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

[ColourPurple]

I've missed a fair bit because it kind of frazzled my brain.
How many postmortems got carried out & did the pathologist note air embolism as a cause of death for the babies mentioned to have had an air embolism?
If not many premature babies have a postmortem perhaps air embolism might be more common than people think.
Just my own opinion because really I'm clueless on the subject.

Air embolism is not common at all and steps have been put in place to stop it happening. The babies had not just had surgery or other procedures, where it can sometimes but again rarely happen. Nurses are trained on the dangers of injecting air and the equipment they use has safety features to stop it happening too. The medical experts have said that somebody must have injected the air deliberately and one has explained how they would have had to do it in a specific place in the line to deliberately avoid the safety features that were designed to stop it happening.

 

[katydid23]

im just wondering why the conclusions by medical experts before the NCA presented these to dr evans in 2017 were of natural causes aside from I believe one case.

i Also believe there were clear medical reasons for the conclusions of accidents in his prior cases. It’s not so clear apparently in these and so one might be left to speculate Which is where biases may come in.

it’s also I think good form to have presented these cases to DR evans in a randomised way rather than what seems to be chronologically and perhaps not by the NCA.

I would like to see the steps taken to ensure biases were not present.


an example of quite disparate sequences in the events were Baby E and Baby N. Two examples of what seems to be significant trauma but no desaturation for baby E close to the time of the alleged injury who seems to have a more significant injury but a desaturation for baby N. although I still think there may be a possible medical explanation For the disparity.

it’s certainly not a slur when some Of them originally said natural causes and then when presented to a different doctor by the police he arrives at a totally different conclusion. Why the disparity? Is it possible that the presence of the police is suggestive by itself?

i also wouldn’t suggest there has been a lack of investigatory method on the part of anyone or baseless assumption. That hasn’t been suggested by anyone including me. Only that any individual will have certain perspectives or limitations.

my thinking would be that if as I said earlier baby A was presented as the first case to DR Evans that “sets the scene“ and lens By which the cases would be looked at further down the line which may or may not constitute “primacy effect”.

“the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series)”

this fits with the situation if Dr Evans was presented with the cases chronologically And is part of confirmation bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_biashttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Do you think any of these babies were harmed purposely?

Or were they all medical casualties, with clear medical reasons behind their sudden collapses?

 

[Dotta]

Air embolism is not common at all and steps have been put in place to stop it happening. The babies had not just had surgery or other procedures, where it can sometimes but again rarely happen. Nurses are trained on the dangers of injecting air and the equipment they use has safety features to stop it happening too. The medical experts have said that somebody must have injected the air deliberately and one has explained how they would have had to do it in a specific place in the line to deliberately avoid the safety features that were designed to stop it happening.

Of course the nurses are trained to avoid AE.

I still remember the trick the nurse did when giving me injection a long time ago - pushing a little medicine through the needle to avoid air!

I guess it was the reason she did this

 

[Sweeper2000]

On what basis do you "believe" that? We have been given no information whatsoever about Dr Evan's previous cases so how did you come to that conclusion?

The prosecution says medical expert Dr Dewi Evans said there was "no obvious explanation" for Child H's deterioration in those two early-morning collapses.

Dr Sandie Bohin "expressed concern" at those events, and the collapses "were more significant than the others, for which there are obvious clear medical explanations".

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

THE trial of former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of multiple baby murders, is due to finalise its jury and hear…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

it’s very much a guess on my part but I would assume similar readings of the notes and conditions of the Babies And them being “obvious“

“He adds that in past cases, he has been brought in by police and the conclusion was accidental, so the case was closed with no further police involvement.”

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

we do have a little information on dr evans past cases.

“Ben Myers KC, defending, says Dr Evans has prepared a "large number of reports" over the years, and air emboluses feature in "a number of them" - "literally dozens". Dr Evans agrees.”

“Dr Evans relays one case of a baby who had died in Swansea from an air embolus, from what "should have been a regular surgical procedure", when recalling it was "absolutely awful" and led to a criminal trial.

He said he had not been involved in the report so was unaware of any discolouration in that baby.

He says he has never come across such skin discolouration in a collapse in 'hands-on experience'.

"That is something I am relieved and pleased about, actually."

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

Cheshire West and Chester News, Sport and What's On | Chester Standard

Chester Standard, all the latest news, sport, weather, travel and events from Chester and across Cheshire West.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

im also not sure dr bohin arrived at the same conclusion independently from dr evans Diagnosis.

“says she was asked to peer review Dr Evans's reports and was to find whether she agreed with them, disagreed with them, or had additional findings to present.

She has also considered other findings from other independent experts in the case.”

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

I did think it would have been good form on the part of the NCA to ensure a secondary opinion that arrived at the same conclusion.

Do you think any of these babies were harmed purposely?

Or were they all medical casualties, with clear medical reasons behind their sudden collapses?

I am not sure atm. A few pages ago I mentioned what people thought was the strongest cases and yes there is definitely very concerning things there, but as of yet not so much continuity Or anything conclusive to say there isn’t other possible reasons for the collapses.

I am also dubious because nobody has seen anything and in a few cases not enough supporting testimony when according to the prosecution it should be. Like when the mother reported her child screaming could be heard from the corridor which had no supporting testimony and also her presence at around 9pm, the prosecution said very few people had access to the NNU suggesting tight security but no supporting testimony of her being there aside from her husband who wasn’t in the hospital. also the disparity between baby e and baby n with no desat for baby E even with a more significant injury allegedly resulting in significant loss of blood.

 

[Sweeper2000]

The prosecution says medical expert Dr Dewi Evans said there was "no obvious explanation" for Child H's deterioration in those two early-morning collapses.

Dr Sandie Bohin "expressed concern" at those events, and the collapses "were more significant than the others, for which there are obvious clear medical explanations".

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

THE trial of former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of multiple baby murders, is due to finalise its jury and hear…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

it’s very much a guess on my part but I would assume similar readings of the notes and conditions of the Babies And them being “obvious“

“He adds that in past cases, he has been brought in by police and the conclusion was accidental, so the case was closed with no further police involvement.”

