UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #13

[Becci]

I would say it's very unusual for parents to refuse Vit K for their child. I certainly never saw it. Parents of babies admitted to NNU are particularly anxious, obviously, and want you to do everything you can to ensure their child is OK. I also think it's likely that we would have heard if Child D had not received it.

Child G had it mentioned around 100days old is that not late?
E i couldn't see it mentioned.
I ain't looked for other babies.
Thanks

 

[marynnu]

Child G had it mentioned around 100days old is that not late?
E i couldn't see it mentioned.
I ain't looked for other babies.
Thanks

Child G had it mentioned around 100days old is that not late?
E i couldn't see it mentioned.
I ain't looked for other babies.
Thanks

My guess would be that if you don't see anything then the baby had it at birth, as it's just the norm. As for Baby G, sometimes an extra dose is given due to clotting issues.

 

[esther43]

We can't say whether any evidence proves her guilt. As that's up to the jury to decide. However as well as LL being present/involved in each case, the prosecution are highlighting patterns. One pattern has been that the collapses seem to happen just after either the babies desgnated nurse leaves for a break etc, or when parents that have been with their baby on the ward leave, to do things like get food or get some sleep.

So, in addition to any medical evidence we hear, for this case we've also heard that on the 3rd June, the baby collapsed 5 minutes after the designated nurse went on their break at 1am. On 15th June, the first collapse happened before the parents were on the ward, but the collapse around 3pm happened when the parents had left to get food, and the collapse around 7.40pm happened when they left as the mother felt unwell.

The blood around the mouth and alleged throat injury is also very similar to what we heard for Baby E.


all IMO

ETA re milk allergy. There's no evidence that Baby N had any other problems with milk, or that they stopped milk before he recovered, so milk allergy doesn't really fit

edited- to clarify it was 1am on the 3rd June, on the 2nd/3rd June night shift

True. I also noticed that in other cases the staff on shift could not remember the baby but could remember that incidents occured when the designated nurse was on a break.
From their accounts it's sounds as though the one thing that stands out is nurse absence followed by sudden collapse.

 

[esther43]

We can't say whether any evidence proves her guilt. As that's up to the jury to decide. However as well as LL being present/involved in each case, the prosecution are highlighting patterns. One pattern has been that the collapses seem to happen just after either the babies desgnated nurse leaves for a break etc, or when parents that have been with their baby on the ward leave, to do things like get food or get some sleep.

So, in addition to any medical evidence we hear, for this case we've also heard that on the 3rd June, the baby collapsed 5 minutes after the designated nurse went on their break at 1am. On 15th June, the first collapse happened before the parents were on the ward, but the collapse around 3pm happened when the parents had left to get food, and the collapse around 7.40pm happened when they left as the mother felt unwell.

The blood around the mouth and alleged throat injury is also very similar to what we heard for Baby E.


all IMO

ETA re milk allergy. There's no evidence that Baby N had any other problems with milk, or that they stopped milk before he recovered, so milk allergy doesn't really fit

edited- to clarify it was 1am on the 3rd June, on the 2nd/3rd June night shift

True. I also noticed that previously in other cases the staff on shift could not remember the baby but could remember that incidents occured when the designated nurse was on a break.
From their accounts it's sounds as though the one thing that stands out is nurse absence followed by sudden collapse

 

[Becci]

My guess would be that if you don't see anything then the baby had it at birth, as it's just the norm. As for Baby G, sometimes an extra dose is given due to clotting issues.

Thankyou

 

[esther43]

Yea he could be a liability depending how he appears in court.

I wonder if the Jury see Myers as clutching at straws and distracting ...or Evans as unreliable

Exactly, we don't how the jury perceived this.
I was reading the other day that the jury are more likely to sympathise with the prosecution if witnesses are torn apart in the box.

 

[LorriB]

People don't always get it right in their initial reports. Sometimes we overlook the correct conclusion because it does not seem the most probable. It takes awhile to sort things out. JMO

Is it really changing original reports if it is a matter of eventually coming to a different conclusion?

Look at the average murder investigation. Do detectives always pick the correct suspect right at the start? Usually they go through a few suspects before they clear them and land on the correct one. I think the same can happen when trying to find the correct cause of an unexplained death. JMO

He was employed by police to look at all the medical findings. Even if he didn't know what he was looking for, I would expect such an experienced doctor to have explored all avenues initially.

It is different from a detective who is exploring possibilities based on evidence because that evidence can mean different things and new evidence is usually coming to light. A size 8 shoe print that matches one suspect could be discounted eventually because new evidence showed that was there before the crime took place.

When we are talking about medical reports from several years before - nothing has changed between initial and subsequent reports other than an understanding of each in relation to eahother. But surely that shouldn't mean things like an embolism are totally overlooked! It looks like searching for evidence to back up a theory rather than allowing the evidence to point to the theory. JMO here.

Can you not see the potential for confirmation bias on a subconscious level?

 

[esther43]

I have to say that I'm becoming less impressed with the reporting as we go along. In a totally personal opinion, in lots of places the defence response to prosecution witnesses has been a bit lacking. I don't know whether that is actually the case or their side of things haven't been adequately reported. I' sure there is lots we aren't getting though.

Similarly, I did consider going along but you never know what's going to occur on any particular day - or whether it'll get postponed for any reason - and it's also quite a hike for me.

