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

[LorriB]

With baby G, the unnamed nurse says the Drs admitted to her that they had left the monitor off by accident and left the baby behind a screen. The Dr however denies this in court "But he did tell the court it was "not safe" to turn off such a monitor, adding: "I'm not even sure I know how to turn off that particular monitor. At no point would I have turned it off"."

Lucy Letby: Doctor denies turning off baby monitor, trial hears

Nurse Lucy Letby is accused of attempting to murder the premature baby girl by overfeeding her milk.

www.bbc.co.uk

It would be wonderful if this had been recorded electronically as sapphireminds states.

 

[ColourPurple]

With baby G, the unnamed nurse says the Drs admitted to her that they had left the monitor off by accident and left the baby behind a screen. The Dr however denies this in court "But he did tell the court it was "not safe" to turn off such a monitor, adding: "I'm not even sure I know how to turn off that particular monitor. At no point would I have turned it off"."

Lucy Letby: Doctor denies turning off baby monitor, trial hears

Nurse Lucy Letby is accused of attempting to murder the premature baby girl by overfeeding her milk.

www.bbc.co.uk

It would be wonderful if this had been recorded electronically as sapphireminds states.

Presumably it wouldn't show who switched the monitor off though , although I guess timings could be helpful, if they were permanently recorded and could be accessed years later.

I think they mentioned that the monitors themselves did keep records but that the nurses would have had no reason to check them, as nobody suspected anything was being done to deliberately harm babies at that point. Can't remember which baby it was mentioned in connection with to be able to find a quote though.

ETA I can't find a quote to back that up, does anybody remember what was said about what historic records the monitors can show or can any UK nurses confirm?

 

[Kemug]

Personally, I can't imagine how difficult it must be hearing out this technical evidence if one is not an academic or intellectual or that way minded.

Well, far be it from me to say that I am not an intellectual , but I must admit to being ever so slightly challenged by all the technical stuff .

 

[marynnu]

Well, far be it from me to say that I am not an intellectual , but I must admit to being ever so slightly challenged by all the technical stuff .

I would say that the jury are being guided through in a structured way. I recall there have been periods when they've had stuff explained, which is not reported to us. And they have visuals too!

 

[Dotta]

I would say that the jury are being guided through in a structured way. I recall there have been periods when they've had stuff explained, which is not reported to us. And they have visuals too!

It might be that after the trial, they may become medical experts in their families

JMO

 

[marynnu]

It might be that after the trial, they may become medical experts in their families

JMO

They'll certainly have learnt a lot!

 

[katydid23]

Letby faces three charges of the attempted murder of Child G. On 6 September 2015, the prosecution claims she was fed an excessive amount of milk and vomited out of her cot and onto a nearby chair.

Ben Myers KC, for the defence, says doctors say Child G was "born on the margins of viability".

"She was a high-risk baby with a history of abdominal distension and vomiting", the court hears.

The defence also says Child G had exhibited signs of infection.

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

Latest updates on day four of the Lucy Letby trial, with the prosecution showing the court handwritten "confessions" from the nurse in which she allegedly admitted she was "evil", and the defence saying the hospital was "well out of its depth". Letby denies all charges.

news.sky.com

 

[sapphireminds]

In your experience could a baby being gravity fed by a NG tube take in so much milk and air in one feed that their stomach was purple and distended and they projectile vomited?

Or is the medical expert's opinion that milk and air must've been forced in by plunger, as it wouldn't have got there by gravity, feasible?

And what's your opinion of LL's explanation that babies swallow a lot of air when vomiting? Here's a summary of the explantion put forward:.

"Despite Baby G having been given only 45mls of milk in a 2am feed, the amount she vomited was 'far, far more' than that.

'She probably had more air as well, and given that it had increased the abdomen distention I don't think this got down by gravity.

'The logical explanation is that the plunger at the end of the syringe must have been inserted and milk squirted down the tube using the syringe.

'This will have caused the abdominal distention, then she will have vomited because of the gross over-distention of her stomach'...

But he rejected the barrister's assertion that he was basing his theory about the vomiting on the assumption that a nurse had aspirated the baby - checked that her stomach was empty -prior to the 2am feed.

'No, it's based on extraordinary presentation: the vomit has spread over the canopy, over the floor and over the chair. And after the vomiting there was an aspiration of 45mls.

'So there has to be a significant amount of additional milk, plus air, to explain what happened to the little babe (correct) at 2am'.

