UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #12

[Sweeper2000]

I think the experts will give an opinion for the exclusion of natural causes of crying, sudden drop in saturations, and alleged sudden bleeding in the throat.

JMO

im really wondering now. If it came to it you might sum up the equation as med experts opinions vs eyewitness testimony.

highlighting baby n.

if we were to say that yes the med experts can look at the notes and diagnose but are not present at the time and we have eyewitness testimony more or less stating that the experts are incorrect because it simply could not have happened that way as no opportunity, how could a jury possibly look at that?

aside from doubting the eyewitness testimony Im struggling to see the strengths and weaknesses of the opposed positions.

 

[Becky53]

I’m still playing catch up with the podcasts and noticed a new one has been listed today.

In this bonus episode, Caroline and Liz discuss the change in focus the court took this week, as the jury heard more about how doctors were getting worried about a possible link between the babies who had been collapsing in the neonatal unit. It’s the first time the court has heard that there were some people who had started ‘to think the unthinkable”.

The Trial of Lucy Letby, Episode 19: An Association, "The truth of it is we were thinking the unthinkable. We didn’t want to believe it.” - The Mail

www.mailplus.co.uk

 

[Sundial]

I’ve been trying to dig out from the reports here today and can’t seem to find it; but I’m sure I read the nurse testified she couldn’t remember where LL was standing when baby N deteriorated. There have been posters stating she wasn’t anywhere near the baby when he deteriorated. This isn’t a fact if the nurse cannot remember where she was stood imo

 

[Tortoise]

im really wondering now. If it came to it you might sum up the equation as med experts opinions vs eyewitness testimony.

highlighting baby n.

if we were to say that yes the med experts can look at the notes and diagnose but are not present at the time and we have eyewitness testimony more or less stating that the experts are incorrect because it simply could not have happened that way as no opportunity, how could a jury possibly look at that?

aside from doubting the eyewitness testimony Im struggling to see the strengths and weaknesses of the opposed positions.

We aren't getting full reporting of testimony to make an informed judgement on what the jury is hearing.

But I'm fairly confident that the prosecution case is not based on something that could not possibly have happened.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

im really wondering now. If it came to it you might sum up the equation as med experts opinions vs eyewitness testimony.

highlighting baby n.

if we were to say that yes the med experts can look at the notes and diagnose but are not present at the time and we have eyewitness testimony more or less stating that the experts are incorrect because it simply could not have happened that way as no opportunity, how could a jury possibly look at that?

aside from doubting the eyewitness testimony Im struggling to see the strengths and weaknesses of the opposed positions.

I don't think she would be charged with any attacks unless she was potentially present at that time.

In other words, she would have to be on duty, in the unit, and have potential access to the victim, or there would be no charges brought.

I think the later cases, are harder to prove because she began, allegedly, to change things up and try to make it more confusing. JMO

 

[Jazmania]

im really wondering now. If it came to it you might sum up the equation as med experts opinions vs eyewitness testimony.

highlighting baby n.

if we were to say that yes the med experts can look at the notes and diagnose but are not present at the time and we have eyewitness testimony more or less stating that the experts are incorrect because it simply could not have happened that way as no opportunity, how could a jury possibly look at that?

aside from doubting the eyewitness testimony Im struggling to see the strengths and weaknesses of the opposed positions.

From what I understand, the throat trauma injury/swelling and blood were not seen until the later 15.50 and 19:50 events. And we haven't heard eyewitness testimony about those yet, so there would almost certainly have been opportunity.

 

[Tortoise]

From what I understand, the throat trauma injury/swelling and blood were not seen until the later 15.50 and 19:50 events. And we haven't heard eyewitness testimony about those yet, so there would almost certainly have been opportunity.

