UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #27

[katydid23]

11:42am

Dr Rachel Lambie had said Child A 'looked like Child B', pale and blotchy all over. The defence said her original police statement referred to Child A being pale, with white hands.
She thought there was a "lot of discussion" over the rashes. She said no-one had told her what to say on them.
The defence "draw your attention" to the difference, the judge says.

11:42am

The judge's next legal direction is on differences in evidential statements.
He says what a witness says in the witness box is all evidence for consideration. He says where there are, or appear to be, differences in accounts, it is for the jury to decide how different those accounts are, and how important they are.
He says if there are important differences, they should consider them, and the explanations given. He says if the jury do not accept their explanations, they should treat the witness' evidence with caution. If the explanations are accepted, then the evidence can be treated as such.
He says it is "really no more than a common-sense approach" "to see where the truth lies".

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 3 - judge's summing up

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

I'm still catching up===but I like that the judge is talking about things like the similarities of babies A and B, and the similar rashes in A and baby E...I think it is important for the jury to consider the big picture, the many patterns and similarities in order to come to the right conclusion. JMO

 

[Dotta]

"The Presumption of Guilt"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1675862773996085248

 

[notsure]

Completely befuddled. Only the jury have heard the full account, all the evidence, etc. Good luck to them! I respect their decision.

 

[Dotta]

Completely befuddled. Only the jury have heard the full account, all the evidence, etc. Good luck to them! I respect their decision.

Experts were very clear from the very beginning.

And as the Judge said - they are witnesses not advocates.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

With all due respect, who in that courtroom would know if what Mr Myers has said is medically incorrect ? That is my issue with it.

They sat through 8 months of the Crown's case in chief, listening to each expert witness, each staff member, and each Doctor, who made their accusations.

So I think they have the foundation of evidence available to them, to withstand the verbal assault by Meyers. JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

They sat through 8 months of the Crown's case in chief, listening to each expert witness, each staff member, and each Doctor, who made their accusations.

So I think they have the foundation of evidence available to them, to withstand the verbal assault by Meyers. JMO

To be strictly correct, none of the witnesses made any accusations of anything. That is specifically what the judge has pointed out to the jury.

 

[Becci]

So the original pathologist worked at Alderhey for 27 years.
Imo he's been disrespected & undermined.
If anyone would have a correct cause of death I'm sure it would be him given that that was his job.
He gave a cause of death for baby C so how was that classed as unexplained at the start of the investigation?

 

[marynnu]

So the original pathologist worked at Alderhey for 27 years.
Imo he's been disrespected & undermined.
If anyone would have a correct cause of death I'm sure it would be him given that that was his job.
He gave a cause of death for baby C so how was that classed as unexplained at the start of the investigation?

What cause did he give? I've completely lost track!!

 

[Moll]

Glad you said that, marynnu - seconded! I had no idea what Becci was referring to but as I haven't followed the whole case with anything like your background or detailed attention, I thought I'd better not ask.

 

[marynnu]

Glad you said that, marynnu - seconded! I had no idea what Becci was referring to but as I haven't followed the whole case with anything like your background or detailed attention, I thought I'd better not ask.

I have no shame, I ask anything!

 

[Dotta]

I have no shame, I ask anything!

There is NEVER shame in asking!
That is how we LEARN!

Ooops!
I got into my teacher's mode.
Again!

 

[Sundial]

The end draws ever closer and I really hope these parents finally have some closure in what has been a truly awful situation for them.

Re the discussion with avoiding appeal, now it makes sense why she was being treated with kids gloves (as someone else highlighted earlier on), extra rest breaks, finishing early, the whole ptsd thing (which I’m not disputing at all, maybe she has!); but the whole thing with the special treatment, leaving and not coming back after lunch on that one occasion, BM giving his “opinion” rather than sourcing their own expertise to refute all the medical evidence etc… IF GUILTY this to me has all been accommodated for to avoid any room for chance to appeal.

The trial has been so long, harrowing and draining already. The prosecution will want to ensure their evidence is watertight, the crown will want to ensure they have done everything possible by the book; including sensitively addressing the defendant’s needs for all the extra rest times (I noted how the judge has summed up her health was in 2015-2016 as good), making provisions, covering all angles.

IMO if guilty, personally they have got to get this 100% right, first time, no mistakes, no ground for appeal, closure for all involved and all those who have sadly experienced such devastating loss.

No-one should need a retake of what has been such an awful situation, months of evidence, research, and the years it’s taken to bring to trial. Let there finally be justice (whatever that may be) for these parents and their children and hope they can finally find some peace in what should have been one of life’s most joyful occasions.

JMO if guilty.

 

[Becci]

What cause did he give? I've completely lost track!!

Sorry just came bk lol

Child C

Original pathology: The cause of death was ‘widespread hypoxic/ischaemic damage to the heart/myocardium’ due to lung disease, with maternal vascular under perfusion as a contributary factor.

