UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #9

[Tortoise]

Baby E? Are you suggesting the baby's mother was not telling the truth about being there at 9 pm?

There are several things that corroborate her version of events---including LL< who admits Mom was there.
The question is about what time she was with her son.

If you read the linked article below you can see what facts have been established and that Mom has evidence showing she was correct.

Mom was expressing milk at 8:30 because she had a 9 pm feeding scheduled. That was in the notes. So if mom did express her milk at 8:30, why is it hard to believe that she went to her child's room at 9 to feed him?

LL asked her to leave because the child was screaming in pain. Mom went to her room ands immediately called her husband. There are phone records to substantiate that call a little after 9 pm.

from link:
"Child E’s mother said she returned to the post-natal ward but rang her husband because she was so worried by what had happened. “I knew there was something very wrong,” she added, as she broke down in tears in the witness box.
Phone records show that Child E’s mother called her husband at 9.11pm and the call lasted 4 minutes and 25 seconds. "

There's more that corroborates the mother's testimony.

The day shift nurse for baby E had ticked the 'cares' row on the observation chart for 7pm and recorded that he had opened his bowels, before the 7pm feed.

The mother's testimony coincides with this when said that she had changed his nappy and wiped his face and neck between 6.30 and the 7pm feed, before she returned to her ward for her evening meal and to express milk for the 9pm feed.

The defence version is that mum returned again to the neonatal unit to change his nappy at 8pm, and then just decided to skip his 9pm feed without knowing about the doctor who was on the paediatric ward that night who LL noted retrospectively had advised after 9pm to omit the 9pm feed.

 

[ColourPurple]

Perhaps I should have clarified, looking at it from the point of view of when the case evidence started. It never would have proceeded with 14.

So basically, there were always going to be 12 members of the jury and there still are. Yes two are temporarily absent but they are expected to return.

 

[Tortoise]

Just my thoughts in general...I've read the first thread now, as I wasn't around back then and I can see that right from the start, when the only information available was pics of LL and the fact that she was being questioned about the babies' deaths, some were absolutely adamant that LL just could not be capable of murdering babies, saying things "This girl is not a baby killer, She just isn't" "She doesn't fit the profile" "I'm a good judge of character" "She looks too [insert "normal" "nice" "prettty" "caring"]. Reading it now that certainty really intigues me because nobody knew anything about LL or the evidence at that point. Yet some could not even accept the idea that she could be guilty. Like there was some kind of emotional connection or core belief that would not allow them to even consider the option that she may be responsible for murdering babies.

And even now, when we're hearing the evidence we're seeing theories that would involve every single medical expert who concluded that babies were intentionally harmed, being either biased or unable to use critical thinking. Rather than considering the possibility that the babies were intentionally harmed and that LL could allegedly be the one who harmed them. I get the feeling that even if she is found guilty, some will just not allow themselves to believe it. I don't think I've ever seen this first hand before, or at least not on this scale. Yes everybody is innocent till proven guilty and it's the prosecution's job to try to prove that LL is guilty, and it's the defences job to raise things like whether there could be confirmation bias etc. But to even consider whether somebody is guilty or not you have to be open to the possibility that they might be. And yes, I know that it doesn't really matter what a load of people think on the internet as the jury will make their decision regardless.

All JMO

It would be interesting if just going from the evidence only and not knowing anything about the accused, male/female, age, etc, what opinions would be about what happened to these babies.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

There isn’t IMO any evidence to suggest that critical thinking was employed in reaching the conclusion of deliberate harm either from the NCA or Dr Evans. Dr Bohin seems to be the exception , her testimony by itself suggests she remained open to other possibilities throughout her reviews of the cases. In many cases she suggested things Dr Evans didn’t which means she thought IMO, “yes this is a strong indication but considering this other condition or event in the notes this is another potential but out of the two I think this Is what happened“. kind of proof she wasn’t necessarily led by how the information was reviewed. Fair and impartial, I can see why she is top of the league imo.

