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

[Jazmania]

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.

I found a poll which asked people what percentage they would consider to mean 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Most respondents said between 90-100%. However the question they were asked was 'imagine that you were on a jury and the case hinged on a piece of evidence the prosecution had, which had an X% chance of being accurate. How accurate would it have to be for you to consider it to be beyond a "reasonable doubt"?'

I think if there was only one piece of evidence in a trial it would have to be pretty much 99-100% accurate to convict. But if like in this case there is potentially 1000 pieces of evidence, then the certainty you view the accuracy of each bit of evidence doesn't need to be as high, it's only your final judgement of guilt that has to be certain beyond reasonable doubt. Each bit of evidence adds a little bit more weight onto the scale. At what point it tips over into being sure must be a subjective thing.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/10/02/how-large-can-reasonable-doubt-be

 

[Jazmania]

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%.

If I was the parent of a baby who had allegedly been murdered, I would not be happy with someone getting off scot free because someone required unreasonable standards of proof which are never going to be satisfied. To be 99% sure you would have to have a witness seeing LL inflicting the trauma, which would never happen. Or a note saying I did it, I murdered them all because x,y,z - oh wait!

 

[Jazmania]

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%.

Put it this way. I don't think someone who a panel of jury members are 90% sure has murdered several babies should be free to walk the streets.

 

[Marantz4250b]

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%.

I agree!

Also, "sure" is an absolute, a whole thing. You can't be 90% or even 99% sure. Sure can only mean 100%.

 

[JosieJo]

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.

This is exactly why I'm confident with these 2 cases ...simply because they were 2 completely different types of fluid ...tpn comes hand made from pharmacy...the glucose bags come in sealed boxes with multiple bags in from stores ..these bags have a very much longer shelf life. Therefore it's virtually impossible that someone not on the unit would handle both bags.

That then leaves us with

Someone on the unit other than LL did this ....

 

[Sundial]

A few things I’m interested in;
1. When the defence asked her about her scribbled jumbled notes, the only thing i didn’t hear him touch on was the “tiny boy” or “if anyone will think of you today/your birthday” writings. Strange he would ask about everything else but appeared to avoid even asking about this.

2. Dr choc; something feels somewhat amis here and this is just my opinion.
On the sheet found (at her desk I believe?) she wrote his name numerous times over making reference to something along the lines of “my love, I think you knew I loved you, it didn’t need to be/happen like this” etc.

On the stand she said it was a “close friendship” but nothing more. They would go for walks, coffee, meals, he’d go to her house etc, which fizzled out around 2018 (her arrest I imagine?)

Something just doesn’t sit properly with this IMO. Recalling her reaction at his name from behind the screen and her tears. Granted it may have been a long time she’s heard his voice, but I think there was also a female colleague behind the screen the reaction wasn’t the same.

I’m wondering, if dr choc was a close friendship and they had meals, walks and coffee etc who she says also went to her house, whether he had seen/come across all the handover notes or whatever?

It’s odd that a very “close” friendship (who seemed to have her back and was sending her confidential doctor’s conversations- the “keep to yourself” comments he made to her and forwarding that email) then appears to have gone sour and it does make you question why. Her notes indicate something amiss at the time she was working in the office; almost as if he turned his back on her.

Very odd imo
JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

This is exactly why I'm confident with these 2 cases ...simply because they were 2 completely different types of fluid ...tpn comes hand made from pharmacy...the glucose bags come in sealed boxes with multiple bags in from stores ..these bags have a very much longer shelf life. Therefore it's virtually impossible that someone not on the unit would handle both bags.

That then leaves us with

Someone on the unit other than LL did this ....

Do they always come like that to the ward/department or are they sometimes brought up individually or with the boxes having been opened?

A "very much longer shelf life" sounds like a much greater opportunity for them to be fiddled with, to my mind.

Presumably these are fetched from the stores by porters? Are they ever swapped between departments next to each other because it's quicker than getting them from the stores or the stores are awaiting more?

 

[WaxLyrical]

Put it this way. I don't think someone who a panel of jury members are 90% sure has murdered several babies should be free to walk the streets.

We are unlikely to hear the words “reasonable doubt” being spoken by the judge here, he will direct the jury to convict if they are satisfied they are sure. He will say this specifically to avoid the discussion we’re having now, about 80%, 90%, 99% or whatever. We’re not convicting on the balance of probabilities, it’s not about what’s most likely to have happened it’s about being sure this person committed murder.

 

[Jazmania]

I agree!

Also, "sure" is an absolute, a whole thing. You can't be 90% or even 99% sure. Sure can only mean 100%.

