VERDICT WATCH UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #30

[esther43]

You know,

In aviation literature, there is often a sentence that says that

"aviation regulations,
(rules that must be obeyed at the controls of an aircraft),
are written with the blood of aviators."

Over a hundred years of aviation, there have been many disasters and each of them has become a painful but nevertheless a lesson that allows the next person to fly more safely.

IMO the same concerns hospital regulations.
At least the deaths of victims would not be in vain.

JMO

I agree completely Dotta. And I find it challenging that the NHS has seemingly not learned how to spot insulin poisoning despite Alit and numerous others.
Yes it's not a very nice thing to have to tell employees when they join the NHS. On induction they cover 'human error' and 'drugs and alcohol' and escalation methods for this but not deliberate harm and that does need to change.
If they did cover spotting insulin poisoning then some of these babies would not have died.
Newcomers need to know that the NHS are all over this kind of behaviour and people need to educated on how to spot incidents. It would cost them NOTHING to make this change.

 

[Tortoise]

I've been wondering if we might think about how the jury might have organised their deliberations.

Imagine you are the foreperson and it's day 1 of jury retirement, and you have to all agree the way in which you will structure the discussion of these cases.

Even though the prosecution mixed it up a little bit in their closing speech, and provided lists of patterns to consider, would you follow the same approach? I think it could quickly get messy, if they decide to use patterns as their order of deliberation, because then you are jumping in at random points of the year, if say you are looking at the cases where the prosecution say she attacked when parents had just left, you then miss the context of the evolution of change of alleged methods, say her beginning to allegedly falsify babies' notes to say doctors had examined when they hadn't and babies had started to deteriorate when they hadn't, and texting friends to say the babies were poorly on handover etc.

I think the starting point makes a difference to how deliberations would evolve. The insulin poisonings could, if the jury decided she was guilty of them, provide a springboard from which they would accept the mindset of malice aforethought, which you wouldn't have if you started at A. Even if you started at A, your mind would still be conscious of what laid ahead, but would you decide that you should put the blinkers on and not consider that until you got to it? And then would you discuss F and L together and interrupt the sequence, or still plough through in date order?

I think they might have collectively agreed to start at A and work in order, which might also have been at the expense of using the alleged patterns, at least initially. It would avoid the messiness of jumping forwards and backwards, and people having different ideas about what for them was their strongest case. It might not be the best way of deliberating but it avoids what might be perceived as personal biases and less time spent deliberating how to deliberate, rather than actually deliberating the cases.

 

[marynnu]

I agree completely Dotta. And I find it challenging that the NHS has seemingly not learned how to spot insulin poisoning despite Alit and numerous others.
Yes it's not a very nice thing to have to tell employees when they join the NHS. On induction they cover 'human error' and 'drugs and alcohol' and escalation methods for this but not deliberate harm and that does need to change.
If they did cover spotting insulin poisoning then some of these babies would not have died.
Newcomers need to know that the NHS are all over this kind of behaviour and people need to educated on how to spot incidents. It would cost them NOTHING to make this change.

Re. the insulin overdoses, must say I was surprised by the lack of urgency from the lab. I know they informed the unit but I would have expected them to have stressed the significance of the results.

 

[Tortoise]

I agree completely Dotta. And I find it challenging that the NHS has seemingly not learned how to spot insulin poisoning despite Alit and numerous others.
Yes it's not a very nice thing to have to tell employees when they join the NHS. On induction they cover 'human error' and 'drugs and alcohol' and escalation methods for this but not deliberate harm and that does need to change.
If they did cover spotting insulin poisoning then some of these babies would not have died.
Newcomers need to know that the NHS are all over this kind of behaviour and people need to educated on how to spot incidents. It would cost them NOTHING to make this change.

I think they could start with the lab. If they had a system of recording abnormal results, and they had to go through a process of informing the hospital what this could mean, and also a system for flagging up when it happens at the same hospital more than once, it would be useful to say the least. It avoids someone at the hospital having to make the link between cases separated by many months, and with staff changes too.

 

[JosieJo]

I've been wondering if we might think about how the jury might have organised their deliberations.

Imagine you are the foreperson and it's day 1 of jury retirement, and you have to all agree the way in which you will structure the discussion of these cases.

