The baby murdering nurse

[CEB]

It doesn’t seem like insanity has formed part of the defence, it just looks like a flat denial from what I can see so far, though we’ve only heard from prosecution so far, right?

[cockhat]

Some weird posts on this thread.

It’s properly horrible, this case. It’s about as grotesque an abuse of trust and responsibility imaginable

Alledged!
Glad your not on the jury!

[CEB]

^ someone’s got a thing for killer nurses.

[cockhat]

^ someone’s got a thing for killer nurses.

You are an absolute pr1ck!!
And no doubt a Sun reader.

[Dunners]

Would.

[CEB]

^ someone’s got a thing for killer nurses.

You are an absolute pr1ck!!
And no doubt a Sun reader.

“No doubt” doing a lot of work there, but knock yourself out.

[Mick McQuaid]

I haven't been following it that closely but everything I've heard from the prosecution so far has been focused on her being a bit weird but then having to concede that the baby that died was seriously unwell and that there were numerous failings in the care provided which didn't involve her.

If the defence can cast doubt on the notes that are claimed as an admission (result of distress from seeing babies die and being suspected of being involved) then it would be hard to see how the burden of beyond reasonable doubt has been reached.

No idea if that means she's innocent but it's a very weak case presented so far.

[Long slender neck]

A load of babies under her care just happened to have air injected into them then?

[CEB]

Yeah, the air being injected seems pretty pertinent to me. The fact that she’s weird and seemingly not very well isn’t the relevant bit, nor are other failings in the system

[Max B Gold]

A load of babies under her care just happened to have air injected into them then?

Who by?

[Long slender neck]

By the nurse caring for them, who happens to be Lucy Letby in all cases. (havent actually checked this).

[Max B Gold]

By the nurse caring for them, who happens to be Lucy Letby in all cases. (havent actually checked this).

Prove it.

[Mick McQuaid]

Yeah, the air being injected seems pretty pertinent to me. The fact that she’s weird and seemingly not very well isn’t the relevant bit, nor are other failings in the system

My point being that the actual evidence presented of that is weak, the claims of what the prosecutions case was from the opening statements are just not being backed up. The Doctor called by the prosecution has said that the post mortem findings are consistent with air being injected but not diagnostic. Other than her being around I havent seen anything presented that is evidence she was responsible

Again, I'm not saying she is innocent just that from what I've seen the prosecution is not presenting a strong case.

[Mick McQuaid]

For LSN:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk

[CEB]

Yeah, the air being injected seems pretty pertinent to me. The fact that she’s weird and seemingly not very well isn’t the relevant bit, nor are other failings in the system

My point being that the actual evidence presented of that is weak, the claims of what the prosecutions case was from the opening statements are just not being backed up. The Doctor called by the prosecution has said that the post mortem findings are consistent with air being injected but not diagnostic. Other than her being around I havent seen anything presented that is evidence she was responsible

Again, I'm not saying she is innocent just that from what I've seen the prosecution is not presenting a strong case.

What sort of evidence would you expect to see? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying throw away the key and no fair trial, but she’d need to have been caught in the act for there to be better evidence, no? Which would’ve meant that action wasn’t taken after concerns were raised.
Agree that there’s not a “this is so utterly clear that the result is a foregone conclusion”, but I think that the exact nature of her weirdness in the context of the bits that aren’t disputed, and the nature of the injuries isn’t an overall weak case, just a case without a smoking gun.

I agree that her weirdness alone shouldn’t be the entirety of the case

[Long slender neck]

Some bits in this article are quite damning.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... baby-court

There are a few articles/witnesses which report the same pattern- Letby the only nurse in the room, standing over an incubator, baby dies shortly after.

[Long slender neck]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... court-told

The Guardian reports are much more detailed than the BBC.

[Max B Gold]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... court-told

The Guardian reports are much more detailed than the BBC.

