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

[Diddly1]

I’ve been in surgery all afternoon (I am ok) but would someone please, please summarise today’s proceedings

 

[Moll]

Glad you're OK, DIddly1. I'd love to be more helpful but I've been trying to catch up too and have been reduced to a near-comatose state of confusion.

This was the only helpful thing I could find.

Chester doctor’s claims about Letby ‘not worthy of belief’

A senior doctor’s claim he saw Lucy Letby “doing nothing” as a baby girl’s oxygen levels dipped were “not worthy of belief”, the…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[katydid23]

I will finish the tweets from Dan D, from where I left off:




Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue

He now turns to the case of Child L. A twin boy born in early April 2016, Child L stabilised after treatment for mild low blood sugar and was moved to nursery one.

n the hours that followed Ms Letby's arrival on 9 April, Child L's glucose levels fell to abnormally low and he had to be given glucose in an attempt to correct hypoglycaemia.

The prosecution said blood tests revealed a very high level of insulin, which they said had been caused by the administering of synthetic insulin in a "deliberate act of sabotage" by Ms Letby.

Mr Myers is taking the jury back over the charts for Child L - he says the allegation 'doesn't make sense' based on all the information. He says claim that Ms Letby was on her own in the nursery with Child L is 'speculation' and constructed again on a 'theory of guilt'

Mr Myers, as with the other insulin case Child F, focuses on the fact the alleged contaminated TPN bag was changed multiple times - when Ms Letby was not present. He said 'she cannot physically be held responsible for what has happened for the whole period'

He says 'it is impossible to see how that could be done when so many bag changes were needed, Ms Letby was simply not there'

He says the implication of the Crown's argument is that Ms Letby 'has done a job lot' of contaminating all the dextrose bags (15 or so) on the unit to guarantee Child L was sabotaged. He says there's no evidence of that or any of the bags causing issues with other children

 

[katydid23]

I will finish the tweets from Dan D, from where I left off:


Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue

He now turns to the case of Child L. A twin boy born in early April 2016, Child L stabilised after treatment for mild low blood sugar and was moved to nursery one.

n the hours that followed Ms Letby's arrival on 9 April, Child L's glucose levels fell to abnormally low and he had to be given glucose in an attempt to correct hypoglycaemia.

The prosecution said blood tests revealed a very high level of insulin, which they said had been caused by the administering of synthetic insulin in a "deliberate act of sabotage" by Ms Letby.

Mr Myers is taking the jury back over the charts for Child L - he says the allegation 'doesn't make sense' based on all the information. He says claim that Ms Letby was on her own in the nursery with Child L is 'speculation' and constructed again on a 'theory of guilt'

Mr Myers, as with the other insulin case Child F, focuses on the fact the alleged contaminated TPN bag was changed multiple times - when Ms Letby was not present. He said 'she cannot physically be held responsible for what has happened for the whole period'

He says 'it is impossible to see how that could be done when so many bag changes were needed, Ms Letby was simply not there'

He says the implication of the Crown's argument is that Ms Letby 'has done a job lot' of contaminating all the dextrose bags (15 or so) on the unit to guarantee Child L was sabotaged. He says there's no evidence of that or any of the bags causing issues with other children

Mr Myers is now turning to Child L's twin brother Child M. Child M suffered an unexpected life-threatening event on 9 April 2016, at about the same time that his twin brother Child L's blood sugar was dangerously low.

Dan O'Donoghue

Mr Myers notes that Ms Letby was busy with other duties around this time. She was the designated nurse for two other babies in nursery one

The trial is now resuming after a break - Mr Myers is continuing to deal with Child M
Mr Myers says that says air embolus was identified as the reason for Child M's collapse, but the description of Child M in the notes does not match up to what was outlined as the symptoms of air embolism by the experts

 

[katydid23]

Mr Myers is now turning to Child L's twin brother Child M. Child M suffered an unexpected life-threatening event on 9 April 2016, at about the same time that his twin brother Child L's blood sugar was dangerously low.

