UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #25

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

definition of 'worse for wear'==:
idiom. : in worse condition after doing or experiencing something.

Applied to people, it means someone may have had a rough time, but they seem to have come through it ok.

If you say that someone is the worse for wear, you mean that they are tired, ill , or in a bad state because they have been very active, been through a difficult experience, or been drinking alcohol.

[Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers]

Kind of weird to call a newborn 'worse for wear'



Why is Meyers saying it was inaccurate if his client just said it was accurate an hour earlier?

lmao---Meyers chooses a tepid text from child A, as an example of them not falling out? There is a full year of them working together, through 22 more incidents. Why choose a text from incident one?

100% - in all my life I have only ever heard 'worse for wear' applied to a person used in the context of being drunk / hungover. How awful to use it in this context. I guess he could be secretly alluding to 'poisoned'?

 

[Blondiexoxo]

IMO BM has a big battle on his hands. Any experts he presents won’t be able to exclude air embolism completely as a possible cause of collapse IMO. From what we heard during the prosecution case, there is no one test to either confirm or exclude air embolism. That the babies showed many symptoms of air embolism along with the expert evidence, x rays showing gas in the bowel etc leads me to believe that they could well have been given a bolus of air before their collapse. Even though there’s not a way to prove definitively air embolism, there is not a way to exclude it either from what we’ve heard. So any expert when cross examined will most likely have to concede that it is a possibility.

Same as how one expert for the prosecution answered BM about something else being the cause with ‘it’s possible but not probable’. IMO when looking at all the evidence as a whole, how the babies showed similar symptoms, the distended abdomens, loops in bowel, discomfort, unusual rash unlike any that some doctors had ever seen in their career, it’s very much a likely cause IMO.

It was also powerful testimony also from Dr J I think it was how he got chills after researching air embolism in neonates and realising the symptoms were almost identical to those shown by babies in this case. I’m sure any defence expert could give other explanations for collapse, but they IMO need to give one that lines up with the symptoms, the presence of gas, something that has quite a high occurrence rate considering how many times this happened and could cause babies to suddenly and inexplicably collapse shortly after LL had the opportunity to be in contact with them and for every single event to happen while LL was on shift…

MOO

 

[katydid23]

Letby 'falsified medical notes'

Letby is accused of falsifying a medical note, saying Child O was on CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure therapy) when he was not.

"The level of gas in the bowel is more than would have been expected in a normal baby," one doctor's note said.

"Why did you write CPAP in the gas chart?" Mr Johnson asks.

"I can't answer that now," Letby says.

"Do you accept he wasn't on CPAP?"

"He wasn't on the full CPAP machine," Letby says, but adds that he could have been receiving CPAP via neopuff.

Mr Johnson continues to take the court through what happened on the afternoon of 23 June 2016, the day Child O died.

The colleague whom Letby allegedly had a crush on came to intubate Child O.

The pair exchanged a series of Facebook messages between 2.08pm and 2.37pm, discussing the procedure - and the male colleague's lunch.

Letby disputes she was on the unit at this time, hence why the two were texting.

[but yet...]

Medical notes show Letby was allegedly attending to Child O at 2.30pm

Sky News----

IF BM does bring in a medical expert to try and refute the accusations of Air Embolisms caused by LL, he is going to have to also deal with these inconsistencies in her testimony and in her medical notes.

Even if BM gets an expert to say 'it may or may not be an A/E', which is probably the best he can hope for, he still has to deal with his defendant's sketchy testimony about the incidents and her allegedly false medical notes. Also her memories of the alleged rashes do not match with colleagues and victim's parent's memories of the unusual rashes.

