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

[Cuko]

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.

@Tortoise, I think that’s an excellent analysis of the deliberation options, and their relative strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

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

This is so true, I was recently chatting with a guy who works in aviation engineering and safety and he said exactly this - that when there's a mechanical failure revealed, it can be immediately corrected and will never happen again.

 

[Moll]

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.

Well, the police investigation of the Countess of Chester Hospital is continuing, isn't it? Operation Hummingbird. There was a recruitment ad for a DCI only last summer:

Detective Chief Inspector - Op Hummingbird - Cheshire Police

ID: 697. Title: Detective Chief Inspector - Op Hummingbird. Location: Chester. Closing Date: 12/06/2022, 23:55. Salary: £58,332 - £60,732

cheshirepolice.tal.net

 

[Dotta]

This is so true, I was recently chatting with a guy who works in aviation engineering and safety and he said exactly this - that when there's a mechanical failure revealed, it can be immediately corrected and will never happen again.

The problem is lack of personal accountability.
The lack of consequences.
And supervision.

A nurse was texting instead of feeding a patient?
No problem - she is a dedicated nurse.

A nurse is allegedly accused of collapses of patients?
No problem - let her return to the Unit.

Consultants asked to put the nurse off the shift?
No way! She can carry on.

And so on, and so forth.

In case of lawsuits - is anybody going to pay out of their pockets?

Of course not.
Trust will pay.
Meaning - taxpayers.

JMO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

The problem is lack of personal accountability.
The lack of consequences.
And supervision.

A nurse was texting instead of feeding a patient?
No problem - she is a dedicated nurse.

A nurse is allegedly accused of collapses of patients?
No problem - let her return to the Unit.

Consultants asked to put the nurse off the shift?
No way! She can carry on.

And so on, and so forth.

In case of lawsuits - is anybody going to pay out of their pockets?

Of course not.
Trust will pay.
Meaning - taxpayers.

JMO

I couldn't agree more and in this case, hiding in plain sight also involved a lack of rigorous upholding of best practises and lack of vigilance.

I think there could be follow-on law suits from this if LL is found guilty, don't see why not. If the families can prove that had LL been appropriately confronted, she would not have had access to their baby.

 

[Dotta]

I think there could be follow-on law suits from this if LL is found guilty, don't see why not. If the families can prove that had LL been appropriately confronted, she would not have had access to their baby.

If it were me, I would never let go!

And not for money - I would grant it to Charity for children.

But as a warning!

Or if my child was left brain damaged, it would be for the child's never ending therapies.
Small compensation for a child for ruined life

JMO

 

[LadyL]

checking in
still on verdict watch???
is there a holdout or two?
what is going on?

 

[iamshadow21]

checking in
still on verdict watch???
is there a holdout or two?
what is going on?

It's the weekend. They're probably enjoying the end of the summer weather and having a lie-in. Check back on Tuesday. (They are not deliberating on Monday this coming week.)

MOO

 

[LadyL]

It's the weekend. They're probably enjoying the end of the summer weather and having a lie-in. Check back on Tuesday. (They are not deliberating on Monday this coming week.)

MOO

thanks
I forgot it was the weekend

 

[Scorpiette]

Out of interest, in situations where there is a retrial, for what ever reason, does the accused have to keep the same legal team or do they have the option to change, who in turn can bring in other information? Just curious really.

Fingers crossed we may get a verdict next week.

That's a very good question.
Also, if a retrial happened, would LL chose to take the stand again, I wonder?

 

[Phoenix Lazarus]

This case is going to have echoes that last for many, many years.

 

[Moll]

That's a very good question.
Also, if a retrial happened, would LL chose to take the stand again, I wonder?

I think they can bring in new evidence or decide not to use a witness they used before, or as you suggest the defendant might decide not to appear. I also think that although the same barristers would normally appear there's no rule to say they can't be changed. Hard to imagine this working in this case, they must be determined not to let it happen.

There are a lot of websites with details but they don't answer all the queries one might have, e.g.

Crown Court Trial - Verdict — Defence-Barrister.co.uk

What happens when a jury retires to consider the verdict of guilty or not guilty?

www.defence-barrister.co.uk

 

[Trebor5591]

How long have they been deliberating? Seems way too long for a unanimous guilty verdict, IMO.

 

[Tortoise]

Out of interest, in situations where there is a retrial, for what ever reason, does the accused have to keep the same legal team or do they have the option to change, who in turn can bring in other information? Just curious really.

Fingers crossed we may get a verdict next week.

They can have the same legal team. I'm not sure whether they get a choice when it's legally aided, but I would imagine it would be more cost effective. If it was a retrial granted on appeal because of some error made by the team, I think it would be new lawyers who would take up the appeal and retrial. But JMO, I don't know for certain.

That's a very good question.
Also, if a retrial happened, would LL chose to take the stand again, I wonder?

She could decide not to, but her evidence in this trial could be used in the retrial.

