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

[obelix71]

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

Of course one is getting a good sense as you say of what the defence's case will be but, personally, I will not feel I am hearing both sides until I have heard what the defence's experts have to say.

 

[Dotta]

Of course one is getting a good sense as you say of what the defence's case will be but, personally, I will not feel I am hearing both sides until I have heard what the defence's experts have to say.

I wonder why these experts were not introduced to Jury at the beginning of the trial in the introduction phase.
Now, Im really curious if these experts will appear!

 

[Dotta]

Another thing.

We are already in the 2nd month and there are still 3 cases of dead babies + 15!!!! attempts to be discussed.

Would there be time to discuss every case, but from defence experts' point of view?

I have no idea.

But medical experts are objective/impartial and both Prosecution and Defence can cross examine them seeking answers.

Moo

 

[katydid23]

In opening arguments, defence barristers need to get juries to like them. By mentioning defence witnesses, Myers would have created the image of confrontation i.e. prosecution experts versus defence experts. That is where the confrontational aspect is. No need to mention it. Doesn't mean he won't/can't call them.

I don't think I have ever heard an opening statement by the defense team, where they failed to mention they were bringing in their own expert witnesses. I have never seen that as too confrontational. In my opinion it is informative and reminds the jury that there are two sides to the story.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I have a few friends who are actually in their last year of BSc Nursing and they have told me about the drug prep exams. They are actually put under pressure with time limits to perform and they have all said how difficult the exam is, some failing and having to wait a whole year to repeat. One even told me, that in the exam (She failed) she literally made up drugs that would of killed the imaginary patient 5 times over! She said it was the pressure of the time limits and the educator putting more pressure on them, obviously to stimulate an emergency. Hence, failing and having to redo. This is in Canada and it is the most competitive programs though so I am not sure of the exam process in UK.

If it's so difficult to do, as it clearly is, doesn't that perfectly explain LL's comment of "how did you do that" to the other nurse?

Also the reason why there's a note with them on.

 

[Tortoise]

"...this A4 chart, a laminated piece of paper, was missing."

The chart "eventually turned up", the court hears, as "it must have gone missing in the stress of everything".

I would say stress of people is unrelated to the chart being missing. It sounds like she's tried to rationalise it.

Only staff involved in getting the adrenaline medication would have had a need for it and that nurse said it was missing. Presumably it wasn't just being trampled over on the floor because they would have looked to see if it had fallen down.

 

[Kemug]

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

I suppose it is possible that LL had a baby of her own, who died, or whom she gave up. That could have been a huge trauma, and had a big effect on her.

 

[Dcflag]

Just a quick observation about baby d’s mother describing the baby lifeless at birth. I’m not sure that necessarily contradicts dr bohin’s assessment that the baby was not seriously unwell at birth.

My daughter had shoulder dystocia when born, and while I don’t remember super vividly, my husband does. She was our second baby so the first go round we’d had a fairly standard “baby born, here he is” moment. With her they had to do what’s called a mcroberts procedure and quite literally pull her out, as a result she came out in a way I can only describe as stunned. She was limp, she didn’t cry, she was quite purple (which generally babies are very initially) they took her away and gave her a vigorous rub down with a towel. Her agpar scores were fine. She was fine.

I could describe her as lifeless at birth, but ultimately she wasn’t an unwell baby.

With hindsight we know baby D was developing an infection, likely due to the mother not having antibiotics when her waters broke. But I don’t know that correlates to lifeless at birth.

Perhaps it’s just semantics but I don’t really see how it’s a contradiction in the narrative.

 

[covid2020]

Just a quick observation about baby d’s mother describing the baby lifeless at birth. I’m not sure that necessarily contradicts dr bohin’s assessment that the baby was not seriously unwell at birth.

My daughter had shoulder dystocia when born, and while I don’t remember super vividly, my husband does. She was our second baby so the first go round we’d had a fairly standard “baby born, here he is” moment. With her they had to do what’s called a mcroberts procedure and quite literally pull her out, as a result she came out in a way I can only describe as stunned. She was limp, she didn’t cry, she was quite purple (which generally babies are very initially) they took her away and gave her a vigorous rub down with a towel. Her agpar scores were fine. She was fine.

I could describe her as lifeless at birth, but ultimately she wasn’t an unwell baby.

With hindsight we know baby D was developing an infection, likely due to the mother not having antibiotics when her waters broke. But I don’t know that correlates to lifeless at birth.

Perhaps it’s just semantics but I don’t really see how it’s a contradiction in the narrative.

Baby D was born 60 hours after the mother's waters broke, and it was recorded as 'very unwell'. Not to minimise your experience, but it is a bit different.

 

[Dcflag]

Baby D was born 60 hours after the mother's waters broke, and it was recorded as 'very unwell'. Not to minimise your experience, but it is a bit different.

