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

[Dotta]

I did wonder about this as well, as SIDS is a diagnosis of exclusion and definitionally unexplained. I'm speculating, but the only relevant difference I can think of is that there may be a difference in postmortem changes if the death occurs overnight (as is often the case) and isn't discovered for some hours in a normally heated family home. Also the parents may attempt CPR out of desperation even if the death had occurred some time ago, where medical professionals wouldn't.

As with the skin discolourations the experts are telling a story, maybe even a compelling one, around these findings but there's not a massive empirical body of evidence to interpret the significance of these findings. It is a problematic aspect of this case.

I seem to remember SIDS deaths happen to children between ages 2-6 months.
And I have never heard that they occured in hospitals.
That would be novelty.

Moo

 

[JosieJo]

True, which is why I used the term "so overwhelming" not "overwhelming". There are always two sides and I will wait to hear both of them.

As will most of us yes

 

[Supernovae]

I seem to remember SIDS deaths happen to children between ages 2-6 months.
And I have never heard that they occured in hospitals.
That would be novelty.

Moo

I don't think anyone is suggesting that these deaths are "SIDS" in the classic sense it's just the oddity of the suggestion that there were no unexplained cases of gas in the great vessels in the GOSH study when some of the cases were SIDS cases.

 

[covid2020]

I thought Myers did a good job with Dr Sandie Bohin. I don't understand how Dr Bohin could day Child D was not very unwell. The mother could also see the child was very unwell.

There are many cases in the NHS where parents, friends, partners etc have been able to see a loved one is seriously unwell only for that person to then die due to the medical care they received. It is not uncommon.

 

[arrogantcat]

True, which is why I used the term "so overwhelming" not "overwhelming". There are always two sides and I will wait to hear both of them.

I really appreciate your balanced and thoughtful perspective in your posts in this thread. Glad to have you here!

 

[Tortoise]

I thought Myers did a good job with Dr Sandie Bohin. I don't understand how Dr Bohin could day Child D was not very unwell. The mother could also see the child was very unwell.

There are many cases in the NHS where parents, friends, partners etc have been able to see a loved one is seriously unwell only for that person to then die due to the medical care they received. It is not uncommon.

The mother saw her baby the evening of the 21st and said:

"Child D's mother said she had spoken to Dr Andrew Brunton at 9-9.30pm, and was told he was "very happy" with Child D's test results.
They had "done more scans" and she was "well" and promised her she would be able to hold and cuddle her the following day.
The mother said she was not in a good condition herself, being moved in a wheelchair and '10/10 pain', on morphine, but was happy with Child D.
Child D looked like "a good pink baby", "tiny but chubby", and looked "healthy"."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, November 3

 

[Dotta]

I really appreciate your balanced and thoughtful perspective in your posts in this thread. Glad to have you here!

It is good to have posters on BOTH sides of the fence.
It makes the discussion more lively

 

[Sarahlou]

It makes her look really bad, as if she knew she had nefarious reasons for searching, and couldn’t think of an innocent reason.

I think that shows how far removed her thought process is from normal people, to not even be able to imagine why regular people might have a nosey on Facebook.

Spot on in my opinion. She knows her reasons for looking them up were bad and that shows in her response to being asked about the searches.

 

[covid2020]

The mother saw her baby the evening of the 21st and said:

"Child D's mother said she had spoken to Dr Andrew Brunton at 9-9.30pm, and was told he was "very happy" with Child D's test results.
They had "done more scans" and she was "well" and promised her she would be able to hold and cuddle her the following day.
The mother said she was not in a good condition herself, being moved in a wheelchair and '10/10 pain', on morphine, but was happy with Child D.
Child D looked like "a good pink baby", "tiny but chubby", and looked "healthy"."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, November 3

A nursing chart from June 20 is presented to the court at birth.
Mr Myers says Child D was 'very unwell' at birth.
Dr Bohin says she disagrees.
Mr Myers refers to the note at 12 minutes, she was 'very unwell indeed'. Dr Bohin said she had 'an event' which required intervention, but it was not clear what her overall condition was.
Mr Myers says she had referred to the father's handling of the baby as the cause of the event.
Dr Bohin said that was one possibility, but not the only one.
She said she was "very clear" the father was not responsible for the collapse, as new fathers are nervous with holding babies, and you cannot tell whether it was an obstruction or part of a clinical condition.
Mr Myers says the mother had noted Child D 'looked lifeless' when the baby was presented to her.
Dr Bohin said Child D had just been delivered, and the cord had not been cut. If a baby was 'in extremis', the baby would not have been presented to the mother, she tells the court.

