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

[ColourPurple]

“He says the other is a nurse who "decided to kill children" or "tried to kill them" for reasons "which make no sense" and "out of the blue".”

That “out of the blue” comment is very interesting. We’ve discussed the fact that as presented at trial, the prosecution is saying that one day, after working at COCH for several years without any incidents, LL went to work one day and within 20 minutes of starting her shift, allegedly murdered a baby for the first time.

Obviously there have been rulings by the judge on what evidence may or may not be introduced to the jury both before and during the trial.

But my immediate thought is that Myers would not be able to say that LL is being accused of murder and attempted murder “ out of the blue” if there were previous dodgy incidents which the judge has ruled cannot be presented to the jury. Because surely that would be in breach of the ruling, and would allow the prosecution to introduce all of the evidence? Much like the fact that it seems to have been decided that NJ could not mention that the Milky Bar Kid was married, but it is okay if LL brings it up (which she did).

I don't think anybody has suggested there were previous incidents that the judge has ruled out . The time period on the indictment is June 2015 to June 2016. Any "dodgy incidents" before that date would not form part of this trial. That's not to say there are any but they would be being investigated separately if there were. IMO

JMO

 

[esther43]

He says those doctors 'said/did nothing to raise the alarm...when nothing prevented them from doing so.'

That is not what happened though?

JUNE 2015
After child D died. Dr SB carried out a review. As a result of this review an association to nurse LL was made. RJ states it was 'an association but nothing more'

Doctor ‘wishes he had gone straight to police over Lucy Letby concerns’

JUNE 2015

A further report which details DR SB's account, Nurse manager EP was also involved in this review. Dr SB is said to have testified that EP the nursing manager of the neonatal unit, had first noticed a connection while carrying out a review into three events in June 2015.

Senior hospital executive ignored warnings about killer Lucy Letby

FEB 2016 -
According to the testimony of RJ, concerns were again escalated by his colleague Dr SB in feb 2016. This time to the director of nursing and the medical director but senior managers failed to respond for three months.

Doctor ‘wishes he had gone to police over nurse Lucy Letby baby collapse concerns’


FEB 2016
Also in Feb 2016, according to this source a colleague from Liverpool womens hospital undertook a review to look at the increased levels of morbity at Coc. In on article Dr SB is quoted saying that 'more suspicion arose as more and more events happened on the unit'

Senior hospital executive ignored warnings about killer Lucy Letby

JUNE 2016
Following the report from Liverpool womens nurse manager EP had looked into a number of things to understand the increase in mortality. These things included staffing, incubator space and microbiology according to Dr SB

Senior hospital executive ignored warnings about killer Lucy Letby

JUNE 2016
Following the death of twins of O and P on the 24th of June a consultants meeting was held.(June 19th)

Doctor tells Lucy Letby's murder trial a 'chill went down my spine'

JUNE 2016
Following the deaths of twins O & P Dr SB contacted the duty executive in urgent care to say he did not want nurse LL to return to the unit.

Senior hospital executive ignored warnings about killer Lucy Letby

Karen Rees, a duty executive in urgent care in June 2016, insisted there was no evidence against Letby, and refused to take her off duty until the unexplained death of a triplet was investigated.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[katydid23]

He says senior doctors have 'in various ways' suspected Letby was doing something 'for months and months'. He says those doctors 'said/did nothing to raise the alarm...when nothing prevented them from doing so.'
He says if they were right, that failure to do anything right was "staggering".
He says whichever way, it was a "terrible failing in care".


This^^^ is interesting... ...Does this allegation kind of conflict with the 'Gang of Four' conspiracy theory? Here, instead of accusing the doctors of falsely accusing his client of harming babies, he seems to be criticising them for NOT accusing her?

Which in itself, seems unfair, because they did go to management with their concerns a few times but were rebuffed, until they finally demanded she be removed. But Meyers is now blaming them for not doing so sooner?????

 

[Parker Knoll]

Looks that way.

 

[Tortoise]

Dan O'Donoghue · 1h



Ah look, he does have an orchestra of violinists behind him.