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

Just my thoughts in general...I've read the first thread now, as I wasn't around back then and I can see that right from the start, when the only information available was pics of LL and the fact that she was being questioned about the babies' deaths, some were absolutely adamant that LL just could not be capable of murdering babies, saying things "This girl is not a baby killer, She just isn't" "She doesn't fit the profile" "I'm a good judge of character" "She looks too [insert "normal" "nice" "prettty" "caring"]. Reading it now that certainty really intigues me because nobody knew anything about LL or the evidence at that point. Yet some could not even accept the idea that she could be guilty. Like there was some kind of emotional connection or core belief that would not allow them to even consider the option that she may be responsible for murdering babies.

And even now, when we're hearing the evidence we're seeing theories that would involve every single medical expert who concluded that babies were intentionally harmed, being either biased or unable to use critical thinking. Rather than considering the possibility that the babies were intentionally harmed and that LL could allegedly be the one who harmed them. I get the feeling that even if she is found guilty, some will just not allow themselves to believe it. I don't think I've ever seen this first hand before, or at least not on this scale. Yes everybody is innocent till proven guilty and it's the prosecution's job to try to prove that LL is guilty, and it's the defences job to raise things like whether there could be confirmation bias etc. But to even consider whether somebody is guilty or not you have to be open to the possibility that they might be. And yes, I know that it doesn't really matter what a load of people think on the internet as the jury will make their decision regardless.

All JMO

I did the exact same thing! I think when there was a couple of days off I went right back and read through from the start because I only joined WS a little bit into the trial. It was really really eye-opening IMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

There's more that corroborates the mother's testimony.

The day shift nurse for baby E had ticked the 'cares' row on the observation chart for 7pm and recorded that he had opened his bowels, before the 7pm feed.

The mother's testimony coincides with this when said that she had changed his nappy and wiped his face and neck between 6.30 and the 7pm feed, before she returned to her ward for her evening meal and to express milk for the 9pm feed.

The defence version is that mum returned again to the neonatal unit to change his nappy at 8pm, and then just decided to skip his 9pm feed without knowing about the doctor who was on the paediatric ward that night who LL noted retrospectively had advised after 9pm to omit the 9pm feed.

Are you sure that was the defences version and that it wasn’t suggested as simply a matter of punctuality. If I remember correctly they said the mother attended around 9.30 mark. i remain unconvinced as the prosecution have failed to support the mothers account and that’s in a tight security ward.

 

[ColourPurple]

It would be interesting if just going from the evidence only and not knowing anything about the accused, male/female, age, etc, what opinions would be about what happened to these babies.

JMO

Definitely. Obviosuly it could never happen.. or could it? Maybe in the distant future court cases will all be conducted remotely with avatars or just a random set of numbers and letters representing the accused, and nobody ever seeing the accused in person unless they're found guilty. Hmm

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

Definitely. Obviosuly it could never happen.. or could it? Maybe in the distant future court cases will all be conducted remotely with avatars or just a random set of numbers and letters representing the accused, and nobody ever seeing the accused in person unless they're found guilty. Hmm

Sounds like a pitch for a black mirror episode lol

 

[ColourPurple]

There isn’t IMO any evidence to suggest that critical thinking was employed in reaching the conclusion of deliberate harm either from the NCA or Dr Evans. Dr Bohin seems to be the exception , her testimony by itself suggests she remained open to other possibilities throughout her reviews of the cases. In many cases she suggested things Dr Evans didn’t which means she thought IMO, “yes this is a strong indication but considering this other condition or event in the notes this is another potential but out of the two I think this Is what happened“. kind of proof she wasn’t necessarily led by how the information was reviewed. Fair and impartial, I can see why she is top of the league imo.

But there isnt IMO any evidence to suggest that critical thinking wasn't employed.