Lucy Letby 'used syringe to force milk and air into baby', court told

Neonatal nurse Lucy Letby used the plunger on the end of a syringe to force milk and air into one of the babies she allegedly tried to murder, a medical expert told a jury today.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I don't know if it would be possible. I don't see here it mentioning the abdomen being purple - is that in another place? The defense seems to imply that the aspiration wasn't a sure thing? <modsnip: quoted post was removed>

 

[Sweeper2000]

<modsnip - sub judice>

Dr evans has stated the AE could have been delivered over a period of time about three minutes I think. They need to place LL at the cotside in that time otherwise it’s a no go charge. If that one doesn’t work as alleged by the prosecution I think it would have serious implications for the other cases where an intravenous AE is alleged. The jury may see it as if this one collapsed seemingly spontaneously and without outside interference and these drs have stated AE as the cause and we know ll wasn’t in the vicinity so couldn’t have done it then how do we know that for the other charges that something similar hasn’t occurred?

for me it’s remarkable that the designated nurse was in direct proximity to her designated baby and the collapse happened and the designated nurse didn’t see anything untoward. Not sure we have heard all testimony but nothing from her to say ll was cotside in those 3 minutes. The designated nurse heard nothing to suggest baby m was in discomfort which To me is remarkable. One might think the baby would show at least something to say something wasn’t right. It’s not like the other cases apparently whereby the AE was alleged to have been of almost instant affect.

it’s also worth noting IMO that mg was the dn and ll co signed for the antibiotic at 3.45 but I think it would follow that it would be the dn who administered it. She’s got no reason not to other than being at the computer not more than a few metres away.

I would be very interested to hear how you could distinguish between a cardiac arrest caused by a AE and otherwise. I know it’s normally picked up on x ray afterwards but that I think is assuming an x ray is done. To me I would hope that it is not something that can be applied to a broad range of non suspicious collapses. Otherwise it’s a catch all diagnosis potentially. It’s not like something we can test for and find very certain conclusive elements giving us no doubt about something say for instance cancer.

jmo

 

[katydid23]

<modsnip - sub judice>

Child M is a good example I think. Dr evans has stated the AE could have been delivered over a period of time about three minutes I think. They need to place LL at the cotside in that time otherwise it’s a no go charge. If that one doesn’t work as alleged by the prosecution I think it would have serious implications for the other cases where an intravenous AE is alleged. The jury may see it as if this one collapsed seemingly spontaneously and without outside interference and these drs have stated AE as the cause and we know ll wasn’t in the vicinity so couldn’t have done it then how do we know that for the other charges that something similar hasn’t occurred?

for me it’s remarkable that the designated nurse was in direct proximity to her designated baby and the collapse happened and the designated nurse didn’t see anything untoward. Not sure we have heard all testimony but nothing from her to say ll was cotside in those 3 minutes. The designated nurse heard nothing to suggest baby m was in discomfort which To me is remarkable. One might think the baby would show at least something to say something wasn’t right. It’s not like the other cases apparently whereby the AE was alleged to have been of almost instant affect.

it’s also worth noting IMO that mg was the dn and ll co signed for the antibiotic at 3.45 but I think it would follow that it would be the dn who administered it. She’s got no reason not to other than being at the computer not more than a few metres away.

I would be very interested to hear how you could distinguish between a cardiac arrest caused by a AE and otherwise. I know it’s normally picked up on x ray afterwards but that I think is assuming an x ray is done. To me I would hope that it is not something that can be applied to a broad range of non suspicious collapses. Otherwise it’s a catch all diagnosis potentially. It’s not like something we can test for and find very certain conclusive elements giving us no doubt about something say for instance cancer.

jmo

LL has been put 'cot-side' during the relevant times. LL had her only 2 patients in that same room, just feet away from the victims. And she was in and out of that room constantly, including 10 to 15 minutes earlier than the collapse, when she signed for some meds for child M. If she gave him those meds than she was there 5 minutes before his collapse. Even if she didn't, she had her 2 babies in that room, so where else would she be? JMO

 

[JosieJo]

The thing for me with this case ...more than any other case I've followed probably because of the number and nature of charges ..and maybe people trying to understand on the tiny amount of testimony we hear,
I think it gets forgotten that we are at trial stage and a decision can only be made by the Jury based on what they are told in the court room.
They can't Google or use their experience and say well could the death or collapse be because of X Y Z disease or because of a different situation.
I know the thread is to discuss the case but can you imagine if a juror decides to read (I know they shouldn't) these threads with all this information and ideas that have not been presented in court ?
I'm certainly not saying people can't discuss what they want.
But for me personally it's simple...decide between the prosecution and defence version and nothing else ...JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

This is dr evans testimony regard the times.

