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

[Marantz4250b]

Don’t lose sight of the fact that the question is not “were babies harmed,” but rather “did Lucy Letby harm the babies“. The medical experts are telling us that the deaths were unusual and deliberate, but they can’t tell us who caused them. I think we’re all convinced now in at least the insulin cases that deliberate harm was done. “I trust medical experts and they think she did it” is conflating the medical evidence with evidence of Letby’s involvement and is therefore a mistake.

Yes, the insulin cases are crucial, I think.

As far as my mind is concerned, I'm in pretty much no doubt that insulin introduced from outside the body was the cause of the reactions in the babies. Exogenous insulin produces different markers than insulin produced by the body so I don't think there is any doubt that this was introduced insulin rather than insulin made internally. In my opinion they have proved that to the relevant standard.

What I do not think they have proved (from the evidence we have heard) is precisely WHO was responsible for administering it. Furthermore, I don't see how they can prove, definitively, that it was LL who administered it. Unless they can show a definite chain of custody and who had access to those bags or other pieces of equipment from when they were made up which I doubt they can then where is the evidence other than evidence based on probability? Wasn't it said that at least one of them wasn't hung up by LL? So other people did have access to them.

Let's also remember that this is exactly what happened in another famous and recent case involving a nurse who was actually mistakenly arrested, charged and remanded so this is not some fanciful thinking here.

These are exceptionally serious allegations which, if convicted of, will result in exceptional sentences. The evidence to convict needs to be exceptional in nature, too. Personally, I would be extremely uncomfortable convicting on these charges unless someone could demonstrate to me that the accused person was definitely the cause of the administered insulin.

 

[marynnu]

Yes, the insulin cases are crucial, I think.

As far as my mind is concerned, I'm in pretty much no doubt that insulin introduced from outside the body was the cause of the reactions in the babies. Exogenous insulin produces different markers than insulin produced by the body so I don't think there is any doubt that this was introduced insulin rather than insulin made internally. In my opinion they have proved that to the relevant standard.

What I do not think they have proved (from the evidence we have heard) is precisely WHO was responsible for administering it. Furthermore, I don't see how they can prove, definitively, that it was LL who administered it. Unless they can show a definite chain of custody and who had access to those bags or other pieces of equipment from when they were made up which I doubt they can then where is the evidence other than evidence based on probability? Wasn't it said that at least one of them wasn't hung up by LL? So other people did have access to them.

Let's also remember that this is exactly what happened in another famous and recent case involving a nurse who was actually mistakenly arrested, charged and remanded so this is not some fanciful thinking here.

These are exceptionally serious allegations which, if convicted of, will result in exceptional sentences. The evidence to convict needs to be exceptional in nature, too. Personally, I would be extremely uncomfortable convicting on these charges unless someone could demonstrate to me that the accused person was definitely the cause of the administered insulin.

I totally agree about the insulin cases. I thought initially that they might be crucial, but as soon as we heard the evidence I never felt they were remotely compelling. There are just too many question marks for me.

 

[Jazmania]

I totally agree about the insulin cases. I thought initially that they might be crucial, but as soon as we heard the evidence I never felt they were remotely compelling. There are just too many question marks for me.

Well it's been established that synthetic insulin was given to 2 babies. The defence accept that. LL was the only nurse involved with the care of both of those babies. I think personally the prosecution established that it was extremely unlikely that insulin could have accidentally been administered (or do you disagree?) So then logically it follows that someone deliberately did it. If it were just the two insulin cases then no way would there be enough evidence to say it was LL imo. But then coupled with all the other unexplained collapses and deaths she was present for, it adds substantial weight to the evidence I think. If the defence have another credible explanation for how insulin was given to those two babies, then that would be very interesting for sure.

 

[JosieJo]

Yes, the insulin cases are crucial, I think.

As far as my mind is concerned, I'm in pretty much no doubt that insulin introduced from outside the body was the cause of the reactions in the babies. Exogenous insulin produces different markers than insulin produced by the body so I don't think there is any doubt that this was introduced insulin rather than insulin made internally. In my opinion they have proved that to the relevant standard.