Incident one: Child N had swollen throat with 'fresh blood'​

Twelve days later, on 15 June 2016, there were two more incidents, the prosecution tells jurors.
At 8am, Child N's oxygen levels had fallen to 48%. A decision was made to intubate him.
The doctor doing so said "he was surprised by his anatomy more than anything else. I couldn't visualise the back of his throat because of swelling".
There was "fresh blood" in Child N's throat - something, the prosecution says, that had been seen before in previous children.
He attempted to intubate Child N on three occasions but was "unable to get the breathing tube down his throat".
Medical notes shown to the jury show that Letby later recorded that Child N had vomited 1ml blood.
The prosecution says that apart from one Facebook message to a doctor, there is "no evidence she brought the bleeding to the attention of any of the medical staff on the ward, which is surprising", given that Child N had collapsed in the first three hours of the shift.

Lucy Letby trial - latest: Nurse 'adamant' she's done nothing to harm any of the babies in the case as defence begins

 

[katydid23]

I’ve been trying to dig out from the reports here today and can’t seem to find it; but I’m sure I read the nurse testified she couldn’t remember where LL was standing when baby N deteriorated. There have been posters stating she wasn’t anywhere near the baby when he deteriorated. This isn’t a fact if the nurse cannot remember where she was stood imo

Yes, saying 'no one can place her there' is not the same thing as saying 'she could not have been there' at that time.

I used to work at a day care when I was in college. We were all designated certain babies, but during our shifts we always ended up changing a diaper and giving a bottle to whatever child needed it at the time. Things happen and workers get sidetracked by other incidents and we all step up and do what needs to be done.

And I think this is a similar situation. A coworker may have to go meet with a doctor or a family member or make up a specific medication---and they might ask someone else to watch their room. No one is going to remember where everyone else was at each moment. JMO

Also, whomever was doing these malicious actions was pretty cunning. They could hear and see sudden opportunities when another nurse was going on a break or going to make a pharmacy order, etc....and in a blink of an eye they could do some quick and silent damage...

 

[Sweeper2000]

I don't think she would be charged with any attacks unless she was potentially present at that time.

In other words, she would have to be on duty, in the unit, and have potential access to the victim, or there would be no charges brought.

I think the later cases, are harder to prove because she began, allegedly, to change things up and try to make it more confusing. JMO

Presence does not indicate opportunities. Example baby k I think if mg says she did not notice ll having the opportunity to actually physically administer an AE then it cannot have happened and must be something else. ll can be in the room of any number of deaths and collapses but if she is handcuffed to a chair that’s bolted to the ceiling she cannot possibly have done it. IMO.

this is what the prosecution need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That ll was actually able to do as alleged. If they can’t do that then, you know. It might be the case that the prosecution have said for child n that the nurse ll was saying hello to had written something at the time in the med notes which they reviewed and that is the evidence of that nurse not having eyes on baby n but we will wait and see.

very relative to mr Myers stating something along the lines of “presence being used as evidence of guilt” or similar and “medical experts don’t always get it right” or similar.

has been mentioned before but Dr. Evans and dr bohin only have the notes to go with, they can only guess to the best of their ability using those notes and without actually being present cannot say what was actually happening at the time of the alleged events.

 

[Tortoise]

Presence does not indicate opportunities. Example baby k I think if mg says she did not notice ll having the opportunity to actually physically administer an AE then it cannot have happened and must be something else. ll can be in the room of any number of deaths and collapses but if she is handcuffed to a chair that’s bolted to the ceiling she cannot possibly have done it. IMO.

This was baby M.
Nurse MG was on the computer 15 minutes before the collapse.
Nurse MG did not testify she had eyes on LL during the 15 minutes before his collapse.
Nurse MG said she heard the alarm and looked over her shoulder to see the monitor alarming as LL headed over to the incubator.
The experts said the air could have been administered several minutes before the alarm went, giving LL time to have moved away from the incubator at least several minutes before baby collapsed.

"cannot have happened and must be something else" does not reflect the testimony.