No of course, I just mean to say that the mother of baby d perceiving baby d as being born lifeless doesn’t necessarily mean that dr bohins account that baby d was not born unwell is not true.

Babies being born apparently lifeless is quite a common occurrence for a range of factors (which is why I shared my own experience) we know after the fact that baby d was in fact unwell but this wasn’t something that was considered at birth or because of the described lifelessness of baby d. It became apparent after the fact.

I probably should’ve quoted the original post I was replying to that was implying that Myers was trying to show contradictions in the testimony of dr bohin, in particular referencing the mother of baby d and her account of birth (with the baby appearing lifeless), and the statement from dr bohin that she was not born unwell. I don’t feel it’s a contradiction.

 

[JosieJo]

It's obvious that none of the babies were 100% well as If they were they wouldn't be in neonatal.
IMO the important this is

the amount of babies in such a short period that collapsed that were not expected to

The number of witnesses be it Dr's, Nurses , expert witnesses saying they should not have collapsed.

If the defence come up with witnesses to debunk the causes.

 

[obelix71]

I don't think I have ever heard an opening statement by the defense team, where they failed to mention they were bringing in their own expert witnesses. I have never seen that as too confrontational. In my opinion it is informative and reminds the jury that there are two sides to the story.

This will be my last post on the matter of whether the defence mentioned in its opening whether it would be calling medical experts. It's possible it did but that the media did not mention it. More importantly, not mentioning them absolutely does not mean they cannot/will not call them. I would be flabbergoogled if it did not call its own experts. Bye for now everyone.

 

[ColourPurple]

"Asked about messages exchanged between Letby and a nursing colleague, she was asked why she had said Child D had 'overwhelming sepsis'. Letby says she could not recall, but thought from the context of the text, she thought Child D had been rescreened for infection."

She was asked why, later that day, someone had said it could have been meningitis. She said she could not remember that being said to her."

Yikes, this is exactly the point I was making - why did she think the child was being reviewed for overwhelming sepsis and why did she then tell a colleague they were being reviewed for meningitis. And we know child D had not been re-screened for infection because these messages happened a few hours after the death! She told a colleague they thought it could be meningitis, who's they??

Tbh her police interview makes zero sense because she went off work a few days after the death of D as she was finding it too much as per messages below.

Yet, Letby, in her July 2018 interview, said she did not remember Child D.

26 June "She adds: "What I have seen has really hit me tonight."

The colleague asks: "Have you worked today?"

Letby: "No, been off since Wednesday morning and now it has all hit me."

The colleague asks if Letby tries "talking to a proper counsellor".

Letby replies that she does not think she can.

The colleague: "Why not?"

Letby: "I can't talk about it now...I can't stop crying...I just need to get it out of my system."

I think the "been off since Wednesday" may just have been a reference to her being off work because of her shift pattern, rather than through being upset. Especially as she's saying how it's all just hit her that night, which wouldn't make sense if she had already been off since Wednesday because of the upset of it all.

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

If it's so difficult to do, as it clearly is, doesn't that perfectly explain LL's comment of "how did you do that" to the other nurse?

Also the reason why there's a note with them on.

That is one explanation, yes. But like someone said on here the other day (I'm sorry I couldn't find the post to quote), The genrational difference could come into play, obviously the Nurse who did the calculations without the chart has a) more experience or/and has been in the job a lot longer b) maybe a completely different education? In such, when she was taught maybe they had to do the calculations themselves and a chart was for back up only.
The point I guess I am akwardly trying to get to is that the chart WAS missing. This is obviously unusual as the Nurse who did the calculations mentioned it and said she had to do the calcs herself AND LL was shocked that the other Nurse COULD do it without the chart, basically the chart being missing seems to be the significant point.
I cant help feel that the interaction with LL and the other nurse about the missing chart and calculations, is significant because the chart was purposely missing. JMO

 

[Eloise]

That is one explanation, yes. But like someone said on here the other day (I'm sorry I couldn't find the post to quote), The genrational difference could come into play, obviously the Nurse who did the calculations without the chart has a) more experience or/and has been in the job a lot longer b) maybe a completely different education? In such, when she was taught maybe they had to do the calculations themselves and a chart was for back up only.
The point I guess I am akwardly trying to get to is that the chart WAS missing. This is obviously unusual as the Nurse who did the calculations mentioned it and said she had to do the calcs herself AND LL was shocked that the other Nurse COULD do it without the chart, basically the chart being missing seems to be the significant point.
I cant help feel that the interaction with LL and the other nurse about the missing chart and calculations, is significant because the chart was purposely missing. JMO

I agree. LL sounded genuinely taken aback by the situation. She really thought that without the chart, the nurse wouldn't have been able to do the calculation and therefore wouldn't have been able to give the meds. The missing chart that was unusually and unexpectedly missing for this resus, but mysteriously showed back up after. Mmmk.

 

[Dotta]

The missing chart that was unusually and unexpectedly missing for this resus, but mysteriously showed back up after. Mmmk.