So those issues could make some doubt her over all credibility when weighing which medical expert to believe in. To believe the one brought in by BM means you also have to believe her narrative about the rash not being what the prosecution describes, and her notes being more accurate than her colleagues about the same incidents.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

IMO BM has a big battle on his hands. Any experts he presents won’t be able to exclude air embolism completely as a possible cause of collapse IMO. From what we heard during the prosecution case, there is no one test to either confirm or exclude air embolism. That the babies showed many symptoms of air embolism along with the expert evidence, x rays showing gas in the bowel etc leads me to believe that they could well have been given a bolus of air before their collapse. Even though there’s not a way to prove definitively air embolism, there is not a way to exclude it either from what we’ve heard. So any expert when cross examined will most likely have to concede that it is a possibility.

Same as how one expert for the prosecution answered BM about something else being the cause with ‘it’s possible but not probable’. IMO when looking at all the evidence as a whole, how the babies showed similar symptoms, the distended abdomens, loops in bowel, discomfort, unusual rash unlike any that some doctors had ever seen in their career, it’s very much a likely cause IMO.

It was also powerful testimony also from Dr J I think it was how he got chills after researching air embolism in neonates and realising the symptoms were almost identical to those shown by babies in this case. I’m sure any defence expert could give other explanations for collapse, but they IMO need to give one that lines up with the symptoms, the presence of gas, something that has quite a high occurrence rate considering how many times this happened and could cause babies to suddenly and inexplicably collapse shortly after LL had the opportunity to be in contact with them and for every single event to happen while LL was on shift…

MOO

Of course BM could simply say, we don’t believe the prosecution have proved their case and rest without presenting any more witnesses.

I know in the US a defendant does not have to offer an alternative theory and a jury can’t draw a negative inference if they don’t hear an alternative from the defence as the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Is it the same rule for the UK? I know we don’t have the 5th amendment right against self incrimination here so I think the jury can draw a negative inference from a defendant not testifying, however LL has testified. In the UK can they simply rest without offering an alternative explanation and the jury just have to decide if the prosecution have proven their case without assuming that because the defence didn’t present experts etc that they don’t have any to refute the prosecution?

MOO

 

[katydid23]

IMO BM has a big battle on his hands. Any experts he presents won’t be able to exclude air embolism completely as a possible cause of collapse IMO. From what we heard during the prosecution case, there is no one test to either confirm or exclude air embolism. That the babies showed many symptoms of air embolism along with the expert evidence, x rays showing gas in the bowel etc leads me to believe that they could well have been given a bolus of air before their collapse. Even though there’s not a way to prove definitively air embolism, there is not a way to exclude it either from what we’ve heard. So any expert when cross examined will most likely have to concede that it is a possibility.

Same as how one expert for the prosecution answered BM about something else being the cause with ‘it’s possible but not probable’. IMO when looking at all the evidence as a whole, how the babies showed similar symptoms, the distended abdomens, loops in bowel, discomfort, unusual rash unlike any that some doctors had ever seen in their career, it’s very much a likely cause IMO.

It was also powerful testimony also from Dr J I think it was how he got chills after researching air embolism in neonates and realising the symptoms were almost identical to those shown by babies in this case. I’m sure any defence expert could give other explanations for collapse, but they IMO need to give one that lines up with the symptoms, the presence of gas, something that has quite a high occurrence rate considering how many times this happened and could cause babies to suddenly and inexplicably collapse shortly after LL had the opportunity to be in contact with them and for every single event to happen while LL was on shift…

MOO

And at the end of both sides presenting their medical experts, one group of experts will be supported by the prosecution's witnesses and their observation notes and testimonies---

VS. the defense expert, being supported by Nurse Letby's testimony and her observation notes and statements. Will the recent damage to LL's credibility affect her medical expert's credibility too?

 

[Jayney404]

Letby 'falsified medical notes'
Letby is accused of falsifying a medical note, saying Child O was on CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure therapy) when he was not.

"The level of gas in the bowel is more than would have been expected in a normal baby," one doctor's note said.

"Why did you write CPAP in the gas chart?" Mr Johnson asks.

"I can't answer that now," Letby says.

"Do you accept he wasn't on CPAP?"

"He wasn't on the full CPAP machine," Letby says, but adds that he could have been receiving CPAP via neopuff.

