UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Also if you ever did takE a picture for a parent or patient, i would expect you to delete that.
Oh absolutely, I'm not a healthcare professional, but as a bereaved parent photos of babies that have passed are almost sacred to me. They are a very personal thing, some may feel happy sharing them, whereas others want to keep them for their own eyes only. If it was to pass on to parents it should have been deleted, there and then, in the parents presence.
 
11:45am

Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans is now being called to give evidence.
He has been named several times during the prosecution opening.

 
11:49am

Dr Dewi Evans is a consultant pediatrician. He is giving his background and experience.
The court hears he has specialist knowledge of new-born babies, in providing healthcare, including intensive care, in the 1980s and 1990s in Swansea.

 
The designated nurse reportedly found her outside, looking into a 'darkened room' when Letby remarked the baby looked pale. When the nurse switched on the light, only then did she see that the baby was not breathing.

I can't remember which victim it was but it was the baby that the prosecution stated she made four attempts to kill by injecting air into her.
Letby is accused of repeatedly pumping Baby I with a “massive” amount of gas over a period of two months when she had to be resuscitated by Letby’s colleagues.

On one occasion the University of Chester graduate was seen standing in the doorway of the girl’s darkened room “coolly watching [a baby] who was in crisis”, the jury was told.

A nurse turned on the light and saw Baby I “at the point of death” and unable to breathe.

On a separate occasion, the infant’s monitor alarm sounded and a colleague rushed to help and found Letby standing beside the incubator.

Letby’s fellow nurse wanted to intervene as Baby I was “distressed” before Letby placated her colleague, saying “they would be able to sort it”, it was alleged. The baby, 11 weeks old, then collapsed and died.

 
Eventually we will hear from the witnesses who will present the oral evidence relating to the photo and other digital evidence recovered.

This may be a police officer/police staff member who carried out a forensic analysis of the LL's phone and other electronic devices

The officer who interviewed LL may be asked to read aloud the relevant part of the police interview regarding the phone.

The parent of the children will have provided a statement. This will either be read aloud to the court, or the parent may be called to give evidence in person.

Only after we have heard from all the relevant witnesses concerning the phone can we make an assessment of the FULL circumstances in which the photo was taken.

The press writing salacious headlines and people jumping on the bandwagon, making unevidenced accusations, does nothing to advance the case. It only undermines the clinical and thorough way in which the evidence will be examined and challenged so that everyone can make informed judgements.

This applies to ALL the evidence in the case.
I have no doubt we will hear from many of the parents. Their observations are likely crucial to this case.

If I remember correctly, it was the prosecutor who said the mother of the dead child was upset by LL interrupting her while she bathed her child. It should have been a private moment. I believe it was the smiling and going on and on about giving the baby his first bath that was unsettling to her.

I can understand why, especially if she herself never got to bathe her child while he was alive. Imo
 
I wonder how they're going to do this. If they present evidence in the same order as the opening statement Dr Evans is going to be in court for weeks/months.

I think they'll take him through the whole lot in one go, rather than keep recalling him.

Progressing chronologically would be a game of musical chairs for the witnesses. Very inefficient for everyone's time and availability.

He could be in the witness box for a few days, methinks!
 
Last edited:
I think speculating the specifics of the photo LL took of two of the triplets (apologies, I can't remember their letter designations) can only add confusion to the thread at the moment as the court hasn't been told much about it. It was a point outlined in basic detail during the prosecution's opening but nothing more. All the details will be disclosed in due course. We don't yet know the details that many are asking for.
 
11:54am

Dr Evans confirms he has never been employed at the Countess of Chester Hospital, nor has hae had any involvement with the care of babies involved in this case.
He said he was involved in the development of neonatal care.
"It was an essential and important part of our generation that we provided good services for these ill babies.
"A lot of my experience was not about reading books, but was hands-on. You were there, with a sick baby in the incubator. You support the monitoring - nothing as good as it is now. A lot of it was 'touch and go', really. It could be quite fraught as there were ther deamdns on children's services.
"We were passionate about these babies to get money for developments...and...publicity for baby care.
"In 1980 in Swansea, the health board built a brand new children's department with a new neonatal unit that I had designed.
"Life became easier as...we had some superb nursing staff and by that time there were far more junior doctors developing an interest in baby care."

11:55am

"Babies arrived in all sorts of conditions. The most common were associated with prematurity. One would have to see them through the first few days of life - giving them oxygen...CPAP - which has saved thousands of lives over the past few decades.
"If not CPAP, it would be intubation - a breathing tube into the lungs and put them on...a breathing machine.
"The initial machines were primitive...but they worked.
"In addition to giving babies ventilation support, we would give them IV fluids to help them absorb milk."

