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

[Whitehall 1212]

3:01pm

The process of intubation is demonstrated on a video presented to the court.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I was thinking a lot last night about the decision of the court to release the note. The more I think about it the more surprised I am by it. To be honest I'm quite shocked and a little alarmed about it.

A court choosing to release evidence during the course of a trial is, as far as I'm aware, unprecedented in Britain. Moreover, it was done at an extremely early stage. You could say that it isn't even evidence yet as it is only something which the prosecution has mentioned in it's opening statement.

The note has not been tested in court, by which I mean, there has been no critical examination of it by the defence as they have had no opportunity to question when it was written; where it was written; why it was written; under what conditions it was written or, indeed, the mental state of LL when she wrote the various parts of it.

What would the situation be if at some point three months down the line some question as to the nature or validity of that evidence were raised and it was decided that the prosecution were not going to/could not use that item for whatever reason? How could that not be considered as anything other than highly prejudicial to a fair trial?

At the point at which is was released we were three days into a potential six month trial and we are already two jury members down. There is a very reasonable chance that this trial may have to be abandoned at some point, perhaps after several months, and a new one started. How could any future court consider such evidence not to be potentially highly prejudicial to a fair trial when it has been raked over in the public domain for weeks and weeks?

We are constantly reminded of potentially severe penalties for publishing things which could amount to Contempt of Court and, hence, could prejudice the administration of justice. Yet, it almost seems like the Court itself is doing precisely the things the law is saying should not be done!

I've said on several occasions that this whole story has been one mind blowing surprise after another - I do wonder what on earth the next one is going to be!

I've thought about this.

My view is that that the judge authorised it to be released to enable the public to have some wider context, as the deliberately selective closing lines from the prosecution were, on the face of it, so damning.

Otherwise, it could have festered for weeks in the press with ever more hate being heaped upon LL.

Justice has to be a transparent process, and I believe the the judge was doing just that.

I can't see an established piece of documentary evidence not being admissible in any future proceedings, if for any reason this jury were discharged.

MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I was thinking a lot last night about the decision of the court to release the note. The more I think about it the more surprised I am by it. To be honest I'm quite shocked and a little alarmed about it.

A court choosing to release evidence during the course of a trial is, as far as I'm aware, unprecedented in Britain. Moreover, it was done at an extremely early stage. You could say that it isn't even evidence yet as it is only something which the prosecution has mentioned in it's opening statement.

The note has not been tested in court, by which I mean, there has been no critical examination of it by the defence as they have had no opportunity to question when it was written; where it was written; why it was written; under what conditions it was written or, indeed, the mental state of LL when she wrote the various parts of it.

What would the situation be if at some point three months down the line some question as to the nature or validity of that evidence were raised and it was decided that the prosecution were not going to/could not use that item for whatever reason? How could that not be considered as anything other than highly prejudicial to a fair trial?

At the point at which is was released we were three days into a potential six month trial and we are already two jury members down. There is a very reasonable chance that this trial may have to be abandoned at some point, perhaps after several months, and a new one started. How could any future court consider such evidence not to be potentially highly prejudicial to a fair trial when it has been raked over in the public domain for weeks and weeks?

We are constantly reminded of potentially severe penalties for publishing things which could amount to Contempt of Court and, hence, could prejudice the administration of justice. Yet, it almost seems like the Court itself is doing precisely the things the law is saying should not be done!

I've said on several occasions that this whole story has been one mind blowing surprise after another - I do wonder what on earth the next one is going to be!

I agree with your points and would be curious to know more. Was the note submitted as a piece of declared evidence that will be referred to and examined by the defence in the future? It seems odd it went to the press at this early stage and it would be catastrophic for the prosecution if it transpired to be inauthentic.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

3:15pm

CPAP is the "least invasive form" of giving breathing support to babies, the court hears.
BiPAP is the next stage, and 'full ventilation' "requires a very sophisticated ventilator" and is the most invasive form.
A positive sign of "returning to normal" is for the oxygen saturation levels return to over 90%.
The respiratory rate is then controlled via the ventilator setting.
If the baby 'fights' against that, by trying to breathe independently, that baby is sedated so it can benefit the most from the ventilator.

 

[29 Acacia Road]

I hope there are some statistics available from other hospitals in the UK for death rates during a period where they had similar low staff capacity, to see how they compare. I know the stats are available at the hospital LL worked at, for the years previous and after to the year LL is being investigated for, but I would like to know if other hospitals who were facing the same problems ever had a year or two where there was a considerable spike.

 

[Tortoise]

3:15pm

CPAP is the "least invasive form" of giving breathing support to babies, the court hears.
BiPAP is the next stage, and 'full ventilation' "requires a very sophisticated ventilator" and is the most invasive form.
A positive sign of "returning to normal" is for the oxygen saturation levels return to over 90%.
The respiratory rate is then controlled via the ventilator setting.
If the baby 'fights' against that, by trying to breathe independently, that baby is sedated so it can benefit the most from the ventilator.

I misread that as CRAP

 

[Whitehall 1212]

3:22pm

A video is presented to the court displaying the process of CPAP, and what responsibilities nurses and doctors have while the equipment is attached.
The video says it is "inevitable" air will pass into the stomach and intestines, and with time, can lead to "distension of the stomach and intestines". To avoid this, an NGT is inserted into the stomach to help ventilate excess gases.
The video says "Despite this, some babies on CPAP will still develop some degree of CPAP belly."
Dr Evans says CPAP is the "safest method" as it is the "least invasive".