 

[Tortoise]

A nursing chart from June 20 is presented to the court at birth.
Mr Myers says Child D was 'very unwell' at birth.
Dr Bohin says she disagrees.
Mr Myers refers to the note at 12 minutes, she was 'very unwell indeed'. Dr Bohin said she had 'an event' which required intervention, but it was not clear what her overall condition was.
Mr Myers says she had referred to the father's handling of the baby as the cause of the event.
Dr Bohin said that was one possibility, but not the only one.
She said she was "very clear" the father was not responsible for the collapse, as new fathers are nervous with holding babies, and you cannot tell whether it was an obstruction or part of a clinical condition.
Mr Myers says the mother had noted Child D 'looked lifeless' when the baby was presented to her.
Dr Bohin said Child D had just been delivered, and the cord had not been cut. If a baby was 'in extremis', the baby would not have been presented to the mother, she tells the court.

Yes, that was over 24 hours before.

Baby D had been on antibiotics and was improved by the next evening. Her mum said she looked pink and healthy by then.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

A nursing chart from June 20 is presented to the court at birth.
Mr Myers says Child D was 'very unwell' at birth.
Dr Bohin says she disagrees.
Mr Myers refers to the note at 12 minutes, she was 'very unwell indeed'. Dr Bohin said she had 'an event' which required intervention, but it was not clear what her overall condition was.
Mr Myers says she had referred to the father's handling of the baby as the cause of the event.
Dr Bohin said that was one possibility, but not the only one.
She said she was "very clear" the father was not responsible for the collapse, as new fathers are nervous with holding babies, and you cannot tell whether it was an obstruction or part of a clinical condition.
Mr Myers says the mother had noted Child D 'looked lifeless' when the baby was presented to her.
Dr Bohin said Child D had just been delivered, and the cord had not been cut. If a baby was 'in extremis', the baby would not have been presented to the mother, she tells the court.

A good example of Mr Myers illuminating a conflict between the reality of the situation and the narrative by exposing contradiction.

 

[bbsaz]

This is something that has puzzled me too. I am British but live in Canada and I use the BBC as my news site. It is of course, the Canadian version. The reporting for this case is non existent. One day a few weeks back, I stumbled upon a short article about the case and tried to find out more but its so sporadic and scattered. I haven't had anything on BBC Canada since about the LL trial and I was following the Chester Standard live reporting until I found you guys here.
TLDR: I'm puzzled as to why there is such a small coverage of the trial also.

Yesterday I was talking to a friend in her 50s, very academic, busy on social media, reads the news and who lives about 30minutes from Chester, in Manchester. She had not heard of the case at all

 

[Tortoise]

A good example of Mr Myers illuminating a conflict between the reality of the situation and the narrative by exposing contradiction.

I wouldn't describe Myers as illuminating the reality of the situation. Or did you mean the narrative as the defence narrative here?

We've heard from Baby D's designated nurse, that she was very happy with her and that's why she went off on her one hour break. She was shocked to be called back within half an hour.

We've also heard from three doctors from the day shift and night shift who all said they were happy with her, she was stable and improving, and was well enough to have her first milk feed that night.

We've also heard from the mother who said she was happy with what she saw.

LL said baby D's death was a shock and was unexpected, as did the nurse who had her on the day shift.