Even though the prosecution mixed it up a little bit in their closing speech, and provided lists of patterns to consider, would you follow the same approach? I think it could quickly get messy, if they decide to use patterns as their order of deliberation, because then you are jumping in at random points of the year, if say you are looking at the cases where the prosecution say she attacked when parents had just left, you then miss the context of the evolution of change of alleged methods, say her beginning to allegedly falsify babies' notes to say doctors had examined when they hadn't and babies had started to deteriorate when they hadn't, and texting friends to say the babies were poorly on handover etc.

I think the starting point makes a difference to how deliberations would evolve. The insulin poisonings could, if the jury decided she was guilty of them, provide a springboard from which they would accept the mindset of malice aforethought, which you wouldn't have if you started at A. Even if you started at A, your mind would still be conscious of what laid ahead, but would you decide that you should put the blinkers on and not consider that until you got to it? And then would you discuss F and L together and interrupt the sequence, or still plough through in date order?

I think they might have collectively agreed to start at A and work in order, which might also have been at the expense of using the alleged patterns, at least initially. It would avoid the messiness of jumping forwards and backwards, and people having different ideas about what for them was their strongest case. It might not be the best way of deliberating but it avoids what might be perceived as personal biases and less time spent deliberating how to deliberate, rather than actually deliberating the cases.

I have thought about this a lot and how it might effect deliberation time etc.

I understand the merits of going alphabetically but it's not something I would have chosen in their position.

I might have suggested ascertaining the 3 or 4 strongest case by way of the jurors thoughts. Start with those cases

If there was a verdict on the three strongest cases it would then have a domino effect imo. At this point it would pretty much be just a case of looking at the medical evidence and asking ..was this foul play? Did it cause the death or collapse ...no need to plough through the rest of the evidence for each baby.

Obviously you would have to ask did she intend to kill in the AM cases but again apart from the insulin cases ..where she increased the dose second time around...it would be a domino effect

 

[Tortoise]

I have thought about this a lot and how it might effect deliberation time etc.

I understand the merits of going alphabetically but it's not something I would have chosen in their position.

I might have suggested ascertaining the 3 or 4 strongest case by way of the jurors thoughts.

If there was a verdict on the three strongest cases it would then have a domino effect imo. At this point it would pretty much be just a case of looking at the medical evidence and asking ..was this foul play? Did it cause the death or collapse ...no need to plough through the rest of the evidence for each baby.

Obviously you would have to ask did she intend to kill in the AM cases but again apart from the insulin cases ..where she increased the dose second time around...it would be a domino effect

I agree, I would too.

I think it would take someone with very strong organisational skills, and people skills, to be foreperson in this case and suggest a system, but also not easy if there are people who process in different ways, perhaps think less laterally, and not feel they are missing some of the evidence by taking that approach, and also a difficult task for the foreperson to not feel as though they are influencing deliberations by their own inner convictions about the case. I think I understand the time this is taking with such short days and the difficulties of ordering deliberations to everyone's satisfaction.

 

[esther43]

I think they could start with the lab. If they had a system of recording abnormal results, and they had to go through a process of informing the hospital what this could mean, and also a system for flagging up when it happens at the same hospital more than once, it would be useful to say the least. It avoids someone at the hospital having to make the link between cases separated by many months, and with staff changes too.

But didn't they start with the lab in this instance? But the message didn't land because they didn't understand the meaning of it initially. Same with Cullen.

 

[Tortoise]

But didn't they start with the lab in this instance? But the message didn't land because they didn't understand the meaning of it initially. Same with Cullen.

I'm not sure the lab pointed out that they should be looking at synthetic insulin as the cause. I think Dr Gibbs said the doctor didn't realise the significance, which suggests to me it relied on his/her knowledge of c-peptides and wasn't flagged up as being due to administration of insulin.

Not sure who Cullen is.

 

[WaxLyrical]

You would need a foreman that’s organised and can control the team to an extent, but they would need to be extremely flexible. I don’t think it would be possible to set out a method at the outset, there are so many variables which would influence the best way to conduct their deliberations, depending on the individual opinions.

If it were me, my first question would be “does everyone think she’s caused deliberate harm on at least one occasion?” If there was a clear majority saying yes, I’d likely try to tie down verdicts on what people feel are the strongest cases. But, if there was a significant split at that first junction, it could quite quickly descend into chaos with long discussions over the minutia of individual cases that some people felt were certain indicators of guilt. This was my immediate fear when they asked the question about c-peptide.