 

[katydid23]

Lucy Letby 'agitated' by specialists' arrival, trial told

A colleague says Lucy Letby acted "out of character" when specialists arrived to help a baby boy.

www.bbc.com

 

[Jazmania]

Incident one: Child N had swollen throat with 'fresh blood'​

Twelve days later, on 15 June 2016, there were two more incidents, the prosecution tells jurors.
At 8am, Child N's oxygen levels had fallen to 48%. A decision was made to intubate him.
The doctor doing so said "he was surprised by his anatomy more than anything else. I couldn't visualise the back of his throat because of swelling".
There was "fresh blood" in Child N's throat - something, the prosecution says, that had been seen before in previous children.
He attempted to intubate Child N on three occasions but was "unable to get the breathing tube down his throat".
Medical notes shown to the jury show that Letby later recorded that Child N had vomited 1ml blood.
The prosecution says that apart from one Facebook message to a doctor, there is "no evidence she brought the bleeding to the attention of any of the medical staff on the ward, which is surprising", given that Child N had collapsed in the first three hours of the shift.

Lucy Letby trial - latest: Nurse 'adamant' she's done nothing to harm any of the babies in the case as defence begins

I stand corrected. So the swelling was there at this 7.15am incident. After an injury swelling takes a while to develop, I believe. I mean usually swelling occurs minutes to hours after an injury rather than seconds. So are they saying LL injured N at 7.15, and by the time the doctors tried to intubate at 8am it was swollen? Or could he have been injured hours before during LL's previous day shift?

 

[katydid23]

I stand corrected. So the swelling was there at this 7.15am incident. After an injury swelling takes a while to develop, I believe. I mean usually swelling occurs minutes to hours after an injury rather than seconds. So are they saying LL injured N at 7.15, and by the time the doctors tried to intubate at 8am it was swollen? Or could he have been injured hours before during LL's previous day shift?

It could take just minutes for a newborn's throat to become swollen if it was injured by something hard/sharp. JMO

I've seen babies and toddlers get 'eggs' or 'knots' on their foreheads or faces from falling and it can happen in a minute or so.

 

[Sweeper2000]

This was baby M.
Nurse MG was on the computer 15 minutes before the collapse.
Nurse MG did not testify she had eyes on LL during the 15 minutes before his collapse.
Nurse MG said she heard the alarm and looked over her shoulder to see the monitor alarming as LL headed over to the incubator.
The experts said the air could have been administered several minutes before the alarm went, giving LL time to have moved away from the incubator at least several minutes before baby collapsed.

"cannot have happened and must be something else" does not reflect the testimony.

This was baby M.
Nurse MG was on the computer 15 minutes before the collapse.
Nurse MG did not testify she had eyes on LL during the 15 minutes before his collapse.
Nurse MG said she heard the alarm and looked over her shoulder to see the monitor alarming as LL headed over to the incubator.
The experts said the air could have been administered several minutes before the alarm went, giving LL time to have moved away from the incubator at least several minutes before baby collapsed.

"cannot have happened and must be something else" does not reflect the testimony.

Excuse me baby m it is. It’s my opinion that mg not testifying that she noticed ll standing anywhere near the incubator in the three minutes prior to the collapse that goes against the prosecutions theory. I think most people would think that if ll was near it mg would have testified to that effect. We also according to this article have ll nowhere near that incubator at the actual time of the collapse Or indeed for some time before it.

“Letby was near the doorway of room one, helping a colleague prepare medication for Child M’s twin brother, when the alarm sounded at 4pm, the court heard on Thursday.”

Baby boy collapsed because of ‘slow injection of air’, Lucy Letby’s trial hears

Letby, 33, is accused of trying to murder Child M on the afternoon of April 9 2016.

www.burytimes.co.uk

that as well as mg saying ll wasn’t according to her account near the incubator make it unlikely that it was an AE via syringe imo.

the Prosecution’s case is that ll administered the AE whilst mg had her back turned, I don’t believe all in all that this is a likely scenario.

 

[DianaWW]

I don’t recall anyone mentioning 3 minutes though, I think they said ‘several’ minutes. Which is different IMO. But I may be wrong. It’s hard to keep track!

 

[Sundial]

Presence does not indicate opportunities. Example baby k I think if mg says she did not notice ll having the opportunity to actually physically administer an AE then it cannot have happened and must be something else. ll can be in the room of any number of deaths and collapses but if she is handcuffed to a chair that’s bolted to the ceiling she cannot possibly have done it. IMO.