 

[JosieJo]

11:14am

He says: "We are the only people who will stand up for Lucy Letby - no-one else."
He says the defence case being at the end of the trial is "not an afterthought", and is "so important".
He says the prosecution "are not in any special position" with this - they have brought the evidence, "but it does not mean they are right with this".
He says there is a suggestion there has been a "hostile reaction" that Letby has "dared to defend herself" and disagree with the prosecution.
He says the prosecution "have gone out of their way" to present some aspects as "smoke and mirrors" and evidence by Letby in cross-examination and her evidence was "gaslighting".
He says it is "unjustified" and "unfair".
Mr Myers says the jury can judge the staffing competencies.
He says the prosecution "don't want you to think" about doctors Ravi Jayaram and David Harkness's inconsistent accounts on skin discolouration, that it was a "stunning omission" for them not to put the skin discolouration in notes or in their reports for inquests. He says that point was only uncovered in cross-examination.
He disagrees with the suggestion the defence were "gaslighting" the jury. He says it was "not smoke and mirrors" or "gaslighting".
Mr Myers says the unit did face "unusual and increased demand" over the 12 months. He says the trial is not about the NHS, or doctors/nurses in general.
He says the defence are entitled to be critical of the neonatal unit. He says there is a suggestion there is an "outrage" the defence have "dared" been critical of it.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 26 - defence 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

"He says there is a suggestion there has been a "hostile reaction" that Letby has "dared to defend herself" and disagree with the prosecution."

I wonder if this is him trying to do something about her attitude that has been described by people attending court

 

[SleepyJoe]

11:25am

Mr Myers says evidence presented on October 25 by Dr Dewi Evans: "One tends not to spread news about the mistakes we make", in reference to doctors. He says that is a piece of evidence 'to keep in mind'.
He says that was "one of the many things" that came out of his "relatively lengthy" evidence.
He says: "In a way, haven't we seen that in this trial?" He says that in relation to doctors being resistant to criticism.
He adds no-one, including Letby, is immune to criticism. He says doctors would come with 'prepared speeches'.
He says "don't think the senior doctors came here without motives of their own".
He adds: "however you look at it, there was a terrible failing of care" at the unit.

11:26am

He says senior doctors have 'in various ways' suspected Letby was doing something 'for months and months'. He says those doctors 'said/did nothing to raise the alarm...when nothing prevented them from doing so.'
He says if they were right, that failure to do anything right was "staggering".
He says whichever way, it was a "terrible failing in care".

11:30am

Mr Myers: "You will understand the stakes [in this trial] are very high.
"We don't say 'doctors bad'. We say for those senior consultants who presided at that unit...Lucy Letby getting the blame matters."
He says the prosecution used the expression, the 'gang of four' consultants of Dr Jayaram, Dr Stephen Brearey, Dr John Gibbs and a female doctor [who cannot be named]. He says the doctors 'have an interest in what happens here' and each of them 'had gone out of their way to damage Lucy Letby' in their evidence. He cites an example on pneumothroaxes presented by Dr Gibbs which he says was "unneutral".
He says "one way or another" the unit "failed". He says this case is a "prime opportunity" to "hide" bad/poor outcomes.

11:32am

He says the unit was "noticeably busier" than it had been in previous years, and there was "no change in the staffing levels". He says doctors are "running to and from the neonatal unit" in emergencies. He cites an example in the final collapse of Child I.

11:35am

He cites Dr Sally Ogden's evidence that June 2015 was a "particularly busy" time at the unit, and that was a combination of factors, including the complexity of the babies' needs, the number of staff, and total unit admissions.
He says the increased busyness increases the likelihood of mistakes and the chances of missing developing problems in babies.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 26 - defence 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

There is so much in this part of his speech that I take serious umbrage with! The fact that he is suggesting that multiple senior doctors took the stand, under oath, to then, according to Mr Myers, twist the facts just to protect their own reputations and that of the trust is ludicrous and highly offensive. He has no understanding of what it takes to become a senior consultant (the enormous effort, time, expense, exams, continual assessment and huge personal sacrifice - all for the better part of 2 decades) and how the VAST majority of us deeply care about our patients, our ethics and our ALL of our colleagues in the team, including the nurses we work alongside. IMHO and from my experience of how attached we get to all the members of the healthcare team, it would have been heartbreaking for people such as Drs Jayaram, Breary and Gibbs to even consider that a valued team member might have been intentionally hurting babies and undermining everyone else's hard work with the babies. This, I am certain, would have resulted in sleepless nights, much soul searching and endless discussion. And I think it is simply untrue, from the evidence we have heard, that they didn’t try to intervene to stop all the unexpected collapses and deaths. They did! From at least October 2015! Mr Myers is making me angry now!

