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

[marynnu]

For me - and this is just my opinion - if you stood by and deliberately let a 25 weeker remain unventilated that would be murder. To be convicted there has to be intention to kill, and this would fit that criterion. JMO.

 

[ColourPurple]

For the cases where LL was not the baby's designated nurse, is there a list anywhere of how many times babies collapsed within minutes of their designated nurses leaving the room to either go on their break or carry out another task elsewhere?

 

[Marantz4250b]

For me - and this is just my opinion - if you stood by and deliberately let a 25 weeker remain unventilated that would be murder. To be convicted there has to be intention to kill, and this would fit that criterion. JMO.

The unusual point, though, is that in almost all circumstances for all crimes it requires a positive act to do something on behalf of the defendant. You must act unlawfully and not doing something is the very opposite of doing an act.

I think it's based on the basic principle of individual autonomy; the law has long taken the philosophical view that an individual cannot be compelled to do something because its an infringement of their liberty and freedom to choose. The law is concerned with stipulating what people cannot do for the good of society. In the cases where people can be convicted of failing to act it has to be shown that a duty to act exists because the person concerned has actively chosen to put themselves in that position, such as a paramedic, etc.

I'm not even sure that in the analogy you gave you can say that standing by and doing nothing is indeed an intention to kill because you aren't "killing" by not acting. You don't have an intention to kill if you choose to do nothing. Your intention is to do nothing.

In my opinion and I'm sure someone can put it better.

 

[Cardgame]

"Doctor ‘wishes he had gone straight to police over Lucy Letby concerns’. ​

'As clinicians, we put our faith in the system… in senior management to escalate concerns and investigate them. The initial response was, ‘It’s unlikely that anything is going on. We’ll see what happens’.

“We said, ‘OK’ – against our better judgment in retrospect.' ”

Doctor ‘wishes he had gone straight to police over Lucy Letby concerns’ | BreakingNews

Letby is accused of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder 10 others at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.

www.breakingnews.ie

JMO but I find his testimony highly credible. It seems reflective of normal human nature to assume such crimes 'can't be happening' until the pattern/evidence seemed overwhelming/impossible to ignore.

Seems to me human nature that the scale and horrendousness of the accusation is directly related to how hard it is to call out.

 

[infinit]

"Doctor ‘wishes he had gone straight to police over Lucy Letby concerns’. ​

'As clinicians, we put our faith in the system…

in senior management to escalate concerns and investigate them.

The initial response was, ‘It’s unlikely that anything is going on. We’ll see what happens’.

“We said, ‘OK’ – against our better judgment in retrospect.' ”

Doctor ‘wishes he had gone straight to police over Lucy Letby concerns’ | BreakingNews

Letby is accused of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder 10 others at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.

www.breakingnews.ie

If she is convicted the hospital trust is (quite rightly) going to have to get the cheque book out and ask the families how many 0's they'd like at the end, because that's just plain indefensible.

 

[Dotta]

Didn't LL say during Police questioning concerning Baby K that she didn't dislodge the tube and...
didn't remember any significant drop in saturations?

Now, that is interesting.

JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

Didn't LL say during Police questioning concerning Baby K that she didn't dislodge the tube and...
didn't remember any significant drop in saturations?

Now, that is interesting.

JMO

It is because it comes down to which person's testimony is going to be believed and why.

 

[ColourPurple]

.

It is because it comes down to which person's testimony is going to be believed and why.

She also said Baby K was sedated and had not been moving around. Though its thought now that she hadn't actually been sedated, even though both LL and Dr J appear to have assumed she had been.

It also says she said the alarm had not sounded and then says she did not recall there being no alarm. I hope she takes the stand.

In police interview, when Dr Jayaram's account was put to her, she said no concerns had been raised at the time.

She said the alarm had not sounded. She said Child K was sedated and had not been moving around.

