UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #12

[Sweeper2000]

But is it possible?

I mean,
it is ONE trial, comprising of 22 mini trials as each charge is treated separately.

But I guess the whole verdict should have Jurors agreeing on EACH charge, no?
Either unanimously or by majority.

If they disagree on, let's say, 2 cases -
does it mean there must be another trial for these 2??

Or, as it is one trial, it might finish with "hung Jury"?

Sorry, bear with me as it all is novelty to me

I j

But is it possible?

I mean,
it is ONE trial, comprising of 22 mini trials as each charge is treated separately.

But I guess the whole verdict should have Jurors agreeing on EACH charge, no?
Either unanimously or by majority.

If they disagree on, let's say, 2 cases -
does it mean there must be another trial for these 2??

Or, as it is one trial, it might finish with "hung Jury"?

Sorry, bear with me as it all is novelty to me

tbh dotta this is nearl all new to me as well. I think the jury have three options On each seperate charge. Not guilty, guilty or hung jury ie undecided or not reaching majority verdict. In event of a hung jury the case will be rescheduled for a later date by a different jury perhaps with more work from the lawyers involved. I think anyway, not too sure

 

[ColourPurple]

,

I don't know if it would be possible. I don't see here it mentioning the abdomen being purple - is that in another place? The defense seems to imply that the aspiration wasn't a sure thing?

It was included in the rest of the article I linked to (we're only allowed to quote 10% of it)

 

[Dotta]

I j

tbh dotta this is nearl all new to me as well. I think the jury have three options On each seperate charge. Not guilty, guilty or hung jury ie undecided or not reaching majority verdict. In event of a hung jury the case will be rescheduled for a later date by a different jury perhaps with more work from the lawyers involved. I think anyway, not too sure

Yeah.
Everything is super complex in this case.

But maybe I'm complicating it even more - like trying to "find holes all over the place" haha

 

[LorriB]

I j

tbh dotta this is nearl all new to me as well. I think the jury have three options On each seperate charge. Not guilty, guilty or hung jury ie undecided or not reaching majority verdict. In event of a hung jury the case will be rescheduled for a later date by a different jury perhaps with more work from the lawyers involved. I think anyway, not too sure

I agree this is my understanding.

If the jury can't reach a decision on some counts, there may be a reporting ban on the outcome of the counts they were able to reach a decision on. A hung jury isn't common so hopefully won't happen in this case.

 

[marynnu]

But is it possible?

I mean,
it is ONE trial, comprising of 22 mini trials as each charge is treated separately.

But I guess the whole verdict should have Jurors agreeing on EACH charge, no?
Either unanimously or by majority.

If they disagree on, let's say, 2 cases -
does it mean there must be another trial for these 2??

Or, as it is one trial, it might finish with "hung Jury"?

Sorry, bear with me as it all is novelty to me

JMO

For each case,a majority decision is acceptable. I think with a jury of 12 it's 9 who have to agree, not 100% sure though.

 

[FoxyLoxy1]

If I were ever charged with a crime I would NEVER want my fate to be in the hands of a jury.
12 random people with no expertise, no legal training, no real support and guidance, different life experiences, different views and opinions, different levels of education and intelligence, different cultural and religious views, may have their own bias and prejudice...all have to listen to and understand complicated legal terms, all have to actually pay attention and take it all in, then must all debate and agree on an outcome.

I am a former teacher, getting people to listen, work together, and actually communicate is bloody hard never mind if my life was on the line.

 

[Dotta]

For each case,a majority decision is acceptable. I think with a jury of 12 it's 9 who have to agree, not 100% sure though.

OK
I hope all will be resolved this time.
Another trial?
No, thank you very much.
I will not be seeing you next time, although I like you all

JMO

 

[Dotta]

If I were ever charged with a crime I would NEVER want my fate to be in the hands of a jury.
12 random people with no expertise, no legal training, no real support and guidance, different life experiences, different views and opinions, different levels of education and intelligence, different cultural and religious views, may have their own bias and prejudice...all have to listen to and understand complicated legal terms, all have to actually pay attention and take it all in, then must all debate and agree on an outcome.

I am a former teacher, getting people to listen, work together, and actually communicate is bloody hard never mind if my life was on the line.

And yet,
In countries where there is a choice between a bench trial and Jury one, I read that most defendants choose Jury.

In my country (only bench trials) such complex cases are conducted by 2 or even 3 (max) Judges - with the help of a few Jurors who give their opinions to the Judges.

JMO

• With a jury trial you (or your lawyer) only have to convince one person in the group that you are not guilty for you to win a case. Meanwhile a judge tends to be a tougher crowd, as they themselves have often been prosecutors in the past.

