UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #26

[Blondiexoxo]

11:26am

Mr Johnson says the mother described Child E's blood around the mouth - 'like a goatee beard'.
Letby had said the blood came from the NG Tube and the registrar was 'on his way'. Letby told the mother to go back to the post-natal ward, and had done so by 9.11pm.
NJ: "This is a head-on credibility contest between [the mother] and Lucy Letby."
"You can be sure Lucy Letby is lying on this - plainly, as any parent will understand, provision of milk and food to any newborn infant is important, and 2100 was [Child E's] feeding time."
"Crying like nothing I'd heard before - it was a sound which shouldn't have come from a tiny baby, it was horrendous...
"You may think [the mother] would have a very good reason to remember this.
"Either she saw blood or didn't - why would she make it up?"
If she did see blood at 2100, then Letby's nursing notes are "false", Mr Johnson says.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, June 19 - closing speeches

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

@Tortoise do you think this might suggest NJ is expecting the judge to give the direction about lying you posted yesterday? In your post it said that if the judge intends to give this direction it must be discussed prior to closings, so maybe that’s what the day of legal arguments was last week when there were reporting restrictions? I’d assumed it could have related to a witness but since the only witness was the plumber, I’m now wondering if it was for the judge to discuss jury instructions and for each side to suggest what they’d like included when he sums up for the jury.

The bits I’ve bolded made me think back to your post.

MOO

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Strange question upcoming
The names Thomas and Richard, we’re they mentioned in Letby’s notes at all ?

I don’t know why I think they were, but the names ring a bell.

I think it was Tom & Matt that were mentioned along with her parents in one of her notes. Not sure I recall a Richard but there was so much to decode on those tiny pieces of paper there may have been a Richard mentioned! Considering we had Bergerac. Tiny Boy, Tigger, Smudge plus a plethora of colleagues names. Even Craig David had a special mention…

MOO

 

[marynnu]

The idea that LL did not know about c-peptide results. Theres every chance she did know but decided to chance it anyway.

I had no idea myself, to be fair! I'm not sure it's something you'd know as a nurse unless you specialised in diabetic care.

 

[Tortoise]

11:26am

Mr Johnson says the mother described Child E's blood around the mouth - 'like a goatee beard'.
Letby had said the blood came from the NG Tube and the registrar was 'on his way'. Letby told the mother to go back to the post-natal ward, and had done so by 9.11pm.
NJ: "This is a head-on credibility contest between [the mother] and Lucy Letby."
"You can be sure Lucy Letby is lying on this - plainly, as any parent will understand, provision of milk and food to any newborn infant is important, and 2100 was [Child E's] feeding time."
"Crying like nothing I'd heard before - it was a sound which shouldn't have come from a tiny baby, it was horrendous...
"You may think [the mother] would have a very good reason to remember this.
"Either she saw blood or didn't - why would she make it up?"
If she did see blood at 2100, then Letby's nursing notes are "false", Mr Johnson says.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, June 19 - closing speeches

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

@Tortoise do you think this might suggest NJ is expecting the judge to give the direction about lying you posted yesterday? In your post it said that if the judge intends to give this direction it must be discussed prior to closings, so maybe that’s what the day of legal arguments was last week when there were reporting restrictions? I’d assumed it could have related to a witness but since the only witness was the plumber, I’m now wondering if it was for the judge to discuss jury instructions and for each side to suggest what they’d like included when he sums up for the jury.

The bits I’ve bolded made me think back to your post.

MOO

My understanding was that where it relates to the defendant's account vs a witness's account it's not a matter for legal direction, it's a matter of the jury deciding which account they believe.

Other lies proven or admitted to before or during the trial are what the directions are to cover.

 

[esther43]

I had no idea myself, to be fair! I'm not sure it's something you'd know as a nurse unless you specialised in diabetic care.

I won't speculate about copycat killings because that would be sub justice, so was just saying it's a bit of an assumption on the part of NJ as there's no evidence to suggest either way that she did or didn't.

 

[Tortoise]

I won't speculate about copycat killings because that would be sub justice, so was just saying it's a bit of an assumption on the part of NJ as there's no evidence to suggest either way that she did or didn't.

There is evidence - her own words to the jury.

Barristers are not allowed to make up evidence if it hasn't been presented in the trial.

Even if she's lying about that it's evidence, but it doesn't help her case to say she didn't know they could test for synthetic insulin.

 

[marynnu]

I won't speculate about copycat killings because that would be sub justice, so was just saying it's a bit of an assumption on the part of NJ as there's no evidence to suggest either way that she did or didn't.

True, it's unlikely but not impossible I suppose.

 

[esther43]

[/QUOTE]

There is evidence - her own words to the jury.

Barristers are not allowed to make up evidence if it hasn't been presented in the trial.

