UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #2

[Goldflamingo]

They mention she was doing blood gas on a baby she was not designated to look after but they haven't elaborated why...was the ward short staffed and she was also attending other babies that were not designated to her that night that were unharmed?

Were other staff members also crossing over doing this to help each other out?

Having worked in the NHS myself for over 10 years it's not unusual to end up with paperwork at home by accident or if she was training to be a nurse specialist she may have to do "case studies" for her exams and this paperwork was a reminder of a particular case. It will be interesting to find out if she had paperwork relating to ALL of the babies she's allegedly harmed or tried to harm?

I would also hope they have extensively tested the tubes and equipment for any faults or issues. NHS budget cuts will often result in hospitals trying to procure cheaper equipment and consumables to cut costs.

All MOO.

It has only been reported that a handover was discovered at LL's house relating to Child B.

The case of Child A (child B's twin) who died 28 hours earlier had been briefly outlined and their was no mention of any handover being discovered in relation to him.

 

[merrypason]

I have been following this case with interest. Two questions I have:

1) How do they know already that the trial will take 6 months? And what could be the reason for such a long trial given the investigation has been ongoing for years already?
2) I have seen it reported on the BBC that "Mr Johnson alleged that in some cases, Ms Letby tried to kill the same baby more than once. Sometimes a baby that she succeeded in killing she did not manage to kill the first time she tried, or even the second time, and in one case even the third time."

How would they feasibly know she attempted killing the same baby multiple times?

Nurse Lucy Letby poisoned babies with insulin, trial told

Lucy Letby is described as a "constant malevolent presence" at the opening of her murder trial.

www.bbc.co.uk

MOO

 

[ShireChe]

You've only heard the opening statement, we haven't heard from the medical experts yet

Of course. It's just my opinion at a very early stage. I'm not finding her guilty yet but every single human has their biases and assumptions no matter how hard a jury may work to suppress that.

I may turn out to be 100% wrong as the case progresses

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I know it's only day 1, but I get the feeling the defence are going to have to pull out something special to get any result here. All the medical experts seem to agree the deaths were unnatural. It that scenario, I can't see a jury not finding SOMEONE guilty.

There is only one person on trial. The jury don't have the option of reaching a verdict that someone, other than LL, is responsible.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I know it's only day 1, but I get the feeling the defence are going to have to pull out something special to get any result here. All the medical experts seem to agree the deaths were unnatural. It that scenario, I can't see a jury not finding SOMEONE guilty.

No, the prosecution claim that their medical experts agree that. Medical experts who have yet to be examined on these matters. Also, I'm sure that the defence have their medical experts who will say differently.

 

[ShireChe]

There is only one person on trial. The jury don't have the option of reaching a verdict that someone, other than LL, is responsible.

That was partly my point. A jury will come to their conclusion based on the totality of the evidence. Even if they are supposed to judge it on each individual incident, I'm not sure that human behaviour is fully equipped for that.

Obviously there will be lots more medical experts to be introduced from prosecution and defence, but from just the initial statement I think the defence is going to struggle to get in the juries mind that there could be a wholly innocent explanation for this.

Again just my opinion and it's more based on human behaviour than any specific evidence laid down just yet. I'll follow with interest but not clutter up the pages until we hear much more from both sides

 

[annpats]

How would they feasibly know she attempted killing the same baby multiple times?

I suppose if the baby had another respiratory or cardiac arrest and/or went blotchy after the first episode, earlier in the day/week. Especially if a re-occuring event was highly unusual and unlikely.

MOO.

 

[JosieJo]

I would think they will claim that there were multiple collapses at different times all following a pattern of interventions by LL

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I have been following this case with interest. Two questions I have:

1) How do they know already that the trial will take 6 months? And what could be the reason for such a long trial given the investigation has been ongoing for years already?
2) I have seen it reported on the BBC that "Mr Johnson alleged that in some cases, Ms Letby tried to kill the same baby more than once. Sometimes a baby that she succeeded in killing she did not manage to kill the first time she tried, or even the second time, and in one case even the third time."