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

There isn’t IMO any evidence to suggest that critical thinking was employed in reaching the conclusion of deliberate harm either from the NCA or Dr Evans. Dr Bohin seems to be the exception , her testimony by itself suggests she remained open to other possibilities throughout her reviews of the cases. In many cases she suggested things Dr Evans didn’t which means she thought IMO, “yes this is a strong indication but considering this other condition or event in the notes this is another potential but out of the two I think this Is what happened“. kind of proof she wasn’t necessarily led by how the information was reviewed. Fair and impartial, I can see why she is top of the league imo.

Respectfully I think saying no critical thinking was involved is unfair. Have you ever done a peer review? I have, although admittedly for psychology not for medicine, it's entirely about critical thinking. Yes there's always some element of bias in everything, but I can't see any here.

 

[ColourPurple]

I did the exact same thing! I think when there was a couple of days off I went right back and read through from the start because I only joined WS a little bit into the trial. It was really really eye-opening IMO

I hadn't been on websleuths for ages but every now and then a case brings me back. Thought I'd read back to see if I'd missed anything in the early days but it looks like for a long long time there was no information at all, mainly just pics and a rough idea of what LL was being accused of, so I hadn't really missed much "information wise".

 

[Tortoise]

Are you sure that was the defences version and that it wasn’t suggested as simply a matter of punctuality. If I remember correctly they said the mother attended around 9.30 mark. i remain unconvinced as the prosecution have failed to support the mothers account and that’s in a tight security ward.

Yes I'm sure.

Day shift nurse's notes:

An observation chart is shown for Child E. The 'cares' row has one tick, recorded at 7pm, signed by Letby's colleague from the day shift.

At 7pm, there was also urine recorded, and a sign Child E's bowels had opened by this time.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, November 15


LL's nursing notes

Letby's note for 8pm at August 3 is written, written at 4.51am retrospectively, to say: "Mummy was present at start of shift attending to cares."

Letby's further note: 'Mum visited again approx 10pm.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, November 14


Mother's evidence:

she was "having skin-to-skin contact" with Child E, which ended at "half past 6ish".
She changed his nappy and had cleaned him, around the eyes and neck.
She said she went up to the post-natal ward to express breast milk and have something to eat, 'between 7pm and 8.30pm'.


Defence:

Mr Myers suggests the mum went down at about 8pm, at the time of the hand-over, and went down at about 10pm with the breast milk, and went again when Child E was being resuscitated.

Mr Myers says he suggests the mum went with the breast milk as 'late as 10pm',

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, November 14

 

[Tortoise]

There isn’t IMO any evidence to suggest that critical thinking was employed in reaching the conclusion of deliberate harm either from the NCA or Dr Evans. Dr Bohin seems to be the exception , her testimony by itself suggests she remained open to other possibilities throughout her reviews of the cases. In many cases she suggested things Dr Evans didn’t which means she thought IMO, “yes this is a strong indication but considering this other condition or event in the notes this is another potential but out of the two I think this Is what happened“. kind of proof she wasn’t necessarily led by how the information was reviewed. Fair and impartial, I can see why she is top of the league imo.

Well the fact that Dr Bohin reached the same end conclusions 'fairly and impartially' is an endorsement of Dr Evans's processes.

Not only that but they've both explained why they excluded other causes, it's not just presenting an end conclusion, it's demonstrating processes of elimination.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

Well the fact that Dr Bohin reached the same end conclusions 'fairly and impartially' is an endorsement of Dr Evans's processes.

Not only that but they've both explained why they excluded other causes, it's not just presenting an end conclusion, it's demonstrating processes of elimination.

JMO

But how did Dr Bohin reach those conclusions, was it by reviewing Dr Evans conclusions ie peer reviewing or by randomised reviewing of the case files individuall without Dr Evans conclusions and then perhaps seeing if they arrived at the same conclusions. There is a possibility if all she did was look at Dr Evans conclusions she was led by them.

the reasons I said they were fair and impartial is because she added to other potentials that Dr Evans did Not initially suggest.