Dan O'Donoghue
Mr Myers notes that Ms Letby was busy with other duties around this time. She was the designated nurse for two other babies in nursery one

The trial is now resuming after a break - Mr Myers is continuing to deal with Child M
Mr Myers says that says air embolus was identified as the reason for Child M's collapse, but the description of Child M in the notes does not match up to what was outlined as the symptoms of air embolism by the experts

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue

Mr Myers is now turning to Child N. He was a baby boy born in early June 2016. In the hours after his birth he was stabilised and his clinical condition was described as "excellent" by medics.

Child N did however have a blood disorder, which makes someone more prone to bleeding. The prosecution allege that this disorder gave Ms Letby "cover" to attack him, because if he bled it would be put down to the condition.

The Crown say Child N's three deteriorations in June 2016 were consistent with some kind of "inflicted injury" or him having received an injection of air.

The trial heard that in the early hours of 3 June, Child N experienced a "sudden deterioration" and was heard "screaming" and crying for 30minutes. Medical experts said the incident was consistent with the boy having been attacked.

On the 3 June incident, Mr Myers says there was no sign of injury or blood and says he 'recovered from the episode within minutes'. He notes Dr Evans concluded this was an air embolus - he says 'well this has to be one of the fastest air embolus in the history of air emboluses'

He notes that on the second alleged attack on 15 June, the Crown's evidence is essentially Ms Letby 'just nipped in and did something unidentified' when other doctors and nurses were on the unit

'Ms Letby had done nothing to make (Child N) unwell, he became unwell during the shift', Mr Myers said He tells the jury that we're here now because of the 'presumptions that have been made' about Ms Letby's presence on the unit

 

[katydid23]

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue

Mr Myers is now turning to Child N. He was a baby boy born in early June 2016. In the hours after his birth he was stabilised and his clinical condition was described as "excellent" by medics.

Child N did however have a blood disorder, which makes someone more prone to bleeding. The prosecution allege that this disorder gave Ms Letby "cover" to attack him, because if he bled it would be put down to the condition.

The Crown say Child N's three deteriorations in June 2016 were consistent with some kind of "inflicted injury" or him having received an injection of air.

The trial heard that in the early hours of 3 June, Child N experienced a "sudden deterioration" and was heard "screaming" and crying for 30minutes. Medical experts said the incident was consistent with the boy having been attacked.

On the 3 June incident, Mr Myers says there was no sign of injury or blood and says he 'recovered from the episode within minutes'. He notes Dr Evans concluded this was an air embolus - he says 'well this has to be one of the fastest air embolus in the history of air emboluses'

He notes that on the second alleged attack on 15 June, the Crown's evidence is essentially Ms Letby 'just nipped in and did something unidentified' when other doctors and nurses were on the unit

'Ms Letby had done nothing to make (Child N) unwell, he became unwell during the shift', Mr Myers said He tells the jury that we're here now because of the 'presumptions that have been made' about Ms Letby's presence on the unit

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue


Mr Myers is now turning to Child O, who was one of triplet brothers and was born in good condition in June 2016. The court heard he was stable up until 23 June, when he suffered a "remarkable deterioration" and was moved to nursery one, where he stabilised.


He later suffered a further fatal collapse. A post-mortem examination found unclotted blood in his body from a liver injury, which led a coroner to conclude his death was due to natural causes.

An independent pathologist, who later reviewed the case, said the boy had suffered an "impact injury" akin to a road traffic collision, while medical experts for the prosecution said he died due to a combination of that injury and air being injected into his bloodstream.

 

[Tortoise]

I noticed how the prosecution's closing speech was all about Letby - what she said in her answers to the police and in court, what she put in nursing charts and notes, where she was at all relevant times, what she texted, the connections and similarities, the "signature" and evolution of her alleged attacks.