How would they feasibly know she attempted killing the same baby multiple times?

Nurse Lucy Letby poisoned babies with insulin, trial told

Lucy Letby is described as a "constant malevolent presence" at the opening of her murder trial.

www.bbc.co.uk

MOO

1. The volume of evidence that will be presented to the jury. The judge and barristers are experienced enough to provide a timeline of six months. Although the jury may need another six months to consider their verdict!

2. The Crown indicated they will introduce some key incidents, which they say are supported with medical evidence. They will assert that other incidents where circumstances were similar were a consequence of LL's deliberately unlawful actions. These other incidents will be emergency interventions, possibly resuscitation on a number of occasions.

 

[annpats]

There is only one person on trial. The jury don't have the option of reaching a verdict that someone, other than LL, is responsible.

Correct. Because the investigation could obviously find that no-one else was responsible. If they did, they'd be on trial too.

 

[Tortoise]

Hi, I'm new to WebSleuths so just want to ask a question please. Do you normally post live feed updates into the conversation? I am finding the comments get a bit lost amongst all the live feeds updates. I assume most people are following the news and this
chat, so maybe dont need the live updates here too. Apologies if this is the norm though. Just thinking its p24 on the 2nd week of a 6mths trial!

Hi, the answer is yes we normally post live updates when they are available. The reason being that when you get further into the trial it becomes very difficult to find reports from earlier in the trial that you may be looking for, to refer back to.

The conversation here is not always linear, there will be multiple facets under discussion on the same page, and many more threads by the end, no doubt.

Welcome to WS!

 

[gill1109]

It's still very early doors - day one of a proposed six months. The Crown's opening statement outlining will continue tomorrow. However, my current thoughts are:

1. When did LL complete the additional ICU training to enable her to work with babies in the ICU/HDU rooms within the neonatal department?

2. What was the format of her additional training for ICU?

3. Was the training abbreviated in any way?

4. What did her training reports for the course say?

5. Was she let loose on the NNU after completing her course or did she have further on the job assessment/mentoring?

6. If failing to follow correct procedure when introducing fluids/drugs into lines, taking blood gases etc is it possible to accidentally introduce air in sufficient quantity, in a compromised neonatal baby, possibly resulting in critical deterioration/death?

7. Did the expert medical experts work blind in identifying a possible cause of medical emergency/death? By this I mean just medical history, signs, symptoms, tests, results, presentation before emergency, during critical intervention and recovery/after death etc?

8. How many other medical experts were consulted who did not concur with the view of their peers. What was their opinion and why?

9. Facebook evidence has been introduced. It can be made to look sinister/stalker like behaviour. Equally LL may have been distressed by the deaths and it was part of her own grieving process, in an environment which required a 'keep calm (stoical) and carry-on' approach. We will see more completely how Facebook played its part as the evidence is revealed.

10. The handover sheet found at LL's H/A gives rise to several possible explanations, not all damning, The volume of any further documents found and what they are will give a clearer indication of the likely reason for her possession of them.

11. I am greatly concerned by the Crown's assertion that a few cases, which they say have a basis in evidence, could be used to provide evidential weight of guilt for the remaining charges, based on similar circumstances. We will hear more, although this was my understanding of how the prosecution intended to develop their argument.

12. It could be that there was no intent on LL's part and that these terrible events are the consequence of a combination of factors including poor technique, poor training, poor supervision, pressure of work, poor review of critical incidents/deaths, extreme tiredness etc. If any of these elements, or others, were present, then it should firmly bring CoCH's documented difficulties to the fore.

13. It could be that some or all of these events are no one's fault, someone else's, some faulty equipment or a combination. They may be a statistical anomaly, an outlier of natural deaths.

LL is innocent in the eyes of the law unless proven guilty. The evidence to convict her must be beyond reasonable doubt.....it must be certainty. Anything less and she remains innocent.

