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

[katydid23]

There was some info about Baby G (who must be around 7 now) needing 24 hour care and doctors not being sure of her life expectancy.

Also, she is a paraplegic, as well as having serious brain damage. She was attacked three times. Her parents have truly suffered. As has this sweet little girl.

 

[Sundial]

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

And also the nurse who completed the “cares” task as ticked around 7pm which would also support the timeline of events as given by the mum.

 

[katydid23]

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

When I first read about this case, I could not accept the idea that ANYONE would harm innocent newborns, let alone preemies, who are struggling to live. It was impossible to believe that anyone would or could allegedly attack 17 tiny fragile babies, over and over, attacking twins and triplets. I couldn't wrap my head around it.

It is still hard to accept. Seeing pictures of the defendant made it seem even more improbable-at first.

I have been following the evidence and testimony very closely, since about halfway through the trial so far. And have read back to the earliest testimony. We have not heard the defense case yet, in full. So I have to keep an open mind.

Yet I do accept now, that there was probably someone that was purposely harming these babies. The blood sugar data doesn't leave me much wriggle room for it being natural causes. [allegedly]

 

[katydid23]

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

I think it is problematic for the defense that LL put in her notes, that mum visited 'at around 10 pm.' The hospital records showing her express milk at 8:30, for a 9 pm feeding, and the phone records of her 9:11 call to her worried husband, plus his testimony about her call, are very strong corroboration of mum's testimony.

I think it might weaken LL's veracity if the jury decide's the mom is telling the truth about that alleged visit to the unit at 9 pm.

 

[katydid23]

And also the nurse who completed the “cares” task as ticked around 7pm which would also support the timeline of events as given by the mum.

And hospital records showed mom expressed her milk at 8:30. Would she do that for a 10 pm feed or a 9 pm feed?

 

[Dotta]

When I first read about this case, I could not accept the idea that ANYONE would harm innocent newborns, let alone preemies, who are struggling to live. It was impossible to believe that anyone would or could allegedly attack 17 tiny fragile babies, over and over, attacking twins and triplets. I couldn't wrap my head around it.

It is still hard to accept. Seeing pictures of the defendant made it seem even more improbable-at first.

I have been following the evidence and testimony very closely, since about halfway through the trial so far. And have read back to the earliest testimony. We have not heard the defense case yet, in full. So I have to keep an open mind.

Yet I do accept now, that there was probably someone that was purposely harming these babies. The blood sugar data doesn't leave me much wriggle room for it being natural causes. [allegedly]

And mind you - educated professional with very vulnerable patients.

Did they or their families stand the chance?

How many undetected victims in "medical killings" had to die before red flags appeared?

Are healthcare workers tested psychologically?

I think it would be a good idea.

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

And hospital records showed mom expressed her milk at 8:30. Would she do that for a 10 pm feed or a 9 pm feed?

I don't think the hospital records show when she expressed milk, that's just from the mother's testimony.

He was due his two-hourly feed at 9pm though.

The doctor's testimony didn't align with the nursing notes LL wrote either, which is more evidence.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Also, she is a paraplegic, as well as having serious brain damage. She was attacked three times. Her parents have truly suffered. As has this sweet little girl.

Allegedly!

 

[katydid23]

Here is what went on at the last time the jury was sitting:

Doctor tells nurse Letby's trial ‘at no point did I turn monitor off’

A DOCTOR said he “definitely” would not have turned off a monitor while treating a baby allegedly attacked by nurse Lucy Letby, in the jury's…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

It was an awkward day for the prosecution, as their witness, a nurse who was there that shift, pushed back against the state's assertion that LL may have shut down the monitor attached to Baby G.

It seemed like a big deal at the time, but now looking at it in the whole scheme of things, it is not that important, imo.
From above link:

Manchester Crown Court has heard Child G was behind a privacy screen and unattached to an oxygen monitor when a nurse responded to a call for help from the defendant.

The colleague, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, said she saw a “concerned” Letby trying to revive the youngster who had stopped breathing.

It is alleged Letby deliberately turned off the monitor but jurors heard the nurse told police last month she believed that was not the case after she recalled a conversation she had with two doctors.

She said consultant Dr John Gibbs and registrar Dr David Harkness apologised to her for leaving Child G behind the screen and for not turning the monitor back on after completing the procedure.