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

we do have a little information on dr evans past cases.

“Ben Myers KC, defending, says Dr Evans has prepared a "large number of reports" over the years, and air emboluses feature in "a number of them" - "literally dozens". Dr Evans agrees.”

“Dr Evans relays one case of a baby who had died in Swansea from an air embolus, from what "should have been a regular surgical procedure", when recalling it was "absolutely awful" and led to a criminal trial.

He said he had not been involved in the report so was unaware of any discolouration in that baby.

He says he has never come across such skin discolouration in a collapse in 'hands-on experience'.

"That is something I am relieved and pleased about, actually."

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

Cheshire West and Chester News, Sport and What's On | Chester Standard

Chester Standard, all the latest news, sport, weather, travel and events from Chester and across Cheshire West.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

im also not sure dr bohin arrived at the same conclusion independently from dr evans Diagnosis.

“says she was asked to peer review Dr Evans's reports and was to find whether she agreed with them, disagreed with them, or had additional findings to present.

She has also considered other findings from other independent experts in the case.”

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

I did think it would have been good form on the part of the NCA to ensure a secondary opinion that arrived at the same conclusion.



I am not sure atm. A few pages ago I mentioned what people thought was the strongest cases and yes there is definitely very concerning things there, but as of yet not so much continuity Or anything conclusive to say there isn’t other possible reasons for the collapses.

I am also dubious because nobody has seen anything and in a few cases not enough supporting testimony when according to the prosecution it should be. Like when the mother reported her child screaming could be heard from the corridor which had no supporting testimony and also her presence at around 9pm, the prosecution said very few people had access to the NNU suggesting tight security but no supporting testimony of her being there aside from her husband who wasn’t in the hospital. also the disparity between baby e and baby n with no desat for baby E even with a more significant injury allegedly resulting in significant loss of blood.

this suggests reasonable doubt IMO. I very much doubt that the prosecution wouldn’t have tried to source supporting testimony and it’s omission is notable.

the insulin is strange as well, the confusion about a new tpn bag being put up or not is notable. I’m not sure contamination of the giving set has been cleared up either. It’s suggested by the evidence that both a bespoke tpn and the stock bags both had insulin in which is strange. IMO.

however this happened Which is notable.

"Interestingly, at the end of this part of the interview she asked whether the police had access to the TPN bag that she had connected,".

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

THE trial of former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of multiple baby murders, is due to finalise its jury and hear…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

<modsnip: violates sub judice>

 

[ColourPurple]

i Also believe there were clear medical reasons for the conclusions of accidents in his prior cases. It’s not so clear apparently in these and so one might be left to speculate Which is where biases may come in.

it’s also I think good form to have presented these cases to DR evans in a randomised way rather than what seems to be chronologically and perhaps not by the NCA.

I would like to see the steps taken to ensure biases were not present.

On what basis do you "believe" that? We have been given no information whatsoever about Dr Evan's previous cases so how did you come to that conclusion?

The prosecution says medical expert Dr Dewi Evans said there was "no obvious explanation" for Child H's deterioration in those two early-morning collapses.

Dr Sandie Bohin "expressed concern" at those events, and the collapses "were more significant than the others, for which there are obvious clear medical explanations".

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

THE trial of former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of multiple baby murders, is due to finalise its jury and hear…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

it’s very much a guess on my part but I would assume similar readings of the notes and conditions of the Babies And them being “obvious“

“He adds that in past cases, he has been brought in by police and the conclusion was accidental, so the case was closed with no further police involvement.”

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

we do have a little information on dr evans past cases.

“Ben Myers KC, defending, says Dr Evans has prepared a "large number of reports" over the years, and air emboluses feature in "a number of them" - "literally dozens". Dr Evans agrees.”

“Dr Evans relays one case of a baby who had died in Swansea from an air embolus, from what "should have been a regular surgical procedure", when recalling it was "absolutely awful" and led to a criminal trial.

He said he had not been involved in the report so was unaware of any discolouration in that baby.

He says he has never come across such skin discolouration in a collapse in 'hands-on experience'.

"That is something I am relieved and pleased about, actually."

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

Cheshire West and Chester News, Sport and What's On | Chester Standard

Chester Standard, all the latest news, sport, weather, travel and events from Chester and across Cheshire West.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

im also not sure dr bohin arrived at the same conclusion independently from dr evans Diagnosis.

“says she was asked to peer review Dr Evans's reports and was to find whether she agreed with them, disagreed with them, or had additional findings to present.

She has also considered other findings from other independent experts in the case.”

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

I did think it would have been good form on the part of the NCA to ensure a secondary opinion that arrived at the same conclusion.

OK, so when you said "i Also believe there were clear medical reasons for the conclusions of accidents in his prior cases. It’s not so clear apparently in these and so one might be left to speculate Which is where biases may come in." it was just your opinion that that may have been the case. The use of "I believe there were.." made me think we'd been given evidence of these previous cases, and that you were referring to that. We haven't (other than the short snippet I'd already posted which didn't refer to specific cases), and the case you quoted appears to be saying Dr Evan's WASN'T involved in that report, not that he was.

I'm not sure what else you think could have been done to prevent any bias. You think that the fact that it was the NCA who asked Dr Evans to look at the cases created bias and that maybe somebody else should have asked him instead (like who?) even though he's said he's had previous cases from the NCA where he found nothing of concern and the cases were closed .

You seem to question whether Dr Bohin's peer review was biased purely because it involved seeing Dr Evan's findings.. but the point of the peer review is to give the opportunity to either agree, disagree or add to the original findings. Are you saying you dont think Dr Bohin (or the second Dr who died) were capable of doing that in an unbiased way?... ever?... just on this specific case?...or do you disagree with peer reviews full stop.

 

[Sweeper2000]

OK, so when you said "i Also believe there were clear medical reasons for the conclusions of accidents in his prior cases. It’s not so clear apparently in these and so one might be left to speculate Which is where biases may come in." it was just your opinion that that may have been the case. The use of "I believe there were.." made me think we'd been given evidence of these previous cases, and that you were referring to that. We haven't (other than the short snippet I'd already posted which didn't refer to specific cases), and the case you quoted appears to be saying Dr Evan's WASN'T involved in that report, not that he was.