MOO

I too am concerned about point 11. Now, from the point of view of reasoning about uncertainty, *if* you have proven someone was a murderer in, say, three cases, and if there are 10 other murders which are similar, and that same person can be shown to be present, then *of course* it is likely that they also were the perpetrator in several of those cases. This is common sense! And it is supported by formal Bayesian probability reasoning (which is also merely common sense). It was the argumentation of the court which convicted Lucia de Berk. The problem is that in these nurse cases, we do not know in advance that there actually was foul play at all. A second problem is that in the famous miscarriages of justice in such cases, circular reasoning is used. The medical evidence to "prove" the first one or two cases is tainted by the statistical information about the other ones. Hence, it is not as secure as it seems. Hence, the proof of the later cases can evaporate if there are any holes in the proof of the first ones.

This makes it essentially simple to explode such cases (if the accused is indeed innocent). Simply prove that the "trigger case" - the only one with firm medical evidence behind it - was not a murder at all. All subsequent accusations now collapse. Moreover, since one has to find out what actually happened in the case of the trigger case, when one looks at it more closely and one uncovers medical cover-up, mistakes, and so on, then the whole chain of implications needs reconsidering.

Who knows how this works out in this case. Maybe she is a horrific murderer. I don't know. I do know that the rate of false convictions in such cases is uncomfortably large. The societal pressure is immense. Police investigators, public prosecutors, bite their teeth into them. The reputation of big ego's is at stake. Top medical specialists are not used to admitting sometimes to be wrong. Nobody in the medical world wants to admit how much uncertainty there is in medical diagnosis. They are self-selected to have big confidence in their own evaluations and to be able to make life and death decisions for other persons on the basis of their training and experience. (You don't want to be operated on by a surgeon who spends every night worrying about whether or not his or her diagnosis was correct);

 

[merrypason]

I suppose if the baby had another respiratory or cardiac arrest and/or went blotchy after the first episode, earlier in the day/week. Especially if a re-occuring event was highly unusual and unlikely.

MOO.

Thank you! I was wondering how common it is for a baby to have recurrent 'almost death' episodes and for it to not have been warranted a case review at the time by the attendant doctor or nurse, or by the parents - unless it was, and that evidence will be shared at the trial. This is the bit of the trial I find most intriguing, because repeated attacks on a baby are shocking to me, whoever caused it.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Defence - Benjamin Myers

Benjamin Myers KC - Criminal CV | Exchange Chambers

Ben specialises in serious crime. He is instructed consistently in cases of murder, manslaughter, high value fraud, money laundering, multimillion-pound confiscation under POCA, drug trafficking, national and international organised crime, rape, historic sexual abuse and armed robbery.

www.exchangechambers.co.uk

My money is on Mr Myers....looks like he is well up to the job!

 

[Marantz4250b]

My money is on Mr Myers....looks like he is well up to the job!

He does indeed!

 

[JosieJo]

Just some ramblings out loud based on the very small amount of information we have so far

At the moment they seem to show that LL had carried out direct clinical interventions just prior to these first incidents.. rather than just "being on duty"..Will be interesting to see if this continues

The radiologist stating the X Ray's were consistent air embolism is quite damning will be interested in the defence take on this.

The Facebook searches could be quite damning depending on when she searched...the computer search evidence will be interesting

I find it interesting...though could be completely coincidental..that the potential attacks are based on basic nursing knowledge..for example insulin dangers...Air in lines ..and too much feed and risk of food inhalation

They are all dangers nurses are persistently taught even at a very junior level

 

[Marantz4250b]

Just some ramblings out loud based on the very small amount of information we have so far

At the moment they seem to show that LL had carried out direct clinical interventions just prior to these first incidents.. rather than just "being on duty"..Will be interesting to see if this continues

The radiologist stating the X Ray's were consistent air embolism is quite damning will be interested in the defence take on this.