Mr Johnson continues to take the court through what happened on the afternoon of 23 June 2016, the day Child O died.

The colleague whom Letby allegedly had a crush on came to intubate Child O.

The pair exchanged a series of Facebook messages between 2.08pm and 2.37pm, discussing the procedure - and the male colleague's lunch.

Letby disputes she was on the unit at this time, hence why the two were texting.


Medical notes show Letby was allegedly attending to Child O at 2.30pm

sky news----

If guilty this is
Another disingenuous statement by ll
The child ‘could have been receiving CPaP via neopuff’. Signifying the child also could not have.
She does this often to avoid the stress of outright lying. The child ‘could’ have received neopuff is technically true. If you read a lot of hee statements these ambiguities pop up lots of ‘i could’ or ‘I might have’s’.

If guilty, JMO, etc etc

 

[katydid23]

If guilty this is
Another disingenuous statement by ll
The child ‘could have been receiving CPaP via neopuff’. Signifying the child also could not have.
She does this often to avoid the stress of outright lying. The child ‘could’ have received neopuff is technically true. If you read a lot of hee statements these ambiguities pop up lots of ‘i could’ or ‘I might have’s’.

If guilty, JMO, etc etc

Right, and IF the baby was receiving Neo-puff, it would have been noted on the medical chart. Which we can assume it wasn't or NJ wouldn't have called her out on it. JMO

She speaks in half-truths so she can back peddle and wiggle out of anything when confronted.

 

[katydid23]

Chester Standard:
12:09pm

The trial is resuming after a short break.

Letby says a 20ml saline bolus was given to Child O in response to a poor blood gas record.

She says there was a delay as there was an issue with getting the line for Child O.

She says she believes the bolus, which has 'time started: 1440', was in response to Child O's collapse.

A doctor's note recorded for the '~1440' collapse: '10ml/kg 0.9% sodium chloride bolus already given.'

Letby agrees the two desaturations for Child O that day were "profound" ones.

Letby's note: 'Approx 1440 [Child O] had a profound desaturation to 30s followed by bradycardia. Mottled++ and abdomen red and distended. Transferred to nursery 1 and Neopuff ventilation commenced. Perfusion poor'

Letby, when questioned, says babies would "frequently desaturate", to this level, and this happened prior to June 2015, and "often".

---
12:14pm

Letby says the redness to the abdomen on Child O was abnormal, and the description of mottling was normal.

Mr Johnson says during the intubation, Dr Stephen Brearey, in evidence on March 15, said Child O had a rash on his chest, on the right side, about 1-2cm in size.

He said it was an "unusual" rash that was initially pupuric, and it later disappeared.

Letby says: "I don't believe that's what I saw. I saw mottling. If that's what Dr Brearey saw, then if that's what you could take as being true, then yes."

 

[Tortoise]

"She previously told Manchester Crown Court that she felt “isolated” and “cut off from my nursing family”, as she was told she could not talk to colleagues – apart from two fellow nurses and a doctor who the Crown says she “had a crush on”.

[...]

Mr Johnson said: “We find times, times and more times of you out drinking with other people from the unit?”

“Yes,” said Letby.

[...]

Mr Johnson said: “All the time really. You had a very, very active social life, didn’t you?”

“Yes,” said Letby.

[...]

She wrote: “I am an awful person…. I AM EVIL I DID THIS.”

Mr Johnson said: “You felt like this because you knew you had killed and grievously injured these children.”

“No,” said Letby.

[...]

Letby’s barrister, Ben Myers KC, asked: “Photographs of you out on the razz with your friends. Drinking fizz, going to the races. Did you have a good time?”

Letby said: “Yes. There were times in those years that I has having a good time.”

[...]

Letby admitted she did go on to have contact with nursing colleagues following her removal from nursing, but it was “purely social”."

[...]