I'm not sure what else you think could have been done to prevent any bias. You think that the fact that it was the NCA who asked Dr Evans to look at the cases created bias and that maybe somebody else should have asked him instead (like who?) even though he's said he's had previous cases from the NCA where he found nothing of concern and the cases were closed .

You seem to question whether Dr Bohin's peer review was biased purely because it involved seeing Dr Evan's findings.. but the point of the peer review is to give the opportunity to either agree, disagree or add to the original findings. Are you saying you dont think Dr Bohin (or the second Dr who died) were capable of doing that in an unbiased way?... ever?... just on this specific case?...or do you disagree with peer reviews full stop.

I think it’s sub judicial to involve other cases evidence in a different trial.

I also mentioned there was a little information ie not much and nothing about evidence. I also stated it was a guess and that the cases which were considered by him in the past probably had “obvious“ medical reasons for his considering them “accidental“ In a similar way he discounted some of the 33 cases he was originally asked to review. Excuse that second quote.

“MEDICAL expert noticed a “disturbing and quite unusual” pattern in the deaths of babies in the neonatal unit where nurse Lucy Letby worked, he told her murder trial. Dr Dewi Evans was approached in 2017 by the National Crime Agency and reviewed 33 cases.”

Medical expert noticed pattern in deaths of babies where nurse Lucy Letby worked

A MEDICAL expert noticed a “disturbing and quite unusual” pattern in the deaths of babies in the neonatal unit where nurse Lucy Letby worked, he told her murder trial. Dr Dewi Evans was approached …

www.thescottishsun.co.uk

easy to make failsafes in such cases, evidence of critical thinking processes involved in the diagnosis by dr evans and as I said the NCA should have presented the cases for review in a randomized way rather than chronologically or been presented by a fellow doctor employed by the NCA for that specific purpose perhaps with no context Or association with the NCA. If the prosecution and NCA had of done that the defence wouldn’t be able to claim “confirmation bias” in the opening speech. Also a second opinion on the diagnosis in the cases completely independent and separate from DR evans Which may still be possible.

“He says experts can be influenced by "an overarching assumption that what has happened is a result of deliberate harm".

"The fact they are an expert does not mean this cannot happen," he says.

"Where there is no clear explanation for what has happened - and that can sometimes happen in medicine - there is a danger of an expert being drawn into an explanation of evidence that is influenced by the prosecution's theory."

He tells the jury this is called "confirmation bias".

Lucy Letby trial - latest: Nurse 'adamant' she's done nothing to harm any of the babies in the case as defence begins

Latest updates on day four of the Lucy Letby trial, with the prosecution showing the court handwritten "confessions" from the nurse in which she allegedly admitted she was "evil", and the defence saying the hospital was "well out of its depth". Letby denies all charges.

news.sky.com

I think the peer review by Dr bohin is fine and peer reviews generally good but that doesn’t mean Dr bohin was not led unconsciously by Dr evans reviews, there are differences I think between Dr evans and Dr bohins findings by themselves. This is all to do with the differences between original findings by experts prior to 2017 and then different findings by other experts after Dr Evans being approached By the NCA. It’s also worthy to note that the pathologist arrived at different conclusions than the doctors and he is trained specifically in finding causes of death.

what I would like to know is if under autopsy there is anything particularly conclusive of air embolisms as the cause of death as ”air in the great vessels and by the spine isn’t conclusive.

“On day 10 of her murder trial, Dr Owen Arthurs, professor of radiology at Great Ormond Street Hospital, guided the jury through an image displayed on a screen at Manchester Crown Court.

He showed them pockets of gas in the infant's stomach and heart. Both were normal.”

“He agreed with Mr Myers that 'one possibility' that would explain the line of gas shown in the image would have been air administration. Other possible causes could have been attempts made at resuscitation or post-mortem changes.”

Nurse felt final heartbeat of baby 'murdered' by Letby, court hears

A nurse sat crying in the witness box today after telling the trial of neonatal nurse Lucy Letby how she felt the final heartbeat of a baby she was trying to resuscitate.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Tortoise]

"Where there is no clear explanation for what has happened - and that can sometimes happen in medicine - there is a danger of an expert being drawn into an explanation of evidence that is influenced by the prosecution's theory."

He tells the jury this is called "confirmation bias".

Lucy Letby trial - latest: Nurse 'adamant' she's done nothing to harm any of the babies in the case as defence begins

Latest updates on day four of the Lucy Letby trial, with the prosecution showing the court handwritten "confessions" from the nurse in which she allegedly admitted she was "evil", and the defence saying the hospital was "well out of its depth". Letby denies all charges.

news.sky.com

There was no prosecution when Dr Evans reviewed the medical files.

Police hadn't even questioned LL in 2017.

Is he saying police already knew why the babies died when they called on Dr Evans? If so, they knew far more than the hospital and the Royal College between them.

Standard defence tactics that doesn't withstand scrutiny, IMO.

 

[Sweeper2000]

There was no prosecution when Dr Evans reviewed the medical files.

Police hadn't even questioned LL in 2017.

Is he saying police already knew why the babies died when they called on Dr Evans? If so, they knew far more than the hospital and the Royal College between them.

Standard defence tactics that doesn't withstand scrutiny, IMO.

I don’t think there would have to have been for that approach.

“He says experts can be influenced by "an overarching assumption that what has happened is a result of deliberate harm".

I think this statement is the more important part of the opening speech combined with Dr Evans being approached by the NCA. To be fair I did think it sounded like something someone in his position, his relevant knowledge of the evidence and with experience would say. At the end of the day he is there to win and he wins by creating reasonable doubt. I have no knowledge of defence or prosecution tactics, I just try and put myself in their shoes. here’s a statement that seems to be fitting with that approach.

