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

[Marantz4250b]

Thankyou magicarp. They are obviously going through the same questions as us. I’m wondering though, if the volume of insulin is quite small would that have any bearing on the likely level of lethality and thus the charges? Especially bearing in mind the likelihood of it being treated. It’s also interesting because that suggests one tenth of a ml which I presume is less than a drop? Would there be a specialist syringe for that minuscule amount do you think? Or maybe a syringe with 0.5 ml as a measure then split that over multiple bags. Find it really strange that whatever they used to measure the amount of insulin this amount was close to being too much to record.

This touches on a point we discussed page and pages back; these are tiny amounts of insulin. Is she charged with attempted murder in respect of these or murder? For attempted murder they need to prove that she had an intention to cause death. They don't need to show that for the murder charges.

<modsnip: sub judice to express opinion on either guilt or innocence>

 

[Marantz4250b]

Those on top?

It wouldn't guarantee they'd all get to the same patient, though. Unless they are made up specifically for each patient.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I don't think anybody could be on shift for both bag changes as the first was put up by the night staff, LL being one of them, and the 2nd in the afternoon I believe.

Then surely they need to prove that she pre-poisoned the bags? And he managed to ensure that they both got to the same patient?

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

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.

JMO

That is all true, but you will see those things incorporated into a barrister’s presentation style very differently to how it appears in an attorney in the USA. There is a far more theatrical element in the USA trials than there is in UK trials.

Barristers in UK courts almost never raise their voices. You don’t get a barrister jumping to their feet shouting “objection” in the UK like you do in America. I’ve seen QCs (as they then were) simply clearing that throat and looking at the judge to indicate displeasure with a particular line of questioning . And barristers will address each other and refer to each other as “my learned friend .”

UK Institutions are often very traditional and hang onto those traditions, which can make it seem like you are stepping into the past or a fictional reality in some circumstances . Look at all the ridiculousness that goes on for the state opening of UK Parliament ! The Black Rod (senior official in Uk parliament ) gets the door slammed in his face and then he has to bang on the door 3 times with his rod to gain entry in Parliament . We are beyond parody with some of our traditions in this country

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think they are also looking at the big picture and the overall pattern of the surge in unexplained collapses.

Once we look at some of the cases being potentially malicious attacks, that makes the other ones even more likely to be the same. Especially when we take into account some of the damning coincidences.

Like the two sets of twins, having mirror image incidents. >>>Back to back collapses, one from insulin poisoning and the other from an unexplained AE. Two sets of twins born in the same hospital with identical strange occurrences.

And in another incident, she had been on vacation for 8 days----no unexplained collapses in that time.

The very day she returned there were THREE unexplained collapse, three nights in a row---babies O, P and Q. Those were the final 3 before she was taken off the floor.

<modsnip: sub judice>

If we go with the pre-poisoning of bags theory, though, then surely one of the best ways of covering one's tracks would be to poison a butt-load of bags which would be guaranteed to get used when you weren't there and 100% verifiably not even in the country?

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

This touches on a point we discussed page and pages back; these are tiny amounts of insulin. Is she charged with attempted murder in respect of these or murder? For attempted murder they need to prove that she had an intention to cause death. They don't need to show that for the murder charges.

<modsnip: sub judice to express opinion on either guilt or innocence>

Neither baby died , so she is just charged with attempted murder

 

[Dotta]

That is all true, but you will see those things incorporated into a barrister’s presentation style very differently to how it appears in an attorney in the USA. There is a far more theatrical element in the USA trials than there is in UK trials.

Barristers in UK courts almost never raise their voices. You don’t get a barrister jumping to their feet shouting “objection” in the UK like you do in America. I’ve seen QCs (as they then were) simply clearing that throat and looking at the judge to indicate displeasure with a particular line of questioning . And barristers will address each other and refer to each other as “my learned friend .”

UK Institutions are often very traditional and hang onto those traditions, which can make it seem like you are stepping into the past or a fictional reality in some circumstances . Look at all the ridiculousness that goes on for the state opening of UK Parliament ! The Black Rod (senior official in Uk parliament ) gets the door slammed in his face and then he has to bang on the door 3 times with his rod to gain entry in Parliament . We are beyond parody with some of our traditions in this country

I love this "Objection!" thing in American style

 

[Marantz4250b]

Not to say that it's relevant in this case but legally that's not necessarily true so long as a perpetrator thought and intended it to be fatal. In any case I would be surprised if the jury aren't offered section 18 GBH as an alternative.