Letby denies she is ‘calculated’ liar who murdered ‘many children’

Accused nurse Lucy Letby has denied she is a “calculated” liar who had murdered “many children” on a hospital neonatal unit.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Legal]

IMO BM showed the photos to try and detract from NJ's assertions she was "out on the razz" and drinking fizz" and "at the races", ie. doing frivolous activities. Hence, showing pictures of her on days out with her mum and dad. IMO this completely missed the point, that she tried to claim she was isolated and lonely and this affected her mental health. IMO from the court it felt like he really dragged this out too, I thought come on, you've made your point, let's move on. That's just my feeling.

NJ asked LL about her views of what happened, the gang of 4 and the hospital failing cover up. She was unable to specifically detail any of the hospital failings so it was him who suggested that it was above her paygrade to identify such issues and she agree.

All IMO.

 

[marynnu]

So is Eirian still supportive of nurse Lucy? I guess, if so, she will be a character witness this week?

This just made me think. I assume people are selected to be character witnesses well in advance of the proceedings. So it does make me wonder what they now think having heard the prosecution case. I guess they could just withdraw if they've changed their mind?

 

[Jayney404]

Right, and IF the baby was receiving Neo-puff, it would have been noted on the medical chart. Which we can assume it wasn't or NJ wouldn't have called her out on it. JMO

She speaks in half-truths so she can back peddle and wiggle out of anything when confronted.

Completely she allows for other to fill in the blanks and say for her what she will not say herself.

I know we can’t do any statement analysis stuff on here, so I won’t, but anyone who knows about unreliable denials and leakage will be following this case closely!

JMO if guilty imo etc etc

 

[Cardgame]

I would be very interested to know if it was true that she was eventually told she was allowed to have contact with people on the unit.

Given that behind the scenes the situation was surely escalating, is it likely that the rule was relaxed?

Dunno. MOO.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Nobody wants a hostile witness.
This is an unholy mess going forward.
MOO

 

[Tortoise]

Eirian was already re-called on the prosecution's last day of evidence, with the defence questioning her first.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, April 27

Eirian Powell, NNU Manager

Defence Questions

12:32pm

The trial is now resuming after a short break.
Eirian Powell, who was the neonatal unit ward manager at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2011-2017, is being recalled to give evidence.
Mr Myers has a few questions to ask Ms Powell.

12:34pm

Ms Powell first met Lucy Letby when the latter was a University of Chester student on a four-week placement.
She agrees Letby was "very keen to improve her practice" and saw her to the point when she was working on the neonatal unit.
Mr Myers: "She was an exceptionally good nurse?"
Ms Powell: "Yes, she was."

12:38pm

Ms Powell confirms Letby was "committed" in progressing with her training, including training in intensive treatment units.
She said Letby was 'hard-working and flexible' - "extraordinarily so", and worked a lot with premature babies in the neonatal unit.
"She was very particular with attention to detail".

12:39pm

Mr Myers asks about the 2016 reallocation to day shifts, following a number of deaths on the neonatal unit.
Ms Powell said the move to the day shift was to give Letby "more support" in staffing numbers, and was not "a punishment".
Mr Myers said the unit remained busy during those days.

12:44pm

Mr Myers asks about the redeployment of Lucy Letby away from the neonatal unit in July 15, 2016, which was announced in an email signed by Ms Powell, as part of a period of clinical supervision.
The email said 'This is not meant to be a blame or a competency issue', and was in preparation for an external review.
Ms Powell confirms Lucy Letby was "upset" at being removed from the unit.

12:49pm

Ms Powell recalls the review meeting was "very upsetting" for Lucy Letby and herself. She does not recall if Lucy Letby was told not to talk to several other members of staff.
"She was distraught at that point". Ms Powell said Letby was upset at what was said in the meeting, about what was suggested Letby may have done.
Ms Powell said everyone's competency was being reviewed at that time, but "not to the extent" of Letby's.
She adds she was "keen" to get Letby back on the unit.

