UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #20

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADMIN NOTE:

This is a trial thread to discuss the trial only. It is not a general discussion thread.

Although WS is based in the USA, we do try to manage the various discussions according to laws of other countries.

As this trial is in the UK, the case is under sub judice so please stick to discussing the trial content without posting anything that violates the following principles:

Basically anything that may prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial
Any suggestion, opinion, or direct accusation that the accused is either guilty OR innocent
(i.e. the accused cannot be called "the killer"; use "the accused", "the alleged killer", or "the defendant")
A defendant’s previous history of any offences is off limits
Scandalizing the court (disparaging judges, lawyers, any officer of the Court) is off limits
Broadcasting anything about proceedings which happen in the jury's absence is off limits
Any non compliance with an Order of the court is off limits

Note in the event of an Appeal subsequent to verdict:

Appeals are usually heard by senior judges who are not likely to be influenced by the media, therefore responsible comment is usually considered acceptable once a trial has concluded, regardless of if there is going to be an appeal.


Reference: UK Contempt of Court Act 1981
 
Hey everyone,

This is a reminder that ANY expressed opinion related to the guilt or innocence of the accused is sub judice. Please read Post #2 of the Opening Posts in this discussion.

As we don't have the staff to sit in this thread 24/7 to read posts in real time, please use the Report feature to alert Moderators to any post that you feel is sub judice and it will be reviewed and removed if necessary.

Also, this thread is to discuss the trial, not statistics or other cases.

Thank you.
 
The medical evidence has been presented by the prosecution already and cross examined by BM. He may or may not bring in defence experts to counter argue the prosecutions evidence yet … we just don’t know.
I’m going to wait to see otherwise it’s futile this endless speculation back and forth.
 
It is difficult to visualise
If for example a person put a tube down a tiny babies throat and jiggled it around..the injury itself and possible blood may be lower than the epiglottis...it would be where the tip of the tube would be that caused the damage.
The swelling of the epiglottis is likely not the injury site but more from friction or irritation of the said tube moving.
The tiny epiglottis area would swell at slight irritation.
4 hours later having no more irritation plus adrenaline and possibly other medication to reduce swelling it could easily have subsided significantly as it wasn't the injury site itself
would there really be no further investigation into the source of the blood? is It a more likely thing then that the injury and sou of the blood if not found in the upper throat would then more likely be found further down or elsewhere in a haemophiliac baby? Thus was presumably missed if no further investigation was made? I would have thought the situation would require visual inspection if swelling is known and injury suspected? is the evidence then that only certain parts of the throat are swollen, to me it sounded like it was numerous parts not just the Epiglottis.
 
The medical evidence has been presented by the prosecution already and cross examined by BM. He may or may not bring in defence experts to counter argue the prosecutions evidence yet … we just don’t know.
I’m going to wait to see otherwise it’s futile this endless speculation back and forth.
One thing I have enjoyed about following This case is trying to predict where the case would go and what would happen. I got Lucy letby taking the stand right. Other things as well.
 
One thing I have enjoyed about following This case is trying to predict where the case would go and what would happen. I got Lucy letby taking the stand right. Other things as well.
LL taking the stand was always a 50/50 chance but if you've correctly predicted that Myers will argue that the swelling that was seen by several doctors never existed, you can chose my lottery numbers next week. Deal?
 
Im going to take a gamble ad suggest the prosecutions cross questioning will likely be the same as the defences. Except with shorter answers mostly consisting of “no” and “not unusual for me” with a spattering of “I don’t remember“. I will gamble it will be another anti climax.
I don't think it will be anti-climactic, necessarily. Trial lawyers are very good at questioning and cornering the defendants. And they will have plenty to question----like the explanations of the post it notes, which was not a very believable response, imo.

And any little tidbits she may leak when she talks about each baby will be thoroughly dissected as well.
 
I am interested in what the format is going to be.
For example can Myers call LL to the box at multiple points in the trial?
If her testimony is delivered in multiple segments, then at what point will the cross's happen? As we go along would seem the most sensible but Myers is already getting ready to present the case in relation child A before Andrews has had a chance to do the cross about the notes? :-/
I am not sure how it works in the UK, but in US trials, the cross does not start until the defense attorney says he has no more direct questions---so could it be another week or more until the prosecution gets to ask their questions of her ?
 
LL taking the stand was always a 50/50 chance but if you've correctly predicted that Myers will argue that the swelling that was seen by several doctors never existed, you can chose my lottery numbers next week. Deal?
I’m not sure I want the responsibility if I get it wrong. It’s not a fifty fifty chance you see.
 
I haven’t seen anyone do a 180. People have been waiting for context around the fb searches and handover notes, despite them being ancillary to the main evidence, and so it’s nice to have some new information to discuss that isn’t simply discussing the words ‘on purpose’ for eternity.

For me, the key bit of information to come out of yesterday was the assertion from Letby that NG tubes are not routinely aspirated in the way it was suggested at the start of the case. I’m surprised that’s not being discussed more, since it’s been used to support several allegations that air must’ve been forced down the NG tubes. However, I do recognise that many people will have made up their minds now and are therefore less likely to want to discuss the specifics of the evidence, or might view these sorts of questions as people protesting Letby’s innocence. JMO.
Letby said in her testimony that the NG tubes were not routinely aspirated in that way. But am I to automatically take her word for that? I'd like to know more before I accept that as gospel.
 