 

[Tortoise]

But how did Dr Bohin reach those conclusions, was it by reviewing Dr Evans conclusions ie peer reviewing or by randomised reviewing of the case files individuall without Dr Evans conclusions and then perhaps seeing if they arrived at the same conclusions. There is a possibility if all she did was look at Dr Evans conclusions she was led by them.

the reasons I said they were fair and impartial is because she added to other potentials that Dr Evans did Not initially suggest.

They are both well-respected expert medical witnesses. They will be used to having to demonstrate their methods, independence and impartiality. By excluding other causes with reasons in plain language the jury can understand and being cross-examined on defence theories, they will have demonstrated their approaches to the evidence and why they ruled them out.

Explain with reference to the evidence in this case, why giving Dr Evans the cases out of order would have made a difference to his conclusions, if that's what you're saying.

 

[ColourPurple]

in The absence of evidence of something like that you would have to assume it’s non existence because it’s the prosecutions job and the NCA to prove they are within the law. The closest I have seen to it from Dr Evans is this statement.

“He said he asked to have one case file to have "an idea" of what he was dealing with”

Mr Myers: "Was the phrase 'air embolus' used at all?"

"I need to give the NCA a compliment, they never gave me a steer. They are good, professional people."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 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

that quote in bold is suggestive that his first review depending on what that case file involved may have shaped the rest of his reviews. It also contradicts the idea that he looked at the rest of the cases on an individual basis. The never gave me a steer is a self defeating statement because they would simply by being present or in the way that the information is presented.
...

and we haven’t seen any evidence to assume the case files were presented to Dr evans in a randomized way Which is I believe the only way that you can be sure the evidence isn’t misleading.

But we haven't seen any evidence to assume the case files weren't presented to him in a randomized way either. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. We don't know. I feel like if we knew for sure that they were presented in a random order, then those who don't agree with the conclusions would be arguing that they should've been presented to him in chronological order.

We also, as far as I know, don't know which case he was given when he asked to look at what he was dealing with, or what his conclusion was for that case. Let alone, whether that conclusion influenced his conclusions on the other cases. The way I see it, he has had previous cases from the NCA where he found nothing suspicious/concerning and even in this case he was presented with 35 cases and didn't find them all suspicious/concerning either. That just doesn't scream out to me that this is somebody who was guilty of confirmation bias or unable to employ critical thinking, and posting various links to show that confirmation bias can exist doesn't mean that it existed in this case.

 

[Dotta]

Just my thoughts in general...I've read the first thread now, as I wasn't around back then and I can see that right from the start, when the only information available was pics of LL and the fact that she was being questioned about the babies' deaths, some were absolutely adamant that LL just could not be capable of murdering babies, saying things "This girl is not a baby killer, She just isn't" "She doesn't fit the profile" "I'm a good judge of character" "She looks too [insert "normal" "nice" "prettty" "caring"]. Reading it now that certainty really intigues me because nobody knew anything about LL or the evidence at that point. Yet some could not even accept the idea that she could be guilty. Like there was some kind of emotional connection or core belief that would not allow them to even consider the option that she may be responsible for murdering babies.

And even now, when we're hearing the evidence we're seeing theories that would involve every single medical expert who concluded that babies were intentionally harmed, being either biased or unable to use critical thinking. Rather than considering the possibility that the babies were intentionally harmed and that LL could allegedly be the one who harmed them. I get the feeling that even if she is found guilty, some will just not allow themselves to believe it. I don't think I've ever seen this first hand before, or at least not on this scale. Yes everybody is innocent till proven guilty and it's the prosecution's job to try to prove that LL is guilty, and it's the defences job to raise things like whether there could be confirmation bias etc. But to even consider whether somebody is guilty or not you have to be open to the possibility that they might be. And yes, I know that it doesn't really matter what a load of people think on the internet as the jury will make their decision regardless.