Prosecution Questions

12:51pm

Nicholas Johnson KC, for the prosecution, rises to ask a couple of questions.
He asks if Letby made mistakes.
Ms Powell said Letby made mistakes, as everyone did, but was "good at reporting mistakes", and would report mistakes that other nurse practitioners or medical staff had made, regardless of seniority.

12:54pm

Mr Johnson asks what was said in the review meeting.
Ms Powell said that Letby would have to come off the unit, but could not recall what else was said.
Mr Johnson asks what was being suggested in that meeting.
"That she was the common [element] in all of the deaths".

 

[Parker Knoll]

I would be very interested to know if it was true that she was eventually told she was allowed to have contact with people on the unit.

Given that behind the scenes the situation was surely escalating, is it likely that the rule was relaxed?

Dunno. MOO.

The thing with letby is she takes absolutely no notice of anything, I can’t for a second imagine her toeing the line in who she can and cannot speak and socialise with tbh.

 

[Cardgame]

Of course BM could simply say, we don’t believe the prosecution have proved their case and rest without presenting any more witnesses.

I know in the US a defendant does not have to offer an alternative theory and a jury can’t draw a negative inference if they don’t hear an alternative from the defence as the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Is it the same rule for the UK? I know we don’t have the 5th amendment right against self incrimination here so I think the jury can draw a negative inference from a defendant not testifying, however LL has testified. In the UK can they simply rest without offering an alternative explanation and the jury just have to decide if the prosecution have proven their case without assuming that because the defence didn’t present experts etc that they don’t have any to refute the prosecution?

MOO

Maybe Myers, working closely with LL, finds her compelling and believable.

I've been assuming, which is that she's the one who wanted to take the stand.

But maybe it was all his idea? Maybe he thought she would win the jury over?

It does seem baffling what the defence actually is.

Perhaps they were hoping for the jury to come away thinking "well whatever happened, it can't have been HER"

MOO.

 

[Tortoise]

IMO BM showed the photos to try and detract from NJ's assertions she was "out on the razz" and drinking fizz" and "at the races", ie. doing frivolous activities. Hence, showing pictures of her on days out with her mum and dad. IMO this completely missed the point, that she tried to claim she was isolated and lonely and this affected her mental health. IMO from the court it felt like he really dragged this out too, I thought come on, you've made your point, let's move on. That's just my feeling.

NJ asked LL about her views of what happened, the gang of 4 and the hospital failing cover up. She was unable to specifically detail any of the hospital failings so it was him who suggested that it was above her paygrade to identify such issues and she agree.

All IMO.

Looking at the article I've just posted, above your post, it looks though as if she didn't respond to his first question as he expected. I think he was expecting her to say 'I was out but I wasn't having a good time'. When she said she was having a good time he then had to do more work. I think he was having to think on his feet how can I steer this towards having a good time but not feeling good generally, but he never managed it IMO because she wasn't picking up his cues. MOO

 

[katydid23]

I would be very interested to know if it was true that she was eventually told she was allowed to have contact with people on the unit.

Given that behind the scenes the situation was surely escalating, is it likely that the rule was relaxed?

Dunno. MOO.

OHHHH, good question. Those are exactly the kind of half-truths she tends to blurt out---which under scrutiny, fail to be accurate.

Who would have thought it over and seen it important to contact her at some point to say 'Hey Nurse Letby, go ahead and hang out with this married doctor and these 2 former co-workers if you'd like----our multiple murder investigation is still under way, but no problem...'

 

[katydid23]

Maybe Myers, working closely with LL, finds her compelling and believable.

I've been assuming, which is that she's the one who wanted to take the stand.

But maybe it was all his idea? Maybe he thought she would win the jury over?

It does seem baffling what the defence actually is.

Perhaps they were hoping for the jury to come away thinking "well whatever happened, it can't have been HER"

MOO.

Perhaps they were hoping for the jury to come away thinking "well whatever happened, it can't have been HER"


I think they might have been thinking that, BEFORE she took the stand. Ironically....