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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #361
Experts are NOT on anybody's side.
The only side they are faithful to is SCIENCE.

That’s true, but I just mean that you’ll often have a trial where both sides have their own experts wading in. We didn’t get that with this one which I find strange!
 
  • #362
  • #363
  • #364
I can not WAIT to use that in convo !
 
  • #365
  • #366
I really do not know how the parents are coping with cruel interpretation of the defence. (MOO) They must feel absolutely tortured again. I have had to scan MyersKC’s closing as it repels and utterly repulses every sense of honour and dignity that I try to live by. My heart heart aches more and more for the babies and the families with every tragic twist and bending of previous evidence heard. It is almost like listening to the babies attacked and murdered again MOO only my musings
I feel the same way you do Diddly1.
 
  • #367
Just musing really, but for me there are 2 major 'if only' cases. Firstly Baby E not having a PM. And Baby F's long line needing to be replaced. What are the chances?
 
  • #368
I also think if only the nurse who stated she “would have” changed the TPN bag had owned up that she hadn’t. I think the same bag running is such a more likely scenario.
This mention of a second stock bag, with no apparent paper trail (no mention of prescription, who the second check nurse was) adds so many extra questions of how could Lucy have realistically selected one of five at random etc.
I know we keep hearing the bag was changed but I just don’t understand if that was the case why there’s still ambiguity over it.
Or maybe there is a obvious prescription they jury can see and we just haven’t. It just makes the scenario so much less likely to be plausible if a second contaminated bag from stock was definitely used.
 
  • #369
I also think if only the nurse who stated she “would have” changed the TPN bag had owned up that she hadn’t. I think the same bag running is such a more likely scenario.
This mention of a second stock bag, with no apparent paper trail (no mention of prescription, who the second check nurse was) adds so many extra questions of how could Lucy have realistically selected one of five at random etc.
I know we keep hearing the bag was changed but I just don’t understand if that was the case why there’s still ambiguity over it.
Or maybe there is a obvious prescription they jury can see and we just haven’t. It just makes the scenario so much less likely to be plausible if a second contaminated bag from stock was definitely used.

Exactly this. The absence of proof that a second bag was used has puzzled me from the start. It should be conclusive, as everything given by nurses has to be prescribed. No prescription = no new bag.
Quite a few nurses on other sites have expressed the same opinion, that the same TPN was used throughout.
 
  • #370
Just musing really, but for me there are 2 major 'if only' cases. Firstly Baby E not having a PM. And Baby F's long line needing to be replaced. What are the chances?
Can you explain what you mean a bit more by that Mary, if you don't mind?
 
  • #371
Just as Mr Myers is saying the jurors can reject the witness evidence in every scenario, they can reject or accept the evidence of the nurses who said they would have used a new bag for baby F.


You must, however, judge the case on all the evidence in the case in a fair, calm, objective and analytical way – applying your knowledge of human behaviour, how people act and react, using your common sense and collective good judgment in your assessment of the evidence and the conclusions to be drawn from it.”

Mr Justice Goss told jurors it was not their role to “resolve every conflict in the evidence
”.

Letby jurors told to set aside emotion as baby murders trial winds up
 
  • #372
Can you explain what you mean a bit more by that Mary, if you don't mind?

Not sure I can, but here goes! I just mean that if Baby E had indeed been assaulted, this would have been shown by a post mortem and the whole course of events might have been different - not least of all there might have been no more incidents. And with the insulin for Baby F it would have been much more straightforward to argue that the first (only) bag was contaminated.
 
  • #373
Exactly this. The absence of proof that a second bag was used has puzzled me from the start. It should be conclusive, as everything given by nurses has to be prescribed. No prescription = no new bag.
Quite a few nurses on other sites have expressed the same opinion, that the same TPN was used throughout.
Are you able to shed any light on how tight the stock management is of these bags? For example, would the hospital be able to identify the reference numbers of the bags which would have been in the fridge on a given date, and then track them to which babies they went to? And so, if there’s a stock bag ‘missing’ then it’s more likely the nurse’s recollection of changing the bag is correct, or alternatively there would be a paper trail of all five bags going to different babies and therefore the original TPN bag was rehung.

It feels like it should be easy to know what happened with the bags, but only if there’s adequate stock management.
 
  • #374
Exactly this. The absence of proof that a second bag was used has puzzled me from the start. It should be conclusive, as everything given by nurses has to be prescribed. No prescription = no new bag.
Quite a few nurses on other sites have expressed the same opinion, that the same TPN was used throughout.
That's ^^^the feeling I got during the nurse's trial testimony---but she did not want to say that she didn't change the bag because that was the protocol. She basically said 'we were supposed to change the bag in cases of tissuing---so I am sure we would have'---but she didn't sound very convincing, IMO.
 
  • #375
Are you able to shed any light on how tight the stock management is of these bags? For example, would the hospital be able to identify the reference numbers of the bags which would have been in the fridge on a given date, and then track them to which babies they went to? And so, if there’s a stock bag ‘missing’ then it’s more likely the nurse’s recollection of changing the bag is correct, or alternatively there would be a paper trail of all five bags going to different babies and therefore the original TPN bag was rehung.

It feels like it should be easy to know what happened with the bags, but only if there’s adequate stock management.

I honestly do not know, because we didn't use stock TPN where I worked! But in any case the existence, or not, of a prescripton is central in my opinion.
 
  • #376
Regardless of the verdict, this case is "Black PR" for this particular hospital.

I would be very cautious to step there as a patient.

But I guess things changed for the better surely?