What I do not think they have proved (from the evidence we have heard) is precisely WHO was responsible for administering it. Furthermore, I don't see how they can prove, definitively, that it was LL who administered it. Unless they can show a definite chain of custody and who had access to those bags or other pieces of equipment from when they were made up which I doubt they can then where is the evidence other than evidence based on probability? Wasn't it said that at least one of them wasn't hung up by LL? So other people did have access to them.

Let's also remember that this is exactly what happened in another famous and recent case involving a nurse who was actually mistakenly arrested, charged and remanded so this is not some fanciful thinking here.

These are exceptionally serious allegations which, if convicted of, will result in exceptional sentences. The evidence to convict needs to be exceptional in nature, too. Personally, I would be extremely uncomfortable convicting on these charges unless someone could demonstrate to me that the accused person was definitely the cause of the administered insulin.

The way I look at it ...there were 2 insulin cases ...which is a different game altogether than one ...especially as in both cases they were placed in different base fluids ...so that rules out a batch of the same type of fluid from the same department being the problem.

That leads us to the unit.

The prosecution in my opinion put to bed it being an error because:

No baby on insulin in the unit at the time

Insulin is never put in either of the base fluids used

Insulin is kept in the fridge away from most other drugs


So that leaves one reasonable option in my opinion

Someone placed insulin purposely into fluids.

LL was on both shifts and had direct access and some involvement in both cases. ...aswell as being the only person involved in all cases.

 

[Sweeper2000]

The way I look at it ...there were 2 insulin cases ...which is a different game altogether than one ...especially as in both cases they were placed in different base fluids ...so that rules out a batch of the same type of fluid from the same department being the problem.

That leads us to the unit.

The prosecution in my opinion put to bed it being an error because:

No baby on insulin in the unit at the time

Insulin is never put in either of the base fluids used

Insulin is kept in the fridge away from most other drugs


So that leaves one reasonable option in my opinion

Someone placed insulin purposely into fluids.

LL was on both shifts and had direct access and some involvement in both cases. ...aswell as being the only person involved in all cases.

I would think it would help the prosecution to narrow things down. Find at least some lead on who had the keys to the fridge in the necessary timeframe. I know there was no log for the keys but one must have had a valid reason for accessing the fridge, find the nearest lead on that and your closer to a potential source. Ll or not.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Thanks to everyone for the info on the swelling. It makes more sense now However I’m still caught up on the ah doc saying there was no swelling and why the other docs couldn’t do it.

 

[Kemug]

I suspect when the cross questions her about each individual baby, that may be when she slips up or says something revealing her true character - if she is guilty, of course,<modsnip> I also think (JMO) that her main motive was to cause horrendous heartache to the parents’.

I do agree with you, but I hope that I am still open to changing my mind if we hear any new evidence which casts doubt upon her guilt.

 

[Lammergeier]

This is true. But if you believe that the medical evidence shows that babies were deliberately harmed, then there is only one person who was present for all these cases, and therefore could have done it. The alternative would be that there were several baby killers on the ward in a sort of Agatha Christie 'Death on the Orient Express' kind of situation.

LOL! You know, I also considered some kind of frame-up by a real psychopath on the ward, someone who would have known Lucy’s holiday schedule. But I think these things only happen in films

I’ve been on the doubtful side the whole time but I am slowly confronting the lack of any other explanation. The process of elimination is the only factual evidence we have that it was her, but no holes have been poked in it yet by evidence that other people also had opportunity, so it’s become pretty compelling evidence.

 

[marynnu]

Well it's been established that synthetic insulin was given to 2 babies. The defence accept that. LL was the only nurse involved with the care of both of those babies. I think personally the prosecution established that it was extremely unlikely that insulin could have accidentally been administered (or do you disagree?) So then logically it follows that someone deliberately did it. If it were just the two insulin cases then no way would there be enough evidence to say it was LL imo. But then coupled with all the other unexplained collapses and deaths she was present for, it adds substantial weight to the evidence I think. If the defence have another credible explanation for how insulin was given to those two babies, then that would be very interesting for sure.

