UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #9

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
 
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.
 
MOD NOTE:

From the Verification Process page:

If you would like to add yourself as an expert in a certain field or as an insider to a case, please send an email to wsverify@yahoo.com Please note this is a new email address.

If you do not wish to be identified as an expert in a certain area, we ask that you refrain from answering questions that are specifically directed to those that have been verified as specialist in their area and that you do not claim to be a professional in any area.

If a member posts with "expertise" please check to make sure they are on this list. If not, please do not take their post as professional information, but rather just as another opinion; much as you would with any member of the general posting membership.

Click here for the list of verified professionals and verified insiders.

Please cease the bickering about statistics and statisticians. We have no verified statisticians posting on this thread, no statisticians who have testified in court and whose testimony you can discuss. You may have a conversation in PMs if you wish, but don't bring it to the thread. Up to 20 can participate, and such a thread can't be seen or moderated by moderators or administration.
 
ADMIN REMINDER:
If what you post is your OPINION, you MUST a be clear about that with a qualifier like IMHO or similar. Otherwise your post reads as a statement of FACT without the required substantiating link, and it is subject to being REMOVED.
 
ADMIN NOTE:

Please remember that any post expressing an opinion of either guilt or innocence is in violation of sub judice rules.

Posts that violate sub judice get removed, along with all responses to them.
 
Officer Dibble asked about the post it notes that were found in Letby's home after her arrest in the last thread.

There are links to articles in the first or second thread but she wrote, "I don't deserve to live, I killed them all on purpose because I'm not good enough."

And, "I AM EVIL, I DID THIS."

"I am a horrible evil person."

She also wrote "HATE" in capitals, and that she doesn't deserve her parents.

I don't know the exact quote but she also wrote that she will never get married or have a family.

If you search "Lucy Letby trial post it notes" you will find a selection of articles.

I hope that helps.

ETA There were also claims of innocence, but I don't think she wrote "Why do I keep doing this?"
 
Last edited:
This article is a very good summary of cases A through Q---which are upcoming.


Ben Myers KC, defending Letby, insisted the notes showed his client's 'anguish not guilt', telling the jury they were the 'outpouring of a young woman when she learnt she was being accused of killing children, that she'd done her best to care for'.

He said in some cases the care infants had received at the Countess of Chester had been 'suboptimal' and that 'there were problems with the way this unit performed' that 'have nothing to do with Lucy Letby'.

'Interesting items' were found during a search of her house on Westbourne Road in Chester, including paperwork relating to many of the children who died or suffered collapses and Post-it notes with closely written words which included the names of some of her colleagues, Mr Johnson said.

'But I want to show you one note in particular,' Mr Johnson said, as a green Post-it note was shown on TV screens to the jury.
Mr Johnson said: 'She wrote, "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" and in capital letters "I am evil I did this".'

Mr Johnson added: 'Well, ladies and gentlemen, that in a nutshell is your task in this case. Whether or not she did these dreadful things is the decision you will have to make when you have heard all the evidence.'

Along with the 'I am evil...' note, there were other written notes, the jury heard.



Pictured: Note saying ‘I am evil I did this’ scrawled by alleged killer nurse Lucy Letby​

Post-it note shows ‘hate’ written in capitals in heavy ink and circled

 
It is really no good to write such incriminating things about oneself - but to keep it for anyone to see? :oops:
Oh dear...
Not wanting to get into a discussion we've done before but they are incriminating - or not - depending on what view of them you take. The defence has said that they are not incriminating at all.
 
Not wanting to get into a discussion we've done before but they are incriminating - or not - depending on what view of them you take. The defence has said that they are not incriminating at all.
Well, umm...
Putting on a brave face...?
What else can Defence say?

But it is just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Well, umm...
Putting on a brave face...?
What else can Defence say?

But it is just my opinion.
It's all been done before pages back so it's a waste of time rehashing it in depth. Essentially, the defence are saying that it's LL pouring her thoughts out over being accused of things she hasn't done. If you consider the things such as "I did it because I'm evil" it could easily read as being notes with her legal team regarding what was being said about her.

The notes are not as straightforward as people seem to suggest they are - they are much more subtle and nuanced, IMO.
 
It's all been done before pages back so it's a waste of time rehashing it in depth. Essentially, the defence are saying that it's LL pouring her thoughts out over being accused of things she hasn't done. If you consider the things such as "I did it because I'm evil" it could easily read as being notes with her legal team regarding what was being said about her.

The notes are not as straightforward as people seem to suggest they are - they are much more subtle and nuanced, IMO.
Yes, I'm aware of all this :)
 
A reminder of the angle the defence are going for:

"But he said the 'foundation' of the case is medical evidence.He told the court: 'What the case will come down to is the medical evidence and what it can safely prove and what it can't and what we can safely conclude.'