“The experts that will be called in the trial have "met as a group and considered their opinions jointly", defence lawyer Ben Myers KC tells the court.”

Lucy Letby trial - latest: Nurse 'adamant' she's done nothing to harm any of the babies in the case as defence begins

Latest updates on day four of the Lucy Letby trial, with the prosecution showing the court handwritten "confessions" from the nurse in which she allegedly admitted she was "evil", and the defence saying the hospital was "well out of its depth". Letby denies all charges.

news.sky.com

here is that initial statement in full.

“The experts that will be called in the trial have "met as a group and considered their opinions jointly", defence lawyer Ben Myers KC tells the court.
He then tells the jury that the burden is not on the defendant to provide an explanation of the events that unfolded.
"Doctors don't always have the answers and nor do medical experts," he says.
"The fact that Ms Letby can't explain a particular event... does not mean she is responsible for it."
Letby remains "adamant" that she has done nothing to harm any of the children mentioned in the indictment.
Mr Myers is now turning to each of the children in turn.
https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-let...d-nurse-12716378?postid=4650126#liveblog-body
Ben Myers KC is now returning to the five points that he is asking the jury to consider when deciding if Letby is guilty or not.
He asks the jury to "remember how quickly problems can develop" with neonatal children.
He tells the jury to listen out for any evidence that shows the unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital was "understaffed and overstretched".
He says experts can be influenced by "an overarching assumption that what has happened is a result of deliberate harm".
"The fact they are an expert does not mean this cannot happen," he says.
"Where there is no clear explanation for what has happened - and that can sometimes happen in medicine - there is a danger of an expert being drawn into an explanation of evidence that is influenced by the prosecution's theory."
He tells the jury this is called "confirmation bias".”

Lucy Letby trial - latest: Nurse 'adamant' she's done nothing to harm any of the babies in the case as defence begins

Latest updates on day four of the Lucy Letby trial, with the prosecution showing the court handwritten "confessions" from the nurse in which she allegedly admitted she was "evil", and the defence saying the hospital was "well out of its depth". Letby denies all charges.

news.sky.com

it would seem to me that mr Myers is and will be pointing out the inconsistencies across the cases and then saying “bias confirmation“ is the reason these doctors in lieu of anything conclusive came to the conclusion of inflicted harm and then the investigation would follow that line and would need to find a suitable candidate or someone with the opportunity and that’s when ms letby comes in. In other words a case built “firmly on coincidence”.

“Ben Myers KC told Manchester Crown Court there were failings in the care of newborns at Countess of Chester Hospital but 'she should not get the blame' based 'firmly on coincidence'.”

he is building a picture so to speak

Deaths of babies where nurse Lucy Letby worked were 'coincidence'

Ben Myers KC told Manchester Crown Court there were failings in the care of newborns at Countess of Chester Hospital but 'she should not get the blame' based 'firmly on coincidence'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

here is another statement I think supports that approach by mr Myers.

“Mr Myers said: "What you have done in your evidence today is introduce something new with the purpose of supporting the allegation rather than explaining the facts."

Lucy Letby: Expert denies 'reaching' to support allegations

Dr Dewi Evans clashed with nurse Lucy Letby's barrister Ben Myers KC over his evidence.

www.bbc.co.uk

I’m wondering why the prosecution hasn’t tried to disprove this really, it would certainly do the prosecution credit in The eyes of the jury, IMO.

I think Dr Evans very much held his own though And may appear earnest and many other good things in the eyes of the jury. Jmo.

I really do think the NCA could have done more to strengthen the allegations. In some cases the evidence provided by the prosecution needs backing up as well. Jmo.

 

[Tortoise]

I don’t think there would have to have been for that approach.

“He says experts can be influenced by "an overarching assumption that what has happened is a result of deliberate harm".

I think this statement is the more important part of the opening speech combined with Dr Evans being approached by the NCA. To be fair I did think it sounded like something someone in his position, his relevant knowledge of the evidence and with experience would say. At the end of the day he is there to win and he wins by creating reasonable doubt. I have no knowledge of defence or prosecution tactics, I just try and put myself in their shoes. here’s a statement that seems to be fitting with that approach.

“The experts that will be called in the trial have "met as a group and considered their opinions jointly", defence lawyer Ben Myers KC tells the court.”

Lucy Letby trial - latest: Nurse 'adamant' she's done nothing to harm any of the babies in the case as defence begins

Latest updates on day four of the Lucy Letby trial, with the prosecution showing the court handwritten "confessions" from the nurse in which she allegedly admitted she was "evil", and the defence saying the hospital was "well out of its depth". Letby denies all charges.

news.sky.com

here is that initial statement in full.

“The experts that will be called in the trial have "met as a group and considered their opinions jointly", defence lawyer Ben Myers KC tells the court.
He then tells the jury that the burden is not on the defendant to provide an explanation of the events that unfolded.
"Doctors don't always have the answers and nor do medical experts," he says.
"The fact that Ms Letby can't explain a particular event... does not mean she is responsible for it."
Letby remains "adamant" that she has done nothing to harm any of the children mentioned in the indictment.
Mr Myers is now turning to each of the children in turn.
Lucy Letby trial - latest: Nurse 'adamant' she's done nothing to harm any of the babies in the case as defence begins
Ben Myers KC is now returning to the five points that he is asking the jury to consider when deciding if Letby is guilty or not.
He asks the jury to "remember how quickly problems can develop" with neonatal children.
He tells the jury to listen out for any evidence that shows the unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital was "understaffed and overstretched".
He says experts can be influenced by "an overarching assumption that what has happened is a result of deliberate harm".
"The fact they are an expert does not mean this cannot happen," he says.
"Where there is no clear explanation for what has happened - and that can sometimes happen in medicine - there is a danger of an expert being drawn into an explanation of evidence that is influenced by the prosecution's theory."
He tells the jury this is called "confirmation bias".”