Don't misunderstand me, I am totally certain that the insulin was given deliberately. And I agree that it adds weight in context. However, what you believe & what you think it's right to convict on based on the evidence are different I think. There are so many variables, not least of all the 2nd bag saga for Baby F. & the fact that everyone had access to the fridge. (I syspect the 2nd bag d idn't exist, but the jury can only judge on what they know, can't they?

 

[Tortoise]

So looking back over her police interviews as regards the babies, which we didn't get much detailed information for in many of the cases, but nonetheless we did get snippets throughout the trial, what strikes me is a bit of a common theme among these quotes. Here we have a nurse protesting in many instances that she didn't actually do anything for the babies, didn't feed or administer fluids to them, it was the other nurse. Almost as if she's conscious that air was administered.

I don't know about "shredder" to the theme tune of Jaws, I reckon Mr Johnson should have Nina Simone's "The Other Woman" playing on repeat in the courtroom when he cross-examines LL. Meanwhile her barrister is also saying she wasn't there in many instances, and it was the other nurse, while repeatedly hammering on that it wasn't air embolus. Why's that, if she wasn't the one doing the actual nursing at the relevant times?

Baby G should be interesting, with her remembering during the trial that she told the other nurse that the monitor being off should be reported. JMO


A

Letby says she believed Melanie Taylor would have connected the TPN bag, as she was sterile (and in a position to attach the bag).

She said Child A went pale after a colleague had connected the fluids.

B

Letby told police she had conducted observations on Child B, but the other nurse was the allocated nurse.
Letby also said it was the other nurse who had alerted her to the problem with Child B.

C

In her first interview about his death the nurse said she recalled him deteriorating 'not long after' he had been given his first feed by her colleague Sophie Ellis, who was his designated nurse on the unit.

She had not been involved in that process, she told officers. Her only involvement had been when she was asked to help with the attempts to resuscitate him following his collapse in Nursery 1.

D

She said when administering medicine, two nurses would sign for medication, but it was not necessary for both of them to be present.

E

She said she and another member of staff had disposed of the aspirate

F

She remembered Child F, but had no recollection of the incident and "had not been involved in his care".
She confirmed her signature on the TPN form.
She had no recollection of having had involvement with administering the TPN bag contents to Child F, but confirmed giving Child F glucose injections and taken observations.

G

She said she was not involved in Child G's feed.
She said she remembered going behind the screen and seeing Child G. She did not recall seeing a monitor which had been switched off.

H

For the second incident, Letby said she had not been the designated nurse so assumed she had not been caring for Child H.
She identified her signatures on two medicine administrations.
In 2019, she identified her signature on more documents. In this interview, she told police she had not been the designated nurse but had been giving her treatment at the time Child H collapsed.

I

For the first incident on September 30, Letby had no independent recollection of it.
For October 14, Letby said she could not recall that shift.
Letby could not recall the night when Child I died, other than recalling she had died.

M

In police interview, Letby agreed she had connected a fluid bag to Child M and had co-signed for medication at 3.45pm but could not be sure if she had administered it.
The only thing she could recall was that it was a 'busy shift' as it was 'not very often we had that many babies in nursery one'

N

In police interview, Letby had difficulty remembering Child N. She did recall an occasion when doctors had difficulty intubating him.