Strange things.

 

[Legal]

On Monday the court will hear about babies E and F. I think this is going to be harrowing evidence but also may be the game changer. I've just re-read the prosecution's opening statement regarding baby E and this is the baby whose mother allegedly caught LL in the act of attacking him and whose notes LL allegedly falsified. It will be interesting to see how the defence addresses these issues. During police interviews LL said she couldn't remember anything.

 

[squish]

A list of eyewitnesses to alleged attacks:

Baby E
Eyewitness: his mother
Incident:
"At 9pm on August 3, 2015, the mother decided to visit her twin sons, and "interrupted Lucy Letby who was in the process of attacking Child E", the prosecution say, although the mum "did not realise it at the time". Child E was 'acutely distressed' and bleeding from the mouth. The mum said Letby attempted to reassure her the blood was due to the NGT irritating the throat.
"Trust me, I'm a nurse," Mr Johnson told the court.
Letby said the registrar would be down to review Child E, and urged her to return to the postnatal ward. The mum called her husband when she got to the labour ward, in a call lasting four minutes and 25 seconds, at 9.11pm."

Baby I
Eyewitness: unknown nurse
Incident 1:
"Upon the designated nurse's return to room 2, Letby was "standing in the doorway of the room" and Letby said Child I "looked pale". The designated nurse switched on the light and saw Child I was "at the point of death". She later recalled the child was breathing about 'once every 20 seconds'. The prosecution says the jury should consider how Lucy Letby could see a child was looking pale when the room was darkened at 3.20am, with minimal lighting." (My note: the first attempted murder charge for this baby)

Incident 2:
"At 1.06am a nurse, having left the nursery temporarily, responded to Child I's alarm and saw Lucy Letby at the incubator. Child I was very distressed and wanted to intervene, but Letby assured her that they would be able to settle the baby.
"Don't worry - we will sort it out," Mr Johnson tells the jury. Child I then collapsed." (My note: the baby died after this fourth and final alleged attempt to kill her).


Baby K
Eyewitness: Consultant paediatrician Dr Ravi Jayaram
Incident:
"Lucy Letby was the only nurse in room 1, alone with Child K. Feeling uncomfortable with this because he was beginning to notice the coincidence between the unexplained deaths and serious collapses and the presence of Lucy Letby, Dr Jayaram decided to check on where Lucy Letby was and where Child K was. As he walked in, he could see Letby standing over Child K's incubator. He could see Child K's oxygen levels were falling. However, the alarm was not sounding and Lucy Letby was making no effort to help. Dr Jayaram went straight to treat Child K and found her chest was not moving, he asked Letby if anything had happened to which she replied, “she’s just started deteriorating now”.

Dr Jayaram found Child K's breathing tube had been dislodged. Child K was very premature, and had been sedated and inactive. The tube had been secured by tape and attached to Child K's headgear. Mr Johnson: "It's well recognised if you handle a child you can dislodge the tube accidentally, but any experienced staff member would recognise that. "Dr Jayaram was troubled as the levels were falling and Nurse Letby had been the only person in the room." (For brevity, I'll add my own note here that Dr Jayaram thinks the alarm was deliberately paused at least once.)

Baby N
Eyewitness: unknown nurse
Incident:
"A colleague said Lucy Letby same into the room to say hello, but when the nurse's back was turned, Letby told her Child N had desaturated before assisting with the breathing. There was no evidence of an alarm sounding or if Letby waited to see if he self-corrected."

Unknown baby
Eyewitness: neonatal assisstant Lisa Walker
Incident:
The court later heard how Ms Letby "told off" a colleague who shouted for help when a baby's oxygen levels dropped.
Neonatal assistant Lisa Walker said she was "shocked" and "taken aback" when (Lucy Letby) asked why she had sought assistance. She said they were feeding infants in opposite corners of the room when an alarm monitor sounded at the cot where Letby was.
Miss Walker said the alarm indicated oxygen levels had fallen. Prosecutor Philip Astbury said: "Why ask for help?"
Miss Walker said: "Because the baby was not picking up."
She said she felt "shocked because you can't have enough help in that situation".
"[I was] quite taken aback and shocked because it's something you would not expect a nurse to say," she added.


I'm sure there's another incident I have forgotten.

 

[Eloise]

<modsnip - quoted post removed; sub judice>

Sounds like the evidence about to come is really going to ramp up.

 

[squish]

Sounds like the evidence about to come is really going to ramp up.

Today they will be talking about babies E and F, which imo are among the stronger cases.

The alleged murder of Baby E has a credible eyewitness, with supporting evidence to back up her account.

If it is accepted (and the defence will have a hard time suggesting otherwise) that the insulin poisoning of Baby F was deliberate, then that would mean that someone on that ward was attacking babies. The defence will try to say that they don’t know that it was LL, but that means they will be inferring that there is an unknown baby attacker still in the hospital.