Then I noticed how it doesn't even appear that Letby is the one on trial in the defence's closing speech. You can hardly see her, except for smiling on her kitchen noticeboard and Salsa dancing her way through the year. The connections and similarities between cases (those key puzzle pieces) have been kicked under the rug, and the emphasis is on viewing each case individually, even the insulin poisonings. Meanwhile the baddies who all came and one by one 'lied' to the court, nurses, registrars, consultants, lab technicians, experts and parents...are of a number now that all you can see are arms and legs flailing around under the bus, like a consortium of octopuses.

JMO

Good wishes for a speedy recovery @Diddly1

 

[katydid23]

I noticed how the prosecution's closing speech was all about Letby - what she said in her answers to the police and in court, what she put in nursing charts and notes, where she was at all relevant times, what she texted, the connections and similarities, the "signature" and evolution of her alleged attacks.

Then I noticed how it doesn't even appear that Letby is the one on trial in the defence's closing speech. You can hardly see her, except for smiling on her kitchen noticeboard and Salsa dancing her way through the year. The connections and similarities between cases (those key puzzle pieces) have been kicked under the rug, and the emphasis is on viewing each case individually, even the insulin poisonings. Meanwhile the baddies who all came and one by one 'lied' to the court, nurses, registrars, consultants, lab technicians, experts and parents...are of a number now that all you can see are arms and legs flailing around under the bus, like a consortium of octopuses.

JMO

Yes, and he sprinkles in things like "Was Ms Letby even there?" " Could she have even done this with so many. people around coming and going"

I really hjope the jurors listened closely during the past 8 months, while the Crown painstakingly traced her movements closely, and put her cot-side, in crucial moments in most of the cases.

 

[Tortoise]

Yes, and he sprinkles in things like "Was Ms Letby even there?" " Could she have even done this with so many. people around coming and going"

I really hjope the jurors listened closely during the past 8 months, while the Crown painstakingly traced her movements closely, and put her cot-side, in crucial moments in most of the cases.

The argument doesn't work, because someone did add insulin and they weren't seen doing it. He can't say she couldn't have done it when someone did. Goodbye Nostradamus.

JMO

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Really struggling to listen to some of this, caught up on today’s updates earlier and noticed 1. How quickly BM seems to have got through the cases he talked about today, almost like he’s glossed over the most damning evidence in each case and hyper focused on anything he thinks is favourable to LL and 2. How many things he’s said over the last few days that simply aren’t correct and have been refuted with evidence from the prosecution!

I’ve been expecting NJ to object to some of this closing just because BM seems to have suddenly qualified as an expert witness in this case, I really didn’t think he’d be allowed to get away with some of the statement’s he’s made asif he’s now an expert!

All MOO

 

[Tortoise]

It wouldn't surprise me if he's taken to wearing a stethoscope around his neck.

 

[katydid23]

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".

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 29 - defence closing speech

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 wonder what dates Meyers is referring to, when he says there were two unexplained collapses when LL was not present?

"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".

. 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].
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."


I wish we had more clarity about what time/date these collapse were that Meyers claims did not involve LL/

I found a very detailed testimony from chesterstandard about the collapses of Baby J:

Lucy Letby: Baby girl's seizures 'did not happen naturally'

TWO seizures suffered by a baby girl did not happen naturally, the murder trial of a nurse has heard.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Lucy Letby, 33, is accused of attempting to murder the premature-born infant in her cot at the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal unit.

Child J had two “profound” drops in blood oxygen levels at about 5am on November 27, 2015.

Two further episodes took place two hours later, Manchester Crown Court was told, when her heart rate also plunged and she showed signs of a seizure.
On Monday, consultant paediatrician Dr John Gibbs said her limbs stiffened on the latter two occasions and her hands were “clenched”.

He said the first fit was “reasonably long” and took 10 minutes to settle, while the second stopped after “three or four minutes”.

Tests showed no signs of infection and did not identify a cause for the seizures, the court heard.

Giving evidence on Tuesday, expert medical witness Dr Dewi Evans told prosecutor Nick Johnson KC: “The first pair of collapses were unexpected because she was nice and stable before that.

