UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #25

[Parker Knoll]

So listed today but no jury present as I understand it to go through the defence case witnesses ?

 

[IDK]

<RSBM>

Where is the source for this (BBM) that you clam as fact please, and how do you know all collapses weren't investigated?

To clarify, I was quoting a posting upthread. If they did have an outside specialist review all the charts, I accept that information. I just have not seen that reported in any articles about the testimony. ( of course I have not followed the case as extensively as many others)IMO

 

[IDK]

I think he misunderstood something I said---when I said that Dr Breary testified that there were no unexplained collapses on days LL was not present.

He did not make that determination though---he just said that finding in his testimony under cross exam

Ok thanks for clarifying— will edit my post.

 

[Tortoise]

I think he misunderstood something I said---when I said that Dr Breary testified that there were no unexplained collapses on days LL was not present.

He did not make that determination though---he just said that finding in his testimony under cross exam

Yes, I think he's perfectly entitled to make the determination with his years of experience and as lead consultant, whether later events followed normal expectations and were explainable. JMO

For the period in question, subject of this trial, I don't think there is any evidence that there was a selection made by staff on the unit, for the police investigation.

 

[joltz]

I get what you're saying but the hospital still has some very serious questions to answer; these amounted to A LOT of completely unexplained collapses and deaths; thee was a case of a blood insulin test coming back so high that the lab took the decision to immediately phone the hospital with its concerns, it was one of the highest figures ever recorded; there were periods where these collapses were happening frighteningly often too.

This isn't about having "no evidence", indeed the very facts that the incidents took place is evidence of something. The whole point of taking some action is to investigate whether there is actually any evidence to point to the causes of these incidents. The insulin finding alone should have raised massive red flags as the only possible explanation was artificially introduced insulin.

The hospital is in deep doo-doo and rightly so!

Absolutely, I agree that the hospital has multiple failings that it must answer to. There will surely be another public inquiry. But I do not agree with pointing the fingers at the doctors and consultants in the hospital. They are not detectives and If not for these people, LL would possibly still be working at the COC. The higher management should be called to task about it, with some names in particular forced to confront some uncomfortable truths. People such as KR, who allowed LL to continue working at the hospital and flat out refused to have her taken off duty on multiple occasions. Hospital policy, HR, and the rights of workers come into play but she had opportunities to take action and refused to do it.

There should definitely be some systematic changes brought in after this, whereby the safety of patients is put above red tape and pandering to the rules.

 

[Tortoise]

I get what you're saying but the hospital still has some very serious questions to answer; these amounted to A LOT of completely unexplained collapses and deaths; thee was a case of a blood insulin test coming back so high that the lab took the decision to immediately phone the hospital with its concerns, it was one of the highest figures ever recorded; there were periods where these collapses were happening frighteningly often too.

This isn't about having "no evidence", indeed the very facts that the incidents took place is evidence of something. The whole point of taking some action is to investigate whether there is actually any evidence to point to the causes of these incidents. The insulin finding alone should have raised massive red flags as the only possible explanation was artificially introduced insulin.

What you might be overlooking here is that the prosecution's case is that from August 2015 LL's note keeping started to include falsified reviews by doctors on another ward, falsified entries regarding deteriorations of the babies in the build up to their collapses, as well as falsified parents' concerns, setting in motion destabilisations of the babies before she went off shift so that there would be no link to her when she came back on shift the following day, and in the final cases, allegedly using the labour ward exit and entry system to her advantage, and running off to another nursery to make entries in other babies' charts, so that others responded to the alarms.

This, allegedly, would not have been a straightforward matter of looking at the end collapses and seeing an obvious link, after the first handful of cases in June 2015. These were, allegedly, very cunning and calculated manoeuvres designed to hide her tracks.

It took detectives three years to piece together this case, and doctors are not detectives!

MOO

 

[WaxLyrical]

I am not defending the hospital. I was defending the doctors. I thought they were unfairly being bashed in the OP.

I do think the hospital was trying to figure it out though. They were having mandatory meetings after every incident, trying to solve the issues. But LL was very cunning. She was changing up the MO's every time.allegedly... So it seemed like they were not all connected.

And they did think it might be from being under staffed or from a viral infection somehow. They were scrambling around trying to sort things out.

I did not “bash” any doctors in my original comment, unfairly or otherwise. To be clear, when I talk about “they” I am talking about those who are accountable for oversight. My mention of a paper trail is because it’s a lot more difficult to avoid something when there’s a paper trail involved.

 

[Tortoise]

Today's listing

Manchester Crown Court​	7​	T20217088​	Lucy Letby​
Details: Trial (Part Heard) - 10:30 Reporting Restrictions

https://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearings-lists/Manchester-Crown-Court.php

 

[Tortoise]

I haven't been following along with this case and this thread looks so interesting that I want to go back and read every single post

Good to see you here, and @Moll !

It's going to take a long time to read all these threads. If I was new to the case and wanted to get caught up, I think I might start with opening speeches (October 2022), and then jump to when LL took the stand, because we've not exactly had stellar reporting during the trial, there was a huge dip in journo attendance in the middle, and the gaps were nicely filled in once cross-exam started.

Opening speeches are on first two pages of the media thread.

Her evidence in chief starts on page 26 of the media thread which is linked in the first post of every discussion thread.