The Facebook searches could be quite damning depending on when she searched...the computer search evidence will be interesting

I find it interesting...though could be completely coincidental..that the potential attacks are based on basic nursing knowledge..for example insulin dangers...Air in lines ..and too much feed and risk of food inhalation

They are all dangers nurses are persistently taught even at a very junior level

The thing I'm still not managing to get my head round is why, if a radiologist said the condition of the child is consistent with an air embolism, was it not immediately acted upon? I mean, it presumably doesn't automatically mean a crime was committed but, rather, that there could be issues with equipment or poor levels of staff skill?

Also, "being consistent" with something doesn't mean it is inconsistent with every other possibility. It may be consistent with lots of things, after all.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I too am concerned about point 11. Now, from the point of view of reasoning about uncertainty, *if* you have proven someone was a murderer in, say, three cases, and if there are 10 other murders which are similar, and that same person can be shown to be present, then *of course* it is likely that they also were the perpetrator in several of those cases. This is common sense! And it is supported by formal Bayesian probability reasoning (which is also merely common sense). It was the argumentation of the court which convicted Lucia de Berk. The problem is that in these nurse cases, we do not know in advance that there actually was foul play at all. A second problem is that in the famous miscarriages of justice in such cases, circular reasoning is used. The medical evidence to "prove" the first one or two cases is tainted by the statistical information about the other ones. Hence, it is not as secure as it seems. Hence, the proof of the later cases can evaporate if there are any holes in the proof of the first ones.

This makes it essentially simple to explode such cases (if the accused is indeed innocent). Simply prove that the "trigger case" - the only one with firm medical evidence behind it - was not a murder at all. All subsequent accusations now collapse. Moreover, since one has to find out what actually happened in the case of the trigger case, when one looks at it more closely and one uncovers medical cover-up, mistakes, and so on, then the whole chain of implications needs reconsidering.

Who knows how this works out in this case. Maybe she is a horrific murderer. I don't know. I do know that the rate of false convictions in such cases is uncomfortably large. The societal pressure is immense. Police investigators, public prosecutors, bite their teeth into them. The reputation of big ego's is at stake. Top medical specialists are not used to admitting sometimes to be wrong. Nobody in the medical world wants to admit how much uncertainty there is in medical diagnosis. They are self-selected to have big confidence in their own evaluations and to be able to make life and death decisions for other persons on the basis of their training and experience. (You don't want to be operated on by a surgeon who spends every night worrying about whether or not his or her diagnosis was correct);

Brilliantly explained. Thank you @gill1109.

I have professional experience conducting criminal investigations in the NHS.

I have observed directly how the culture of ownership of error and mistakes is greatly lacking and how poor supervision at all levels creates the environment, which can lead to criminal opportunism.

There is certainly no culture of black box thinking, as with the airline industry!

 

[dalsglen]

So, not in good condition as far as newborn's go, then? This looks like very sloppy preparation, to be fair. OTOH it may be down the reporting not being 100% word perfect.

Well no, because they were born 9 weeks early! It's not just about being in good condition, the lungs are obviously very immature, they are VERY tired and can forget to breath. I've had 4 premature babies, have spent 11 weeks altogether in NICU/SCBU units.

I had my twins at 30 weeks after a placental abruption. Twin 1 was fairly well considering but needed cpap oxygen off and on for 2 days and needed caffeine administered to act as a respiratory stimulant, lazy wee man forgot to breathe. Twin 2 needed resuscitation (placental abduction cut off her oxygen) and ventilated for roughly 12 hours and then that was her.

 

[MadeleineMaxwell]

Well no, because they were born 9 weeks early! It's not just about being in good condition, the lungs are obviously very immature, they are VERY tired and can forget to breath. I've had 4 premature babies, have spent 11 weeks altogether in NICU/SCBU units.

I had my twins at 30 weeks after a placental abruption. Twin 1 was fairly well considering but needed cpap oxygen off and on for 2 days and needed caffeine administered to act as a respiratory stimulant, lazy wee man forgot to breathe. Twin 2 needed resuscitation (placental abduction cut off her oxygen) and ventilated for roughly 12 hours and then that was her.

How do you know the gestation? I was interested in all the babies gestation as it has such an impact on their potential outcomes but haven't seen them mentioned anywhere.