Conspiracy to Murder Solicitors - Conspiracy Solicitor

The Law of Murder Murder is usually regarded as the most serious offence in the criminal law. Murder is committed when a person of sound mind unlawfully...

www.conspiracysolicitor.co.uk

Definition of Alternative verdict

Definition of Alternative verdict. noun - A person being found guilty of a less serious crime than the one they were charged with. If a more serious charge has not been proved and the defendant has been found not guilty, the defendant may be found guilty of a less serious crime instead. For...

www.legalchoices.org.uk

I'm surprised that they are so many AM murder charges and no assault or similar charges. Even if they can prove 100% that she adulterated the bags with insulin that doesn't, of itself, prove that she intended to kill anyone, especially given that they are tiny doses.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

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?

I think that this is a really crucial time for the prosecution and its case . This is just my opinion (obviously) but I think that if the prosecution is not able to persuade the jury to convict LL on the two insulin cases (baby F and baby L), then it is unlikely that they will secure guilty verdicts for any of the other charges.

The reason I think that is because for the two insulin cases, both prosecution and defence agreed that they are attempted murders. The defence is simply saying that LL isn’t responsible. For the other 20 charges, it is different, because there is no common agreement between the prosecution and the defence on whether there has been a murder or AM. The defence says out right that another cause was behind the collapse, or says that there are other possibilities which do not support the collapse being a murder or an attempted murder.

If a jury is not persuaded of LL guilt on baby F and baby L, my theory is that they will find it very hard in their minds to convict of any of the other charges, because the implication of convicting of other charges and not of baby F and L is that you are saying that there are at least two serial killers operating at the same time in the same hospital: the person responsible for babies F and L (because everyone agrees that these were deliberate acts), and then LL for the other babies (on the hypothetical assumption that you convict her of these charges).

I think that the jury would find that a very difficult result to reach.

 

[Marantz4250b]

The jury decides whether someone is guilty or not guilty. Then it is for the judge to pass the sentence , which will take into account early guilty pleas, background , history of offending etc.

Sentences are subject to the published guidelines for the particular offence. Life sentences, which is what she will get automatically, have a minimum period of imprisonment before parole can be applied for, the application on which is set in statute. The judge has an element of freedom to add or detract from the starting point but not by much and his/her allowable reasons for doing so are not many.

If LL is convicted of multiple murders here she will inevitably be given a very long starting point (possibly 30 years, less time on remand) or quite likely a whole life order. If she is given the latter she will, I think, be only the second woman given one by a trail judge - Joanne Dennehy being the first.

 

[Marantz4250b]

The jury is made up of 12 individuals
We have zero knowledge of them nor will we ever.
As it should be.

Indeed!

 

[Sweeper2000]

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.

The prosecution have stated that mg was on the computer at 3.45 I think this fits with mg testimony that the alarm sounded and she looked over her shoulder and ll checked the baby. Mg asked if it was an event to which ll responded “yes it needs to be sorted”. The collapse was recorded to have happened at four and Dr. Evans has said it would take three minutes for the AE to be of effect as alleged. To my mind that means the prosecution need to place ll at baby m cotside in the five minutes max before 4, otherwise it’s not an AE.

its not a question of ll being in the same room it’s a question of her tending to baby m in that timeframe. Mg as far as I know has not said she saw ll tending to baby m in the five minutes prior to the event. Ll co signed for the antibiotics at 3.45 a full ten mins before the event and as mg is the designated nurse it would make more sense for her to administer it. I think her dp would take precedent over being on the computer.

I think but I’m not sure but the testimony suggests mg had her back to baby m and so if ll tended to baby m would have seen it and would have testified as to that matter. In essence ll doesn’t have cover to access baby m lines in the five mins prior to the event.

 

[Sweeper2000]

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?

I was thinking the same thing. I don’t think you could stick a needle in all those bags without being noticed. You would also have to anticipate the treatment of the child in terms of increasing levels of dextrose solution.

your last point is very true as well.

the dextrose bags aren’t bespoke but apparently premade and not patient specific.

the insulin levels as well. It’s one tenth of a ml which is 10 units of insulin per bag I really have no idea about how lethal that would be but we do know treatment is only a few steps away at any point in time.

 

[Marantz4250b]

The thing for me with this case ...more than any other case I've followed probably because of the number and nature of charges ..and maybe people trying to understand on the tiny amount of testimony we hear,
I think it gets forgotten that we are at trial stage and a decision can only be made by the Jury based on what they are told in the court room.
They can't Google or use their experience and say well could the death or collapse be because of X Y Z disease or because of a different situation.
I know the thread is to discuss the case but can you imagine if a juror decides to read (I know they shouldn't) these threads with all this information and ideas that have not been presented in court ?
I'm certainly not saying people can't discuss what they want.
But for me personally it's simple...decide between the prosecution and defence version and nothing else ...JMO

Sorry to disagree but, in my opinion, people using their life experiences in jury deliberations is a great strength of the jury system and is part of it's purpose.

