UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #6

[covid2020]

Same. So long ago and so many players. The defendant has been on remand all this time.

 

[Tortoise]

The crown has had to meet a standard of proof in front of a judge (a prima facie case) to get the accused remanded into custody. That isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt but just proof that they have enough evidence for a trial to proceed. In the case of alleged murder, for the protection of the public, the accused is always kept in jail until trial.

 

[Anxala]

I don't see it that way.

It's the defence's obligation to raise every single issue and go through every permutation that could mean LL is wrongly accused. People can be high on ego and pride - especially medical doctors - 'is it possible you were mistaken?' is one question and the next question is 'is it possible if you are mistaken, you would not wish to back down?' - it's a valid question and the hope is to point out to someone that not wanting to lose face is a solid reason why professionals hate to change their minds. Also it can lead to the 'reasonable doubt' argument.

That's a very good and pertinent point re doctors and egos and their propensity to balk at and take issue with anything that might undermine their professionalism. Particularly when they're being questioned by someone outside their profession. I'm not of course saying that that's what's happening here but it is certainly something to consider...

Ben Myers is highly accomplished. I think, considering he's operating in such a foreign and complex theatre here, he's doing an excellent job. I can only imagine the amount of prep he must have done for this trial - but apparently it's something he's renowned for, meticulous prep and ‘an exceptional ability to digest complex cases’.

His profile - Benjamin Myers KC - Criminal CV | Exchange Chambers

 

[ShireChe]

I'm not suggesting it is or isn't in this case. But it's not exactly unusual for a doctor (even an esteemed specialist) to be 100% convinced of something that later time and evidence shows not to be correct. The defence is doing everything you'd expect, but I think they are going to have to come up with something much more to get the jury to discount the current opinions of someone like Dr Evans

 

[Dcflag]

How many people are thinking baby a, b, c or d were intentionally and unlawfully killed?

Because I do think that this is such a trial of two parts.

<modsnip - sub judice>

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

How many people are thinking baby a, b, c or d were intentionally and unlawfully killed?

Because I do think that this is such a trial of two parts.

<modsnip - sub judice>

No, I don't think there is enough evidence they were a) intentionally killed -or- <modsnip>; JMO MOO

 

[notsure]

I’ve tried to keep a really open mind with this case given the nature of it and I’m not coming to any concrete conclusion yet but I don’t know, I feel like LL and her defence have come across as weaker so far in this trial. Just my opinion of course and have no problem if others view it differently.

People aren't allowed to respond to this post, apparently. It's violating sub judice.

 

[Interested_Party]

RSBM… JMO… MOO…

Is there a glossary for this site?

 

[cuecard]

People aren't allowed to respond to this post, apparently. It's violating sub judice.

You can reply to it. Seems like the quoted post of this post was deleted. It's no problem either way.

 

[Dcflag]

RSMB… JMO… MOO…

Is there a glossary for this site?

Respectfully snipped by me, just my option and no own opinion. I think there probably is a glossary somewhere though!

 

[cuecard]

RSMB… JMO… MOO…

Is there a glossary for this site?

Yes . This should be helpful. Websleuths Lingo

 

[BabaVanga]

Yes . This should be helpful. Websleuths Lingo

That was the link I was meant to add ooops :0

 

[Marantz4250b]

I’ve tried to keep a really open mind with this case given the nature of it and I’m not coming to any concrete conclusion yet but I don’t know, I feel like LL and her defence have come across as weaker so far in this trial. Just my opinion of course and have no problem if others view it differently.

In the one sense I agree. However, we haven't heard their side of it yet.

We've seen a lot of Mr Myers seemingly failing to undermine the prosecution's case by asking very direct questions of their witnesses and receiving very direct answers as to the veracity of their statements. The prosecution witnesses are, essentially, stating with virtual certainty (in their opinion) that the causes of the deaths and collapses so far presented were due to unlawfully administered air embolisms. Fair enough.

The defence, though, said right at the start that they do not accept that and that they have their own witnesses who will say otherwise - or who will at least suggest an alternative reason for the deaths and collapses. Now, if that is indeed the case then what does that mean for the prosecution's experts? If the defence produces expert witnesses who provide plausible alternative explanations as to the cause of these incidents then the prosecution are unlikely to call out the defence witnesses as being either incompetent or outright liars.