She also did not recall either any significant fall in saturations or there being no alarm. She accepted that in the circumstances described by Dr Jayaram she would have expected the alarm to have sounded.

she denied dislodging the tube and said she would have summoned help had Dr Jayaram not arrived, saying she was "possibly waiting to see if she self-corrected, we don’t normally intervene straight away if they weren’t dangerously low".

After the interviews - that suggestion made by Lucy Letby was referred to a nursing expert. Her view was that it was very unlikely that a nurse would leave the bedside of an intubated neonate unless they were very confident that the ET tube was correctly located and secure, the baby was inactive and then they would be away only briefly.

The nurse dismissed the idea that a competent nurse would have delayed intervention if there had been a desaturation.

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

 

[mucbetam]

There are four concepts or lenses through which I want to view the medical witness testimony. Each has a hypnotic and psychological impact on the observer, and perhaps one could say, the court.

(1) The art and science of medicine as an authority, and the credibility and authority attached to the qualification and training of MBBS/MBChB/MD.

(2) Confirmation bias - I mention this
as devil's advocacy around the testimony of the doctor who expressed pressure from management. Though this idea of "pressure" begs the question: who or what specifically? It further begs the question don't you then feel "pressured" to seek out further confirmation that you are right and start looking for that confirmation and potentially seeing it even when it is not there?

(3) Groupthink. The refers to the doctors who were suspicious of LL and it doesn't meant that they weren't rationale, logical or drew right conclusions. It simply means that without scrutiny and challenge to their viewpoints, it is possible that agreement around the association between LL and deaths meant that dissent from the view was or became more challenging, and so the group may have become narrow-minded as to other possibilities (such as the defence argument of suboptimal care, let's say).

(4) Conflict of interest. I am loath to mention this as I doubt much work has gone into researching evidence for it. But I am more than conscious of the way in which those belonging to the 'family' of medical professionals will on occasion band together to protect one another. This can be along political grounds, along the grounds of economicus (economic incentives and selfish desire), or out of spite, abuse of power and an unwilling ess to either be wrong or admit wrong which is an entrenched attitude. There are also 'sick doctors' it should not be forgotten.

The presupposition in my opinion, that this particular witness set is necessarily impartial, or because of field of specialization in some way necessarily credible is an assumption and should be caveated as such. If course one would hope that the doctor is the altruist, or that what I write of refers to a small minority. Regrettably, my experience suggests that's a naivity that is terribly far removed from the truth. Relying on the economicus argument alone is enough food for thought.

In short, I am strongly questioning the alignment of the medics testimonies and triangulation of evidence bases concerning the prosecution witnesses. This might sound conspiratorial in theoretical nature, but I contend that it is nevertheless plausible.

NB the censored word in each case is the Latin word for man.

 

[Parker Knoll]

JMO but I find his testimony highly credible. It seems reflective of normal human nature to assume such crimes 'can't be happening' until the pattern/evidence seemed overwhelming/impossible to ignore.

Seems to me human nature that the scale and horrendousness of the accusation is directly related to how hard it is to call out.

This sums it up perfectly for me today. It’s clearly got very heated today between BM and Dr J but he held his own and closed down a few arguments which the defence were hoping to push.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing and we can comment as we are seeing the picture now as a whole ( or the picture presented by the prosecution atm )
At this point ( Baby K ) the pieces of the jigsaw were starting to resemble something tangible but it’s tragic that so many babies lives were lost before it could be stopped.
I find it utterly shocking that it took so long for complaints to be actioned and the senior Drs and management dragged their heels - I am sure they will be called to give evidence at some point in the trial, it would be unthinkable that they would not.
As for BM being aggressive …. That’s the name of the game.
A barrister never asks a question they don’t know the answer to.
Let’s see what tomorrow brings.

 

[scottishgal]

I think that us saying senior management should have acted on the concerns is easier in hindsight too sat in 2023. They had to rule out petty politics and vendattas , and all sorts of other circumstances first and that would take 6 months to make sure they were being fair to her ? No one could have immediately said yes this must be a mass murderer of babies, if indeed that is what the situation is , which even in 2023 it is so hard to believe and be sure of.


