It's still very early doors - day one of a proposed six months. The Crown's opening statement outlining their case 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 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 intend to develop their case.
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