What I'm saying is, is the defence setting up the prosecution's witnesses for a fall in the sense that they will be unable to sensibly deny other medically plausible alternative theories which the defence present. If they get the prosecution witnesses back up there and ask them whether the defence theories are plausible explanations then they are hardly likely to deny them if they are. Once you have stated with such a degree of certainty that your answers are the only answers (which they have) then it isn't a good look when someone else comes along with something equally as possible. It entirely undermines what you are saying.

 

[Marantz4250b]

The crown has had to meet a standard of proof in front of a judge (a prima facie case) to get the accused remanded into custody. That isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt but just proof that they have enough evidence for a trial to proceed. In the case of alleged murder, for the protection of the public, the accused is always kept in jail until trial.

That's not always the case though. I know it's not because I researched cases where people have been granted bail whilst on a murder charge. Granted it is very rare but it does happen.

 

[Tortoise]

How many people are thinking baby a, b, c or d were intentionally and unlawfully killed?

Because I do think that this is such a trial of two parts.

<modsnip - sub judice>

Yes, most surely.

I've seen nothing presented so far to discount the medical expert witness's testimonies, or the multiple doctors' and consultants' testimonies that the skin patterns were new to them and something they haven't seen since; these collapses were unexpected and didn't follow the normal paths of slow decline, and featured unusual non-response to resuscitative measures. Also with baby D I think it makes sense that a baby dying from pneumonia would not self-correct and improve after collapsing, twice, and then just stop breathing and die. It's the improvements that defy logic, IMO.

Subject to hearing anything that the defence has to counter this with, in due course.

 

[cuecard]

In the one sense I agree. However, we haven't heard their side of it yet.

We've seen a lot of Mr Myers seemingly failing to undermine the prosecution's case by asking very direct questions of their witnesses and receiving very direct answers as to the veracity of their statements. The prosecution witnesses are, essentially, stating with virtual certainty (in their opinion) that the causes of the deaths and collapses so far presented were due to unlawfully administered air embolisms. Fair enough.

The defence, though, said right at the start that they do not accept that and that they have their own witnesses who will say otherwise - or who will at least suggest an alternative reason for the deaths and collapses. Now, if that is indeed the case then what does that mean for the prosecution's experts? If the defence produces expert witnesses who provide plausible alternative explanations as to the cause of these incidents then the prosecution are unlikely to call out the defence witnesses as being either incompetent or outright liars.

What I'm saying is, is the defence setting up the prosecution's witnesses for a fall in the sense that they will be unable to sensibly deny other medically plausible alternative theories which the defence present. If they get the prosecution witnesses back up there and ask them whether the defence theories are plausible explanations then they are hardly likely to deny them if they are. Once you have stated with such a degree of certainty that your answers are the only answers (which they have) then it isn't a good look when someone else comes along with something equally as possible. It entirely undermines what you are saying.

Yeah, that's why I haven't come close to any concrete decision in my mind yet. I think despite the amount of information we have already this trial is still very, very young. There will be plenty more information to come on top of what we already have too. I just feel right now that's where my thoughts are.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

RSBM… JMO… MOO…

Is there a glossary for this site?

Yes there is

 

[Marantz4250b]

Sorry catching up as been busy so just addressing some points I noticed further back;

As regards the discussion relating to LL and the nurse where the resus chart which contained calculated drug doses to give in the event of a collapse was missing; the other nurse present knew the doses to give and did so. There was some discussion as to why LL didn't know how to calculate the doses but the other nurse did. The line said by LL which was how did you know that was seen as potentially suspicious or at least called into question her competency. I don't see it as suspicious at all and as soon as I read it I had a feeling I knew exactly what she was getting at.

Some people are very bad at mental maths, especially when put on the spot or under stressful situations. I am exactly that way. I consider myself far from thick but I have a massive problem doing maths problems in my head and have always been that way. I think it's reasonably common too.

When the other nurse said in reply, something to the effect of I just know and I suggest you learn it I don't think she was referring to the ability to actually do the calculations on the spot (although she may have been), I think she meant that she'd essentially memorised the doses through having done it and seen similar charts over many more years than LL had been working at that point.

Yes, people like Carol Vorderman or Rachael Riley can indeed do very fast mental maths but most people can't and even when you think you are doing it you really aren't. If you are asked what ten plus ten is you don't do the arithmetic in your head, you just know the answer is twenty. I think something similar was at work here. So, I suspect that the nurse in question perhaps wasn't actually doing the mental calculations but, rather, simply knew what the correct doses to administer were.

LL clearly does know how to do the drug calcs as she's a qualified nurse so would have had to pass that bit - it's a 100% pass too, I believe. The requirement is to know how to make the calcs, not to be able to do them under pressure. And, let's face it, if it was an easy thing to do then there wouldn't be a piece of paper with them noted on it attached to the bed!