Lucy Letby trial - latest: Nurse 'adamant' she's done nothing to harm any of the babies in the case as defence begins

Latest updates on day four of the Lucy Letby trial, with the prosecution showing the court handwritten "confessions" from the nurse in which she allegedly admitted she was "evil", and the defence saying the hospital was "well out of its depth". Letby denies all charges.

news.sky.com

it would seem to me that mr Myers is and will be pointing out the inconsistencies across the cases and then saying “bias confirmation“ is the reason these doctors in lieu of anything conclusive came to the conclusion of inflicted harm and then the investigation would follow that line and would need to find a suitable candidate or someone with the opportunity and that’s when ms letby comes in. In other words a case built “firmly on coincidence”.

“Ben Myers KC told Manchester Crown Court there were failings in the care of newborns at Countess of Chester Hospital but 'she should not get the blame' based 'firmly on coincidence'.”

he is building a picture so to speak

Deaths of babies where nurse Lucy Letby worked were 'coincidence'

Ben Myers KC told Manchester Crown Court there were failings in the care of newborns at Countess of Chester Hospital but 'she should not get the blame' based 'firmly on coincidence'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

here is another statement I think supports that approach by mr Myers.

“Mr Myers said: "What you have done in your evidence today is introduce something new with the purpose of supporting the allegation rather than explaining the facts."

Lucy Letby: Expert denies 'reaching' to support allegations

Dr Dewi Evans clashed with nurse Lucy Letby's barrister Ben Myers KC over his evidence.

www.bbc.co.uk

I’m wondering why the prosecution hasn’t tried to disprove this really, it would certainly do the prosecution credit in The eyes of the jury, IMO.

I think Dr Evans very much held his own though And may appear earnest and many other good things in the eyes of the jury. Jmo.

I really do think the NCA could have done more to strengthen the allegations. In some cases the evidence provided by the prosecution needs backing up as well. Jmo.

Dr Bohin said the first time she had contact with other medical expert Dr Evans was earlier this year [2022], to discuss one of the cases in the trial, via a telephone conversation, as there had been a difference of opinion.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, October 26

 

[katydid23]

I am not sure atm. A few pages ago I mentioned what people thought was the strongest cases and yes there is definitely very concerning things there, but as of yet not so much continuity Or anything conclusive to say there isn’t other possible reasons for the collapses.

I am also dubious because nobody has seen anything and in a few cases not enough supporting testimony when according to the prosecution it should be. Like when the mother reported her child screaming could be heard from the corridor which had no supporting testimony and also her presence at around 9pm, the prosecution said very few people had access to the NNU suggesting tight security but no supporting testimony of her being there aside from her husband who wasn’t in the hospital. also the disparity between baby e and baby n with no desat for baby E even with a more significant injury allegedly resulting in significant loss of blood.

So if these were all normal cases with common medical causes, why the big spike in sudden collapses, ending in deaths?
And how do we explain that this spike in deaths seemed to follow LL around. [allegedly]
And the surge in deaths and sudden collapses ceased when she was taken off the floor.

How do we explain the collapses which involve the blood sugar issues, which seem to show that insulin was given to those babies? All of the experts agree that the data proves that insulin was given to those babies. So the question is narrowed down to WHO did so, and not 'did it happen.'

In fact, there are some conclusive cases in which the only answers would be an injection of insulin and some cases in which only answer was injection of air. It is not a question of what caused the deaths, it is a question of WHO injected the insulin/air and when.

You say it is dubious that no one saw 'anything.' But people did see things and realised things. There is a long, recognisable pattern of odd things. One of the doctors was very suspicious of the events he saw. And the nurses were talking about LL's alleged string of bad luck as well.

Like when the mother reported her child screaming could be heard from the corridor which had no supporting testimony and also her presence at around 9pm, the prosecution said very few people had access to the NNU suggesting tight security but no supporting testimony of her being there aside from her husband who wasn’t in the hospital.

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. "


And the midwife was sent to give the mother meds to calm her down. So something must have upset her at that time. I am not sure why her story would not be believed.

As for the screaming baby, with no corroboration---what kind would there be? It was night shift, no more guests around and just the night crew. The only people who would respond to crying would be the designated nurses.

And LL admits the baby was crying intensely. So why would someone not believe the mother about that?

As to the NNU tight security, that works in mom's favour. Obviously she had to get through security to get in to the unit. So there are records to corroborate her testimony.

Mother of alleged Lucy Letby victim 'knew something was wrong’ but trusted nurse ‘completely’

Mother tells court she walked into neonatal unit at Countess of Chester Hospital to find her son making a 'horrendous' screaming noise that 'shouldn't have come from a tiny baby'

inews.co.uk

also the disparity between baby e and baby n with no desat for baby E even with a more significant injury allegedly resulting in significant loss of blood.

I think there is a valid answer for that^^^ question. There is a big difference between Baby N and Baby E.

Baby N had a blood disorder called Haemophilia. Baby E did not. So it makes sense that Baby N would have a more serious reaction to the bleeding caused by the injury than Baby E had, since Baby N had an issue with the blood not clotting as well.

 

[Sundial]

I Used the phrase "the handover sheet"as that's how it was reported. "In Letby's home search, officers recovered the handover sheet from the morning of June 25 whic included Child Q's name. This was a document which should not have left the" hospital.

If it was just one of several copies I would have expected them to say "one of the handover sheets from the moring of the 25th or " her copy of the handover sheet".

Obviosuly the main point is that it shouldn't have left the hospital at all. Having never worked in a hospital myself can any UK nurses or doctors confirm whether the handover sheet is a single document that is supposed to be filed away at some point or something every nurse on the ward would get a copy of at the start of every shift change?

Handover sheets are confidential pieces of paper regarding patients and their care which is typically held by the nurse/senior lead of the shift. Usually, it is one piece of paper held by the nurse in charge of the shift but- there can also be two or even three nurses also with a copy of the same handover. Often, notes can be jotted on them (to be typed up before the shift ends) where care has needed to change or queried etc. They are not supposed to leave the premises (as one would expect- yet this does happen as has been mentioned here previously in other threads) and should be disposed of only in the correct confidential waste.

As a side note, this can also vary depending on the type of services within the care/nursing sector, who may give all qualified staff a copy of handover..which these sheets (as another mentioned) are fairly accessible to re-print/on computer.