 

[Tortoise]

Just posting the link for all these live updates LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, October 14

 

[merrypason]

I was thinking a lot last night about the decision of the court to release the note. The more I think about it the more surprised I am by it. To be honest I'm quite shocked and a little alarmed about it.

A court choosing to release evidence during the course of a trial is, as far as I'm aware, unprecedented in Britain. Moreover, it was done at an extremely early stage. You could say that it isn't even evidence yet as it is only something which the prosecution has mentioned in it's opening statement.

The note has not been tested in court, by which I mean, there has been no critical examination of it by the defence as they have had no opportunity to question when it was written; where it was written; why it was written; under what conditions it was written or, indeed, the mental state of LL when she wrote the various parts of it.

What would the situation be if at some point three months down the line some question as to the nature or validity of that evidence were raised and it was decided that the prosecution were not going to/could not use that item for whatever reason? How could that not be considered as anything other than highly prejudicial to a fair trial?

At the point at which is was released we were three days into a potential six month trial and we are already two jury members down. There is a very reasonable chance that this trial may have to be abandoned at some point, perhaps after several months, and a new one started. How could any future court consider such evidence not to be potentially highly prejudicial to a fair trial when it has been raked over in the public domain for weeks and weeks?

We are constantly reminded of potentially severe penalties for publishing things which could amount to Contempt of Court and, hence, could prejudice the administration of justice. Yet, it almost seems like the Court itself is doing precisely the things the law is saying should not be done!

I've said on several occasions that this whole story has been one mind blowing surprise after another - I do wonder what on earth the next one is going to be!

Wasn't Wayne Couzen's police interview released to the public during the trial though?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

3:23pm

The video explains there are "other important causes of abdominal distension and it is the doctor's responsibility to distinguish CPAP belly from other conditons, particularly...NEC."

 

[Whitehall 1212]

3:25pm

Dr Evans will shortly be cross-examined by the defence's Ben Myers KC on the medical matters raised so far.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I agree with your points and would be curious to know more. Was the note submitted as a piece of declared evidence that will be referred to and examined by the defence in the future? It seems odd it went to the press at this early stage and it would be catastrophic for the prosecution if it transpired to be inauthentic.

I'm not for one minute suggesting it's not authentic. I'm sure it is, if it wasn't it would have been challenged strongly by the defence in their opening.

My point is that it is not a straightforward piece of evidence, for all the reasons I gave in my initial post. The defence has given no explanation for it or it's various contents (perhaps they don't intend to). We don't know why she wrote those various things nor when.

From the various comments in various places lots of people seem to be accepting it as a straightforward confession, that is certainly how a lot of the press are spinning it. There is lots to that document though and it's far from easy to interpret. I don't think it can realistically be seen as one single document; I mean, I know it is in the physical sense but its content and construction suggest to me that it should probably be seen as multiple documents crammed onto the same space If that makes sense?

 

[Tortoise]

Wasn't Wayne Couzen's police interview released to the public during the trial though?

Not just that case, I've followed lots of cases where evidence such as CCTV is released to the press during the trial.

Much more so than it ever used to be.

 

[merrypason]

Wasn't Wayne Couzen's police interview released to the public during the trial though?

Though he had already plead guilty so maybe different

 

[Marantz4250b]

Wasn't Wayne Couzen's police interview released to the public during the trial though?

I'm not sure. There wasn't a "trial" as such though as he entered guilty pleas, I think?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Not just that case, I've followed lots of cases where evidence such as CCTV is released to the press during the trial.

Much more so than it ever used to be.

I can't think of many in English or Welsh courts, to be fair. You may be right though.

 

[Tortoise]

I'm not for one minute suggesting it's not authentic. I'm sure it is, if it wasn't it would have been challenged strongly by the defence in their opening.

My point is that it is not a straightforward piece of evidence, for all the reasons I gave in my initial post. The defence has given no explanation for it or it's various contents (perhaps they don't intend to). We don't know why she wrote those various things nor when.

From the various comments in various places lots of people seem to be accepting it as a straightforward confession, that is certainly how a lot of the press are spinning it. There is lots to that document though and it's far from easy to interpret. I don't think it can realistically be seen as one single document; I mean, I know it is in the physical sense but its content and construction suggest to me that it should probably be seen as multiple documents crammed onto the same space If that makes sense?

But I think releasing it allows us to see that it is more than the spin that the media are putting on it.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Wasn't Wayne Couzen's police interview released to the public during the trial though?

WC pleaded guilty. No trial.

The interview would only have been released after WC was sentenced.

 

[Tortoise]

I can't think of many in English or Welsh courts, to be fair. You may be right though.

Off the top of my head, Libby Squires CCTV released during trial, Penelope Jackson murdered husband during lockdown - police bodycam footage released during trial, CCTV and police bodycam footage in the case of Logan Mwangi released during trial, ongoing trial for the murder of Mee Chong CCTV footage released yesterday. It's commonplace these days.

 

[merrypason]

WC pleaded guilty. No trial.

The interview would only have been released after WC was sentenced.

Just re-checked the dates. It was released just ahead of his sentencing hearing at Old Bailey. They released it on the 29/9 and he was sentenced on 30/9.

But yes, no trial as he had pleaded guilty. Very different to this situation clearly.

Wayne Couzens police interview footage released

In the interview at his home, Couzens denies knowing who Sarah Everard is, despite being shown a photo.

www.bbc.co.uk