If CoC hospital had been like Grey Sloan hospital, then Dr J would have yelled at LL after walking in to see Baby K 's tube potentially dislodged and the alarm off - and if he had gotten it wrong - they still would have been best friends two episodes later - but in real life he would have been accused of bullying , right ? - and also had potentially destroyed his working rapport with one of the most senior nurses on the floor.

 

[scottishgal]

Is there court today , I mean is the trial continuing today or next week, tia.

 

[Dotta]

I think that us saying senior management should have acted on the concerns is easier in hindsight too sat in 2023. They had to rule out petty politics and vendattas , and all sorts of other circumstances first and that would take 6 months to make sure they were being fair to her ? No one could have immediately said yes this must be a mass murderer of babies, if indeed that is what the situation is , which even in 2023 it is so hard to believe and be sure of.


If CoC hospital had been like Grey Sloan hospital, then Dr J would have yelled at LL after walking in to see Baby K 's tube potentially dislodged and the alarm off - and if he had gotten it wrong - they still would have been best friends two episodes later - but in real life he would have been accused of bullying , right ? - and also had potentially destroyed his working rapport with one of the most senior nurses on the floor.

It all depends on who is considered priority:
patients or staff?

JMO

 

[katydid23]

It all depends on who is considered priority:
patients or staff?

JMO

I don't think it is that simple.

What happens to a doctor or a professor or a business manager, who falsely accuses a tenured, union employee of a heinous crime, like child abuse and attempted murder? Bringing such accusations forward without solid proof would be career suicide for the accuser.

And it could potentially cost the administrators many millions in lawsuits and penalties and cost many staff their own jobs.

What happens when a rumour begins that there is a serial killer among the nursing staff---even though there is no solid proof that it is valid?

 

[katydid23]

The unusual point, though, is that in almost all circumstances for all crimes it requires a positive act to do something on behalf of the defendant. You must act unlawfully and not doing something is the very opposite of doing an act.

I think it's based on the basic principle of individual autonomy; the law has long taken the philosophical view that an individual cannot be compelled to do something because its an infringement of their liberty and freedom to choose. The law is concerned with stipulating what people cannot do for the good of society. In the cases where people can be convicted of failing to act it has to be shown that a duty to act exists because the person concerned has actively chosen to put themselves in that position, such as a paramedic, etc.

I'm not even sure that in the analogy you gave you can say that standing by and doing nothing is indeed an intention to kill because you aren't "killing" by not acting. You don't have an intention to kill if you choose to do nothing. Your intention is to do nothing.

In my opinion and I'm sure someone can put it better.

I understand what you are saying, in general. Just like it is not 'against' the law to see someone badly injured in an accident or a crime, and not do anything in response to help. There is no law against standing and doing nothing, instead of trying to help them or to call for help.

But in this specific case, the jurors will be looking at it IN CONTEXT and within the larger pattern of behaviour in the 22 other incidents. Looking at this 'inaction' while also considering similar situations in the previous months makes it more of a concern.

Also, when one has been trained to, and is being paid to, do a specific job, which is to take assertive action when a newborn deteriorates, then it could be considered unlawful to not take that necessary action.

You used the paramedic example above---and a neonatal nurse is the same thing, IMO. Her job is to take necessary action upon seeing an infant in peril. It would be unlawful not to do so unlike a hospital visitor or family member who might happen upon a child in collapse. JMO

 

[Dotta]

I don't think it is that simple.

Who serves whom?

It is as simple as this IMO

Self serving is always a failure.
Vide this trial.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

Who serves whom?

It is as simple as this IMO

Self serving is always a failure.
Vide this trial.

JMO

There has to be a balance between the two. Just like with accusations of sexual assault.

We cannot just automatically believe every single accusation, just for the sake of believing every potential victim because that is an imbalance. And then those falsely accused will suffer.

