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

[merrypason]

Can you provide details of that suggestion?

I assume the poster means these bits of his opening statement.

"When we come to the experts, you will need to consider their evidence and how strong it is."The defence say there are five 'important' considerations for the evidence:

The birth condition of the infant.
If there were any problems in the care leading up to the event - events 'can come up from nowhere'
Whether the prosecution expert evidence concludes there was deliberate harm done
Whether Lucy Letby was present at the relevant time, and what she was doing
Whether there were failings in care by other people or the neonatal unit as a whole
The birth condition of the infant"

He advised the jury to question the veracity of the prosecution's experts, not that they would be bringing in experts to question or put doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's experts. Which is what he's doing atm in cross examination. His cross examination questions would have already been informed by his own experts, that's how he had these alternative causes he's put forward.

But if you look at the alternative causes he mentioned for each case in his opening, and compare it to his cross examination - they are the same points. Nothing completely new will be brought on in their case that we haven't already heard from him.

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

2:47pm

The court is now hearing evidence of police interviews conducted with Lucy Letby in relation to Child D.
Nicholas Johnson KC says he is relaying a summary of the interviews.
Letby, in her July 2018 interview, said she did not remember Child D.
Looking through notes, she accepted she was in her care, but could not remember her. She said when administering medicine, two nurses would sign for medication, but it was not necessary for both of them to be present.
In 2019, she denied administering Child D with an injection of air, and "didn't do anything" to Child D.
Asked about the Facebook searches for Child D's parents, she said she could not recall making those searches.
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.

2:48pm

That concludes the evidence for Child D at this stage, the court hears.
The court hears the cases of Child E and Child F, twin babies, will be heard on the morning of Monday, November 14.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, November 11

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

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

Same.. perhaps they're calling an expert in for Child C who wasn't free before this to give evidence when the case for Child C was being presented? Or someone to potentially draw a clear link between C & D

For such a massive case IMO the coverage is spotty at best and I don't really understand why

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.

 

[merrypason]

"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."

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

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

In October 2015 (4 months after D died) Lucy Letby made a Facebook search for the name of the baby’s father on a Saturday tea time.

 

[merrypason]

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

In October 2015 (4 months after D died) Lucy Letby made a Facebook search for the name of the baby’s father on a Saturday tea time.

Yep. She found the case so traumatic she took time off work, told a colleague she couldn't stop crying over it to the extent colleague suggested she see a counsellor. Searches the dad 4 months later.

But can't remember the child. Tbh it's this bizarre inconsistency that just makes it look bad.

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

Yep. She found the case so traumatic she took time off work, told a colleague she couldn't stop crying over it to the extent colleague suggested she see a counsellor. Searches the dad 4 months later.

But can't remember the child. Tbh it's this bizarre inconsistency that just makes it look bad.

Exactly, I just don't understand why you'd lie.

There's nothing illegal with saying yes it upset me a lot and I wanted to see how the parents were doing/it stuck with me emotionally etc. Unprofessional? Sure. But not illegal, so why lie and say you don't remember not only the babies but also any of the facebook searches.

 

[Jazmania]

Yep. She found the case so traumatic she took time off work, told a colleague she couldn't stop crying over it to the extent colleague suggested she see a counsellor. Searches the dad 4 months later.

But can't remember the child. Tbh it's this bizarre inconsistency that just makes it look bad.

She must have known well in advance that she was going to be interviewed by the police too. Wasn't she on admin duties for about a year while being investigated by the hospital? She had loads of time to get her story straight. She could have just said (re Facebook searches) that she was so upset about the baby deaths and wanted to know how the parents were doing because she cared about them. That would have mostly explained it. Saying that she didn't remember the parents just suggests she is lying.

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

"Nowhere in the clinical notes for any of the children in this, have we had
"We have seen reddy-brown patches on a background that is cyanosed, so yes, we have."

Go Dr Bohin! She is great on the stand

I was just going to comment the same. I did chuckle a little.

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

For me this just shows Myers while well researched, is no medical professional. Unfortunately this makes him seem like he’s asking stupid questions.

This is what I was trying to say the other day. It really seems juvenile. I know he is an accomplished attorney and is well prepared etc, but his questioning is almost as if he is clutching at straws and because it is expected of him to cross-question he is just trying to undermine instead, except it is coming across as juvenile. I feel embarrassed for him. JMO

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

Personally, I would highly doubt that. How do you create a situation of pressure in an exam environment let alone one which mimics someone potentially dying in front of you?

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.

 

[obelix71]

Yes

https://twitter.com/x/status/1580549767217958912

The recap of the defence opening has Myers calling into question the prosecution's medical experts and saying 'doctors and experts' don't always have the answer. Surely if he had his own experts he would say 'but we will present evidence from specialists who disagree with their findings'.
I could be wrong, and to be fair if the defence do have medical experts who say that the babies died in other ways, or even that there is no way of knowing why the babies died, then that could change everything

That statement does not say that Myers said he would not be calling his own medical experts to testify

 

[Jazmania]

That statement does not say that Myers said he would not be calling his own medical experts to testify

No I know, but it does suggest that he isn't surely?

 

[obelix71]

I assume the poster means these bits of his opening statement.

"When we come to the experts, you will need to consider their evidence and how strong it is."The defence say there are five 'important' considerations for the evidence:

The birth condition of the infant.
If there were any problems in the care leading up to the event - events 'can come up from nowhere'
Whether the prosecution expert evidence concludes there was deliberate harm done
Whether Lucy Letby was present at the relevant time, and what she was doing
Whether there were failings in care by other people or the neonatal unit as a whole
The birth condition of the infant"

He advised the jury to question the veracity of the prosecution's experts, not that they would be bringing in experts to question or put doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's experts. Which is what he's doing atm in cross examination. His cross examination questions would have already been informed by his own experts, that's how he had these alternative causes he's put forward.

But if you look at the alternative causes he mentioned for each case in his opening, and compare it to his cross examination - they are the same points. Nothing completely new will be brought on in their case that we haven't already heard from him.

I still don't see where Myers said he would not be calling his own medical experts to testify idc

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

No I know, but it does suggest that he isn't surely?

It certainly does to me, as "doctors do not always have the answers and neither do experts" would slightly undermine your own expert's testimony. You'd say 'The prosecutions experts' and introduce the idea of your own experts

 

[Rosegold68]

she searched the father but can't remember the child

did all the babies who were killed have dads? married dads? I will ave to google as I have not allowed this case but that just jumped out at me a bit

 

[obelix71]

No I know, but it does suggest that he isn't surely?

I didn't think so

 

[Tortoise]

I still don't see where Myers said he would not be calling his own medical experts to testify idc

Can you find the part where he said he would be bringing his own experts?

 

[obelix71]

It certainly does to me, as "doctors do not always have the answers and neither do experts" would slightly undermine your own expert's testimony. You'd say 'The prosecutions experts' and introduce the idea of your own experts

I disagree. Myers can hardly say "my experts are right and theirs are wrong". That would not be credible. His may not be right, and thus theirs might not be either. That to me is a strong message.

 

[obelix71]

Can you find the part where he said he would be bringing his own experts?

I think that would have been confrontational and thus unnecessary. However, him not saying that he would is very different to him saying that he wouldn't.