Even if she's lying about that it's evidence, but it doesn't help her case to say she didn't know they could test for synthetic insulin.

True that. It's all evidence, quite remiss of me to put it in the 'irrelevant' box.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I had no idea myself, to be fair! I'm not sure it's something you'd know as a nurse unless you specialised in diabetic care.

Bizarrely, it's one of the few medical things I'd heard of as it was mentioned in a documentary about the Stepping Hill cases.

 

[Kemug]

I think that one of the things that the jury will find to be the most telling is the testimony of baby E's mother. She had absolutely no reason to lie, and her story is supported by her husband and the phone records. For myself, I cannot get past this.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

Put together like this, it all seems so much worse now, if that's possible.

Yes, even some of the things I was doubtful about as reported during evidence, now seem quite damning. IMO.

 

[Dotta]

Off to work!

There is job to be done!

Getty Images

Getty Images UK. Find high resolution royalty-free images, editorial stock photos, vector art, video footage clips and stock music licensing at the richest image search photo library online.

www.gettyimages.co.uk

 

[esther43]

Off to work!

There is job to be done!

Getty Images

Getty Images UK. Find high resolution royalty-free images, editorial stock photos, vector art, video footage clips and stock music licensing at the richest image search photo library online.

www.gettyimages.co.uk

It's an older clip but he looks like he means business!

 

[katydid23]

I interpreted the “if” as LL assuming that she was being taken off because of negligence / poor clinical skills, so was expecting them to have something which pointed to her overlooking something.

Even if guilty, I’m not convinced that she thought they were thinking foul play. And to be fair, I’m not sure whether apart from Dr J anyone else was
On the foul play train at that time.

I think Dr Breary had wondered about it, but then kept dismissing it from his brain, thinking it was not possible , just too wild to consider it. But I think it did cross his mind as early as Child K. Dr J had already considered it a possibility and I do believe he would have spoken to Dr Brearey about it , if so.


ETA: Yes, I found what I had read earlier, about Brearey being suspicious early on:

Lucy Letby: Doctor asked for nurse to be taken off shift - court

A doctor raised concerns about nurse Lucy Letby's presence and the deaths of babies, her trial hears.

www.bbc.com

Ben Myers KC, defending, noted that Dr Brearey had first "identified" Ms Letby as someone of interest as early as June 2015 after the death of the first three babies in the case.
Dr Brearey had noted, with colleagues, that Ms Letby was present when those three children died in 2015.

The doctor added: "It's not something anyone wanted to consider, that a member of staff is harming babies.
"The senior nursing staff on the unit didn't believe this could be true."

He said with every "unusual" episode of baby collapse between June 2015 and June 2016 there had been "increasing suspicion" about Ms Letby, which led him to eventually escalate his concerns and request she be taken off shift.

I was searching for the law around prosecution closing speeches yesterday, (when I found that info about jury instructions relating to a defendant's lies) to see where it says that the prosecution gets the final word after the defence, and I couldn't find it anywhere. I'm beginning to wonder if I made it up, but I'm about 90%-ish sure that's what happened at the trial where I was on the jury. Perhaps it's just something that the judge can decide if the prosecution asks permission to reply to something? I apologise to all if I've led you down the garden path!

We do have that in the US system, but the prosecution can only discuss rebuttal points to what was covered in defense closing arguments.

I am trying to figure out what BM can set forth in his closing. Can he discuss things from his opening statements which were never shown to be true during his case? I think his closing will be very limited.

 

[katydid23]

11:26am

Mr Johnson says the mother described Child E's blood around the mouth - 'like a goatee beard'.
Letby had said the blood came from the NG Tube and the registrar was 'on his way'. Letby told the mother to go back to the post-natal ward, and had done so by 9.11pm.
NJ: "This is a head-on credibility contest between [the mother] and Lucy Letby."
"You can be sure Lucy Letby is lying on this - plainly, as any parent will understand, provision of milk and food to any newborn infant is important, and 2100 was [Child E's] feeding time."
"Crying like nothing I'd heard before - it was a sound which shouldn't have come from a tiny baby, it was horrendous...
"You may think [the mother] would have a very good reason to remember this.
"Either she saw blood or didn't - why would she make it up?"
If she did see blood at 2100, then Letby's nursing notes are "false", Mr Johnson says.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, June 19 - closing speeches

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

@Tortoise do you think this might suggest NJ is expecting the judge to give the direction about lying you posted yesterday? In your post it said that if the judge intends to give this direction it must be discussed prior to closings, so maybe that’s what the day of legal arguments was last week when there were reporting restrictions? I’d assumed it could have related to a witness but since the only witness was the plumber,

I think it's quite possible that BM had one or two other witnesses he hoped to bring forward. But for whatever legal reasons, he was not able to do so.