 

[Tortoise]

11:49am

The trial is now resuming after a short break.

11:52am

Mr Myers continues his closing speech.
He says the single most important direction in the trial is the burden of proof, which is on the prosecution, and it "never shifts" to the defence.
He says the prosecution "have to make you sure", and there are so many areas where the evidence "is not clear".

11:58am

He says the jury have to be "sure of deliberate harm" and "with the intent to kill", and the jury must assess the "quality of evidence".
He says the "medical evidence is the foundation of this case".
Mr Myers says Lucy Letby denies all the allegations. He says it must be identified harm being done, and being sure there was an intent to kill at the time. He repeats that Letby denies doing anything like that on any occasion.
He says the case is "about an insistent intent to kill". He says that much be considered in the context of Letby 'raising the alarm' for some of the babies, or looking after some of the babies 'before and after their events'.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 26 - defence 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

 

[Tortoise]

12:04pm

Mr Myers refers to the theory of air embolus, and if that 'works' each time, why would someone change it up to administering insulin.
He says it is 'awful' to think about it, but to go with the prosecution case, he asks why the methods used varied.
He says the prosecution referred to levels of insulin were doubled for Child L than for Child F. He says for Child F the level of insulin, from the lab result, was 4,657, whereas for Child L it was 1,099, and the insulin/insulin c-peptide ratio was lower, and 'must be a quarter of the strength'. He says "that was evidence, it was wrong".
He says if there was an intent to kill, then the dose wouldn't be a quarter of the strength second time round. He says whatever happened, "that wasn't an intention to kill".

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 26 - defence 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

 

[CS2C]

Why would she change methods ? Is this guy for real ?

I hope he has something better to come, otherwise it is going to be a VERY long 5 days.

 

[katydid23]

Mr Myers says Lucy Letby denies all the allegations. He says it must be identified harm being done, and being sure there was an intent to kill at the time. He repeats that Letby denies doing anything like that on any occasion.
He says the case is "about an insistent intent to kill". He says that much be considered in the context of Letby 'raising the alarm' for some of the babies, or looking after some of the babies 'before and after their events'.

Interesting take by Meyers here---essentially saying it is doubtful LL intended to kill babies because she raised the alarm when they collapsed and she took part in the resuscitations?

Creative argument---but I am not sure how effective it will be. I think it has been recognised how much she enjoyed her 'work' on the unit and how much she enjoyed it when others praised her efforts during those many crisis situations. So that alone could be a reason for raising the alarms and taking part in the many emergency crash calls. JMO

 

[Tortoise]

He says whatever happened, "that wasn't an intention to kill".

Whoahhh!!

No intention to kill is absolutely not her defence.

Here's a clue Mr Myers, she denies it was her, ergo you can't speak to her intent.

 

[May72031]

11:35am

He cites Dr Sally Ogden's evidence that June 2015 was a "particularly busy" time at the unit, and that was a combination of factors, including the complexity of the babies' needs, the number of staff, and total unit admissions.
He says the increased busyness increases the likelihood of mistakes and the chances of missing developing problems in babies.

The "unit was busy" argument doesn't wash with me at all.

Units up and down the country are busy at various times.

 

[Tortoise]

12:10pm

Mr Myers says "various factual allegations" came across Lucy Letby which amounted to 'wholescale document fraud', referred from 'page 34,536 of the evidence', he says, including children not on the indictment - such as 'the Stoke baby'.
He asks why witnesses were not cross-examined about such incidents, on 'falsely identifying names' on paperwork, over the months.
He says the "prosecution have been looking for things...so they can shore up".
He cites a piece of evidence from the case of Child H, a note by Alison Ventress about a chest drain. He says she gave evidence, and she was cross-examined about it, about chest drains moving. He says that was no part of any allegation, and "it came out of nowhere" in cross-examination, "it suddenly became part of an allegation".
He refers to a note about blood-stained secretions for Child H, made by Letby. He says the prosecution used that note as an opportunity "to bolster their list" by asking her if she had altered Child H's ET Tube.