Take me, I'm a firearms dealer, have been for more than a decade and have been involved with firearms in one way or another for well over 30 years. If I were on a jury and either the prosecution or defence were basing guilt or innocence in a firearms case on "facts" which weren't correct then I'd most certainly be pushing the point in deliberations. If it was grossly wrong I think I'd be asking to pass a note to the judge. It can be a highly technical and obscure subject that most people would never know if they were being sold duff info. Believe me, it's very common for people to have little clue what they're talking about, the Alec Baldwin thread on here is a classic case in point.

I'm a nightmare to watch the news or crime docs involving firearms heavy discussion with!

 

[Marantz4250b]

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, she'd still be convicted or acquitted on the ones they have verdicts for. It doesn't require a verdict for every single charge.

 

[sapphireminds]

<modsnip - sub judice>

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

Primary cardiac arrests - where you would see the heart stop or go into a non-functional rhythm - almost never happen in the NICU. If they have evidence that the heart was the first thing, as might happen with an embolus, that would be very indicative of embolism. 99% of codes in a NICU are respiratory based - meaning their sats go down, then their heart slows/stops. If we reestablish adequate ventilation, they recover quickly. For a baby to have adequate sats and be bradying, I would be worried about pericardiac effusion/pneumopericardium or tension pneumothorax, along with the "normals" of electrolyte imbalances.

It says

"Dr Alison Ventress writes clinical notes, timed at 2.35am and written retrospectively at 4.40am.

They record: 'Called to r/v [Child G] urgently at 2.35am.

'Had very large projectile vomit (reaching chair next to cot + canopy). Abdo appeared discoloured purple and distended. [Child G] distressed and uncomfortable. Red in face and purple all over. [Oxygen] to 1L via nasal cannula...'

This was after the alleged overfeeding around half hour before.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, December 1

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 would not anticipate overfeeding of milk to cause purple distension, especially in that short of a time period.

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.

As well it should. Jurors have rules they have to adhere to, and if they searched information, whether they found it or not, it would be a violation of the rules.

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.

Thankfully, in the NICU we're spared that. That is more of an issue with the older children and adults. NICU doesn't care about money - medicaid covers a lot of the NICU babies here. There are a few laws that allow us to never turn anyone away for ability to pay as well. We don't have the social safety nets though to help them on discharge.

 

[JosieJo]

Sorry to disagree but, in my opinion, people using their life experiences in jury deliberations is a great strength of the jury system and is part of it's purpose.

Take me, I'm a firearms dealer, have been for more than a decade and have been involved with firearms in one way or another for well over 30 years. If I were on a jury and either the prosecution or defence were basing guilt or innocence in a firearms case on "facts" which weren't correct then I'd most certainly be pushing the point in deliberations. If it was grossly wrong I think I'd be asking to pass a note to the judge. It can be a highly technical and obscure subject that most people would never know if they were being sold duff info. Believe me, it's very common for people to have little clue what they're talking about, the Alec Baldwin thread on here is a classic case in point.

I'm a nightmare to watch the news or crime docs involving firearms heavy discussion with!

I agree they will use their life experience and of course if as an expert you knew something presented to be 100% wrong in fact you would be right to say.
I was more thinking of taking on board theories or thoughts of others not involved in the case .

 

[Marantz4250b]

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

They could choose to re-try her on anything the jury can't agree on. I think they need some form of permission, or something.

If she's convicted of multiple murders, though, then it would need to be asked whether a re-trial on, say, two attempted murders was in the public interest given that she's be unlikely to get out, at least not for very many decades.

 

[Marantz4250b]

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.

If it were me and I were guilty I think I'd go with a jury every time. If innocent then I'd much rather have a panel of judges presiding over me rather than some potential numpties who might be influenced by all sorts irrelevant guff.

 

[Dotta]

They could choose to re-try her on anything the jury can't agree on. I think they need some form of permission, or something.

If she's convicted of multiple murders, though, then it would need to be asked whether a re-trial on, say, two attempted murders was in the public interest given that she's be unlikely to get out, at least not for very many decades.

I meant from the formal point of view.
So that these cases are somehow resolved legally - not left in vacuum.
JMO