Turn it up. YOU read the Guardian

[Mick McQuaid]

A case like this is incredibly hard to prove, but it doesn't mean the burden of proof changes.

LSN's links are all from the prosecution opening statements which promised a lot but from what I have seen aren't standing up well under examination.

In each case it seems they are having to admit failings in care which could have affected the outcome and complications with the babies health which may be relevant. The doctor called as a witness for the prosecution would go no further than an opinion that air being administered was the most plausible explanation. By definition then there are other plausible explanations, so no where near the proof that is needed.

I disnt realise until I started reading a little more into it that this case was triggered by an investigation into increased mortality on the ward, not through any concerns raised about the nurses conduct at the time.

Tye star witness who now claims to have walked in as she was trying to murder a baby was so concerned at the time he did absolutely nothing about it, not even asking for the alarm that should have been sounding to be looked at. The other people being called as witnesses are a grieving parent and someone who saw her standing in the doorway of a darkened room.

I'd still say on the balance of probability she did it, but the prosecution don't seem close to beyond reasonable doubt. Also relevant to my view is the number of times plod have fitted someone up in cases like this by only being interested in the evidence that strengthens their case and then saying there's an overwhelming amount of it. This is the perfect case for a miscarriage of justice, no firm evidence, a suspect who appears to be vulnerable and a case built years after the events - the alleged offences took place in 2015/16. They need to be doing a lot better than they are at the moment to get a solid conviction.

[Long slender neck]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... court-told

The Guardian reports are much more detailed than the BBC.

Turn it up. YOU read the Guardian

Read a variety to get a balanced view.

[Long slender neck]

A case like this is incredibly hard to prove, but it doesn't mean the burden of proof changes.

LSN's links are all from the prosecution opening statements which promised a lot but from what I have seen aren't standing up well under examination.

In each case it seems they are having to admit failings in care which could have affected the outcome and complications with the babies health which may be relevant. The doctor called as a witness for the prosecution would go no further than an opinion that air being administered was the most plausible explanation. By definition then there are other plausible explanations, so no where near the proof that is needed.

I disnt realise until I started reading a little more into it that this case was triggered by an investigation into increased mortality on the ward, not through any concerns raised about the nurses conduct at the time.

Tye star witness who now claims to have walked in as she was trying to murder a baby was so concerned at the time he did absolutely nothing about it, not even asking for the alarm that should have been sounding to be looked at. The other people being called as witnesses are a grieving parent and someone who saw her standing in the doorway of a darkened room.

I'd still say on the balance of probability she did it, but the prosecution don't seem close to beyond reasonable doubt. Also relevant to my view is the number of times plod have fitted someone up in cases like this by only being interested in the evidence that strengthens their case and then saying there's an overwhelming amount of it. This is the perfect case for a miscarriage of justice, no firm evidence, a suspect who appears to be vulnerable and a case built years after the events - the alleged offences took place in 2015/16. They need to be doing a lot better than they are at the moment to get a solid conviction.

Where are you getting your information?

[Adz]

I haven't been following it that closely......

Proceeds to post loads of detail on it

[Long slender neck]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ned-deaths

[Proposition Joe]

I know there's an insane backlog in the courts due to systemic underfunding and the Rona, but it's still nuts that these cases are taking so long to come round. How can witnesses be expected to remember stuff from so far back? It's not fair on anyone.

I'm waiting to hear if I'm going to be called as a witness for something that happened in autumn 2017 and the trial won't even start til next year. Absolute madness, just relieved I happened to make some notes at the time (was a work thing).

[B.whitehouse+10more]

I know there's an insane backlog in the courts due to systemic underfunding and the Rona, but it's still nuts that these cases are taking so long to come round. How can witnesses be expected to remember stuff from so far back? It's not fair on anyone.

I'm waiting to hear if I'm going to be called as a witness for something that happened in autumn 2017 and the trial won't even start til next year. Absolute madness, just relieved I happened to make some notes at the time (was a work thing).

So you never made a statement to the Police ?