UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #10

[esther43]

It looks like Dr Bohin is a practicing joint paediatrician/neonatologist, although her practice is somewhat unusual due to the specific issues with being based on Guernsey:

Dr Sandra Bohin | Forensics and Expert Witnesses Magazine

forensicandexpertwitness.co.uk

Dr Sandie Bohin | MSG

www.msg.gg

Guernsey doctor gives evidence in nurse murder trial

Paediatrician Sandie Bohin has appeared in court as an expert witness in the trial of the nurse accused of murdering numerous babies in the UK.

gsy.bailiwickexpress.com

Practicing on a remote island such a Guernsey is going to be extremely limiting to her experience in practice. I don't imagine she has been surrounded by high ranking consultants who are adept in the clinical management extreme pre-terms. Though, academically it sounds like she's a leader in the field.
JMO

 

[Supernovae]

CV – Dr Sandie Bohin

paediatricexpert.com

"In order to maintain my specialist neonatal skills I have an honorary contract with the Regional Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at St Michaels Hospital, University Hospitals of Bristol NHS Trust.

In Guernsey I am one of 5 paediatricians covering all aspects of general paediatrics, neonatology, child protection and community paediatrics.

I undertake paediatric and neonatal air transfers from Guernsey to the UK.

I have undertaken several SI reviews and RCA’s in Guernsey and have received training in both."

Dr Sandra Bohin | Forensics and Expert Witnesses Magazine

forensicandexpertwitness.co.uk

"I am a Consultant Paediatrician/Neonatologist who relocated to Guernsey from the UK in 2009.
Prior to relocating I spent 13 years as a Consultant Neonatologist in a tertiary neonatal unit in a UK teaching hospital. I was Head of the Neonatal Service with over 12 000 deliveries, caring for both medical and surgical neonates for 10 of those years.

...

In order to maintain her specialist neonatal skills I have an honorary
contract with the Regional Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at St Michaels
Hospital, University Hospitals of Bristol NHS Trust where I regularly attend for a week at a time
I undertake medico-legal work in both paediatrics and neonatology and have done for many years. I have attended both crown court and coroners court.

I have training in report writing and court room skills."

 

[esther43]

CV – Dr Sandie Bohin

paediatricexpert.com

Dr Sandra Bohin | Forensics and Expert Witnesses Magazine

forensicandexpertwitness.co.uk

Thanks for the find! It's good that she had a career before moving to Guernsey and that she occasionally dips her toe back in the water.
People do loose their skills though overtime if they move to a lower level unit. Also, it's the being around others who are learning and trialling new approaches. Microsoft teams only goes so far.

 

[sapphireminds]

Apologies, I was incorrect. I assume that the defense will be calling a neonatologist at some point as well.

 

[esther43]

Apologies, I was incorrect. I assume that the defense will be calling a neonatologist at some point as well.

Not at all, the reference was useful.
P.s have just edited this comment as I misread some info, can see Dr B was a consultant at Bristol for a number of years before going to Guernsey.

 

[katydid23]

"Another nursing colleague later messaged: “Yeah they (Child I’s parents) weren’t happy she has to have post mortem x.”

Letby replied: “Hmm I can understand that but I think it’s of benefit to know x.”

Letby wrote sympathy card to baby´s grieving parents, murder trial...

I think it's very interesting. If she is guilty of murder, the only thing that explains it, I think, is manipulating her colleague into thinking she had nothing to do with the death. If she is innocent of murder, it's nothing of note.

I think if she injected air into baby I's bloodstream she already knew it hadn't shown up in the post mortems of the earlier babies which would give her confidence to think it was a pretty undetectable method of killing.

JMO

Welcome to WS!

"I think if she injected air into baby I's bloodstream she already knew it hadn't shown up in the post mortems of the earlier babies which would give her confidence to think it was a pretty undetectable method of killing."


Yes, to the ^^ above. I think she felt pretty confident in her alleged method being undetectable and so it was smart to say yes to Post Mortems. JMO

If she is guilty of the alleged crimes, then her texts and communications were very manipulative. Especially the ones to the grieving parents.