11:56am

Cannulas would also be used to help babies get adequate fluid, such as glucose and amino acids.
Sometimes a 'cocktail' of nutrition would be required for each baby.

11:58am

"All the neonatal units are dedicated units. They are responsible only for new-born babies.
"Usually they are next door to the maternity unit. They tend to be divided into sections - the sickest in the intensive care area, babies who are recovering are in a high dependency area, and babies who are recovering but too sick to go home are in the 'ordinary' area."

 
12:02pm

Dr Evans said he gave up his full-time medical practice in 2009 after 30 years. He has done a few short-term locums since then, but has since dedicated his time to the courts, providing reports for baby care.
He had done reports involving clinical negligence - the first in 1988. He said he does not take on new cases involving that now.
He now says he takes time in family courts and crown court, involving serious cases of babies having died suspiciously or being injured.
He has prepared reports for police authorities, such as the National Crime Agency.
He has also prepared reports on behalf of defendants.

 
I have no doubt we will hear from many of the parents. Their observations are likely crucial to this case.

Only if it is evidentially necessary, when any facts are disputed and the defence needs to cross examine them.

The parents will have given witness statements some years ago. These will be read to the court if they are evidential and are not contested in any way by the defence.

The court will spare the parent's further anguish if it can be prevented.

Additionally, any parents being called to give evidence would not be able to observe the proceedings until they have done so. This is the same for any witness.
 
Last edited:
12:09 pm

The court is being reminded of the 'tiered' hospital structure locally, with Arrowe Park and Liverpool Women's Hospital designated as 'level three' units, able to provide the most complex neonatal care.

The Countess of Chester Hospital was designated as a 'level two' unit, able to provide intensive care for vulnerable babies up to 48 hours, after which they would be transferred to a level three unit.

Other hospitals in Cheshire, such as Leighton, were designated as 'level one'.

Alder Hey was the designated surgical hospital unit.

 
Last edited:
That is perhaps the reason why she is not taking the stand, because she will not be able to account for these (and that could be for many reasons including that she is too distraught and broken), and this will come across badly if she is taken apart by the prosecution.

Do we know that she is not taking the stand?

How does it work with a defendant? Do the prosecution not have the right to question her? Is there no cross examination? Perhaps her mental health may not be good enough to take the stand?
 
12:15 pm

The court hears the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit has four rooms - room 1 the ICU, room 2 the HDU, and rooms 3 and 4 the special care rooms.

Babies would be moved between the rooms as their condition changed, with transtitional care cots available.

Entry to the neonatal unit was controlled through locked doors. One from the public entrance side, the other from the maternity/labour side.

Swipe cars would be used by staff to gain access to the neonatal unit, and their dates and times would be recorded.

 
Last edited:
12:17 pm

Times when this would not record someone would be:

a) when person A swipes to open the door, and person B also enters at the same time

b) from inside the hospital via a push-button to open the door

c) via the buzz system of gaining entry - pressing a buzzer and a member of staff would provide entry for individuals

The system of entry is 'commonplace', the court hears.

 
Last edited:
The dr appears to have some impressive credentials. Just for the sake of having an opinion, I actually feel like it would be far more beneficial to look at each baby individually and as such, call the same witness back again each time if needed. Obviously I understand why it might not be the way they go, I think it would really benefit the jurors to consider each charge individually before looking at the patterns as a whole.
 
Do we know that she is not taking the stand?

How does it work with a defendant? Do the prosecution not have the right to question her? Is there no cross examination? Perhaps her mental health may not be good enough to take the stand?

We don't yet.

It will be a matter for the defence to advise LL on, once the prosecution evidence has been heard and cross-examined.

The prosecution only has the opportunity to cross-examine the defendant if they have taken the stand and given evidence in their defence first. Not otherwise.

Personally, I don't think she will.
 
Last edited:
Do we know that she is not taking the stand?

How does it work with a defendant? Do the prosecution not have the right to question her? Is there no cross examination? Perhaps her mental health may not be good enough to take the stand?
We don’t know. The prosecution can question her if the defence call her to the stand. The prosecution themselves can’t call her to the stand.

The defence I’m sure will make their decision later on in the trial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
114
Guests online
1,628
Total visitors
1,742

Forum statistics

Threads
600,157
Messages
18,104,744
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top