Why Trial By Jury May Be a Better Choice Than a Judge

Have you ever wondered whether a jury or judge trial would work out better for your situation? Here's why trial by jury may be a better choice than a judge.

www.scheinerlaw.com

 

[katydid23]

This is dr evans testimony regard the times.

“He told Manchester Crown Court it could have taken “several minutes” for it to take effect before the youngster, Child M, rapidly deteriorated and almost died as staff battled for nearly 30 minutes to revive him.”

Baby boy collapsed because of ‘slow injection of air’, Lucy Letby’s trial hears

Letby, 33, is accused of trying to murder Child M on the afternoon of April 9 2016.

www.northnorfolknews.co.uk

if the dn can accurately remember if ll was within one foot of the crib in those three mins then you have an opportunity otherwise no IMO. Collapse happened at 4 so a few minutes before 4 Not 3.45.

@JosieJo your probably right. Really is an unenviable task. I might think they would take it more seriously than us as well. That’s a very very responsible position to be held in.

Several does not mean 'three.' Several means between 3 and/or HIGHER---depending upon how many the term is being compared to.

A 'few' minutes means about 3 or 4.
But 'several' minutes can be 5 minutes, or 7 minutes or 10 minutes or even more. It is not limited to 3 minutes.

 

[Becci]

<modsnip - sub judice>

Child M is a good example I think. Dr evans has stated the AE could have been delivered over a period of time about three minutes I think. They need to place LL at the cotside in that time otherwise it’s a no go charge. If that one doesn’t work as alleged by the prosecution I think it would have serious implications for the other cases where an intravenous AE is alleged. The jury may see it as if this one collapsed seemingly spontaneously and without outside interference and these drs have stated AE as the cause and we know ll wasn’t in the vicinity so couldn’t have done it then how do we know that for the other charges that something similar hasn’t occurred?

for me it’s remarkable that the designated nurse was in direct proximity to her designated baby and the collapse happened and the designated nurse didn’t see anything untoward. Not sure we have heard all testimony but nothing from her to say ll was cotside in those 3 minutes. The designated nurse heard nothing to suggest baby m was in discomfort which To me is remarkable. One might think the baby would show at least something to say something wasn’t right. It’s not like the other cases apparently whereby the AE was alleged to have been of almost instant affect.

it’s also worth noting IMO that mg was the dn and ll co signed for the antibiotic at 3.45 but I think it would follow that it would be the dn who administered it. She’s got no reason not to other than being at the computer not more than a few metres away.

I would be very interested to hear how you could distinguish between a cardiac arrest caused by a AE and otherwise. I know it’s normally picked up on x ray afterwards but that I think is assuming an x ray is done. To me I would hope that it is not something that can be applied to a broad range of non suspicious collapses. Otherwise it’s a catch all diagnosis potentially. It’s not like something we can test for and find very certain conclusive elements giving us no doubt about something say for instance cancer.

jmo

How many of the cases had the baby screaming which "proves" air embolism?
I gather baby m didn't but is that because it was a trickle.
I agree you'd think crying & restless at least.
Only other explanation for why some weren't screaming in pain is they mite've been sedated but i ain't a clue really

'Inconsolable' baby 'proved nurse injected air into them,' trial told

Dr Sandie Bohin said Baby I had been crying in a way that neonatal nurses at the Countess of Chester Hospital felt was unusual.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[katydid23]

Where did you get her being cotside within five minutes of 4 from? She needs to be literally tending to baby m for her to deliver the AE as alleged.

She had only 2 babies under her care. BOTH of them were right beside baby M, in room 1. So she was cot-side baby M during her entire shift.

There was no other place she would need to be besides in that same room as the 2 victims. At 3:45 she signed for the meds that were to be given to baby M.
Baby M's designated nurse was very busy with Baby L. who was being seen in an emergency capacity by a team of doctors, at 3:30 pm.

So @ 3:45 pm, LL signed for baby M's medication. That puts her RIGHT THERE in that unit, dealing with baby M, in the same room as her 2 designated babies. 15 minutes later he suddenly collapses.

The only 2 nurses who would be in that room would be LL and the designated nurse.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

But what happens if:

The Jurors decide on , mmm, 20 charges
But
disagree on 2?

What then?
Will it be so called "hung Jury"?

No. You have a separate verdict for each charge. So all manner of verdicts are theoretically possible ( eg guilty of 5 charges , not guilty of 5 others, can’t reach a majority verdict on 12 charges ). Or indeed guilty of all charges , not guilty of all charges etc

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

But is it possible?

I mean,
it is ONE trial, comprising of 22 mini trials as each charge is treated separately.