“He told Manchester Crown Court it could have taken “several minutes” for it to take effect before the youngster, Child M, rapidly deteriorated and almost died as staff battled for nearly 30 minutes to revive him.”

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.northnorfolknews.co.uk

if the dn can accurately remember if ll was within one foot of the crib in those three mins then you have an opportunity otherwise no IMO. Collapse happened at 4 so a few minutes before 4 Not 3.45.

@JosieJo your probably right. Really is an unenviable task. I might think they would take it more seriously than us as well. That’s a very very responsible position to be held in.

 

[Dotta]

So
There will be 22 verdicts for 22 charges, right?
And...
Do all Jurors have to agree to each verdict?

Unanimously?

Is it even possible for so many charges?

Or the majority of Jurors can decide each verdict?

I really have so many questions regarding this issue.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

LL has been put 'cot-side' during the relevant times. LL had her only 2 patients in that same room, just feet away from the victims. And she was in and out of that room constantly, including 10 to 15 minutes earlier than the collapse, when she signed for some meds for child M. If she gave him those meds than she was there 5 minutes before his collapse. Even if she didn't, she had her 2 babies in that room, so where else would she be? JMO

Where did you get her being cotside within five minutes of 4 from? She needs to be literally tending to baby m for her to deliver the AE as alleged.

 

[Sweeper2000]

So
There will be 22 verdicts for 22 charges, right?
And...
Do all Jurors have to agree to each verdict?

Unanimously?

Is it even possible for so many charges?

Or the majority of Jurors can decide each verdict?

I really have so many questions regarding this issue.

JMO

I think there can be a majority verdict on each case individually but not sure about others. Anything over 10 I believe is a majority verdict but not sure.

 

[LorriB]

I don't know if it would be possible. I don't see here it mentioning the abdomen being purple - is that in another place? The defense seems to imply that the aspiration wasn't a sure thing?

It says

"Dr Alison Ventress writes clinical notes, timed at 2.35am and written retrospectively at 4.40am.

They record: 'Called to r/v [Child G] urgently at 2.35am.

'Had very large projectile vomit (reaching chair next to cot + canopy). Abdo appeared discoloured purple and distended. [Child G] distressed and uncomfortable. Red in face and purple all over. [Oxygen] to 1L via nasal cannula...'

This was after the alleged overfeeding around half hour before.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, December 1

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Dotta]

I think there can be a majority verdict on each case individually but not sure about others. Anything over 10 I believe is a majority verdict but not sure.

But what happens if:

The Jurors decide on , mmm, 20 charges
But
disagree on 2?

What then?
Will it be so called "hung Jury"?

 

[Sweeper2000]

But what happens if:

The Jurors decide on , mmm, 20 charges
But
disagree on 2?

What then?
Would it be so called "hung Jury"?

No I think they could find her guilty on one single charge but not on the rest. Would be a hung jury on those two charges. It’s not a all or nothing situation.

 

[sapphireminds]

The thing for me with this case ...more than any other case I've followed probably because of the number and nature of charges ..and maybe people trying to understand on the tiny amount of testimony we hear,
I think it gets forgotten that we are at trial stage and a decision can only be made by the Jury based on what they are told in the court room.
They can't Google or use their experience and say well could the death or collapse be because of X Y Z disease or because of a different situation.
I know the thread is to discuss the case but can you imagine if a juror decides to read (I know they shouldn't) these threads with all this information and ideas that have not been presented in court ?
I'm certainly not saying people can't discuss what they want.
But for me personally it's simple...decide between the prosecution and defence version and nothing else ...JMO

We don't actually have what is being presented to the jury - which is part of the problem. We have someone else giving a play by play summary, which is a far cry from what they have there.

Personally, I am interested in justice/the truth as much as legal outcome. Just like if evidence was excluded on a technicality - I understand from a judicial process why they have to exclude it, but if the murderer gets off because of that technicality, that doesn't make them less guilty.

If a juror were to come here at all, they would be disqualified. It wouldn't matter what they read because they would not be allowed to continue having sought out information independently in the case.

 

[Dotta]

No I think they could find her guilty on one single charge but not on the rest. Would be a hung jury on those two charges. It’s not a all or nothing situation.

But is it possible?

I mean,
it is ONE trial, comprising of 22 mini trials as each charge is treated separately.

But I guess the whole verdict should have Jurors agreeing on EACH charge, no?
Either unanimously or by majority.

If they disagree on, let's say, 2 cases -
does it mean there must be another trial for these 2??

Or, as it is one trial, it might finish with "hung Jury"?

Sorry, bear with me as it all is novelty to me

JMO