I might be misremembering but I recall one of the experts, SB possibly, saying that staff at the COCH were notoriously bad at record keeping when it came to NG tubes. Which is not helpful if there turns out to be a dispute around how the nurses handle NG tubes. JMO.
There were twenty two total collapses of babies during that one year period. Most of the incidents had nothing to do with whether the tube was aspirated or not. If there was one or two cases that seem to hinge upon that issue, put those to the side and look at the remaining ones. I think looking at the big picture is vital in this complex case. JMO
 
I must say i have a general feeling there have been some posters today that haven’t read the evidence already presented.
It’s very compelling including the medical experts all agreeing on the same thing including evidence from families witness statements and colleagues.
Some of this is even evidence the defence and prosecution have both agreed on including the heat map and data taken from door swipe entry.
Moo
Exactly.

The evidence is overwhelming, yet some people seem to dismiss it. Either they haven’t read the facts, or they’re blinkered because LL presents herself as an innocent, caring nurse.
 
Nowhere have I found it reported that these were specific to 2015-16, it seems to be an assumption people have made.
I think we understand that it is one handover sheet per shift (could you be given more than 1 sheet?) and she can't possibly have had 257 shifts in one year (a regular 5 day week is about 230 shifts, and nurses on 12 hour shifts average less than a 4 day week) - nor would any of her explanations make any sense at all and would be immediately called out by police/prosecution if she had in fact taken home every single handover sheet for a year while saying she may have taken some home accidentally at times.


One presumes that most of the time she disposed of them before leaving the hospital, sometimes they were forgotten in a pocket or her bag after a shift, it may be that the ones left are not even all the ones she forgot about and she managed to dispose of some at later dates - it certainly doesn't seem like she was stashing them away in a particular place to take out and read over and over.


This all happened on one particular shift, no? I wouldn't characterise that as representative of a pattern of behaviour.


And this is evidence of what exactly? Seems the sort of reaction one might easily encounter regardless of whether everything was done correctly, sometimes you do everything correctly but someone else didn't prepare the relative for what was to come, sometimes good doctors and nurses say the wrong thing.


Same event as above or a second time this occurred?


This happens often, I was advised by my colleagues to take a break last week, I routinely advise colleagues to take a break. I assume this is the "I know my own feelings" abrupt response? I imagine everyone on the team was advised at times to take a break, sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't, the main difference is we haven't been scrutinising them for 6 months and 6 years before that. We don't seem to have this over and over again, and there was no real sign that anyone felt she was doing a less than excellent job (except the consultants) until it all came to a head.


Have followed pretty closely, just not constantly. Kept apprised of the evidence, but not really followed the discussion since about child E or F or something, just dipped in and out - sorry if that wasn't clear.


I don't think apart from the massive trawling operation, it amounts to anything out of the ordinary. When you take snippets out of context from over a year and put them all together and frame them the way the prosecution has, it looks like a lot more than it is and I'm sure they could do the same for almost every nurse that worked there, even if it looked a bit different.

I think under different circumstances, if the 257 handover notes came to light, they might be forced to act in some way on that, but I also think you'd be able to find other people with similar accumulated volumes that they've never gotten round to disposing of. Certainly would cause quite a problem if you fired everyone who'd brought home handover notes 257 or more times over several years - though I'd expect in most cases they'd have been properly disposed of.
This wasn’t a one-off. LL took 257 handover notes that were meant to be given to the staff starting their shift. Why would any nurse take them home? To do it just once could be seen as an oversight, but taking 257 home can’t be accidental - especially as she claimed she was so conscientious. And to keep them for a year proves she had no intention of returning them - so you need to ask yourself why she wanted to keep them.
 
Exactly.

The evidence is overwhelming, yet some people seem to dismiss it. Either they haven’t read the facts, or they’re blinkered because LL presents herself as an innocent, caring nurse.

I'm just biased as I can't bear the idea she's done this plus I've had some bad experiences with system failures and scapegoating so I just want to champion the idea that it's all been a terrible mistake... :/

I will trust the judge and jury though!
 
EXACTLY. But I answered these posts because your OP was that 'we now know she is not a psychopath like BA because LL has PTSD and can't sleep'

And I pushed back on that because we have no idea if she is or isn't guilty of these crimes yet ----she could have PTSD, allegedly, because she can't believe she has been caught. JMO
Oh, that old chestnut everyone uses “I have PTSD” is so tiresome.

An innocent person having police call round wouldn’t develop PTSD if they had nothing to fear.
 
Christmas is no surprise really. I think some reflect on the years events, families, people met in the year etc its definitely a time of reflection and family for most. All of those things will bring back significant memories. New evidence to me was that one of the families she searched for months down the line was actually in contact with the unit after heading home, that to me gives a viable reason to recall that family and fb search them. checking for happy posts or updates on the babs condition etc.

I will stress the point that IMO she has acted totally oblivious to potential threats which she would be aware of if guilty. One glaring example is keeping handover notes that relate to babies she allegedly harmed and killed. These handover notes are alleged trophies but I’m quite confident the prosecution does not have evidence to suggest it.

THere is another nurse, we have already discussed here, who was arrested for killing patients and she had taken medical logs from the hospital and police found them in her room when they searched her home. So it does not surprise me that a suspect might not get rid of incriminating evidence. It happens like that in many criminal investigations. JMO
 
@Sweeper2000 adrenaline is specifically used to treat airway swelling. It works rapidly by constricting the blood vessels and therefore reducing edema. Usually when it's given to treat airway swelling, it's administered via inhalation to target that specific area of the body, while having less effect on other parts of the body. Being given systemically can, as the expert testimony has noted, certainly have the effect of reducing swelling considerably. It's going all over the body, and the body includes the airway. To me, there is nothing fishy about the idea that there could have been airway swelling which impeded intubation and that following 6 doses of adrenaline (that's a lot!), the swelling had reduced to the point that intubation was possible. JMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
216
Guests online
913
Total visitors
1,129

Forum statistics

Threads
598,301
Messages
18,079,115
Members
230,600
Latest member
rzoof
Back
Top