But I guess the whole verdict should have Jurors agreeing on EACH charge, no?
Either unanimously or by majority.

If they disagree on, let's say, 2 cases -
does it mean there must be another trial for these 2??

Or, as it is one trial, it might finish with "hung Jury"?

Sorry, bear with me as it all is novelty to me

JMO

If they can’t reach a verdict on a charge, then it’s up to the prosecution to decide if they want to retry the case , which will be based on whether they think they are likely to get a conviction on retrial.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

If I were ever charged with a crime I would NEVER want my fate to be in the hands of a jury.
12 random people with no expertise, no legal training, no real support and guidance, different life experiences, different views and opinions, different levels of education and intelligence, different cultural and religious views, may have their own bias and prejudice...all have to listen to and understand complicated legal terms, all have to actually pay attention and take it all in, then must all debate and agree on an outcome.

I am a former teacher, getting people to listen, work together, and actually communicate is bloody hard never mind if my life was on the line.

I think in some states in America, you can choose whether your case is tried by a jury or a judge.

In Uk, if it is a certain level of offence (such as murder), it has to go to crown court, which means jury trial .

 

[JosieJo]

We don't actually have what is being presented to the jury - which is part of the problem. We have someone else giving a play by play summary, which is a far cry from what they have there.

Personally, I am interested in justice/the truth as much as legal outcome. Just like if evidence was excluded on a technicality - I understand from a judicial process why they have to exclude it, but if the murderer gets off because of that technicality, that doesn't make them less guilty.

If a juror were to come here at all, they would be disqualified. It wouldn't matter what they read because they would not be allowed to continue having sought out information independently in the case.

I agree ..I did say we do not get to hear a fraction of what the jury hear.

A juror wouldn't automatically be disqualified as no one would know if they had stuck to the rules or not

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

And yet,
In countries where there is a choice between a bench trial and Jury one, I read that most defendants choose Jury.

In my country (only bench trials) such complex cases are conducted by 2 or even 3 (max) Judges - with the help of a few Jurors who give their opinions to the Judges.

JMO

• With a jury trial you (or your lawyer) only have to convince one person in the group that you are not guilty for you to win a case. Meanwhile a judge tends to be a tougher crowd, as they themselves have often been prosecutors in the past.

Why Trial By Jury May Be a Better Choice Than a Judge

Have you ever wondered whether a jury or judge trial would work out better for your situation? Here's why trial by jury may be a better choice than a judge.

www.scheinerlaw.com

I think you can find examples of this all over the US legal system . Arguably, it is easier to pull the wool over a jury’s eyes where the accused is guilty than it is with a judge. You get defence lawyers who can spin a good story for the accused and can play on a jury’s sympathies/ prejudices and get the client off in cases where everyone expects that it will be a slam dunk guilty verdict.

The Casey Anthony case is a good example . Jurors didn’t like the prosecuting lawyers (they thought they were arrogant) and the defence created a good story about Casey’s parents being abusive .

It’s much more difficult to pull something like that on an experienced , world weary trial judge.

 

[ColourPurple]

A juror wouldn't automatically be disqualified as no one would know if they had stuck to the rules or not

And if it was discovered during the trial, it could lead to the jury being discharged, leading to a re-trial. If it was discovered after the trial, and the accused had been found guilty, they could use it as a reason to get the conviction overturned which could also lead to a re-trial.

 

[Dotta]

The Casey Anthony case is a good example . Jurors didn’t like the prosecuting lawyers (they thought they were arrogant) and the defence created a good story about Casey’s parents being abusive .

It’s much more difficult to pull something like that on an experienced , world weary trial judge.

A good Defence lawyer must always think of Jury's perception of him/her.
Being/seeming arrogant/patronizing, aggressive is a great failure.

Charisma, acting skills, eloquence, empathy, clear, well modulated voice expressing all kinds of emotions, presentable appearance etc etc - are assets.

And, of course, the highest moral standards.

It is a tough job.
But rewarding/satisfying and well paid.

JMO

 

[esther43]

Wouldn't the things in your first paragraph be more common in adults? Since there is no research on babies dying from air embolus other than the research presented, how would we kno

So he was receiving 10% glucose on the morning of 9th April, LL's day shift - this is when the contamination started.
The blood sample was taken for the lab at 3.35pm.
He was put on 12.5% dextrose at 4.30pm that same shift. LL was still at work at 9.22pm that evening.
He was put on 15% dextrose at 6am that night shift 9th/10th.
His blood sugars came up to 3.0 by 2pm on 10th but then fell back again and didn't come back up to above 3.0 until 3pm on 11th.

So the first two bags were applied during LL's shift, and the last was applied on the night shift following her day shift.