Nevertheless, I view this place as a "tomb of the innocents".
But that is my imagination - again! :(

JMO
 
  • #377
Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue

Lucy Letby's defence lawyer Ben Myers KC will be on his feet for a fourth day at Manchester Crown Court today, where he'll be continuing with his closing statement to the jury. Ms Letby is on trial for the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of a further 10

Mr Myers is beginning with the case of Child J. She was born prematurely at the Countess of Chester in late October 2015 and transferred to Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool on 1 November as she had a bowel condition which required surgery.

She returned to Chester on 10 November, where she remained stable until 27 November, when she suffered two unexplained seizures within a half-hour period.

A medical expert for the prosecution said her collapse could be "consistent with some form of obstruction of her airways, such as smothering"
 
Last edited:
  • #378
Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue

Lucy Letby's defence lawyer Ben Myers KC will be on his feet for a fourth day at Manchester Crown Court today, where he'll be continuing with his closing statement to the jury. Ms Letby is on trial for the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of a further 10

Mr Myers is beginning with the case of Child J. She was born prematurely at the Countess of Chester in late October 2015 and transferred to Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool on 1 November as she had a bowel condition which required surgery.

She returned to Chester on 10 November, where she remained stable until 27 November, when she suffered two unexplained seizures within a half-hour period.

A medical expert for the prosecution said her collapse could be "consistent with some form of obstruction of her airways, such as smothering"
Mr Myers is quoting evidence from Child J's mother - who painted a picture of the Countess of Chester. She contrasted it with Alder Hey, she said Alder Hey staff were 'extremely professional'.

At Chester Mr Myers said the mother 'felt like staff on occasions did not take her or her husband's concerns seriously when they raised them'. He said in the parents' view staff at the Countess 'did not have the same competence and ability'

The mother said she felt 'complaints were not taken seriously' and cited one occasion were the mum found Child J 'wrapped in a towel covered in faeces and called for a meeting with a consultant', he said her 'concerns were met with pushback'

Mr Myers takes the jury through Child J's collapses on the morning of 27 November 2015 - he says the experts and doctors on shift at the time could not explain her collapse. He says given the timings of events, 'there is no space for these allegations'
 
Last edited:
  • #379
Regardless of the verdict, this case is "Black PR" for this particular hospital.

I would be very cautious to step there as a patient.

But I guess things changed for the better surely?

Nevertheless, I view this place as a "tomb of the innocents".
But that is my imagination - again! :(

JMO
I understand what you mean and that is, indeed, how many people will probably take all of the evidence. But it's not necessarily a fair conclusion. Healthcare is never perfect. We have fallible human beings treating other fallible human beings in an environment of financial and resource constraints. Good health care is extremely expensive and yet there is no bottomless pit of money to mine to fund it. At the end of the day, whichever way you pull the blanket it will be short one one way or another. This does not excuse gross negligence, malpractice or indeed, intentional harm, it's that in any health care system there will be inadequacies and insufficiencies and mistakes will be made. These things can be minimised but never eliminated. To borrow Winnicott's phrase from his analysis of mothering, health care needs to be "good enough", but not perfect.
 
  • #380
10:29am
The trial is due to resume at 10.30am.

Benjamin Myers KC, for Letby's defence, will continue giving the closing speech for a fourth day. He has previously told the jury his speech will last five days.

10:32am
The trial judge, Mr Justice James Goss, says to accommodate timetabling issues, the court will be sitting until 3pm today. To make up for lost time, the lunch break will be shorter than usual, and the court will begin at 10am on Friday.

10:33am
Mr Myers refers to the case of Child J, and outlines the events which happened to the baby girl in November 2015, and what is alleged.

10:37am
He says Child J's mother is "a fairly neutral witness on this topic". He says she said she drew comparisons betwen the care at Alder Hey Children's Hospital and the Countess of Chester Hospital, and the latter was 'not favourable'. She says the staff at the Countess relied on them to sort stoma care. She says they were left to "feel unwelcome", and asked about that, she said she felt their concerns "were not treated seriously". She says the staff there "did not have the same confidence and ability" in dealing with stoma bags.

Mr Myers says this statement is used as the basis for their argument that the Countess was receiving too many babies with complex needs.

10:39am
Mr Myers says the mother had said the concerns were met with "pushback".

He says nurses, including Nicola Dennison and Mary Griffiths, had said dealing with stoma bags was "unusual", and Dr John Gibbs said it was a "challenge".

10:44am
He says this case is evidence "beyond doubt" that serious deteriorations can come out of nowhere, as there are two desaturations for Child J, a well baby generally, which are serious and "cannot be blamed on Lucy Letby".

Dr Kalyilil Verghese had considered the first was a 'false desaturation'. Mr Myers says Nicola Dennison had given evidence to say the first "serious desaturation" is a real one "which comes out of nowhere", with Child J desaturating to the 30s [of oxygen saturation levels].

He says Dr Stephen Brearey said he could not find a cause for those two desaturations, and agreed they were unexpected.

Mr Myers says it is "clear unfairness" that the latter desaturations, when Letby is present, are an allegation of harm, as opposed to the first two desaturations when Letby is not present.

He says there is "no evidence" that can be linked for Letby causing harm to Child J.

10:51am
Mr Myers says the experts do not identify any physical harm for Child J. He says Letby is being left to explain something for which she probably wasn't present for. He says Dr Dewi Evans, when cross-examined, could not rule out infection in his report.

He says this is not attempted murder, and the prosecution case is "empty".

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
129
Guests online
2,641
Total visitors
2,770

Forum statistics

Threads
632,883
Messages
18,633,049
Members
243,327
Latest member
janemot
Back
Top