Dr Gibbs said he could not remember whether Child G’s monitoring equipment was switched off during a seventh attempt that day by medical staff to insert a cannula.

But he told the court that if the nurse said he had apologised for leaving the monitor off then “presumably that happened”.

On Thursday, Philip Astbury, prosecuting, asked Dr Harkness: “Do you have any recollection of switching the monitor or alarm on and off at any stage?”

Dr Harkness said: “Definitely would not have turned it off.

“It’s not safe. In fact I’m not sure I know how to turn off that particular monitor. At no point did I turn that monitor off.”

Dr Harkness said he could not recall the exchange with the nurse.

Ben Myers KC, defending, said: “You must know very well Dr Harkness that conversation took place?”

Dr Harkness said: “I can’t remember.”

Mr Myers said: “I suggest a detail like that is something you would not forget?”

The doctor replied: “I disagree.”

 

[katydid23]

Allegedly!

Yes, allegedly.
I didn't accuse any particular person though---I just said 'someone' did.

 

[NeverPersonal]

Allegedly!

i mean, this whole ordeal is "allegedly". semantics.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Are we back in court today or are there still absences and legal discussions going on?

 

[Tortoise]

Just seen this Tweet from yesterday

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue
I'm back at Manchester Crown for the trial of Lucy Letby. Court will not sit today and is unlikely to sit tomorrow due to two juror absences. Judge, The Hon. Mr Justice Goss, explained that both are absent for 'very good reason' and he is unable to say when they will be back


(BBM)

 

[Marantz4250b]

Just seen this Tweet from yesterday

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue
I'm back at Manchester Crown for the trial of Lucy Letby. Court will not sit today and is unlikely to sit tomorrow due to two juror absences. Judge, The Hon. Mr Justice Goss, explained that both are absent for 'very good reason' and he is unable to say when they will be back


(BBM)

This is going to be incredibly slow!

 

[Anxala]

This is going to be incredibly slow!

It is and yes, it's frustrating from the pov of those of us who're following the case, but better slow and steady and focused than rushed, resulting in a potentially inconclusive/unsatisfactory ending.

There's too much at stake here for the latter.

 

[ColourPurple]

Do we know if LL is going to take the stand?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Do we know if LL is going to take the stand?

Highly unlikely is the eneral opinion, I believe.

 

[ColourPurple]

Highly unlikely is the eneral opinion, I believe.

Thanks. So nothing has been said officially then. I had it in my head that she wouldn't be, but couldn't remember why I thought that. Must've just been from reading opinions here.

 

[katydid23]

I think that is a decision that is usually made at the end of the defense case being set forth. If they feel they are in good shape at that point, and they feel the prosecution didn't prove their assertions, they would 100% prefer not to put their defendant on the hot seat. It is very risky to do so.

It seems that defendants in capital high profile cases only take the stand when they feel it is necessary to take that risk because things are not going as well as they'd like. It's often kind of a last ditch effort to convince the jury that the prosecutors are mistaken and the client is innocent and misunderstood.

It can be very dangerous because it is very difficult to answer the cutting questions put forth by the state and often the defendants come off looking guilty because of the pressure and stress. And/or because sometimes they are.

Do we know if LL is going to take the stand?

 

[ColourPurple]

I think that is a decision that is usually made at the end of the defense case being set forth. If they feel they are in good shape at that point, and they feel the prosecution didn't prove their assertions, they would 100% prefer not to put their defendant on the hot seat. It is very risky to do so.

It seems that defendants in capital high profile cases only take the stand when they feel it is necessary to take that risk because things are not going as well as they'd like. It's often kind of a last ditch effort to convince the jury that the prosecutors are mistaken and the client is innocent and misunderstood.

It can be very dangerous because it is very difficult to answer the cutting questions put forth by the state and often the defendants come off looking guilty because of the pressure and stress. And/or because sometimes they are.

It'll be interesting to see if she does Personally I'd want to take the stand if I'd been wrongly accused of doing something horrific and hadn't been able to speak publicly about it for years, but I guess everybody's different. Reading about Mark Brown taking the stand in the recent Leah Ware/Alex Morgan case that was definitely a mistake. Although this case is going to be very different as it's all taken place in a hospital and is going to rely heavily on the medical experts' opinions.