Q

In a third police interview, Letby says she did not give Child Q anything prior to the collapse.
In her interview the expert opinion of Dr Dewi Evans was put to Ms Letby - that air was administered via his NG tube. She said 'I don’t think I'd fed him at that point just did observations....I didn't give him anything'


--------

links to quotes

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue
Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, October 26
Lucy Letby 'admitted it was hard when one of her baby victims lived'
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, November 11
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, January 18
https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23312060.recap-lucy-letby-trial-friday-february-10/
https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23459587.recap-lucy-letby-trial-monday-april-17/
https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23484044.recap-lucy-letby-trial-thursday-april-27/

 

[Jazmania]

Don't misunderstand me, I am totally certain that the insulin was given deliberately. And I agree that it adds weight in context. However, what you believe & what you think it's right to convict on based on the evidence are different I think. There are so many variables, not least of all the 2nd bag saga for Baby F. & the fact that everyone had access to the fridge. (I syspect the 2nd bag d idn't exist, but the jury can only judge on what they know, can't they?

For sure. The jury have to be certain beyond reasonable doubt that she did it. That doesn't mean 100% though. There can still be a few doubts, a few things that don't make complete sense, or that we can never know, like why on Earth she would do this, whether or not there was a second bag etc. If someone is still, despite these things, confidently sure that she was deliberately harming babies. Then that means guilty.

For me it was some of the later cases, the ones before the triplets that didn't seem that strong on evidence. That could just be a lack of reporting though. I'm sure we'll learn a lot more about the picture from LL's testimony, as it will all be live reported by several different outlets.

 

[Eloise]

For sure. The jury have to be certain beyond reasonable doubt that she did it. That doesn't mean 100% though. There can still be a few doubts, a few things that don't make complete sense, or that we can never know, like why on Earth she would do this, whether or not there was a second bag etc. If someone is still, despite these things, confidently sure that she was deliberately harming babies. Then that means guilty.

For me it was some of the later cases, the ones before the triplets that didn't seem that strong on evidence. That could just be a lack of reporting though. I'm sure we'll learn a lot more about the picture from LL's testimony, as it will all be live reported by several different outlets.

According to this UK lawyer's website, it's basically 99%.
The Crown Court expresses that it requires the jury to be ‘satisfied so that you are sure’ of the defendant’s guilt. This is described unofficially as the 99% test

 

[Sweeper2000]

According to this UK lawyer's website, it's basically 99%.
The Crown Court expresses that it requires the jury to be ‘satisfied so that you are sure’ of the defendant’s guilt. This is described unofficially as the 99% test

I think it falls quite short of that but is jmo. espracially with the lack of conclusive evidence of AE or others.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Well it's been established that synthetic insulin was given to 2 babies. The defence accept that. LL was the only nurse involved with the care of both of those babies. I think personally the prosecution established that it was extremely unlikely that insulin could have accidentally been administered (or do you disagree?) So then logically it follows that someone deliberately did it. If it were just the two insulin cases then no way would there be enough evidence to say it was LL imo. But then coupled with all the other unexplained collapses and deaths she was present for, it adds substantial weight to the evidence I think. If the defence have another credible explanation for how insulin was given to those two babies, then that would be very interesting for sure.

She may have been the only person involved with the care of both but she wasn't the only person involved with them or their medications and equipment, if you see what I mean. We have no idea whether there were other people who were involved with both along the chain of causation here. It's exceedingly likely that during the journey of these bags that there were multiple people who had dealings with all of them at various points.

I agree that someone must have done it intentionally. The chances of it accidentally happening seem vanishingly tiny and, besides, it was clearly synthetic insulin.

I disagree that the other cases she's accused of support the insulin ones by their mere existence. The insulin ones demonstrate a very different MO, IMO; all the others are what you might describe as "physical" or "hands-on" allegations - over feeding, injecting air or other substances, causing physical trauma and suchlike. The insulin ones are very different as they are allegations of things done "at a distance" or without a "physical application of force", if you get what I'm saying? If I were a betting man, and I am, I'll bet that if you showed the two types of cases to a criminologist and asked them to draw up a profile of the type of person who did them then those profiles would be very different. I think they'd say it wasn't likely that the same person was responsible. All in my totally inexpert opinion, of course.

The defence aren't, as far as I can tell, trying to offer an alternative explanation as to how the insulin was administered, they accept it, I think. What they are doing/will try to do is to cast doubt as to whether LL did the administering.