 

[Supernovae]

Not at all, the reference was useful.
P.s have just edited this comment as I misread some info, can see Dr B was a consultant at Bristol for a number of years before going to Guernsey.

She was Head of Neonatology at Leicester before she moved to Guernsey. She now periodically goes to Bristol (which from memory acts as a tertiary centre for the Channel Islands) to keep up her skills.

 

[katydid23]

Has it been made clear who has called the witnesses to the stand so far? Has it been the prosecution every time? is two separate 'cases.' First the prosecution presents their case. And then they 'rest their case' and the defense lays out their case.

The trial is made up of two different 'cases.' First the prosecution presents their case and then they 'rest their case' and the defense lays out theirs.

The prosecution is still presenting theirs so all of the witnesses so far have been for the prosecution.

 

[Parker Knoll]

The defence will absolutely be calling their own experts to dispute the prosecution.

If hypothetically LL took BM to one side and said she was guilty but wanted to plough on with the trial it would either have to stop and BM released completely as professionally embarrassed and a full retrial or she would have to enter GPs to all which he could still deal with.
If she had said she was G to some but not all that’s a tricky one, she would have to plead G to those and BM released then it would be up to the CPS as to wether they proceeded with a re trial on the others with fresh counsel. That would be very very difficult to navigate.

 

[katydid23]

Absolutely agree. If Myers cannot bring forward others to discredit the medical experts then there has to be an acceptance of foul play.
That's just the first hurdle though, then there's whether the jurors accept the evidence linking each offence specifically to LL.

If the jurors accept that it is foul play, I think they will also accept that it is linked , allegedly, to LL.

There are so many damning 'coincidences'--like she goes on vacay for 10 days with no unexpected collapses in the unit. And the very day she comes back to work there are three in a row in 3 successive days, all tied to her in various ways. [her designated patient/and/or her being last to sign off on them]. And the times that she was seen by others standing over or nearby as a child is about to die and it takes someone else to sound the alarm for the crash cart.

And of course, her shift change from nights to days ---and the collapses which were once a trend during the night shifts then begin to happen during her day shifts. Simple things like that will have an impact, imo.

For that I would hope to see character witnesses, maybe mental health assessments,

If the jurors accept it was foul play and accept it was connected to her, I don't think character witnesses or mental evaluations will have much of an impact upon the jury. What could a friend, co-worker or therapist possibly say that would change anything if the jury believes the prosecutors accusations?

plus LL taking the stand to explain how things were from her perspective. (Though I know she would be advised not to) As a juror, I would credit her, for getting up and speaking.

I really hope she does take the stand, but I highly doubt she will. Perhaps, if she does have any narcissistic or sociopathic tendencies, she might decide that she is capable of taking the stand and swaying some jurors minds. I'd like to see that if she does.

If LL was innocent, I would imagine somebody of her background would have independently engaged some support around the challenges she was facing, a therapist for example.
If we end up with all that then maybe, just maybe enough doubt could be cast but for me it still wouldn't take away the fact that there was a serial killer on the ward. MOO

 

[Parker Knoll]

I really can’t work out if she will take the stand or not. This trial has taken years to get to court and we hardly know a thing about her except her alleged crimes.
Personally if I was NG I would absolutely get in that witness box. They always say you cannot infer guilt from not giving evidence but in my experience you always can.
If she has nothing to hide then she has nothing to lose.
MOO

 

[Supernovae]

I really can’t work out if she will take the stand or not. This trial has taken years to get to court and we hardly know a thing about her except her alleged crimes.
Personally if I was NG I would absolutely get in that witness box. They always say you cannot infer guilt from not giving evidence but in my experience you always can.
If she has nothing to hide then she has nothing to lose.
MOO

The aspects that you would think it would be helpful and in their interests for an innocent person to give an innocent explanation for would be the notes and the Facebook searches. On the other hand it would be extremely difficult to face aggressive and competent cross examination on her professional decision making 6-7 years ago and she'd be making herself very vulnerable by putting herself in that position.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I really can’t work out if she will take the stand or not. This trial has taken years to get to court and we hardly know a thing about her except her alleged crimes.
Personally if I was NG I would absolutely get in that witness box. They always say you cannot infer guilt from not giving evidence but in my experience you always can.
If she has nothing to hide then she has nothing to lose.
MOO

I agree that if I were on trial and innocent, I would want to testify. I imagine one would feel such a sense of powerlessness ever since being arrested that the urge to actively participate in your own defence would be quite overwhelming.