It’s possible LL may have been given handover sheet or simply printed it off. It wouldn’t be unusual really whether she was lead of the shift or not. That said, it’s also quite likely she could have jotted something on it too,. whether purely innocently in delivering care, or (if guilty) for her own agenda. MOO

 

[katydid23]

I think Myers will need to do more than say that the case is built only upon coincidence. There is a big difference between 'coincidence' and solid evidence of a spike in unexplained deaths.

LL goes away for vacation for 8 days. allegedly, no babies died from unexpected collapse dating those 8 days.

On the very day she returns, a baby that was in good shape, Baby O, ---breathing just fine, suddenly has a collapse after being in her care. And he dies that night.

The next day, she is caring for his twin brother, P, who also has a sudden collapse in a similar fashion, and he dies as well.

On the 3rd day after her return to the floor, Baby Q has a sudden unexplained collapse.Thank Goodness he was saved and then sent to another hospital.

But bottom line summary is that when LL returned to work after an 8 day vacation, 3 babies allegedly had unexplained medical collapses on 3 consecutive days, and each one was allegedly in her care. The first 2 died, the 3rd was sent to another hospital and quickly recovered.

And that was the end of LL's nursing career. She was transferred out of direct contact with patients and the surge in unexplained deaths stopped. I am pretty sure the prosecution will highlight that 'coincidence' during closing arguments.

 

[Sweeper2000]

So if these were all normal cases with common medical causes, why the big spike in sudden collapses, ending in deaths?
And how do we explain that this spike in deaths seemed to follow LL around. [allegedly]
And the surge in deaths and sudden collapses ceased when she was taken off the floor.

How do we explain the collapses which involve the blood sugar issues, which seem to show that insulin was given to those babies? All of the experts agree that the data proves that insulin was given to those babies. So the question is narrowed down to WHO did so, and not 'did it happen.'

In fact, there are some conclusive cases in which the only answers would be an injection of insulin and some cases in which only answer was injection of air. It is not a question of what caused the deaths, it is a question of WHO injected the insulin/air and when.

You say it is dubious that no one saw 'anything.' But people did see things and realised things. There is a long, recognisable pattern of odd things. One of the doctors was very suspicious of the events he saw. And the nurses were talking about LL's alleged string of bad luck as well.



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. "


And the midwife was sent to give the mother meds to calm her down. So something must have upset her at that time. I am not sure why her story would not be believed.

As for the screaming baby, with no corroboration---what kind would there be? It was night shift, no more guests around and just the night crew. The only people who would respond to crying would be the designated nurses.

And LL admits the baby was crying intensely. So why would someone not believe the mother about that?

As to the NNU tight security, that works in mom's favour. Obviously she had to get through security to get in to the unit. So there are records to corroborate her testimony.

Mother of alleged Lucy Letby victim 'knew something was wrong’ but trusted nurse ‘completely’

Mother tells court she walked into neonatal unit at Countess of Chester Hospital to find her son making a 'horrendous' screaming noise that 'shouldn't have come from a tiny baby'

inews.co.uk

I think there is a valid answer for that^^^ question. There is a big difference between Baby N and Baby E.

Baby N had a blood disorder called Haemophilia. Baby E did not. So it makes sense that Baby N would have a more serious reaction to the bleeding caused by the injury than Baby E had, since Baby N had an issue with the blood not clotting as well.

in answer to your initial questions. We don’t need to answer why the collapses and deaths happened, the doctors do and they have done to The best they possibly can with available medical evidence. Doesn’t mean it happened as they said and in lieu of anything conclusive the answers are the best they can Do.
your second question might be explained simply by these babies collapsing when LL was present without direct interference on her behalf. inconsistencies amongst the cases like baby B unexpectedly collapsing but not dying even when more vulnerable to The alleged method.
the collapses stopping when LL was moved off the floor can be explained by the unit no longer accepting anything other than level 1 babies, in other words babies not at risk of these things happening. Also it wasn’t possible for them to happen with the downgrade and we haven’t seen The reasons for the other collapses on the ward as the prosecution has been selective with the information provided.

“The defence will say that there were other occasions when children collapsed at the Countess of Chester neonatal unit and Ms Letby was not present.”

'No evidence' nurse murdered babies in her care but 'failing' hospital played role, jury told

Opening her defence, Benjamin Myers KC described Ms Letby as a 'dedicated' nurse

inews.co.uk

“But Mr Myers said this was a 'self-serving document'.

He said it did not show the treatment each child was receiving, the health of the baby in question, collapses by babies when Letby was not present, shortcomings in care of others, how busy the unit was, and what Letby was doing at the time of each event.”

.""The time of Letby's presence has itself become an explanation for the deterioration."The list on nursing staff on duty for all the fatal and non-fatal collapses, with Letby on duty for all events, is shown again to the court.

"This table exists because the prosecution created it, and was put together for the purpose of the prosecution."It was to show what were declared to be key events.

Lucy Letby trial recap: Prosecution finishes outlining case, defence gives statement

THE prosecution in the trial of Lucy Letby, accused of murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

I haven’t read anything that suggests the air embolism theory is conclusive and if it is why did the pathologist initially not determine this as the cause and perhaps prevent the events going on so long? I understand the doctors didn’t suspect anything but one would assume if prevention of air embolisms are such a pronounced part of everyday medical treatment then why wasn’t it thought of? Doesn’t need to be nefarious in nature for it to be a viable explanation.

"What it isn't driven by is evidence of Miss Letby actually doing what is alleged against her," he added.