All JMO

100% agree.

I even posted about this.

The myth of "a good girl next door" is as strong as ever.

Appearances can be sooo deceiving - and the criminals take advantage of gullible public

JMO

 

[Anxala]

I never heard of this before

(a)exercise its own power to summon others in the court room, or in the vicinity, up to the number required;
The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020

You could be walking past a court or sitting in the public gallery and be summoned by the judge!

^ That made me laugh. The idea that you could be strolling about minding your own business and the next thing find yourself manhandled inside a courthouse and on a jury bench in a state of bewilderment and completely against your will!

I assume in reality it's a much more 'nuanced' process.

 

[JosieJo]

Are you sure that was the defences version and that it wasn’t suggested as simply a matter of punctuality. If I remember correctly they said the mother attended around 9.30 mark. i remain unconvinced as the prosecution have failed to support the mothers account and that’s in a tight security ward.

Do you not feel the mothers phone records and the husbands testimony support the mothers account?

 

[Supernovae]

^ That made me laugh. The idea that you could be strolling about minding your own business and the next thing find yourself manhandled inside a courthouse and on a jury bench in a state of bewilderment and completely against your will!

I assume in reality it's a much more 'nuanced' process.

I never heard of this before

Rule 25.6
(5) If too few jurors to constitute a jury are available from the panel after all their names have been drawn, the court may—

(a)exercise its own power to summon others in the court room, or in the vicinity, up to the number required;
The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020
--

You could be walking past a court or sitting in the public gallery and be summoned by the judge!

I'd be curious to know whether this has ever actually happened. AIUI they summons many more people than they need to court to form the jury pool. Also, they couldn't seat someone onto a jury from the public gallery as they may have been exposed to information that the jury can't know about. I was actually reading the other day about a case where the convictions were overturned because the fiancé of one of the jurors came to the watch the trial regularly and they talked about it:

Lapland New Forest men's convictions quashed over juror text

Two brothers jailed for misleading customers at a Lapland-themed park have their convictions quashed after it emerges that a juror had been texting during the trial.

www.bbc.co.uk

'C**pland' bosses have convictions overturned after it is discovered juror received text from fiancé saying 'guilty'

The convictions of Victor Mears, 67, and Henry Mears, 60, (pictured), were deemed 'unsafe' by the Court of Appeal after a woman juror admitted to regularly messaging her fiancé in the public gallery.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Mears & Anor, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2651 (10 November 2011)

1. The trial lasted for the best part of eight weeks. During the short adjournment on the second day of the summing up Victor Mears (junior) noticed one of the female jurors meeting a man who had been sitting in the public gallery from time to time during the trial. His attention was drawn to the two of them partly because they seemed to be acting in a furtive manner, leaving the building in different directions and subsequently meeting up some distance away. His uncle's counsel, Mr. Scamardella raised the matter with the judge and expressed his client's concern that the juror might be discussing the case with her companion who had been present in court observing the proceedings at times when the jury were absent. After hearing submissions the judge decided to investigate the matter and the juror was brought into court. She confirmed that she did have a friend who had been sitting in the public gallery (it later became clear that he was her fiancé with whom she was living) and on further questioning she admitted that he had discussed with her various matters which the jury as a whole had not seen or heard and that she had mentioned some of them to one other member of the jury, possibly overheard by two others. As far as she could remember they included matters such as the judge raising his voice to Victor Mears (who was representing himself) and incidental matters, such as people coming in or going out, how long the jury was likely to be kept waiting and matters of that kind. On occasions she had received text messages from him when she was "downstairs", by which we understand she meant in the jury retiring room.

Although there was no firm evidence about the days on which the fiancé had been in court, it was accepted that he had been present on several occasions and that there was a risk that he had obtained information about the appellants to which the jury should not have had access. That was particularly the case in relation to Victor Mears' previous convictions for dishonesty.