UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #27

[ColourPurple]

12:54pm
Mr Myers says futher bile aspirates recorded are a concern for Child C. Dr Sally Ogden had confirmed that could be serious, Mr Myers tells the court.

He says when cross-examined, Dr Ogden said it was "a worrying sign", and agreed it could be a sign of some gut obstruction.

Mr Myers says on all the evidence, Child C 'merited closer care and attention than he received'.

Dr Gibbs said, in cross-examination, intestinal obstruction 'could be one explanation'. He agreed bilous vomits were a 'red flag' for such an infant.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 27 - 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

 

[SleepyJoe]

"He [Myers] says the medical experts refused to acknowledge Child C was more poorly than they said he was."


In whose opinion? In other words the medical experts disagreed with Myers' opinion.

So the theme seems to be... Myers makes a claim during cross examination of the medical experts. The medical experts disagree with his claim and explain why. Myers then refers to this in his closing speech as the medical experts "refusing to acknowledge" something that was only ever Myers' opinion in the first place.

Well said, CP, well said.

 

[ColourPurple]

12:56pm
Mr Myers says Child C's bowels did not open throughout.

He says Dr Bohin was 'firmly against' suggestions Child C was not doing well, and that it was not relevant he did not leave intensive treatment unit. He says she had the "gall" to imply that where nurses recorded dark bile, it "could have been blood".

BM: "How is that better?...What a thing to say - she wasn't there."

He says it is an "extraordinary dismissal" of the evidence of "experienced nurses".

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 27 - 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

 

[SleepyJoe]

He says if this event happened when Letby was on duty, Letby would be accused of causing it.

No, because the air in the stomach seen on June 12th was not associated with a collapse!

 

[ColourPurple]

1:02pm

Mr Myers says Dr Bohin, for Child Q, bilous aspirates could indicate gastroenterology problems. He asks why that could not be highlighted as a problem for Child C.
Mr Myers says it was a "lack of care" that was a potential factor that led to Child C's collapse.
He says Professor Owen Arthurs was asked about the radiograph image for Child C on day three of life on June 12. He says if Child C had not opened bowels, it could be indicative of an obstruction. Mr Myers says Prof Arthurs was not aware the bowels for Child C had not opened, and there was no clinical record they had.

 

[Tortoise]

So the defence don't accept that Baby C had no prior issues, even though LL has. This is bizarre!

I've never seen anything like it. He seems to be running his own choice of defence not LL's perspective and irrespective of anything and everything she's said. I reckon he thinks he's surrogate defendant or something! This was the reason for his re-examination, to tell her she couldn't really answer all the questions she had.

 

[Dcflag]

I’m finding it all a bit frustrating to be honest. Because I skim read the paper he’s referred to today and it does discuss the propensity for air embolus in babies with illnesses like pneumonia. But I’m also sure it discusses that embolus itself is rare and that the rashes weren’t present on all the babies in the study either.

Just.. where are his medical experts? If there’s some kind of piggybacking, with the current medical experts leaning heavily on each other and it being what he’s implying as a conspiracy among them, where are his experts? If it’s true the current ones are biased, it should be easy to find independent experts himself who are not biased. Why can’t he provide a single person who can at least legitimise the opinions he’s giving out today?

Has he not done it because it can’t be done? Doesn’t that mean that the current experts, regardless of any potential bias he believes them to have, have come to the same conclusions as his impartial medical experts?

It’s frustrating because we all want the correct justice, and if anything he’s saying today has any merit on the medical side of things, then there should be the medical experts to back them up. It’s unfair of him to push the jury to believe the medical experts are wrong, without providing any concrete refuting experts.

 

[ColourPurple]

I've never seen anything like it. He seems to be running his own choice of defence not LL's perspective and irrespective of anything and everything she's said. I reckon he thinks he's surrogate defendant or something! This was the reason for his re-examination, to tell her she couldn't really answer all the questions she had.

It's coming across like he had his defence arguments all ready to go. LL then took the stand and "took a shredder" to them all, but he's chosen to piece all the shredded remnants back together and carry on as originally planned, and accused the prosecution of "manoeuvring " her into disagreeing with her own defence team's arguments.

 

[notsure]

Is it worth copying the last hour of Dan's tweets here, or will that just make the timeline of this thread messy?

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

Mr Myers notes the 'key piece of research' the experts relied upon was this medical paper written back in 1989, in which 53 cases were looked at (of air embolism). In one case there was a description of a rash, which has formed basis for this whole case
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Pulmonary vascular air embolism in the newborn.
11:00 AM · Jun 27, 2023

It was definitely more than one case: "Blanching and migrating areas of cutaneous pallor were noted in several cases and, in one of our own cases we noted bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed cutaneous background. This we attributed to direct oxygenation of erythrocytes adjacent to free air in the vascular system, while the tissues continued to be poorly perfused and oxygenated."

Quoted from the article.

 

[SleepyJoe]

It’s unfair of him to push the jury to believe the medical experts are wrong, without providing any concrete refuting experts.

I agree. It's disingenuous.

 

[ColourPurple]

Is it worth copying the last hour of Dan's tweets here, or will that just make the timeline of this thread messy?

Just a summary of them all and a link at the bottom would be great

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

He's misrepresenting the literature. He's asking the jury to be radiologists. Wow. JMO.