Yes it's not clear is it, whether we are not hearing the defence or whether the only defence Myers' has is ripping apart Evans. He literally barely said a word on the insulin.
Well we are nearing the time now, where it's going to be Myers' chance to bring his masses of medical witnesses and alternative narrative.
He's going to need some very strong witnesses to cast doubt on Evans' theories.
Is Myers going to make the jury believe that this string of incidents were not attempts to harm these babies? Can he convince them that the most common theme here is not a killer but sub-optimal care, through and through?
Only there are two insulin sized elephants in the room that disrupt that theory massively.
My thoughts are if the jury believe LL is guilty of at least one of the non insulin cases, she's good a good chance of getting guilty on a good 75%

JMO

 

[LorriB]

Child G had it mentioned around 100days old is that not late?
E i couldn't see it mentioned.
I ain't looked for other babies.
Thanks

N's dose was delayed but he did have it on the day he was born.

"A dose of vitamin K is prescribed for Child N during the day shift."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, March 2

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

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Becci]

Mary you worked for 30yrs.
How many hemophilia cases did you come across pls?

 

[Tortoise]

8:56am

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is expected to continue today (Wednesday, March 8).
We will be bringing you live updates throughout the day.

8:58am

This is the 19th week of the trial before a jury.
To read our coverage of the trial so far, go here for day-by-day reports: Countess nurse Lucy Letby: What has happened in trial so far

9:19am

Today the prosecution is expected to begin delivering evidence in the case of Child O, the 15th of the 17 babies, chronologically, that the Crown allege Lucy Letby murdered or attempted to murder. The defence deny this.

9:22am

Previously, the prosecution said in the opening that Child O was one of three triplet brothers born at the Countess of Chester Hospital on June 21, 2016.
The prosecution say Lucy Letby murdered Child O, and brother Child P, on June 23 and June 24 respectively.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, March 8

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

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Tortoise]

Cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses is the defence's narrative. There are no surprise explanations in a trial, saved up for the end, and the prosecution handles the defence case in its examination of its own witnesses too.

 

[Tortoise]

I hope we get to hear about LL's police interviews for child N.

 

[esther43]

Cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses is the defence's narrative. There are no surprise explanations in a trial, saved up for the end, and the prosecution handles the defence case in its examination of its own witnesses too.

Well exactly. Myers has had his moment to cross examine the vast majority of witnesses in this case and yesterday came his 'trump card' - the email. Bit of an anti-climax.
Do you think he will bring in his own independent experts though?

 

[LorriB]

Cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses is the defence's narrative. There are no surprise explanations in a trial, saved up for the end, and the prosecution handles the defence case in its examination of its own witnesses too.

So the defense will not be calling medical experts to the stand on their behalf?

 

[Tortoise]

Well exactly. Myers has had his moment to cross examine the vast majority of witnesses in this case and yesterday came his 'trump card' - the email. Bit of an anti-climax.
Do you think he will bring in his own independent experts though?

No I don't think the defence will be calling medical experts. That's just my personal analysis of the way this trial has proceeded, and obviously I could be wrong. I think there's a good possibility they would agree with the prosecution experts so it would be damaging to their case to call them.

MOO

 

[marynnu]

Mary you worked for 30yrs.
How many hemophilia cases did you come across pls?

None! At least not that I know of -they only knew about Baby N because they already knew Mom was a carrier. I guess it was already in the family, possibly an older child.

 

[katydid23]

He was employed by police to look at all the medical findings. Even if he didn't know what he was looking for, I would expect such an experienced doctor to have explored all avenues initially.

It is different from a detective who is exploring possibilities based on evidence because that evidence can mean different things and new evidence is usually coming to light. A size 8 shoe print that matches one suspect could be discounted eventually because new evidence showed that was there before the crime took place.

When we are talking about medical reports from several years before - nothing has changed between initial and subsequent reports other than an understanding of each in relation to eahother. But surely that shouldn't mean things like an embolism are totally overlooked! It looks like searching for evidence to back up a theory rather than allowing the evidence to point to the theory. JMO here.

Can you not see the potential for confirmation bias on a subconscious level?

Just because someone doesn't think of EVERY possibility the first round of an investigation, that does not make them incompetent. Even a very experienced doctor may not think of every single possibility if that one possibility was very rare and seemed, to them, unlikely.

Even as a very experienced doctor, I am sure he has NEVER encountered a nurse maliciously attacking newborns with various deadly methods. Why would he consider that as an initial possibility?


It may not have occurred to him until he began seeing the weird patterns, like babies considered well enough to go home, to suddenly have unexplained collapses, needing 20 to 30 shots of adrenaline. That was a sudden pattern, the need for many adrenaline shots, that was unusual and reoccurring.

I don't see it necessarily as sub-conscious confirmation bias----I think it might be more of slow epiphany or evolving revelation, after watching various patterns unfold. JMO

 

[LorriB]

I think we won't see eye to eye on this one katydid23.

Ah see I think we will see some medical experts for the defense. JMO also. We shall soon see.

 

[katydid23]

I think we won't see eye to eye on this one katydid23.

Ah see I think we will see some medical experts for the defense. JMO also. We shall soon see.

I think we might see some experts brought forth by the defense. And they will be cross examined just the the prosecution experts have been.

It will be up to the jurors to decide who was more credible in the end. We shall see.