As I say, my opinion is that unless the prosecution can show that LL was definitely the person who added the insulin then I cannot see that the evidence exists to convict her. Now, I'll accept that they may well have done that because we are only seeing a tiny amount of the evidence being reported, but they haven't sp far according to what we've heard. Finding guilt based on some other seemingly completely unrelated (in terms of method) allegations is, IMO, wholly inappropriate.

The standard to convict someone is that the jury "Is Sure" that the accused did what is alleged. I don't se any evidence so far that would make me sure that she did it as regards the insulin allegations.

Just MOO, obvs.

 

[notsure]

Personally, I'm not expecting LL to provide any additional information regarding those babies' collapses, other than what we've already heard she stated in the police interviews. It all happened 7-8 years ago, so she's unlikely to have any fresh memories, and her existing memories will no doubt be affected by all the evidence presented in the courtroom over the past six months. Many of the previous witnesses we have heard from could not remember details of what happened and could only base their testimony on notes made at the time. If innocent, why should LL have a better memory of those incidents than any of her colleagues?

 

[Marantz4250b]

The way I look at it ...there were 2 insulin cases ...which is a different game altogether than one ...especially as in both cases they were placed in different base fluids ...so that rules out a batch of the same type of fluid from the same department being the problem.

That leads us to the unit.

The prosecution in my opinion put to bed it being an error because:

No baby on insulin in the unit at the time

Insulin is never put in either of the base fluids used

Insulin is kept in the fridge away from most other drugs


So that leaves one reasonable option in my opinion

Someone placed insulin purposely into fluids.

LL was on both shifts and had direct access and some involvement in both cases. ...aswell as being the only person involved in all cases.

I get that and I accept totally that it wasn't an error and that someone put it there intentionally.

You can't say that she was the only person involved in both cases because we do not know the history of the bags or other equipment in question. She was the only person directly involved in the care of both patients, I'll accept that, but it's essentially impossible to say that she was the only person involved for every minute of the history of both those bags from when they were made up. This is what, for me, makes these insulin cases so much different from the rest. Also, let us not forget that in the other recent case of a nurse being arrested, charged and remanded for an identical crime (almost at the same time as this one, as it happens), she didn't do it and was proved not to have done it.

 

[Jazmania]

According to this UK lawyer's website, it's basically 99%.
The Crown Court expresses that it requires the jury to be ‘satisfied so that you are sure’ of the defendant’s guilt. This is described unofficially as the 99% test

I would disagree that the burden of proof is as high as 99%. I think most tend to avoid putting a % on it, which is annoying as I think that would help the jury understand what 'reasonable doubt' means. I would personally say that being sure, beyond reasonable doubt would be around 80-90% sure. If the burden of proof really was 99% then not many convictions would ever take place. Only people actually seen murdering someone by at least 2 witnesses would ever be found guilty.

 

[WaxLyrical]

I would disagree that the burden of proof is as high as 99%. I think most tend to avoid putting a % on it, which is annoying as I think that would help the jury understand what 'reasonable doubt' means. I would personally say that being sure, beyond reasonable doubt would be around 80-90% sure. If the burden of proof really was 99% then not many convictions would ever take place. Only people actually seen murdering someone by at least 2 witnesses would ever be found guilty.

80% is not even close to sure enough to send someone down for life for murder.

 

[Jazmania]

80% is not even close to sure enough to send someone down for life for murder.

Yeah I reckon 90% would be the figure I would say would be 'beyond reasonable doubt'. But this is a subjective judgement that different people would interpret differently.

 

[WaxLyrical]

Yeah I reckon 90% would be the figure I would say would be 'beyond reasonable doubt'. But this is a subjective judgement that different people would interpret differently.

That’s why they’ve tried to get away from it being “reasonable doubt” to satisfied you are sure, to remove this subjective element. It means you don’t need to have actually witnessed the crime yourself, but you still need to be sure.

I suspect if you were the one faced with a lifetime behind bars, you would not be happy with the people choosing your fate to only be 90%.