 

[JosieJo]

You would need a foreman that’s organised and can control the team to an extent, but they would need to be extremely flexible. I don’t think it would be possible to set out a method at the outset, there are so many variables which would influence the best way to conduct their deliberations, depending on the individual opinions.

If it were me, my first question would be “does everyone think she’s caused deliberate harm on at least one occasion?” If there was a clear majority saying yes, I’d likely try to tie down verdicts on what people feel are the strongest cases. But, if there was a significant split at that first junction, it could quite quickly descend into chaos with long discussions over the minutia of individual cases that some people felt were certain indicators of guilt. This was my immediate fear when they asked the question about c-peptide.

Yes I agree I think a few hours brainstorming the groups thoughts at the very beginning would be worthwhile to see where they are at.

When I did jury service..albeit the case was miniscule in comparison..the foreperson started by asking us all in turn to say roughly what we thought generally without interruption from anyone else

 

[Dotta]

When I did jury service..albeit the case was miniscule in comparison..the foreperson started by asking us all in turn to say roughly what we thought generally without interruption from anyone else

And how did you choose this foreperson?
Did someone volunteer?

 

[WaxLyrical]

I'm not sure the lab pointed out that they should be looking at synthetic insulin as the cause. I think Dr Gibbs said the doctor didn't realise the significance, which suggests to me it relied on his/her knowledge of c-peptides and wasn't flagged up as being due to administration of insulin.

Not sure who Cullen is.

The lab’s phone notes said they suggested to the hospital the sample should go to Guildford lab for insulin testing. So I suspect there was more information given than simply expecting the doctor to know about c-peptide.

I have no idea why any doctor wouldn’t discuss this with a superior.

 

[Tortoise]

Maybe you could even spend a day or more discussing impressions of the defendant and the defence case in a general sense, before even discussing the charges.

 

[WaxLyrical]

Maybe you could even spend a day or more discussing impressions of the defendant and the defence case in a general sense, before even discussing the charges.

It wouldn’t surprise me if a couple of days were spent just.. venting. Such an emotive case, and I’m sure everyone will have felt compelled to just get some of their thoughts, emotions, anger, all of it out on the table. And allowing that process to happen would be worthwhile if they are then to come together and discuss things calmly and effectively.

It must be absolutely awful to be on that jury, I don’t envy them one bit.

 

[JosieJo]

And how did you choose this foreperson?
Did someone volunteer?

I think they did yes

 

[Penny68]

If, LL is found not guilty of everything, then I wonder who they will start to investigate next at the Countess of Chester hospital. Because with all that happened someone has to be involved in all the horror that came to light.

I have wondered if the investigation that was started at the Liverpool Women's hospital is still ongoing of the times LL worked there while she undertook placements there for her training.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Usually someone will volunteer though I can’t imagine putting my hand up for this one.

 

[Dotta]

though I can’t imagine putting my hand up for this one.

And if you pulled the foreperson's straw???

 

[Parker Knoll]

I would obviously have to crack on with it !
Everyone must be utterly worn out.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I think, IF guilty, LL was more cunning and sly than Alitt was. Alitt didnt make much of an effort to change up her MO, or to try and camouflage her actions. LL changed things up continuously, allegedly using various attack methods and allegedly targeting babies under the care of other colleagues, successfully prolonging the crime spree.
Allit seemed to be a lot more obvious and was caught sooner and with less subterfuge, to give any reasonable doubt. JMO

I'm trying to think how to word this without sounding hateful... but BA was / is very clearly fairly low in intelligence / IQ if not formally diagnosed as learning disabled or cognitively challenged.

When I read up about her, I was quite surprised and very disappointed that really she'd been able to access a workplace that was beyond her capacity and the college training that she really badly performed on wasn't counted as a 'fail'. IIRC (and I haven't re-read it prior to this post so forgive me if I'm a little incorrect) she had been given a lot of leeway and granted some exceptions despite poor performance.

I think any criminal offender is bound to be more sophisticated the more generally intelligent they are as they're better suited to being calculated and conniving and thinking logistically. I don't think LL comes off as all round street smart sort of person or any type of eccentric genius, by no means, but she's obviously got a repertoire of manipulative tricks and schemes that worked for a while.