Case against nurse accused of baby murders ‘is theory of guilt based on coincidence’

Lucy Letby denies murdering seven babies and trying to kill 10 more

www.independent.co.uk

i haven’t contested the doctors saying the insulin wasn’t administered only that no one saw LL do it or have seen her administer air by accessing the lines further down the IV As suggested by Dr Bohin. I also don’t think two tpn bags containing insulin can be attributed to the defendant.

in regards to the mother telling her version of events, yep fair enough she may be telling the truth as per her recollection but the prosecution have failed to corroborate her testimony with other staffs testimony and it should IMO be there. Why if the unit had such tight security is there no other testimony supporting her testimony? Aside from the phone records which doesn’t prove her recollection as true. Granted the schedule is there but again it doesn’t prove her being there as she said. Why if the baby is making such horrendous noise is there no other supporting testimony? It seems to be her testimony vs LL’s and the prosecution have failed to bolster the mothers with anything other than records. If the security or staff had seen the mother attend the unit and leave her original ward punctually and had records of it why have they not been presented by the prosecution? The records if they existed would of course be present and they are not so we have to assume they don’t exist Along with anyone else’s testimony supporting the mothers version of events.

no one has stated they have seen LL do anything untoward which is the point.

in regards to the difference between Baby E and Baby N,I understand the nature of haemophilia but one would think with the alleged inflicted injury being as severe as alleged and with the associated blood loss Baby E would go the same way as Baby N. But there is no associated collapse until the time of the alleged air embolism. As I said I don’t know why in similar circumstances there is seemingly a large difference in events, could be medical but that information isn’t provided as of yet so it’s a question.

“Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans said he believed the deterioration of Child N "was consistent with some kind of inflicted injury which caused severe pain".

“Dr Sandie Bohin said such a profound desaturation followed by a rapid recovery, in the absence of any painful or uncomfortable procedure, suggested an inflicted painful stimulus.
She said – “this is life threatening. He was also noted to be … ‘screaming’ and apparently cried for 30 minutes”

Recap: Prosecution continues opening of Lucy Letby trial

The prosecution continues its opening in the trial of Lucy Letby, accused of multiple baby murders at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk

you would think an injury as severe as alleged would have caused a collapse close/r to the time of the mother attending the unit. Also why no notes suggesting changes in the babies condition consistent with an severe injury around nine Pm. Think it suggests mr Myers being correct in two instances. LL wouldn’t I assume be able to hide a desaturation or collapse from other staff And no evidence to suggest that happened.

“For Child E, the defence say there is "no evidence of an air embolus", or of "direct trauma" that led to blood loss.

There was "no clear explanation" on the cause of death, but that was not a presumption of guilt.

The defence say the absence of a post-mortem meant the prosecution could "float suggestions of deliberate harm".

Recap: Prosecution continues opening of Lucy Letby trial

The prosecution continues its opening in the trial of Lucy Letby, accused of multiple baby murders at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk

 

[ColourPurple]

I think it’s sub judicial to involve other cases evidence in a different trial.

I also mentioned there was a little information ie not much and nothing about evidence. I also stated it was a guess and that the cases which were considered by him in the past probably had “obvious“ medical reasons for his considering them “accidental“ In a similar way he discounted some of the 33 cases he was originally asked to review. Excuse that second quote.

“MEDICAL expert noticed a “disturbing and quite unusual” pattern in the deaths of babies in the neonatal unit where nurse Lucy Letby worked, he told her murder trial. Dr Dewi Evans was approached in 2017 by the National Crime Agency and reviewed 33 cases.”

Medical expert noticed pattern in deaths of babies where nurse Lucy Letby worked

A MEDICAL expert noticed a “disturbing and quite unusual” pattern in the deaths of babies in the neonatal unit where nurse Lucy Letby worked, he told her murder trial. Dr Dewi Evans was approached …

www.thescottishsun.co.uk

easy to make failsafes in such cases, evidence of critical thinking processes involved in the diagnosis by dr evans and as I said the NCA should have presented the cases for review in a randomized way rather than chronologically or been presented by a fellow doctor employed by the NCA for that specific purpose perhaps with no context Or association with the NCA. If the prosecution and NCA had of done that the defence wouldn’t be able to claim “confirmation bias” in the opening speech. Also a second opinion on the diagnosis in the cases completely independent and separate from DR evans Which may still be possible.

“He says experts can be influenced by "an overarching assumption that what has happened is a result of deliberate harm".

"The fact they are an expert does not mean this cannot happen," he says.

"Where there is no clear explanation for what has happened - and that can sometimes happen in medicine - there is a danger of an expert being drawn into an explanation of evidence that is influenced by the prosecution's theory."

He tells the jury this is called "confirmation bias".

Lucy Letby trial - latest: Nurse 'adamant' she's done nothing to harm any of the babies in the case as defence begins

Latest updates on day four of the Lucy Letby trial, with the prosecution showing the court handwritten "confessions" from the nurse in which she allegedly admitted she was "evil", and the defence saying the hospital was "well out of its depth". Letby denies all charges.

news.sky.com

I think the peer review by Dr bohin is fine and peer reviews generally good but that doesn’t mean Dr bohin was not led unconsciously by Dr evans reviews, there are differences I think between Dr evans and Dr bohins findings by themselves. This is all to do with the differences between original findings by experts prior to 2017 and then different findings by other experts after Dr Evans being approached By the NCA. It’s also worthy to note that the pathologist arrived at different conclusions than the doctors and he is trained specifically in finding causes of death.

what I would like to know is if under autopsy there is anything particularly conclusive of air embolisms as the cause of death as ”air in the great vessels and by the spine isn’t conclusive.

“On day 10 of her murder trial, Dr Owen Arthurs, professor of radiology at Great Ormond Street Hospital, guided the jury through an image displayed on a screen at Manchester Crown Court.

He showed them pockets of gas in the infant's stomach and heart. Both were normal.”

“He agreed with Mr Myers that 'one possibility' that would explain the line of gas shown in the image would have been air administration. Other possible causes could have been attempts made at resuscitation or post-mortem changes.”

Nurse felt final heartbeat of baby 'murdered' by Letby, court hears

A nurse sat crying in the witness box today after telling the trial of neonatal nurse Lucy Letby how she felt the final heartbeat of a baby she was trying to resuscitate.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I'm not going to quote all of your recent posts ( as I usually manange to mess up the multiquotes anyway lol) but I think a lot of the points you keep raising (such as these about bias, or why baby E and baby N didn't have identical responses to what are alleged to be similar acts) have either already been addressed by the medical experts or involve babies that we have not heard about in detail yet, for them to be able to address.