 

[notsure]

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

Mr Myers is now turning to count two, the alleged attempted murder of Child A's twin sister Child B
11:53 AM · Jun 27, 2023

He describes the evidence of air embolism in this case as 'so weak that it is no basis for being sure of what is alleged'
11:55 AM · Jun 27, 2023

Mr Myers says in this case 'no one can tell us how, in what way and it's not seen by anybody' he says 'explanation has formed an allegation' - he notes a nurse in evidence said Ms Letby was checking medications at the time Child B collapsed
12:07 PM · Jun 27, 2023

He also quotes the evidence of a nurse who said nursery one on the unit, where Child B was, was like a 'bus station' due to the amount of medical professionals coming and going. Mr Myers said it was a 'hub'
12:08 PM · Jun 27, 2023

Mr Myers notes the fact that there wasn't any 'screaming or crying' before the collapses in the cases of Child A and B - something which he says was later 'roped' in by the experts as an identifier of an air embolis
12:19 PM · Jun 27, 2023

Mr Myers, to illustrate this, focuses on a description of Child B as 'pink and active' in the contemporaneous medical notes.
12:31 PM · Jun 27, 2023

He says this is a well establish description of newborns - Dr Evans he says made the 'ridiculous point' of saying this was consistent with the rash description in the Lee and Tanswell paper. He also notes that Dr Bohin said Dr Evans was mistaken in making that link
12:32 PM · Jun 27, 2023

Mr Myers says 'this is what we're dealing with', he accuses the experts of being 'opportunistic' and grabbing at things to 'construct' the allegations against Ms Letby
12:33 PM · Jun 27, 2023

Mr Myers is now turning to Child C, who died on 14 June 2015
12:34 PM · Jun 27, 2023

He tells the jury that many things about this count are 'wrong and unfair' and says that Ms Letby is being blamed for something where the evidence was she was not in the room when alleged offence occurred
12:38 PM · Jun 27, 2023

 

[notsure]

Just a summary of them all and a link at the bottom would be great

Wasn't sure how to do a summary, so just copied them over. His last tweet was 12.38.

 

[Tortoise]

12:56pm

He says Dr Bohin was 'firmly against' suggestions Child C was not doing well, and that it was not relevant he did not leave intensive treatment unit. He says she had the "gall" to imply that where nurses recorded dark bile, it "could have been blood".

BM: "How is that better?...What a thing to say - she wasn't there."

He says it is an "extraordinary dismissal" of the evidence of "experienced nurses".

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 27 - 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

I'm sorry but this is so dramatic, it really made me laugh, using the word "gall". He says it as if Dr Bohin was the only expert to say it.

prosecution's closing speech -

10:55am

"Witness after witness" gave evidence to say the bile aspirates were "very small", and the "black colour" was "altered blood", not bile. Dr Gibbs said the blood had come from inflammation in the stomach, and Child C was given a drug to treat that.
Mr Johnson says the jury know, as a fact, from Dr Andreas Marnerides, that Child C did not have a problem with his gut, as there was no sign of infection or sepsis. There was no evidence of Child C having had an obstruction in his bowel.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 21 - prosecution closing speech

Dr Evan's evidence -

Dr Evans said medical staff were aware to monitor Child C's abdomen and make regular notes.
He says there is one entry made in the nursing notes of 'black fluid' - not necessarily bile, but discoloured blood.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, November 1

 

[Tortoise]

1:02pm

Mr Myers says Dr Bohin, for Child Q, bilous aspirates could indicate gastroenterology problems. He asks why that could not be highlighted as a problem for Child C.
Mr Myers says it was a "lack of care" that was a potential factor that led to Child C's collapse.
He says Professor Owen Arthurs was asked about the radiograph image for Child C on day three of life on June 12. He says if Child C had not opened bowels, it could be indicative of an obstruction. Mr Myers says Prof Arthurs was not aware the bowels for Child C had not opened, and there was no clinical record they had.

The experts and Dr Gibbs said his bowels hadn't been open because he had only just received his first milk feed of 0.5ml.

"The court hears Child C did not have his bowels open during his life.
Dr Gibbs says that was not surprising as he had not been fed.
Mr Myers asks if that was unusual, after three days, for the bowels not to open.
Dr Gibbs said it could be unusual, but Child C had not been fed, so there were not going to be bowel motions."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, November 1

This closing speech seems to be so disingenuous. It's trickery IMO

 

[ColourPurple]

I’m finding it all a bit frustrating to be honest. Because I skim read the paper he’s referred to today and it does discuss the propensity for air embolus in babies with illnesses like pneumonia. But I’m also sure it discusses that embolus itself is rare and that the rashes weren’t present on all the babies in the study either.

Just.. where are his medical experts? If there’s some kind of piggybacking, with the current medical experts leaning heavily on each other and it being what he’s implying as a conspiracy among them, where are his experts? If it’s true the current ones are biased, it should be easy to find independent experts himself who are not biased. Why can’t he provide a single person who can at least legitimise the opinions he’s giving out today?

Has he not done it because it can’t be done? Doesn’t that mean that the current experts, regardless of any potential bias he believes them to have, have come to the same conclusions as his impartial medical experts?

It’s frustrating because we all want the correct justice, and if anything he’s saying today has any merit on the medical side of things, then there should be the medical experts to back them up. It’s unfair of him to push the jury to believe the medical experts are wrong, without providing any concrete refuting experts.

Johnson wouldn't even need to go through every single case. He would just need to say:

"You have heard from several medical experts. You have heard their professional opinions of what happened to these babies. The defence had the opportunity to bring medical experts into this court to dispute these opinions. They did not bring a single medical expert into this court. The only person disputing the opinions of the medical experts is this man ...Benjamin Myers...Lucy Letby's defence barrister. It is for the jury to decide whether they believe the opinions of the medical experts or whether they believe the opinion of Lucy Letby's defence barrister."

 

[Dcflag]

I thought the crying was linked to potential violent acts rather than the air embolus themselves? He’s saying that the distress and crying is something the precaution is trying to link to the embolus right?

 

[ColourPurple]

Wasn't sure how to do a summary, so just copied them over. His last tweet was 12.38.

That's exactly what I meant lol. ie don't bother doing a link to each individual tweet.