Nurse: "What!!!! But she was improving. What happened?"
LL: “another shock for us all” "how is it such sick babies get through and others die so suddenly and unexpectedly. Guess it's how it is meant to be"

 

[Dotta]

Yesterday I was talking to a friend in her 50s, very academic, busy on social media, reads the news and who lives about 30minutes from Chester, in Manchester. She had not heard of the case at all

I guess this case puts to shame NHS (which is dear to British people).

After morgue rapes, also in hospital, the Press might not want to escalate distrust towards this institution.

After all, it is not something to be proud of.
It is my opinion.

 

[Sundial]

That is why I wrote "there are many answers".
But they are connected, mind you.
With the word "trauma".

I can’t help but wonder and have thought this previously (where you mention the word trauma), that there could have been some kind of internal (personal) connection of LL own loss. The trial seems to focus only on 2015-2016 which appears significant (unless there was not enough evidence to support any previous concerns?), and IF guilty, “what” happened or might have been happening in her life at this time or shortly before.

From her neighbours reports it was stated there was a male living with her at one point prior to this I believe (I think they assumed he was her partner and not a friend), and whilst it was discussed previously, photos circulating the web shows her wearing what appears to be an engagement ring (which could also be a dress ring worn on any finger as others have mentioned).

I can’t help but get the feeling whilst we know so little of her as a person, even if innocent she does seem rather troubled by something. The conversations with colleagues where it was suggested she should see a councillor, and the reply of she couldn’t talk about it because she couldn’t stop crying (which if innocent is completely understandable); BUT is then searching the father months afterwards but claims she can’t remember the child.

It seems almost bewildering to try and make sense of it all amongst all the medical reports too, but I also can’t help but think trauma is at the heart of this aswell. IMOO

 

[squish]

I suspect, if guilty, there would be more victims than we know. Baby A would be a very bold place to start: as soon as she gets on shift, and with another nurse in the room It seems to me like June 2015 was the point when a serial killer gets too comfortable and escalates. I think (IMO, if guilty) she realised she got carried away (especially with colleagues’ comments that it was odd and investigation into Baby D) and took some time off over the summer. Then she resumed more cautiously, then got comfortable and escalated again.

 

[merrypason]

I don't think that is correct. Defence would have to share details of its witnesses with the court and therefore the prosecution (perhaps done already but not yet public) but not with the prosecution's experts. And it would not need to disclose in opening arguments. Myers is laying the ground for his experts, planting a bit of doubt in the jurors' minds, that's all. Credibility of defence medical testimony has to come from medical experts, not from him. Anyway, I suppose ultimately this was about whether he will call his own experts, not what they will say if they are called. Latter is speculation. As for the former, there is nothing he has said imo which suggests he will not be calling his own experts. If there weren't any there wouldn't be a trial. And if there are some he'd be negligent if he didn't call them.

The defence have to share ALL evidence they will be presenting. So that includes what their experts will put forward, the same way the prosecution have shared it with them. That's why Ben Myers is prepared for the cross examination.

Do you really think Ben Myers can put forward experts who share evidence the prosecutor has not heard before and is not prepared to cross examine.....?

 

[merrypason]

Exactly, that is my point. There are always two sides and I will wait to hear both of them.

You are hearing both sides. Ben Myers is laying out his side very clearly in his detailed cross examination.

 

[merrypason]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that these deaths are "SIDS" in the classic sense it's just the oddity of the suggestion that there were no unexplained cases of gas in the great vessels in the GOSH study when some of the cases were SIDS cases.

But if it were indeed an odd suggestion, wouldn't the very skilful defence lawyer have picked up on it and challenged it in cross examination as you have?

 

[obelix71]

The defence have to share ALL evidence they will be presenting. So that includes what their experts will put forward, the same way the prosecution have shared it with them. That's why Ben Myers is prepared for the cross examination.

Do you really think Ben Myers can put forward experts who share evidence the prosecutor has not heard before and is not prepared to cross examine.....?

What I was saying was not correct was the assertion that the defence had to share details of its defence with the prosecution's experts ("But whatever his experts have to say would have been shared with the prosecution's experts"). It has to share with the prosecution, not the prosecution's experts.