 

[Dcflag]

Sorry catching up as been busy so just addressing some points I noticed further back;

As regards the discussion relating to LL and the nurse where the resus chart which contained calculated drug doses to give in the event of a collapse was missing; the other nurse present knew the doses to give and did so. There was some discussion as to why LL didn't know how to calculate the doses but the other nurse did. The line said by LL which was how did you know that was seen as potentially suspicious or at least called into question her competency. I don't see it as suspicious at all and as soon as I read it I had a feeling I knew exactly what she was getting at.

Some people are very bad at mental maths, especially when put on the spot or under stressful situations. I am exactly that way. I consider myself far from thick but I have a massive problem doing maths problems in my head and have always been that way. I think it's reasonably common too.

When the other nurse said in reply, something to the effect of I just know and I suggest you learn it I don't think she was referring to the ability to actually do the calculations on the spot (although she may have been), I think she meant that she'd essentially memorised the doses through having done it and seen similar charts over many more years than LL had been working at that point.

Yes, people like Carol Vorderman or Rachael Riley can indeed do very fast mental maths but most people can't and even when you think you are doing it you really aren't. If you are asked what ten plus ten is you don't do the arithmetic in your head, you just know the answer is twenty. I think something similar was at work here. So, I suspect that the nurse in question perhaps wasn't actually doing the mental calculations but, rather, simply knew what the correct doses to administer were.

LL clearly does know how to do the drug calcs as she's a qualified nurse so would have had to pass that bit - it's a 100% pass too, I believe. The requirement is to know how to make the calcs, not to be able to do them under pressure. And, let's face it, if it was an easy thing to do then there wouldn't be a piece of paper with them noted on it attached to the bed!

I work in a vet surgery as a receptionist so not medical or clinical. It’s not unlike a hospital in a few aspects, one being dosages and medication. Our clinic is fairly small, meaning that I can go to get a prescription for collection and be walking through a prep room with a dog under general having a full mouth extraction for example. Or I can be taking questions from clients to vets. I genuinely see not just the medical vets but the clinical vet nurses making what I consider to be insane dosage calculations, not even just medication dosage but everything in between. There’s pages and pages of stuff on the walls everywhere, the meds cupboards have lots of information stuck to them, the prep room is similar, charts for the oxygen, emergency medications etc etc. Dosage calculations are everywhere, yet I never see them get used.

Even when we’ve animals coming in with respiratory distress and heart failure, drowning is another common one, emergency surgeries etc it’s still very clear there’s a huge wealth of basic knowledge with each of these professionals even in a high pressure situation.

I’d argue personally that it is strange to not know basic calculations when that is your line of work.

 

[Tortoise]

In the one sense I agree. However, we haven't heard their side of it yet.

We've seen a lot of Mr Myers seemingly failing to undermine the prosecution's case by asking very direct questions of their witnesses and receiving very direct answers as to the veracity of their statements. The prosecution witnesses are, essentially, stating with virtual certainty (in their opinion) that the causes of the deaths and collapses so far presented were due to unlawfully administered air embolisms. Fair enough.

The defence, though, said right at the start that they do not accept that and that they have their own witnesses who will say otherwise - or who will at least suggest an alternative reason for the deaths and collapses. Now, if that is indeed the case then what does that mean for the prosecution's experts? If the defence produces expert witnesses who provide plausible alternative explanations as to the cause of these incidents then the prosecution are unlikely to call out the defence witnesses as being either incompetent or outright liars.

What I'm saying is, is the defence setting up the prosecution's witnesses for a fall in the sense that they will be unable to sensibly deny other medically plausible alternative theories which the defence present. If they get the prosecution witnesses back up there and ask them whether the defence theories are plausible explanations then they are hardly likely to deny them if they are. Once you have stated with such a degree of certainty that your answers are the only answers (which they have) then it isn't a good look when someone else comes along with something equally as possible. It entirely undermines what you are saying.

I've just had a re-read of the defence's opening and they don't mention bringing their own expert witnesses.

All they say is that the defence disagrees with the prosecution expert evidence. It seems to me that the way to do this (even if they have their own experts) is to challenge the prosecution's experts on the stand, so that they can answer the defence's alternative theories put to them at that time. The example given in one of your earlier posts was that they might be able to find an expert to prove that babies had died of infections of which there was zero evidence in the autopsies, to counter Dr Evans saying that there was no evidence of infection at Baby A's post mortem.