I respectfully disagree, someone’s presence can indicate opportunities far more than it would if someone wasn’t present at all.

In addition, just because someone does not notice her having the opportunity, does not mean it cannot have happened imho.

I’ll give an example; in the next town where I live, an elderly man was stabbed in their home. No-one actually saw anything, no-one noticed anything or anyone entering the home at the time of the attack. It was early hours in the morning. But we do know that “someone’s” presence indicated an opportunity otherwise he wouldn’t have died like this.

It later transpired that there was a dispute with a family member the day before which led to the attack (and perpetrator), but just because no-one noticed at the time it is alleged to happen; does not mean it *cannot* be them. I feel this is a very bold view that we cannot categorically claim to be factual.
JMO

 

[Tortoise]

that as well as mg saying ll wasn’t according to her account near the incubator make it unlikely that it was an AE via syringe imo.

At what time did MG say LL wasn't near the incubator?

What does MG say about the three minutes before the collapse?

How did you arrive at the number three?

Please link the relevant testimony that says any of this.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I respectfully disagree, someone’s presence can indicate opportunities far more than it would if someone wasn’t present at all.

In addition, just because someone does not notice her having the opportunity, does not mean it cannot have happened imho.

I’ll give an example; in the next town where I live, an elderly man was stabbed in their home. No-one actually saw anything, no-one noticed anything or anyone entering the home at the time of the attack. It was early hours in the morning. But we do know that “someone’s” presence indicated an opportunity otherwise he wouldn’t have died like this.

It later transpired that there was a dispute with a family member the day before which led to the attack (and perpetrator), but just because no-one noticed at the time it is alleged to happen; does not mean it *cannot* be them. I feel this is a very bold view that we cannot categorically claim to be factual.
JMO

If someone is in the room watching someone else and the latter individual is accused of something, the accused is present but without opportunity. I have never said she wasn’t present just that she didn’t have the opportunity assuming five seconds of someone not having eyes on them is not considered an opportunity.

your scenario isn’t at all comparable. knife wounds before and after death indicate murder in this case we have medical scenarios that are not conclusively this or that. I’m still waiting on any ideas on anything that would give a medical professional absolute and concrete proof of an air embolism. The strongest I think I have read of is presence of gas after x ray, it seems it’s quite a broadly applicable diagnosis not at all comparable to stab wounds. The x ray would have to be just after death or collapse though because according to testimony gas is Normal after death.

jmo

 

[ColourPurple]

The ea

I don’t recall anyone mentioning 3 minutes though, I think they said ‘several’ minutes. Which is different IMO. But I may be wrong. It’s hard to keep track!

No, you're right, nobody in court or during any other evidence has ever mentioned three minutes, and that was pointed out the last time three minutes was mentioned on this forum.

 

[Sweeper2000]

At what time did MG say LL wasn't near the incubator?

What does MG say about the three minutes before the collapse?

How did you arrive at the number three?

Please link the relevant testimony that says any of this.

”according to her account” which means if ll was near
the incubator she didn’t notice and that’s not likely IMO.

the most common usage of the word “several“ means three and I think coming from a doctor that is what he means as he really shouldn’t be giving an undefined amount of time especially as it’s relevant to the diagnosis of an AE. Ie speed and volume. Several can also mean “more than two but not many“ so what limit would you put on that? Assuming you would put a limit on it at all. I think at most would be five.

mg has not stated at all any point in time in which she noticed ll near the apparatus preceding the event. The prosecution have stated ll co signed for the antibiotics fifteen which is many minutes before the event as the strongest proof that ll had the opportunity. Mg was also baby m designated nurse so much more likely that she administered it and tended to baby m as per need and would most likely have noticed ll near the equipment in the necessary time frame And would have testified to that. It’s also true that there is no signs of discomfort from baby m preceding the collapse which IMO doesn’t fit. That’s a icu with heavy monitoring of babies and nothing to indicate that this child is about to have a significant event. We also have that article stating ll was helping prepare the meds immediately before and at the same time as the collapse. It would be up to the jury to look at that and see what they conclude and the above is my opinion of that evidence.