.
 
ADMIN NOTE:

Numerous posts have been removed.

There is no MSM or other source to support speculation about any specific mental health issue of the accused. This includes autism, which oddly seems to crop in so many discussions when there is nothing to warrant it.

Sub judice is not the topic of this discussion. It is applicable to all cases in the UK.
 
ADMIN NOTE:

This thread is specifically dedicated to discussion of the trial for the accused Lucy Letby. Please discuss this trial without bringing other cases into the discussion. All that does is introduce support for speculation regarding guilt or innocence which is sub judice.
 
I wonder what the defence is trying to say.

Do they mean Dr Evans’ knowledge is out of date and isn’t familiar with the new machines/monitors.

Is there anything so unique about the new machines?

Biology hasn’t changed since he stopped practice so I’m not sure what they want to say regarding his knowledge being out of date.
 
I've thought about that note overnight and am struck by how many people have just assumed she wrote it in anguish or despair, because that's what the defence have said or they relate it to personal circumstances.

No one know what state of mind she was in. Like John Worboys, she could have been plotting out her excuses for WHY she killed them because:
  1. (Remorseful defence) on purpose, I am evil
  2. (Self pitying defence) because i'm not good enough to care for them, I will never have kids/marry
  3. (Indignant defence) I haven't done anything wrong
  4. (Blame defence) Police victimisation, slander, discrimination
  5. Feelings to demonstrate to police depending on which defence is used - I can't breathe (Remorseful), I don't deserve to live or deserve mum and dad etc (Self pitying), Why me (indignant), panic/fear (blame)
Writing on a post it note with doodles of a cat shows me she wasn't that anguished. Because you have to really concentrate on getting everything into a teeny tiny post tit. When you're anguished, it's not easy to focus in that way. Also the pen pressure looks different so it looks like it was written at different times. Why return to the same note unless she was just updating her ideas and wanted it in one place. She was methodical, we know this from how she writes down everything, so it makes sense that she wanted everything on one post it if they were all linked thoughts - all linked to her defence excuses.

I''m very curious to see what other notes they found at her home.

I do feel she has a more calculating air about her because she messaged people to say she was bored, unfulfilled, days were slow - just after babies had died on her watch! Then got defensive (as per messages) when she was being questioned by a senior consultant - surely you'd expect to be questioned if you've been present at all the unexplained incidents.

Also the very methodical notes on understanding who made allegations and what was the evidence. She didn't crack at interview and knew how to evade questions even in 2020. She strikes me as someone calm, collected and analytical not hysterical.

MOO.

Interesting viewpoint. I've read a few GMC judgments (General Medical Council for doctors accused of malpractice, misconduct etc.) and evidence of remorse and the strength of that feeling often goes a long way in reducing any sanctions that are imposed and / or helping to get practice limitations lifted at a later date. A doctor who owns up to and acknowledges their error (having learnt from the experience) will be deemed "safer for patients" than one who continues to insist that their actions (if they have already been reviewed and decided by the GMC tribunal as improper) were the right ones. Assume the same thing applies to nursing and potentially being struck off the RN register (?)
 
Any “little niggle of doubt” about dr evans being “out of date” will surely be wiped when the prosecutions second expert witness is a younger, head of neonatology and current neonatalogist, dr sandie bohin - who agrees with him. So I’m not too worried there.
 
I wonder what the defence is trying to say.

Do they mean Dr Evans’ knowledge is out of date and isn’t familiar with the new machines/monitors.

Is there anything so unique about the new machines?

Biology hasn’t changed since he stopped practice so I’m not sure what they want to say regarding his knowledge being out of date.
IMO it is just tactics by the defence to ‘discredit’ the independent expert witness and try and introduce an element of doubt RE accuracy of his testimonial/expert advice.
 
I wonder what the defence is trying to say.

Do they mean Dr Evans’ knowledge is out of date and isn’t familiar with the new machines/monitors.

Is there anything so unique about the new machines?

Biology hasn’t changed since he stopped practice so I’m not sure what they want to say regarding his knowledge being out of date.
Exactly, but the defence have to try and pull him apart somehow. I’m sure the jury are aware of defence lawyers tactics and hopefully aren’t falling for it.
 
Dr Evans is a bit bad *advertiser censored*!

I think it’s important that it’s made clear, to continue his job as an independent medical
Witness in court, he has to stay up to date with current medical practice. I’m sure he still attends lectures, reads medical journals, spends time with friends who still practice, giving opinions. Talking though new medical innovations etc etc. he’s not just dropped off the face of the medical world. Medicine is so fluid, new products, medications and knowledge comes about every year.

I also think, while yes they have these two medical experts, there is still a lot to be said for LL colleagues who actually worked day in and day out on the unit. Who encountered all these babies with her, who’ve had the first hand medical experience in all these situations. The pediatricians and even other nurses.

While a nurse might not be as expert as a neonatologist, if you’ve been a nicu nurse for say, twenty years. That experience is golden. I mean she can’t be the only senior nurse on the unit. This is just the top of the witness iceberg.
 
IMO it is just tactics by the defence to ‘discredit’ the independent expert witness and try and introduce an element of doubt RE accuracy of his testimonial/expert advice.
That’s exactly what it is. If I’m reading it correct Dr. Evans said that he wasn’t familiar with the brand Phillips (he used a Hewlett-Packard) not that he wasn’t familiar with what the machine actually does.
 
I think if I was on this jury, so far it is the insulin related deaths that I would be the most concerned over. Whether or not it is deemed believable, the milk and air deaths I presume will be argued by mistakes/negligence mixed with possible other medical conditions/events being responsible for the deaths. The insulin deaths being framed as deliberate tampering with the bags is IMO a harder thing to argue away, other than maybe the bags being contaminated prior to the ward getting them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
250
Guests online
1,298
Total visitors
1,548

Forum statistics

Threads
587,434
Messages
17,882,553
Members
227,103
Latest member
AshleyGum
Back
Top