But it isn't sure. It is sure 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. So you can have some doubts, but as long as they are not considered reasonable, then you should convict. For example if one doubt you have is 'But why would anyone do such a thing, and why would a young nurse with her life ahead of her do this', then that is not a reasonable doubt imo. As it does not relate to the evidence. Coming up with your own medical theories as to why a baby collapsed that are not backed up by any expert evidence is also not a reasonable doubt, as it doesn't relate to evidence heard.
It is absolutely wrong to say that 100% certainty is needed in a criminal case.

 

[WaxLyrical]

Do they always come like that to the ward/department or are they sometimes brought up individually or with the boxes having been opened?

A "very much longer shelf life" sounds like a much greater opportunity for them to be fiddled with, to my mind.

Presumably these are fetched from the stores by porters? Are they ever swapped between departments next to each other because it's quicker than getting them from the stores or the stores are awaiting more?

Just because I think it’s important, Mary and I discussed these bags at the time. Whenever dextrose was increased, that meant a new bag was used, with a certain volume of liquid being removed and straight dextrose added in order to make the overall bag a certain %. These are mixed by the nurses on the unit.

In my view, it sounded most likely that the dextrose was the thing that had been poisoned, not each and every bag. But Mary confirmed they wouldn’t keep using the same bottle of dextrose, unless they were mixing several bags in short succession.

 

[Jazmania]

We are unlikely to hear the words “reasonable doubt” being spoken by the judge here, he will direct the jury to convict if they are satisfied they are sure. He will say this specifically to avoid the discussion we’re having now, about 80%, 90%, 99% or whatever. We’re not convicting on the balance of probabilities, it’s not about what’s most likely to have happened it’s about being sure this person committed murder.

I get your point. But this case is all about the balance of probabilities. The crux of the evidence is medical, and that's how the process of science works. You are never 100% sure of anything, it is impossible to reach that threshold in science. You can only say, what is the probability that what we are seeing here could arise due to chance. Like that expert said about the man found dead in a desert with a pan next to his head. What is the chance that it fell from a plane? It's possible but not likely. If we required 100% certainty in trials no one would ever be convicted.

 

[WaxLyrical]

I get your point. But this case is all about the balance of probabilities. The crux of the evidence is medical, and that's how the process of science works. You are never 100% sure of anything, it is impossible to reach that threshold in science. You can only say, what is the probability that what we are seeing here could arise due to chance. Like that expert said about the man found dead in a desert with a pan next to his head. What is the chance that it fell from a plane? It's possible but not likely. If we required 100% certainty in trials no one would ever be convicted.

Sorry no the standard of proof in a murder trial is much higher than the balance of probabilities. The jury can only convict if they are sure. This is what the judge will tell them.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

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
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, February 10
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, April 17
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, April 27

I love your summaries tortoise it does make this difficult case that bit easier to follow!

If LL is trying to pin it on another colleague then it has backfired because it seems it wasn’t the same colleague who was with her for each baby. So all that does IMO is bolster the prosecution case that she was the only person present at each event. If LL had said the same colleague was with her hanging up the TPN bag or administering meds then it might hold some weight. But unless we are to assume there are 2 or more serial killers on the unit it just doesn’t wash with me. IMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

But it isn't sure. It is sure 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. So you can have some doubts, but as long as they are not considered reasonable, then you should convict. For example if one doubt you have is 'But why would anyone do such a thing, and why would a young nurse with her life ahead of her do this', then that is not a reasonable doubt imo. As it does not relate to the evidence. Coming up with your own medical theories as to why a baby collapsed that are not backed up by any expert evidence is also not a reasonable doubt, as it doesn't relate to evidence heard.
It is absolutely wrong to say that 100% certainty is needed in a criminal case.

No, it's not. That went out years ago. Essentially because it causes confusion as different people have a different appreciation of "reasonable".

The current standard is "satisfied so that you are sure". "Sure" is an absolute. You are either sure or you are not.

 

[Jazmania]

Sorry no the standard of proof in a murder trial is much higher than the balance of probabilities. The jury can only convict if they are sure. This is what the judge will tell them.

I didn't say a jury should convict if they believe that on the balance of probability she did it. That would require only 51% certainty, and that isn't what I said. My point is that no one can objectively be 100% sure on any criminal case. After all there is the chance that God or aliens intervened and made it look like the defendant did it. The judge may direct the jury in such a way as described, but if they interpreted that to mean that 100% certainty is necessary, then they would be wrong.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I love your summaries tortoise it does make this difficult case that bit easier to follow!