But testifying on your own behalf, even if innocent, is not without risks. You are standing there for hours on end (sometimes over several days ) being grilled by the top adversarial lawyers in the country. If you get upset or stressed and describe something inaccurately, or in a way which isn’t exactly on all fours with what you said during police interviews, the lawyer is going to pounce on that and make it look like you are lying or unreliable. And that would be stressful for most people, meaning that you become more flustered on the stand, less articulate , and it just snowballs.

 

[Supernovae]

The defence will absolutely be calling their own experts to dispute the prosecution.

If hypothetically LL took BM to one side and said she was guilty but wanted to plough on with the trial it would either have to stop and BM released completely as professionally embarrassed and a full retrial or she would have to enter GPs to all which he could still deal with.
If she had said she was G to some but not all that’s a tricky one, she would have to plead G to those and BM released then it would be up to the CPS as to wether they proceeded with a re trial on the others with fresh counsel. That would be very very difficult to navigate.

That latter scenario feels like it would fall under the following from my earlier link:

However, the court observed (at [76]) that the late acceptance by a defendant of a significant part of the case against him would not, save exceptionally, constitute a change of instructions causing counsel professional embarrassment. This is the proposition for which Daniels is now clear authority (Archbold 4-65; Blackstone’s, D17). There must be a substantial reason for a barrister to withdraw his or her legal services from the lay client: Bar Standards Board Handbook, r.C26.8. In principle, legal representatives would only be entitled to withdraw were there to be a material change in instructions which involves a defendant resiling from his or her earlier acceptance of one or more significant elements of the prosecution case – as distinct from a late acceptance of such elements, which he had previously disputed.

R v Daniels: returning instructions (via Passle)

Professionally embarrassed? The circumstances in which criminal barristers may return instructions to appear at trial have become clearer following the ...

insights.doughtystreet.co.uk

 

[katydid23]

I agree that if I were on trial and innocent, I would want to testify. I imagine one would feel such a sense of powerlessness ever since being arrested that the urge to actively participate in your own defence would be quite overwhelming.

But testifying on your own behalf, even if innocent, is not without risks. You are standing there for hours on end (sometimes over several days ) being grilled by the top adversarial lawyers in the country. If you get upset or stressed and describe something inaccurately, or in a way which isn’t exactly on all fours with what you said during police interviews, the lawyer is going to pounce on that and make it look like you are lying or unreliable. And that would be stressful for most people, meaning that you become more flustered on the stand, less articulate , and it just snowballs.

All ^^ True. And any messy details that the jurors aren't sure about can be thrown at the defendant to clarify---like some of her inconsistent medical notes, which are in conflict with some of the mother's testimony.

It could look very bad for her to be seen as calling the grieving parents 'liars' or wrong about their children's deaths. She will be asked to clarify dozens of things and it might be very hard to do convincingly, each time.

 

[katydid23]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

That^^ is what is so difficult for the defense, IMO. I am not sure that the state has proven, BARD, every case that has presented so far. But a few of them do seem [allegedly] to be solid cases. And all it really takes is just one case.

 

[esther43]

She was Head of Neonatology at Leicester before she moved to Guernsey. She now periodically goes to Bristol (which from memory acts as a tertiary centre for the Channel Islands) to keep up her skills.

But I think you can be a registrar and still head up a Neonatal Unit. Do you know if she was a consultant in Bristol or Leicester before she became a consultant of the 3 cot SCBU in Guernsey?

 

[Dotta]

But I think you can be a registrar and still head up a Neonatal Unit. Do you know if she was a consultant in Bristol or Leicester before she became a consultant of the 3 cot SCBU in Guernsey?

I guess her expertise, experience and knowledge are good enough for Court to be chosen as an expert in a complex case.
JMO

 

[Tortoise]

<RSBM> I don’t think that Myers’ experts have agreed with the prosecution’s experts outright . At the very least , based on Myers’ questioning to date, the experts he has consulted with have said that there is the possibility in some of these cases that something other than the medical cause put forth by the prosecution has occurred. It may be that they have said that the chances of that alternative theory being the cause in a given case are somewhat slim, which I agree would probably lead Myers not to call the experts directly. But Myers’ experts can’t have looked at these cases and said “yes, I agree with Drs Evans and Bohin, this was (eg) a deliberately administered air embolism and there is no other plausible explanation” . If Myers’ experts had said that, his questioning and submissions would be very different to what we’ve heard so far .

I absolutely agree . The defence statements for Baby A and C to me suggest that the defence’s experts have advised him that the evidence doesn’t exclude AE, so Myers is challenging those cases on the basis that a theoretical possibility of AE doesn’t equate to LL’s guilt . Whereas for baby Q, in opening statements, Myers said that the defence don’t accept that air was injected , which to me suggests that the expert evidence he has received is stronger .

On looking again through the defence opening speech this morning, I have a strong hunch that the defence is a mixture of

a/ going to what was originally put on the death certificate
b/ looking for anything doctors suspected or treated for during the babies' care and/or at the time of the collapses, and/or problems arising during baby's treatment found in the clinical notes
c/ looking for anything which can be developed from the prosecution experts reports, such as alternative causes with a lesser probability than final conclusion, and/or found in the literature the experts are relying on regarding air embolisms and other potential causes of air in baby's system.

I don't see anything in there that couldn't have come from any or a mixture of these, unless I've overlooked something.

I don't think an expert would have advised the defence, for example, that baby could have had an infection that wasn't found in the post mortem, or that babies stomach wasn't aspirated before the feed when there was a PH reading recorded in the nurse's notes.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

Radiologist says 'it stands to reason' that Lucy Letby deliberately injected baby with air as murder trial hears nurse 'made three attempts on baby's life before finally succeeding in killing her'​

• Radiologist says 'it stands to reason' baby was deliberately injected with air
• Lucy Letby is accused of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill 10 others

Expert says 'it stands to reason' Lucy Letby injected baby with air

Letby, 33, originally from Hereford, is on trial accused of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder 10 others. She denies all the charges.

www.dailymail.co.uk

A radiologist told the Lucy Letby trial today 'it stands to reason' a deliberate injection of air was the most likely explanation for a baby's stomach to become 'massively' swollen.

Dr Owen Arthurs, who practices at Great Ormond Street Hospital, was called in by the prosecution to view x-rays taken of prematurely born Baby I both before and after she died at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

These showed that the infant's stomach had become so strikingly swollen that it was pushing up towards her diaphragm and therefore affecting her breathing.

Baby I's designated nurse has already recalled her 'very loud' and 'relentless' crying during two unexplained collapses on the neonatal ward in October, 2015.

He added: 'It is quite unusual to see babies with this degree of dilation of the stomach'.



Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, asked how much air it would have taken to produce the images being viewed on a screen by the jury at Manchester Crown Court.

He replied: 'The truthful answer is we don't know, and I don't think anyone really knows, because experiments can't be carried out. We can't experiment on babies, giving them 50 or 100mls of air and taking x-rays'.

Professor Arthurs was aware of instances when medical staff had drawn out 15-20mls of air.

Asked how much air he believed had been injected into Baby I, he said: 'I'm guessing it would be more than that.'

Mr Johnson then asked whether it followed, in the absence of infection, that 'one is left with the inference that someone has deliberately injected air?'

He replied: 'I think that stands to reason.'