 

[ColourPurple]

Handover sheets are confidential pieces of paper regarding patients and their care which is typically held by the nurse/senior lead of the shift. Usually, it is one piece of paper held by the nurse in charge of the shift but- there can also be two or even three nurses also with a copy of the same handover. Often, notes can be jotted on them (to be typed up before the shift ends) where care has needed to change or queried etc. They are not supposed to leave the premises (as one would expect- yet this does happen as has been mentioned here previously in other threads) and should be disposed of only in the correct confidential waste.

As a side note, this can also vary depending on the type of services within the care/nursing sector, who may give all qualified staff a copy of handover..which these sheets (as another mentioned) are fairly accessible to re-print/on computer.

It’s possible LL may have been given handover sheet or simply printed it off. It wouldn’t be unusual really whether she was lead of the shift or not. That said, it’s also quite likely she could have jotted something on it too,. whether purely innocently in delivering care, or (if guilty) for her own agenda. MOO

Thanks for your input. I don't have any recent experience in a UK hospital and things may have changed since I was last an inpatient about 5+ years ago as I remember everything being handwritten. Either way the main point is that none of the handover sheets should have been in LL's home at all, let alone still there when police searched it at a much later date.

 

[Sundial]

Either way the main point is that none of the handover sheets should have been in LL's home at all, let alone still there when police searched it at a much later date.

I completely agree and in addition specifically the handover of some of those listed in the charges. Personally I find it bonkers she claims she cannot recall searching for parents and family names etc even on the anniversary of their children’s deaths, yet still had the handover sheet and drugs administered (a written log which is also most unusual) at her home, but can recall very specific details of which doctor had entered the room.

The handwritten log of drugs also stands out to me; drug charts aren’t just something you randomly print off as you might with a handover. Of course it’s possible perhaps in resus/during collapse as was discussed in evidence with the doctor and another colleague scribing on a paper towel. But I just find this (along with the other evidence heard thus far) very odd indeed in my opinion.

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

Thanks for your input. I don't have any recent experience in a UK hospital and things may have changed since I was last an inpatient about 5+ years ago as I remember everything being handwritten. Either way the main point is that none of the handover sheets should have been in LL's home at all, let alone still there when police searched it at a much later date.

especially as she moved house during this period so handover sheets from before her move were found in her new house meaning she brought them with her.

I know we’ve had some good input over the threads from workers who do admit it’s possible to take them home by mistake but surely if you realised, you could take them back and bin them, or rip them up and bin them at home. There’s no innocent reason why they’d be boxed up and moved in my opinion and i’m a very slovenly person lol.

 

[ColourPurple]

especially as she moved house during this period so handover sheets from before her move were found in her new house meaning she brought them with her.

I know we’ve had some good input over the threads from workers who do admit it’s possible to take them home by mistake but surely if you realised, you could take them back and bin them, or rip them up and bin them at home. There’s no innocent reason why they’d be boxed up and moved in my opinion and i’m a very slovenly person lol.

I can't recall all the babies whose medical records were found in her home but she kept the handover sheet for Baby Q who survived an alleged murder attempt and the handover sheet for Baby Q who also survived an alleged murder attempt. It's making me wonder rather than them containing information she didn't want others to see, maybe, IF GUILTY, she kept them either as:

A) Some kind of trophy to remind her of the attempts. If the baby died then the date of the death was already a permanent reminder of the death, along with pics she took of deceased babies, or of their surviving sibling with the deceased baby's teddy, or sympathy cards she sent, or posts she might be able to see from their families on Facebook on the anniversary or on other important dates. But if the baby survived she had no such reminder of her alleged attempt to end their lives.
B) Some kind of learning , a record of what things hadn't worked to take into account in future attempts on other babies.

All IMO


ETA- Baby M was another baby whose medical notes were found in her home. He is also a baby who survived an alleged murder attempt.

"Mr Johnson said child M came “close to death” after his heart rate and breathing dropped dramatically without warning but went on to make a speedy recovery.

When Lucy Letby’s home, then in Chester, was searched two years later, medical notes were found detailing how many doses of adrenaline were given to child M during his collapse.

A note of his collapse was also recorded in her diary, the court heard."

Lucy Letby: what has the court heard so far in trial of Hereford nurse?

A HEREFORD nurse was allegedly interrupted by the mother of a victim as she attacked the baby in the neo-natal unit of the hospital where she worked.

www.herefordtimes.com

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

I can't recall all the babies whose medical records were found in her home but she kept the handover sheet for Baby Q who survived an alleged murder attempt and the handover sheet for Baby Q who also survived an alleged murder attempt. It's making me wonder rather than them containing information she didn't want others to see, maybe, IF GUILTY, she kept them either as:

A) Some kind of trophy to remind her of the attempts. If the baby died then the date of the death was already a permanent reminder of the death, along with pics she took of deceased babies, or of their surviving sibling with the deceased baby's teddy, or sympathy cards she sent, or posts she might be able to see from their families on Facebook on the anniversary or on other important dates. But if the baby survived she had no such reminder of her alleged attempt to end their lives.
B) Some kind of learning , a record of what things hadn't worked to take into account in future attempts on other babies.

All IMO


ETA- Baby M was another baby whose medical notes were found in her home. He is also a baby who survived an alleged murder attempt.

"Mr Johnson said child M came “close to death” after his heart rate and breathing dropped dramatically without warning but went on to make a speedy recovery.

When Lucy Letby’s home, then in Chester, was searched two years later, medical notes were found detailing how many doses of adrenaline were given to child M during his collapse.

A note of his collapse was also recorded in her diary, the court heard."

Lucy Letby: what has the court heard so far in trial of Hereford nurse?

A HEREFORD nurse was allegedly interrupted by the mother of a victim as she attacked the baby in the neo-natal unit of the hospital where she worked.

www.herefordtimes.com

in my personal opinion they are trophies/souvenirs but this is entirely my own thoughts