If LL is trying to pin it on another colleague then it has backfired because it seems it wasn’t the same colleague who was with her for each baby. So all that does IMO is bolster the prosecution case that she was the only person present at each event. If LL had said the same colleague was with her hanging up the TPN bag or administering meds then it might hold some weight. But unless we are to assume there are 2 or more serial killers on the unit it just doesn’t wash with me. IMO

In reading all those answers, though, I don't see that she's trying to pin it on anyone. She was just giving answers to the questions put to her, such as how many signatures are required, and suchlike. If you read down those answers I can't really see any that would not be reasonable for a person who was entirely innocent to give. Yes, a guilty person would likely try to divert attention from themselves and towards others but none of those answers are inconsistent with innocence, either.

 

[JosieJo]

Do they always come like that to the ward/department or are they sometimes brought up individually or with the boxes having been opened?

A "very much longer shelf life" sounds like a much greater opportunity for them to be fiddled with, to my mind.

Presumably these are fetched from the stores by porters? Are they ever swapped between departments next to each other because it's quicker than getting them from the stores or the stores are awaiting more?

The large boxes are delivered full of bags and sealed ...the only time one would be individual is if the ward had none and one had to be fetched from another ward. As far as I know that has not been suggested and I'd be very suprised if so as glucose is a very commonly used item and rarely not available imo

TPN is delivered bespoke ...I'm fairly sure they ran through the process from pharmacy to ward fridge in court when the pharmicist took the stand.

The likelihood of someone off the unit having access to actrapid insulin and access to both these items off the unit is very remote imo

 

[Sweeper2000]

I love your summaries tortoise it does make this difficult case that bit easier to follow!

If LL is trying to pin it on another colleague then it has backfired because it seems it wasn’t the same colleague who was with her for each baby. So all that does IMO is bolster the prosecution case that she was the only person present at each event. If LL had said the same colleague was with her hanging up the TPN bag or administering meds then it might hold some weight. But unless we are to assume there are 2 or more serial killers on the unit it just doesn’t wash with me. IMO

Agreed those summaries are top notch stuff.

ive still got a lot of doubt about the insulin. I don’t even think it crosses the bar for attempted murder. If the insulin doses were higher I would think this is definitely enough insulin to completely overwhelm the system with insulin. A drop is not the same as a torrent. Or if insulin had been administered away from a place that would rapidly recognise the blood sugar issues and treat them. I remember the testimony that said it causes issues for the brain as in stops it getting enough energy but I don’t remember there being any testimony about what would have happened if treatment hadn’t been immediately available.

we also have the issues with multiple bags being contaminated with insulin in the latter case it seemed numerous bags had roughly the same amount, suggesting the dosage was measured. If insulin couldn’t be detected in the bag presumably an attempt to kill would involve an amount of insulin that perhaps couldn’t be treated.

 

[Jazmania]

No, it's not. That went out years ago. Essentially because it causes confusion as different people have a different appreciation of "reasonable".

The current standard is "satisfied so that you are sure". "Sure" is an absolute. You are either sure or you are not.

Okay so I have looked up the latest guidance and you are correct about the replacement of reasonable doubt with 'satisfied that you are sure'. From Crown Court Compendium - June 2022 - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

However in the document is says:

Example 1: where the burden is on the prosecution
The prosecution must prove that D is guilty. D does not have to prove anything to you. D does not have to prove that he/she is innocent. The prosecution will only succeed in proving that D is guilty if you have been made sure of D’s guilt. If, after considering all of the evidence, you are sure that D is guilty, your verdict must be ‘Guilty’. If you are not sure that D is guilty, your verdict must be ‘Not Guilty

1. In the case of Majid,186 Moses LJ observed:
   “[Any] question from the jury dealing with the standard of proof is the one that most judges dread. To have to define what is meant by 'reasonable doubt' or what is meant by 'being sure' requires an answer difficult to articulate and likely to confuse. No doubt this is why the Judicial Studies Board seeks to avoid it in the direction they give to judges” (per Moses LJ at [9], referring to the direction in the Crown Court Bench Book, the precursor to The Crown Court Compendium).
2. In the case of JL,187 the jury asked exactly such a question – specifically whether the standard of proof was ‘100% certainty’ or ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, and if the latter, what ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ actually means. With the agreement of the advocates, the trial judge said:
   1. (1) the jury was not required to be 100% certain
   2. (2) sure and beyond reasonable doubt meant the same thing; and
   3. (3) a reasonable doubt was the sort of doubt that might affect the jurors’ minds if they were making decisions in matters of importance in their own affairs, their own lives.

So being 'sure' and needing 100% proof is not the same thing. Being sure is the same as being sure beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Dotta]

Im waiting for the Prosecution to ask the defendant about "on purpose" part of the note.

Because the answers I have already heard make no sense to me at all.

Not at all.

I also noticed that Defence didn't particularly dwell on this subject.

But who can blame them, as this literally sounds like a confession.

JMO