He may have had an 'expert' that he hoped to use for the medical issues, or to discuss 'confirmation bias' , etc etc. But it is very hard to be accepted as an expert witness in a murder trial and the witness may have been denied.

I’m now wondering if it was for the judge to discuss jury instructions and for each side to suggest what they’d like included when he sums up for the jury.

The bits I’ve bolded made me think back to your post.

MOO

 

[minusfour]

I've been catching up, reading a page or two when I could, at work.

It is a compelling narration.

Wow, just wow. Gobsmacked.

 

[katydid23]

Loved the way he narrowed down the exact time that Baby K had one of her 4 collapses---and he was able to place Lucy right there at the cot, at exactly the crucial few moments.

I put together this timeline below, from NJ's closing:

6:04 am----6:10 am--Letby was in room 1 to obtain the medical notes for Child K to input the admission details on the computer, in a record between 6.04am-6.10am on the computer. He says those notes would have to be returned to the cotside in room 1 afterwards.

6:07 am---An x-ray, timestamped at 6.07am and 23 seconds, shows Child K's x-ray, with a report the ET Tube was 'in satisfactory position'.

6:08am --- 6:15 am: 2nd incident that triggered desaturation happened between these times

@ 6:15 am :Baby K second desaturation noted

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, June 19 - closing speeches​

Mr Johnson says nurse Joanne Williams said it was "strange" Child K desaturated two further times, and the second and third incidents saw Child K 'well sedated'.
The 6.15am desaturation (the second incident), happened between 6.07am and 23 seconds, and 6.15am, Mr Johnson says.
An x-ray, timestamped at 6.07am and 23 seconds, shows Child K's x-ray, with a report the ET Tube was 'in satisfactory position'.
By 6.15am, Child K was desaturating, Mr Johnson says. The tube had "gone down her throat" then had to be removed.
"How on earth had that happened in a 25-week-old [gestational age] baby who had been on morphine?"
Mr Johnson says Letby had no memory of this. He says Letby had been responsible for the admission process for Child K.
He says the cross-examination at this time was a "somewhat tortuous process". He relays the cross-examination of this, in which he concluded he got told off for saying they 'danced the dance' in arriving at the point.
He says they got there, 'in the end', in that Letby was in room 1 to obtain the medical notes for Child K to input the admission details on the computer, in a record between 6.04am-6.10am on the computer. He says those notes would have to be returned to the cotside in room 1 afterwards.

 

[Dcflag]

I think Dr Breary had wondered about it, but then kept dismissing it from his brain, thinking it was not possible , just too wild to consider it. But I think it did cross his mind as early as Child K. Dr J had already considered it a possibility and I do believe he would have spoken to Dr Brearey about it , if so.


ETA: Yes, I found what I had read earlier, about Brearey being suspicious early on:

Lucy Letby: Doctor asked for nurse to be taken off shift - court

A doctor raised concerns about nurse Lucy Letby's presence and the deaths of babies, her trial hears.

www.bbc.com

Ben Myers KC, defending, noted that Dr Brearey had first "identified" Ms Letby as someone of interest as early as June 2015 after the death of the first three babies in the case.
Dr Brearey had noted, with colleagues, that Ms Letby was present when those three children died in 2015.

The doctor added: "It's not something anyone wanted to consider, that a member of staff is harming babies.
"The senior nursing staff on the unit didn't believe this could be true."

He said with every "unusual" episode of baby collapse between June 2015 and June 2016 there had been "increasing suspicion" about Ms Letby, which led him to eventually escalate his concerns and request she be taken off shift.





We do have that in the US system, but the prosecution can only discuss rebuttal points to what was covered in defense closing arguments.

I am trying to figure out what BM can set forth in his closing. Can he discuss things from his opening statements which were never shown to be true during his case? I think his closing will be very limited.

I think this in itself shows how unusual having the three deaths close together actually was. Death in itself is not unusual in a hospital, even in nicu. So three deaths where one worker is present isn’t super unusual in itself on a smaller ward I don’t think. But in such a short period of time that it alerts a dr to being unusual and strange. That’s got to be proof right there that immediately these concurrent deaths were not normal. Let alone the masses that followed.

 

[BabaVanga]

Good morning

 

[Moll]

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, June 20 - prosecution closing speech​

By Mark Dowling

• Trial of Lucy Letby, in 33rd week before a jury, continues
• Prosecution delivering closing speech
• Letby denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more

10:13am

And here is a round-up story from Monday in court: Lucy Letby ‘gaslighted’ hospital staff over baby collapses
10:06am

Here is what happened in court yesterday: Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, June 19 - closing speeches
8:27am

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is expected to continue today.
We will be bringing you live updates throughout the day, in what is the 33rd week of the trial before a jury.
For a recap of the trial so far, visit our index here: Countess nurse Lucy Letby: What has happened in trial so far

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 20 - prosecution closing speech

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk