UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #11

[marynnu]

I agree.. its been shown without doubt that 2 babies in this case have been administered large doses of insulin...its just who?
I feel these two insulin cases and the case of the baby that projectile vomited more milk than the nurse had given will be the corner stone to this case

i agree. I, like many others, felt from the start that the insulin cases were always going to be pivotal. Still not straightforward though, are they!

 

[marynnu]

I can totally see how a few mls wouldn’t be missed but a whole vial? I might have thought if you came across the fridge being empty of insulin or an empty vial that might raise questions? I would have thought if it’s protocol to keep it stored ready for use it would be replenished upon disposal? Thereby you could trace who ordered it.

I don't know how much insulin was kept as stock on this unit, but for the sake of argument let's say 3 vials. If there were 2 still in the fridge I'm not sure that would raise alarm bells. Apart from anything else, once opened it only lasts about 28 days so 1 vial could easily have been discarded when it expired. I personally don't think who ordered it would necessarily have any significance, but maybe we'll find out!

 

[marynnu]

This is a good point. It should be investigated why they used more insulin that year. It wouldn't make a lot of sense, given the babies seemed to mostly have LOW blood sugar. Unless they were worried about accidentally giving them diabetes, and wanted it at hand...

Not sure you can give someone diabetes!

 

[katydid23]

Agree also. But the strange mottling is relevant imo too.

I agree that it is. But without the other 3 cases, which are very clearly malicious tampering by a caregiver, the mottling cases might be chalked up to unknown causes out of reasonable doubt concerns.

But once I accepted that the insulin poisonings and overfeeding were malicious acts, the other cases became more plausible and probable, in my opinion. JMO

 

[marynnu]

Agree also. But the strange mottling is relevant imo too.

I agree. IMO simple mottling is not that unusual, for example if a baby is cold or unwell. But a flitting rash? I personally have never seen such a thing, and it seems neither had the medical & nursing staff on this unit.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Agreed. For me it's been proven that those were deliberate acts of harm, and if not done by her, then who?

I think there are many other people who could have given the insulin. There doesn’t seem to be much to prove that LL is the one who did give the insulin.

I agree that the insulin cases have probably been viewed to date by the prosecution as the linchpin cases which will pull along the weaker cases with them toward a guilty verdict.

I think the prosecution may have viewed the two insulin cases as the easier ones to prove, because the defence seems to accept that the insulin had to have been given deliberately and maliciously and it’s then just a case of proving who did it. Whereas with all the other charges, the prosecution has two battles to win, because the defence disputes that a murder or AM took place at all, and even if it did, the defence says LL didn’t do it. And if the prosecution convinces the jury that LL is guilty of just one charge, it follows that a jury would logically find her guilty of all the other charges where they are satisfied that a murder or AM has taken place based on the medical evidence without much further effort. This is on the basis that if you “find” the alleged murderer for one of the cases, you have found the murderer for all the cases because the likelihood of there being two separate serial killers operating independently of one another on the same ward at the same time is minuscule.

I think that so far, for me, the strongest evidence in relation to LL is in relation to baby E where she was allegedly being observed to withhold care from a distressed baby bleeding from the mouth . To me, that might end up being the linchpin case rather than the insulin cases (because of all the confusion about whether there was one bag or two bags for baby F, although we will have to see how the evidence for baby L plays out).

 

[marynnu]

I think there are many other people who could have given the insulin. There doesn’t seem to be much to prove that LL is the one who did give the insulin.

I agree that the insulin cases have probably been viewed to date by the prosecution as the linchpin cases which will pull along the weaker cases with them toward a guilty verdict.

I think the prosecution may have viewed the two insulin cases as the easier ones to prove, because the defence seems to accept that the insulin had to have been given deliberately and maliciously and it’s then just a case of proving who did it. Whereas with all the other charges, the prosecution has two battles to win, because the defence disputes that a murder or AM took place at all, and even if it did, the defence says LL didn’t do it. And if the prosecution convinces the jury that LL is guilty of just one charge, it follows that a jury would logically find her guilty of all the other charges where they are satisfied that a murder or AM has taken place based on the medical evidence without much further effort. This is on the basis that if you “find” the alleged murderer for one of the cases, you have found the murderer for all the cases because the likelihood of there being two separate serial killers operating independently of one another on the same ward at the same time is minuscule.

I think that so far, for me, the strongest evidence in relation to LL is in relation to baby E where she was allegedly being observed to withhold care from a distressed baby bleeding from the mouth . To me, that might end up being the linchpin case rather than the insulin cases (because of all the confusion about whether there was one bag or two bags for baby F, although we will have to see how the evidence for baby L plays out).

That's a very good point about Baby E. I've personally felt very uncomfortable about this baby all along, for example LL's explanation given for the dried blood on his chin being caused by the feeding tube. IMO this was a very odd thing to say, these tubes being extremely soft & pliable. For me a more likely explanation, taken along with the extreme distress being shown by this baby, would be that it was related to whatever injury caused the catastrophic GI bleed. But that's just speculation & JMO!

 

[Sweeper2000]

aside from the insulin cases I agree baby A and E seems to be the most conclusive. Biggest weakness in baby E case is lack of testimony from staff supporting the mother’s account.

 

[Supernovae]

That's a very good point about Baby E. I've personally felt very uncomfortable about this baby all along, for example LL's explanation given for the dried blood on his chin being caused by the feeding tube. IMO this was a very odd thing to say, these tubes being extremely soft & pliable. For me a more likely explanation, taken along with the extreme distress being shown by this baby, would be that it was related to whatever injury caused the catastrophic GI bleed. But that's just speculation & JMO!

I asked this to MagikarpMagikarp at the time, but I'd be interested to get your take on it as well: do you see any way that a nurse could do something inappropriate or questionable but not malicious to cause the bleeding, and is it a problem that the baby was apparently stable for several hours after whatever the incident that the mother witnessed was before the catastrophic bleed? Essentially, could it have been an accident of some description? Certainly that case presented the strongest evidence that she, personally, did something she shouldn't have and isn't telling the truth about it.

 

[Supernovae]

I think there are many other people who could have given the insulin. There doesn’t seem to be much to prove that LL is the one who did give the insulin.

I agree that the insulin cases have probably been viewed to date by the prosecution as the linchpin cases which will pull along the weaker cases with them toward a guilty verdict.

I think the prosecution may have viewed the two insulin cases as the easier ones to prove, because the defence seems to accept that the insulin had to have been given deliberately and maliciously and it’s then just a case of proving who did it. Whereas with all the other charges, the prosecution has two battles to win, because the defence disputes that a murder or AM took place at all, and even if it did, the defence says LL didn’t do it. And if the prosecution convinces the jury that LL is guilty of just one charge, it follows that a jury would logically find her guilty of all the other charges where they are satisfied that a murder or AM has taken place based on the medical evidence without much further effort. This is on the basis that if you “find” the alleged murderer for one of the cases, you have found the murderer for all the cases because the likelihood of there being two separate serial killers operating independently of one another on the same ward at the same time is minuscule.

I think that so far, for me, the strongest evidence in relation to LL is in relation to baby E where she was allegedly being observed to withhold care from a distressed baby bleeding from the mouth . To me, that might end up being the linchpin case rather than the insulin cases (because of all the confusion about whether there was one bag or two bags for baby F, although we will have to see how the evidence for baby L plays out).

It's bidirectional (or circular if you're being less charitable). They're relying on the weight of other cases to narrow the pool of suspects for the insulin cases but also relying on the insulin cases to seal the deal for the others that could be (and often were) chalked up to natural causes- albeit poorly understood.

 

[Supernovae]

I asked this to MagikarpMagikarp at the time, but I'd be interested to get your take on it as well: do you see any way that a nurse could do something inappropriate or questionable but not malicious to cause the bleeding, and is it a problem that the baby was apparently stable for several hours after whatever the incident that the mother witnessed was before the catastrophic bleed? Essentially, could it have been an accident of some description? Certainly that case presented the strongest evidence that she, personally, did something she shouldn't have and isn't telling the truth about it.

It's the one case I would have liked to see manslaughter as an alternative charge.

 

[Supernovae]

I don't know how much insulin was kept as stock on this unit, but for the sake of argument let's say 3 vials. If there were 2 still in the fridge I'm not sure that would raise alarm bells. Apart from anything else, once opened it only lasts about 28 days so 1 vial could easily have been discarded when it expired. I personally don't think who ordered it would necessarily have any significance, but maybe we'll find out!

I did wonder about that. I had understood that the amounts of insulin involved would have been minuscule relative to the size of the bottle, so unless there was an epidemic of other cases in 2015, I don't see how the amount of stock ordered would be relevant.

 

[marynnu]

I asked this to MagikarpMagikarp at the time, but I'd be interested to get your take on it as well: do you see any way that a nurse could do something inappropriate or questionable but not malicious to cause the bleeding, and is it a problem that the baby was apparently stable for several hours after whatever the incident that the mother witnessed was before the catastrophic bleed? Essentially, could it have been an accident of some description? Certainly that case presented the strongest evidence that she, personally, did something she shouldn't have and isn't telling the truth about it.

For me personally, I can't think of anything at all. IMO the most 'harsh' thing ever done by nurses re. the GI tract is oral suction - done if babies vomit or if they have a lot of secretions, for example. You might get a trace of blood if a bit heavy-handed, I suppose. But I can't see it causing any thing like this. Not to mention the fact that this baby hadn't had suction as far as we know.

 

[marynnu]

Apologies in advance if this has been posted before or isn't allowed, but I find these podcasts very easy to follow, so would recommend. The latest one covers proceedings so far re. Baby L.

The Trial

True Crime Podcast · Updated twice weekly · The Trial goes behind the headlines of some of the biggest trials in the world. We take you into the courtroom, bringing you the detail as the evidence unfolds, examining key moments and carrying out …

podcasts.apple.com

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

It's bidirectional (or circular if you're being less charitable). They're relying on the weight of other cases to narrow the pool of suspects for the insulin cases but also relying on the insulin cases to seal the deal for the others that could be (and often were) chalked up to natural causes- albeit poorly understood.

Totally agree with this. And it will be an easy trap to fall into if you are the jury.

I think you almost need to go through all the cases one by one to decide whether , on the medical evidence , a murder or AM has been shown to have taken place . Then once you have the ones (which may be all of them) where you believe a murder or AM has taken place, you then consider whether the evidence shows that you should find LL guilty.

 

[Tortoise]

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue



I'm once again at Manchester Crown Court for the murder trial of nurse Lucy Letby. The jury will be continuing to evidence in relation to Child M. The prosecution allege Ms Letby injected air into the infant's bloodstream in April 2016

Mary Griffith, who was Child M's designated nurse in April 2016, is first in the witness box. She is taking the court through her nursing notes from that period

Court is being shown Child M's heart rate/respiration/temperature charts from April 8 in April 9. At around 16:00 on April 9 Child M suffered a 'dramatic' and unexpected collapse, that would require 25mins of CPR and six doses of adrenaline

Her notes from that afternoon state Child M was 'settled'. But at 16:00, her notes state: 'Baby went apnoeic and had a profound bradycardia and desaturation. Full resus commenced at 16:02'

Asked about the crash, she recalls: '(Child M's)alarm went off, I looked over my shoulder, the lights were flashing. Lucy went over to see and said yes it's an event, it needs to be sorted. At that point I stuck my head out round the door and asked for a resus call to be put out'

Court is being shown a photograph of a paper towel which was used by Ms Griffith and other medics on the afternoon of April 9 to note the medicines given to Child M between 16:02 and 16:31. The nurse says 'everything on it would have had to have been recorded' afterwards

The towel is now being passed around the court for the jury to look at

Jury have just been shown a photograph of a blood gas report for Child M - this document was recovered from Lucy Letby's house in Chester when she was arrested in 2018.

Court has previously been told that, when questioned, Ms Letby denied the notes were taken as a souvenir and denied deliberately trying to harm Child M

Lucy Letby's defence lawyer Ben Myers KC is now questioning Ms Griffith

 

[DianaWW]

I'm not really sure what a blood gas report would look like if I'm honest, but I'm wondering if they're as easy to take home accidentally, as the handover sheets are?

 

[marynnu]

I'm not really sure what a blood gas report would look like if I'm honest, but I'm wondering if they're as easy to take home accidentally, as the handover sheets are?

In my view it would be quite easy as typically they're very small printouts - 2" x3" roughly.

 

[marynnu]

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue



I'm once again at Manchester Crown Court for the murder trial of nurse Lucy Letby. The jury will be continuing to evidence in relation to Child M. The prosecution allege Ms Letby injected air into the infant's bloodstream in April 2016

Mary Griffith, who was Child M's designated nurse in April 2016, is first in the witness box. She is taking the court through her nursing notes from that period

Court is being shown Child M's heart rate/respiration/temperature charts from April 8 in April 9. At around 16:00 on April 9 Child M suffered a 'dramatic' and unexpected collapse, that would require 25mins of CPR and six doses of adrenaline

Her notes from that afternoon state Child M was 'settled'. But at 16:00, her notes state: 'Baby went apnoeic and had a profound bradycardia and desaturation. Full resus commenced at 16:02'

Asked about the crash, she recalls: '(Child M's)alarm went off, I looked over my shoulder, the lights were flashing. Lucy went over to see and said yes it's an event, it needs to be sorted. At that point I stuck my head out round the door and asked for a resus call to be put out'

Court is being shown a photograph of a paper towel which was used by Ms Griffith and other medics on the afternoon of April 9 to note the medicines given to Child M between 16:02 and 16:31. The nurse says 'everything on it would have had to have been recorded' afterwards

The towel is now being passed around the court for the jury to look at

Jury have just been shown a photograph of a blood gas report for Child M - this document was recovered from Lucy Letby's house in Chester when she was arrested in 2018.

Court has previously been told that, when questioned, Ms Letby denied the notes were taken as a souvenir and denied deliberately trying to harm Child M

Lucy Letby's defence lawyer Ben Myers KC is now questioning Ms Griffith

Someone on another group has pointed out that it's interesting this paper towel has been kept. Nurses scribble stuff on them all the time, but obviously they get discarded when everything is recorded properly. Someone has decided to keep this for some reason it appears.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Why are the meds recorded on a paper towel? I can understand it being used as a last resort but was there not the actual med note file to hand?