 

[katydid23]

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 was wondering if they could use a locking system for the insulin and other dangerous drugs, in which each nurse had to use her finger print to get into the locked cabinet. So each 'visit' to the med cabinet would have a log in and then it could be traced back if it needed to be.

It would be quicker than trying to track down the keys. Each time a nurse needed insulin she'd go straight to the insulin cabinet and use her fingerprint to unlock it. If a child got sick from insulin overdose, management could check back and see who got insulin and when.

Of course, I guess a cunning killer would get the insulin earlier and not use it until much later????

 

[Tortoise]

I was wondering if they could use a locking system for the insulin and other dangerous drugs, in which each nurse had to use her finger print to get into the locked cabinet. So each 'visit' to the med cabinet would have a log in and then it could be traced back if it needed to be.

It would be quicker than trying to track down the keys. Each time a nurse needed insulin she'd go straight to the insulin cabinet and use her fingerprint to unlock it. If a child got sick from insulin overdose, management could check back and see who got insulin and when.

Of course, I guess a cunning killer would get the insulin earlier and not use it until much later????

I've also thought about a CCTV camera inside the fridge, or focused only on the fridge.

 

[Parker Knoll]

She could technically have a change of legal team if she said she had no confidence in her previous representation but it’s not automatic as BM will know this case inside out and to bring in fresh rep would mean starting from scratch so the legal aid board would have to agree to the funding and that’s not guaranteed, I would expect the prosecution would absolutely stay the same. It’s a minefield.
JMO

 

[Supernovae]

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.

The thing is according to the clinical biochemist it was spotted:

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, November 25

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

10:36am

The trial has now resumed.
The court is hearing from Anna Milan, a clinical biochemist, how insulin and insulin c-peptide tests were taken for analysis.

10:47am

Child F's blood sample, which was dated August 5, 2015, was taken at 5.56pm.
The court is shown a screenshot of Child F's blood sample results. Child F is referred to as 'twin 2' - Child E, the other twin boy, had died at the Countess of Chester Hospital on August 4.
Dr Milan says Child F's insulin c-peptide level reading of 'less than 169' means it was not accurately detectable by the system.
The insulin reading of '4,657' is recorded.
A call log information is made noting the logged telephone call made by the biochemist to the Countess of Chester Hospital, with a comment made - 'low C-Peptide to insulin'

10:55am

The note adds '?Exogenous' - ie query whether it was insulin administered.
The note added 'Suggest send sample to Guildford for exogenous insulin.'
The court hears Guildford has a specialist, separate laboratory for such analysis in insulin, although the advice given to send the sample is not usually taken up by hospitals.
Dr Milan said that advice would be there as an option for the Countess of Chester Hospital to take up.

I would be very interested to know who took that call and what happened with that information. It's particularly baffling that they apparently just shrugged their shoulders as the thrust of the evidence of the consultant group is that they already had concerns about (implicitly non-accidental) harm at this time:

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

Letby is accused of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder 10 others at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.

www.bracknellnews.co.uk

It should be noted that Victorino Chua's conviction was in the May of that year, and I imagine it would particularly have been a major news story in the North West:

Stepping Hill murders: how Victorino Chua's poisonings were uncovered

The nurse convicted of murdering patients was caught after a night of curious incidents, but his motive remains a mystery

www.theguardian.com

 

[Supernovae]

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

This is a bit of a distinction without a difference, but in court the full names of the babies are used so for the jury it won't be alphabetical. I imagine they're working off the indictment, going in order: break the ice, elect a foreperson and work out a plan of attack; then they ask for a copy of the judges summing up in order to structure their deliberations; it's refused so they go back to square one and slog through the evidence in indictment order to resummarise, perhaps without committing to a verdict, asking questions when they get to Child F and Child H. They continue until they get through all of the cases, perhaps updating the judge as they go. Once they get past this summarisation phase they really get down to business arguing over the verdicts. They can't reach unanimity so after a few days a majority direction is issued. They continue arguing and can't reach a majority... and that brings us to the present.

 

[IDK]

I was wondering if they could use a locking system for the insulin and other dangerous drugs, in which each nurse had to use her finger print to get into the locked cabinet. So each 'visit' to the med cabinet would have a log in and then it could be traced back if it needed to be.

It would be quicker than trying to track down the keys. Each time a nurse needed insulin she'd go straight to the insulin cabinet and use her fingerprint to unlock it. If a child got sick from insulin overdose, management could check back and see who got insulin and when.

Of course, I guess a cunning killer would get the insulin earlier and not use it until much later????

I don’t know about the UK, but insulin is available over the counter (OTC) in the U.S. If a nurse were planning to harm their patients, it’s possible they could bring it to work in their pocket or work bag. IMO.

Everything You Need to Know About Walmart Insulin

You can buy insulin at Walmart for $25 per vial, but these insulin options are not the same as today's newer insulins. Here is what you need to know.

diabetesstrong.com