“The second pair of events were more serious and required more in the way of resuscitation, but again were unexpected and I noted the markers for inflammation were normal which tended to rule out infection.

“The second pair coincided with what the doctors describe as a seizure or a fit. This is indicative of something going wrong with the brain.

“My opinion was that (Child J’s) brain was deprived of oxygen for a sufficient level of time to cause hypoxia ie loss of oxygen to the brain causing fits.

“As far as I know this was the only occasion when she had seizures and the cause of this was the hypoxia, the lack of oxygen to the brain.”

Mr Johnson asked the retired consultant paediatrician: “So far as the hypoxic incidents that had caused these seizures were concerned, could you identify any natural process that might have caused that?”

 

[Parker Knoll]

I am gobsmacked with this closing to be perfectly honest.
I think there will be repercussions.
JMO

 

[Becky53]

I’ve only read the write ups today and see there has been no mention of the plumbing. Must be saving the best bit for last.

 

[Kasmeer]

I can see some doubt over some charges being raised by this, it's certainly gone for every possible doubtful thing, and in fairness, I wasn't sure about every detail (TPN bags being changed or not changed and how insulin gets into them... plus if she really was not present for some collapses, that may raise doubts about the baseline health of that baby), it could even be that he is correct about some of his points! But the overall case... I think is still too many coincidences all together for the jury to ignore, and I don't doubt that the judge will do a thorough job in his summing up to clarify many of these points, which should reduce the persuasiveness of BM's speech.

I have neither the time nor the will to plough through all of the evidence to confirm details, hence why I'm short on examples in this post - I'm so glad I'm not on the jury, who will need to do just that to be sure of their verdicts.

 

[katydid23]

I wonder what dates Meyers is referring to, when he says there were two unexplained collapses when LL was not present?

"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".

. 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].
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."


I wish we had more clarity about what time/date these collapse were that Meyers claims did not involve LL/

I found a very detailed testimony from chesterstandard about the collapses of Baby J:

Lucy Letby: Baby girl's seizures 'did not happen naturally'

TWO seizures suffered by a baby girl did not happen naturally, the murder trial of a nurse has heard.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Lucy Letby, 33, is accused of attempting to murder the premature-born infant in her cot at the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal unit.

Child J had two “profound” drops in blood oxygen levels at about 5am on November 27, 2015.

Two further episodes took place two hours later, Manchester Crown Court was told, when her heart rate also plunged and she showed signs of a seizure.
On Monday, consultant paediatrician Dr John Gibbs said her limbs stiffened on the latter two occasions and her hands were “clenched”.

He said the first fit was “reasonably long” and took 10 minutes to settle, while the second stopped after “three or four minutes”.

Tests showed no signs of infection and did not identify a cause for the seizures, the court heard.

Giving evidence on Tuesday, expert medical witness Dr Dewi Evans told prosecutor Nick Johnson KC: “The first pair of collapses were unexpected because she was nice and stable before that.

“The second pair of events were more serious and required more in the way of resuscitation, but again were unexpected and I noted the markers for inflammation were normal which tended to rule out infection.

“The second pair coincided with what the doctors describe as a seizure or a fit. This is indicative of something going wrong with the brain.

“My opinion was that (Child J’s) brain was deprived of oxygen for a sufficient level of time to cause hypoxia ie loss of oxygen to the brain causing fits.

“As far as I know this was the only occasion when she had seizures and the cause of this was the hypoxia, the lack of oxygen to the brain.”

Mr Johnson asked the retired consultant paediatrician: “So far as the hypoxic incidents that had caused these seizures were concerned, could you identify any natural process that might have caused that?”

WAIT A MINUTE----this statement from BM seems disingenuous:
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."

In reality, that^^^ is a misleading statement. Letby was on duty for all 4 collapses. She is not being charged or accused of anything in the first two. But the second two events were much more serious and profound. And those are the two that are more troubling and questionable.