In the discussion threads this was 2nd May 2023, thread 19, also with all threads linked in first post of every thread.

 

[Moll]

Good to see you here, and @Moll !

It's going to take a long time to read all these threads. If I was new to the case and wanted to get caught up, I think I might start with opening speeches (October 2022), and then jump to when LL took the stand, because we've not exactly had stellar reporting during the trial, there was a huge dip in journo attendance in the middle, and the gaps were nicely filled in once cross-exam started.

Opening speeches are on first two pages of the media thread.

Her evidence in chief starts on page 26 of the media thread which is linked in the first post of every discussion thread.

In the discussion threads this was 2nd May 2023, thread 19, also with all threads linked in first post of every thread.

Thank you, indefatigable Tortoise!
I'm not going to try LadyL's ambitious project, but those tips are very useful.
What you do in keeping everyone tethered to the evidence is absolutely amazing, over this and many other cases - is there a Websleuths medal?

 

[ColourPurple]

Good to see you here, and @Moll !

It's going to take a long time to read all these threads. If I was new to the case and wanted to get caught up, I think I might start with opening speeches (October 2022), and then jump to when LL took the stand, because we've not exactly had stellar reporting during the trial, there was a huge dip in journo attendance in the middle, and the gaps were nicely filled in once cross-exam started.

Opening speeches are on first two pages of the media thread.

Her evidence in chief starts on page 26 of the media thread which is linked in the first post of every discussion thread.

In the discussion threads this was 2nd May 2023, thread 19, also with all threads linked in first post of every thread.

I'm tempted to tell both of you to run away now before you get too emotionally invested in the case

With all respect to the families of the babies involved in this case and how utterly horrendous this must be for them, even without the epic length of the trial, I think had I known how harrowing and distressing this case was going to be, I would not have followed it. But once you do start following it you, you become invested and want to see it through to the end.

As well as Tortoise's reading recommendations I'd also advise listening to the Daily Mail podcasts, if you haven't already, as they contain some things that haven't been reported in print.

 

[Jayney404]

I get what you're saying but the hospital still has some very serious questions to answer; these amounted to A LOT of completely unexplained collapses and deaths; thee was a case of a blood insulin test coming back so high that the lab took the decision to immediately phone the hospital with its concerns, it was one of the highest figures ever recorded; there were periods where these collapses were happening frighteningly often too.

This isn't about having "no evidence", indeed the very facts that the incidents took place is evidence of something. The whole point of taking some action is to investigate whether there is actually any evidence to point to the causes of these incidents. The insulin finding alone should have raised massive red flags as the only possible explanation was artificially introduced insulin.

The hospital is in deep doo-doo and rightly so!

This is a really critical point. My understanding is that if a contaminated product were found there would be a standard operating procedure for the hospital to follow. This would likely involve mandatory reporting to the manufacturer so a full investigation could ensue. The manufacturer would also issue a full batch recall post haste.

Do we know if the manufacturer were contacted? If not it begs the questions did the hospital even entertain the idea that the insulin had come from an external source? And if not why not?

Also what happened to those bags, where did they go?

Moo JMO if guilty.

 

[Knitty]

Does anyone know if there’s a way to bring forward a post from a thread that’s been closed? Just curious.

There is:

How to quote a post from another thread

This is for when you wish to quote a post, or quote a post from another thread or even a closed thread. Post numbers can change as a result of ongoing moderation or thread cleanups, so please don't say "it's page #" or "it's post # 913". If Mods have had to remove any number of posts within a...

www.websleuths.com

 

[IDK]

There is:

How to quote a post from another thread

This is for when you wish to quote a post, or quote a post from another thread or even a closed thread. Post numbers can change as a result of ongoing moderation or thread cleanups, so please don't say "it's page #" or "it's post # 913". If Mods have had to remove any number of posts within a...

www.websleuths.com

Thank you to everyone who has been so helpful with my question!

 

[Bakers]

I assume BM will now have to question the father who ll disputes she rang If this is no longer agreed evidence?

Other than that medical experts, character witnesses, any of the ‘gang of four’. Who knows it’ll be interesting though!

Well he does mention a professor in his opening speech

 

[Tortoise]

Well he does mention a professor in his opening speech

That's the professor called by the prosecution. Prof Peter Hindmarsh.

 

[Tortoise]

I suspect if they're bringing an expert it'll be as @katydid23 speculated the reason for the hearings today or yesterday, although very last minute if so!

I'll be pleased if they do, leaving no stone unturned. JMO

 

[Jayney404]

Who knows perhaps BM will call some medical experts in. Perhaps he will re-examine the prosecution witnesses and attempt to discredit them?

Perhaps we’ll even hear from the plumber!

IMO if guilty etc

 

[Dotta]

I suspect if they're bringing an expert it'll be as @katydid23 speculated the reason for the hearings today or yesterday, although very last minute if so!

I'll be pleased if they do, leaving no stone unturned. JMO

I thought the experts who were to appear should have been listed at the beginning of the trial
(as Prosecution presented the experts we saw)
for both Prosecution and Defence to prepare themselves properly.

Not somebody at the last minute.

JMO

 

[Kemug]

The hospital is in deep doo-doo

RSBM

That's what Lucy said!