12:14pm

Mr Myers says Letby was asked about how long she had been on the phone when feeding a baby not on the indictment, and how long she was spending texting.
Letby had said: "You think I pushed it in, didn't you?" Mr Myers said Nicholas Johnson KC, for the prosecution, replied: "I do."
Mr Myers asks where had that come from, and "there was no evidential basis" for that. He says it was "an allegation on the hoof". He says no-one suggested that baby had a vomit was unwell.
He says that allegation was "made in passing".

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 26 - defence 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

 

[katydid23]

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue


Mr Myers refers to the theory of air embolus, he says if it worked 'why change' the method of murder - he asks 'why take any risks' by injecting insulin or forcefeeding milk. 'We say it doesn’t work because this isn’t what was happening'

Mr Myers focuses on a section of Ms Letby's cross examination, Johnson asked Ms Letby about forcing a tube into a child's throat - she said 'you think I put it in' - Mr Johnson said 'I do'. Mr Myers said the 'I do' had no evidential basis, he said it is 'allegation on the hoof'

Mr Myers has pulled up this document - produced by the prosecution - says it is 'designed to put the focus on Ms Letby' and does not show wrongdoing









He says 'there's been no reference to it' at the conclusion of the case, he says 'we think we know why' - 'it is obvious now that it isn't complete, this list. It's missing at least two events or maybe three' that could be considered 'harm events'

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I don't think anybody has suggested there were previous incidents that the judge has ruled out . The time period on the indictment is June 2015 to June 2016. Any "dodgy incidents" before that date would not form part of this trial. That's not to say there are any but they would be being investigated separately if there were. IMO

JMO

I was referring to our discussion on evidence of bad character and when it is inadmissible.

I am trying to be very careful about what I say in order not to upset the mods.

so, for example, if a person is on trial for rape and there has been a ruling that evidence of bad character cannot be introduced, the defence could not I don’t believe say “ either Explanation A is true, or else the accused just one day out of the blue decided to rape someone” if in fact the accused had previously been accused of committing a sexual assault on another person (perhaps not rape, but still sexual assault) but the victim decided not to press charges .

As a real life example, Ian Huntley had no criminal convictions prior to the murder of Holly and Jessica but he has been reported to social services on a number of occasions over sexual assaults and relationships with underage girls. That could not be mentioned during his trial.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I can’t even with this speech…

The question in my mind is if the hospital was failing so terribly, the doctors were conspiring against LL, babies were vulnerable and poorly and receiving sun optimal care. Then WHY did the defence present absolutely no witnesses to testify to this? It’s all well and good saying that this and that were wrong and this is why she’s innocent. But when the only witness other than the defendant you presented was a plumber. One has to wonder if there were any witnesses at all willing to testify to what BM is alleging here? Considering none did.

Not to mention the fact he is twisting the words of witnesses to fit with the ‘scapegoat’ theory. I’m going to refrain from posting because this is just infuriating IMO.

For murder they just have to prove serious harm was intended. Doesn’t have to be a specific intent to kill just to cause serious harm. For attempted murder they have to prove intent to kill. But if they’re saying she didn’t do it, why’s BM talking about intent… is he saying she just intended to cause deteriorations and not deaths. That to me sounds like he’s saying she did it?! All MOO

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

12:19pm

Mr Myers moves to the issue of 'delay'. He says there is an issue with missing door swipe data between July-October 2015, and allegations are made against Letby during that time, such as during the case of Child I.
He says the prosecution had accused Letby of 'making up a note' for September 30, 2015. Mr Myers says the prosecution can make that allegation as the door swipe data is missing for that date.
Another note is referred to for October 14, 2015. He says Dr Matthew Neame's note, timed at 5.55am, is used as evidence there was a delay in reporting the issues. Mr Myers says it is their case 5.55am was when the note was written, not the time he attended. He says there is no door swipe data for that day to say when that doctor arrived.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 26 - defence 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

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

View attachment 431154
Dan O'Donoghue · 1h



Ah look, he does have an orchestra of violinists behind him.

The court artist has made him look quite haggard. In contrast, NJ looks like he’s been on a relaxing holiday in his portraits

 

[Music2022]

He says the prosecution referred to levels of insulin were doubled for Child L than for Child F. He says for Child F the level of insulin, from the lab result, was 4,657, whereas for Child L it was 1,099, and the insulin/insulin c-peptide ratio was lower, and 'must be a quarter of the strength'. He says "that was evidence, it was wrong".

What’s going on here.