 

[marynnu]

There is NEVER shame in asking!
That is how we LEARN!

Ooops!
I got into my teacher's mode.
Again!

Thank you Miss Dotta.

 

[marynnu]

Sorry just came bk lol

Child C

Original pathology: The cause of death was ‘widespread hypoxic/ischaemic damage to the heart/myocardium’ due to lung disease, with maternal vascular under perfusion as a contributary factor.

Thanks. I don't recollect this at all, though of course it's been a while!

 

[nyvictoria]

They sat through 8 months of the Crown's case in chief, listening to each expert witness, each staff member, and each Doctor, who made their accusations.

So I think they have the foundation of evidence available to them, to withstand the verbal assault by Meyers. JMO

Is it true the jury can discuss the case during the trial? I think I read that somewhere.

 

[Tortoise]

How is it disrespectful to the original pathologist, when he would have been looking for natural causes of a baby who died on a neonatal unit? This wasn't a baby who died at home, where there was any possibility, within usual realms, of deliberate harm.

The experts agree with him that he died with pneumonia, but say he did not die from it. His medical records show it was being treated and was improving, there was no deterioration, and it is not an adequate explanation because he started to show signs of self-recovery, hours after CPR stopped - which is also why the defence are not going with pneumonia and are saying 'bowel obstruction', even though the experts have ruled that out.

It was classed as unexplained, as indeed were all the deaths in this case, with or without post-mortems done, because the treating doctors have said it was not expected.

 

[Tortoise]

Is it true the jury can discuss the case during the trial? I think I read that somewhere.

Yes, if they are all together and no one can hear them.

 

[katydid23]

2:14pm

The trial is resuming following its lunch break.
The judge describes Prof Sally Kinsey's evidence, in which she had concluded, from the descriptions by dctors and nurses of skin discolouration, that Child A had had an air embolus. The court had been told of how an air embolus affects the body. She confirmed she had not seen one in her experience, but the descriptions provided were "pretty stark".

2:14pm

The judge turns to the case of Child B, and relays the care and events leading up to and the time of her collapse.

2:22pm

A nurse colleague said she had her gloves on, and was drawing up medication, when Child B collapsed at 12.30am. Letby had said Child B was apnoeic [not breathing].
The nurse said Child B 'looked like Child A', with blotchy discolouration; a 'cyanosed appearance' was recorded in the nursing notes. The notes added the colour changed rapidly, to "purple blotches with white patches."
Letby said she had accepted being in room 1 at the time of the collapse. She said the colleague had alerted her to Child B's collapse. Child B had a 'dark mottling', a 'general mottling'. Child B was 'more purple' and she did not see what the nursing colleague had seen.
Letby had accepted she would have had access to the IV lines prior to the collapses of Child A and Child B, but said she did not do anything with them.
Letby, in police interview, said Child B's mottling 'purple, red, rash-like appearance' was more extensive than with Child A, but was "similar".
She recalled Child A and Child B's parents being very upset. She said, in a 2019 police interview, she accepted she may have taken blood gas readings prior to the collapse, but did not do anything to harm Child B. In a 2020 police interview, she said she did not know how Child B collapsed.

2:27pm

Dr Rachel Lambie said the most unusual observation for Child B was a 'dusky, pale grey colour - then developing widespread blotches of a purple/red colour - they would flush up, then disappear, then appear elsewhere - they were flitting all over'.
It took about 90 minutes for the grey colour to disappear and be replaced by pink, she added.
She said this "was a very unusual event" which she had not seen before or since, and Child B recovered quickly.
Blood gas results came back as normal.
Letby said she had been asked to get a camera to get a photo of Child B, but when she had returned, the discolouration had gone.
A female doctor recalled 'purple blotching to the mid-right abdomen and right hand', which she was "puzzled" by.
The rash was "so florid" and "so very unusual", she said, and its quick disappearance was not normal.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 3 - judge's summing up

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

"Letby said she had accepted being in room 1 at the time of the collapse. She said the colleague had alerted her to Child B's collapse. Child B had a 'dark mottling', a 'general mottling'. Child B was 'more purple' and she did not see what the nursing colleague had seen.

Letby had accepted she would have had access to the IV lines prior to the collapses of Child A and Child B, but said she did not do anything with them.

She [dr lambie] said this "was a very unusual event" which she had not seen before or since,
and Child B recovered quickly.
Blood gas results came back as normal."

I am glad the judge stated these ^^^facts.

 

[katydid23]

To be strictly correct, none of the witnesses made any accusations of anything. That is specifically what the judge has pointed out to the jury.

Ummm, not really true. Dr Brearey and Dr Jayarahm both made accusations, and were called as witnesses.
And Baby E's mom made an accusation and was called as a witness.

JMO