That's what we were told in the electronic evidence. I don't know how many additional boluses of glucose might have been administered at different times, seems there might be gaps in the reporting. JMO

w the symptoms in babies?

Samesies. I go and pick up babies at other hospitals that still have paper charting and I hate it because it's impossible to read what's written 90% of the time.

It's part of why the US made the requirement to go to EMRs instead, to cut down on errors from handwriting

That you use in a hospital? Wow. I would never have imagined that the UK struggled that much with obtaining equipment and monitoring for their units!

I don't know - The over feeding could somehow have been a mistake, maybe it wasn't as much as estimated in the vomit. I am not sure what happened there, I'll have to wait and see what the defense provides as alternate explanation.

Ideally there would be records of it - another benefit of computer charting is that vital signs are automatically pulled in from the monitors - a nurse needs to verify they are accurate, because monitors aren't perfect, but you can see if someone disconnected the baby or the baby was having an event.

You can do that manually on a monitor too, and it's often done to get times for codes afterwards. But it sounds like this hospital barely had monitoring.




It's honestly not that far, based on the descriptions here. No central monitoring, babies not being on some sort of accurate monitors (we've recognized apnea monitors alone aren't worth much since the 80s), nurses mixing high concentration dextrose, preparing their own insulin, paper charting - I understand it is standard there, but it is a very far cry from what I've seen in the US and Canada. Even in the smallest hospitals I've visited (and I do interfacility transport, so I see a lot of small hospitals) they are able to have full cardiorespiratory monitoring. They mix more of their own meds (like ampicillin), but IV additives are done in a pharmacy, drips are made by pharmacy, unless it is a code, there's access control to most meds outside normal saline, D5 and D10.

If they are going to be going home soon, they might be able to lose the sat probe that monitors their oxygen, but they would keep a HR monitor on unless they were being directly observed by staff/family for a period of time. If they are "rooming in", which is practicing for going home, especially for medically complex babies, they might have the monitor in the room turned off, but the central monitor on. That's done because even if they are going home soon, they are on our watch and we are responsible for them. If they were to have an event and no one knew, while they were in a NICU, it would be terrible. And in America, they would absolutely sue the hospital for everything it was worth.

The descriptions of the standards do provide evidence the defense's argument of care issues in the hospital, IMO.

Everything I've ever seen about UK hospitals on TV and at conferences presents a very different picture, more in line with what I see in the US/Canada, but the big difference seems to be at these smaller hospitals. And that is absolutely on the NHS that they have not updated their hospitals enough.

We tend not to over treat patients here in the UK, health is not a big bucks industry, it's a basic human right grounded in the principle of equality.
In the UK life saving intensive care is for every baby not just for those who can afford it.

 

[Marantz4250b]

@Sweeper2000

In this article on baby L, Dr. Hindmarsh explains

"
Asked how much insulin would be needed to cause the low blood sugar levels in Child L, Prof Hindmarsh said: "I have taken quite a conservative view of this, but I would suggest you could add somewhere in the region of 10 units of insulin to a bag... "Vials of insulin contain 100 units per millilitre, so the volumes we're talking about are quite small and not noticeable on a routine stock check. "When added to infusion bags you wouldn't notice a change in volume within the bag, nor because insulin is a clear solution."

...

"
Prof Hindmarsh said insulin could be added "fairly easily" through a portal that's located at the bottom of the feed bags. He told the court that in his opinion, to produce the blood glucose levels detected, around at least three or potentially four bags could have been contaminated."

Lucy Letby: Baby's blood sugar dangerously low, trial told

Lucy Letby is accused of adding insulin to an infant's feed bag, the nurse's trial hears.

www.bbc.com

Catching up a bit - busy week!

There may be more to this that I've missed but from what I've read this whole insulin thing is starting to sound somewhere elaborate and complicated, to say the least!

So, we now have a medical expert saying that "at least" three or four bags could have been contaminated - the way I'm reading that is that this number would need to have been contaminated to produce these results. Isn't this getting all a bit too far fetched? LL would need to be in a position to either contaminate each bag as it was hung up or she'd need to contaminate them all in advance and make sure that they all got to the same baby. So at least three or four separate illegal acts with the risk of being caught and needing to manage to be in the right place at the right time or potentially one illegal act of contaminating them while in storage which would presumably take some time. Also need to have some plan in place to make sure they all got to the same patient consecutively. I guess they may be made up specifically for each patient but I've missed quite a lot.

Is she alleged to have done similar for each patient because of so then it's a hell of a lot of specific and careful planning. That's not to say she didn't do it but the more steps she's alleged to have had to take makes the whole thing increasingly unlikely, surely?