Mr Myers said causes of a baby's deterioration or death are not always clear and there may be a number of reasons.
He added that in this case the babies were 'clinically fragile', and in conditions that could change 'very swiftly and deteriorate very rapidly'.

He said there are f
ive key issues in the medical evidence: the birth condition of the baby, whether there were any problems in the health or care of the child, whether the evidence proves deliberate harm was done, whether Letby was present at the relevant time, and whether there were failings in care by other people or the unit as a whole."

...Miss Letby is adamant she's done nothing intentionally to harm these babies.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11312583/PICTUREDL-killed-purpose-post-note-written-nurse-Lucy-Letby.html


Note that he says LL says she did nothing to intentionally harm the babies. He doesn't say "she did intentionally harm them but didn't intend to kill them", or "she did intentionally harm them but she intended to save them" or "She did intentionally harm them but only for the drama of bringing them back from the brink of death". The defence case is that she didn't intentionally harm any babies, full stop.
 
Note that he says LL says she did nothing to intentionally harm the babies. He doesn't say "she did intentionally harm them but didn't intend to kill them", or "she did intentionally harm them but she intended to save them" or "She did intentionally harm them but only for the drama of bringing them back from the brink of death". The defence case is that she didn't intentionally harm any babies, full stop.
He'd never say that though, unless she had admitted that. Indeed, if he had used that defence then it would be a guaranteed conviction on the murder charges as the prosecution only need show an intent to cause GBH from which the victim died to obtain one. She would effectively be admitting the murder charges.

The usage of the word "intentionally" leaves the door open for the jury to find that she was negligent or incompetent, as opposed to malicious. Neither of those could result in a murder conviction or a conviction for attempted murder as they lack the necessary intent to either kill or do GBH.

All IMO, obvs.
 
Summary of the defence case for Babies A to K

Baby A-the defence does not accept that an air embolus, or air bubble, was the cause of death. Mr Myers said the 'polite' way of describing the care of child A on the unit was 'sub-obtimal'.
Baby B,-a 'good example' of the 'assumption of guilt', ...experts had been 'influenced by the theory of harm'.
Baby C - 'very premature' vulnerable, especially to infection..should have been at a specialist children's hospital.
Baby D - hospital failed to provide adequate care....should have been given antibiotics earlier...more evidence that infection played a part in her death (than LL).
Baby E -no clear explanation in his case for what happened...not right to rely on the assumption of guilt.'
Baby F - (insulin poisoning) ...there was 'nothing in fact' to establish any such actions.
Baby G - 'extremely premature' baby who was 'high risk' with predicted problems
Baby H, - 'sub-optimal care' by the Countess of Chester Hospital
Baby I -collapses and death were "part of a series of clinical problems which may well have been inevitable given her extreme prematurity.'"
Baby J- Hospital was 'well out of its depth' and knowing how to treat her.Assumption of deliberate harm had been made rather than an alternative explanation of a baby receiving inadequate care.
Child K -probable cause was the child inadvertently moving the breathing tube herself.'sub-optimal care' in that she should have been treated at a more specialist unit

 
Summary of the defence case for Babies A to K

Baby A-the defence does not accept that an air embolus, or air bubble, was the cause of death. Mr Myers said the 'polite' way of describing the care of child A on the unit was 'sub-obtimal'.
Baby B,-a 'good example' of the 'assumption of guilt', ...experts had been 'influenced by the theory of harm'.
Baby C - 'very premature' vulnerable, especially to infection..should have been at a specialist children's hospital.
Baby D - hospital failed to provide adequate care....should have been given antibiotics earlier...more evidence that infection played a part in her death (than LL).
Baby E -no clear explanation in his case for what happened...not right to rely on the assumption of guilt.'
Baby F - (insulin poisoning) ...there was 'nothing in fact' to establish any such actions.
Baby G - 'extremely premature' baby who was 'high risk' with predicted problems
Baby H, - 'sub-optimal care' by the Countess of Chester Hospital
Baby I -collapses and death were "part of a series of clinical problems which may well have been inevitable given her extreme prematurity.'"
Baby J- Hospital was 'well out of its depth' and knowing how to treat her.Assumption of deliberate harm had been made rather than an alternative explanation of a baby receiving inadequate care.
Child K -probable cause was the child inadvertently moving the breathing tube herself.'sub-optimal care' in that she should have been treated at a more specialist unit

I think the problem with this overall defense is the surge in unexplained deaths during the time period that LL was on the floor.

I don't think you can explain it by saying the hospital was giving suboptimal care. They have the medical notes showing the care the babies were receiving. And in all of the cases I have read about, the child was doing very well, then suddenly collapsed, from no apparent illness/infection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
230
Guests online
1,217
Total visitors
1,447

Forum statistics

Threads
587,437
Messages
17,882,621
Members
227,105
Latest member
oddfoxx
Back
Top