It seemed it was 'simpler' to just believe every victim automatically because it is the right thing to do. But when it is unbalanced then many falsely accused end up suffering and it is not as simple as we thought.

 

[WaxLyrical]

I find myself with zero sympathy for the hospital or Dr J et al in this situation.

There were clearly whispers and suspicions going on, probably throughout this entire year. That information is trickling out now, including it being raised higher up BY the head of NNU alongside Dr J in Feb 2016. Let’s not forget 2 babies had been poisoned by insulin, with a clear evidence trail, by this point, but nobody bothered to look. Further babies continued to die while nobody took any action.

All they had to do was find a reason to remove LL from dealing with patients. Something as straightforward as “we’re dealing with an unprecedented number of deaths right now and you’ve taken the brunt of it, we’re concerned about your mental health and would prefer you not to deal with patients hands on until we’ve provided counselling” would have sufficed.

Instead they all acted like “there’s nothing we can do, the only option is to continue letting babies die until the even-higher-uppers do something”

Absolutely ridiculous.

JMO.

Edit: to add. I don’t work in healthcare, but I do work somewhere that struggles with accountability and has a culture of “I’ve reported it up, it’s someone else’s problem now”. And I’m getting the same impression from this hospital.

 

[Cardgame]

There are four concepts or lenses through which I want to view the medical witness testimony. Each has a hypnotic and psychological impact on the observer, and perhaps one could say, the court.

(1) The art and science of medicine as an authority, and the credibility and authority attached to the qualification and training of MBBS/MBChB/MD.

(2) Confirmation bias - I mention this
as devil's advocacy around the testimony of the doctor who expressed pressure from management. Though this idea of "pressure" begs the question: who or what specifically? It further begs the question don't you then feel "pressured" to seek out further confirmation that you are right and start looking for that confirmation and potentially seeing it even when it is not there?

(3) Groupthink. The refers to the doctors who were suspicious of LL and it doesn't meant that they weren't rationale, logical or drew right conclusions. It simply means that without scrutiny and challenge to their viewpoints, it is possible that agreement around the association between LL and deaths meant that dissent from the view was or became more challenging, and so the group may have become narrow-minded as to other possibilities (such as the defence argument of suboptimal care, let's say).

(4) Conflict of interest. I am loath to mention this as I doubt much work has gone into researching evidence for it. But I am more than conscious of the way in which those belonging to the 'family' of medical professionals will on occasion band together to protect one another. This can be along political grounds, along the grounds of *advertiser censored* economicus (economic incentives and selfish desire), or out of spite, abuse of power and an unwilling ess to either be wrong or admit wrong which is an entrenched attitude. There are also 'sick doctors' it should not be forgotten.

The presupposition in my opinion, that this particular witness set is necessarily impartial, or because of field of specialization in some way necessarily credible is an assumption and should be caveated as such. If course one would hope that the doctor is the altruist, or that what I write of refers to a small minority. Regrettably, my experience suggests that's a naivity that is terribly far removed from the truth. Relying on the *advertiser censored* economicus argument alone is enough food for thought.

In short, I am strongly questioning the alignment of the medics testimonies and triangulation of evidence bases concerning the prosecution witnesses. This might sound conspiratorial in theoretical nature, but I contend that it is nevertheless plausible.

NB the censored word in each case is the Latin word for man.

Surely part of the prosecution's case will involve what happened to the pattern of increased deaths once she had been removed from the ward.

One assumes it corrected and this is what encouraged them to call in the police?

Has anyone seen a reference to what happened to the pattern once she was removed?

 

[katydid23]

Surely part of the prosecution's case will involve what happened to the pattern of increased deaths once she had been removed from the ward.

One assumes it corrected and this is what encouraged them to call in the police?

Has anyone seen a reference to what happened to the pattern once she was removed?

They couldn't really make any comparisons because the hospital lost it's credentials for caring for higher level of critical care babies because of the spike in deaths.