Chester Standard Updates - Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 2 - cross-examination continues
Mr Johnson says two pairs of events for child J happened; one pair in room 4, one pair in room 2.

The room 4 incidents happened at 3am and 4.57am, and the room 2 incidents happened either side of 7am. Letby accepts this was the case.

Letby accepts the evidence from Child J's mother that Child J was well and "about to go home in a day or two".

The court is shown a night shift staffing rota at the end of the night, in which Child J was in room 2.
Letby is asked if she has any memory of the earlier pair of incidents. She says she does not have a recollection.
She says from her memory, Child J had a seizure and was moved to room 2. She says she could be mistaken in her memory.

Mr Johnson says two pairs of events for child J happened; one pair in room 4, one pair in room 2.
The room 4 incidents happened at 3am and 4.57am, and the room 2 incidents happened either side of 7am. Letby accepts this was the case.

The court is shown a night shift staffing rota at the end of the night, in which Child J was in room 2.
Letby is asked if she has any memory of the earlier pair of incidents. She says she does not have a recollection.
She says from her memory, Child J had a seizure and was moved to room 2. She says she could be mistaken in her memory.

The court is shown an apnoea/brady/fit chart for Child J on November 27, recording events for Child J at 4.40am and 5.03am, recorded by nurse Nicola Dennison, in nursery 4.
The desaturations are recorded by Dr Kaliyilil Verghese.
Letby recalled when she was called in to room 4, Child J was 'fitting', not desaturating.
Letby accepts that by 6.28am, Child J had been moved to room 2, as a text message written by her to a colleague had said that was the case.

Letby accepts, from looking at the neonatal schedule, she would have been in room 2 when the emergency twins were admitted to room 1.

NJ: "The medical staff would have their attention focused on the twins, and any help that could be spared would have gone on the twins.
NJ: "Do you accept that a lot of help was needed?"
LL: "It would be normal practice to get in the consultant when we only had the registrar, yes."
Dr John Gibbs arrives at 6.34am, earlier than normal for his shift, to assist.

The last message Letby sent to her colleague was 6.49am. The colleague sent three messages which were not replied to in the following minutes.
NJ: "That's because you were in nursery room 2, sabotaging [Child I], weren't you?"
LL: "No, I wasn't."

3:35pm

Letby accepts that, on the neonatal schedule, she is not recorded doing anything in the half hour prior to Child J's collapse at 6.56am.
Mr Johnson refers to Dr John Gibbs's notes of 'sudden desats (to unrecordable levels) at 6.56 and at 7.24 and bradycardia. Both associated with clenching of hands, stiff limbs, and on second occasion, eyes deviated to left.'
NJ: "This was your doing?"
LL: "No, it wasn't."
Letby accepts it was an emergency situation and Dr Gibbs had to be called away from room 1 to Child J in room 2.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Yes feel better soon @Diddly1

 

[CS2C]

It wouldn't surprise me if he's taken to wearing a stethoscope around his neck.

Post of the year, brilliant

 

[CS2C]

I was thinking back to when I was there for her last day of cross examination and all the blatant lies she told regarding the pyjamas, her social life etc. It makes me wonder why someone who is supposedly innocent would feel a need to lie about ANYTHING whatsoever. Also the way her demeanour didn’t change one little bit despite having to admit she lied. The only reply to “Why have you lied to this jury” was “I don’t know”

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I am gobsmacked with this closing to be perfectly honest.
I think there will be repercussions.
JMO

I feel the same way and that is very problematic. In all seriousness, I have begun to wonder if the intensity, subject matter, and length of this case has had a more profound effect on the defence barrister than bears us simply mocking? I mean to say what if he truly really means all of this and is speaking from the heart and not just trying to mount a campaign of 'a bucket of cold water'?

The prosecution have worked in huge teams over many years to get to the point of being in court and they have, as we see, so much expert input. Whereas the defence is really flying solo under this incredible level of duress day in day out... I honestly just can't imagine, it doesn't seem right. I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here?

JMO MOO IANAL