VERDICT WATCH UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #29

[JosieJo]

I think they feel that question would help them but it wouldn't..they have the blood sugar readings and Endocrinology consultant evidence to use regarding any timing issues they may have

 

[katydid23]

I wonder, if (hypothetically) the jury decide she is guilty of murder, could they use that to decide she more than likely intended to kill the victims she is charged with attempting to murder? In other words, if she’d already killed, is she more likely to be trying to kill the babies who survived as opposed to just seriously harming them instead?

I know the judge said the jury could use guilt in some cases to decide guilt in others. But I don’t know if that applies to deciding on intent to kill vs seriously harm.

All MOO and just an example…

I just hope they take into account the vulnerability and fragile nature of preemie newborns, and realise that insulin poisoning is very dangerous and lethal. The babies would have died if not for medical interventions.

 

[Tortoise]

I think baby F was prescribed a small dose of insulin just after he was born. I wonder if their question is relevant to that?

But it was about 4 or 5 days before the alleged poisoning, so perhaps not.

 

[ColourPurple]

I agree. The prosecution didn’t have to prove exactly how harm was done, just that the victims were harmed/killed by LL. If they have (for example) decided LL is guilty of one charge, for these 2 it should simply be a case of deciding if its more likely that LL is guilty of these attacks vs there being another attacker on the unit. IMO. The poisoning is undisputed, all that need to be decided for these cases is whether LL is the perpetrator and whether intent to kill was proven. To decide this they could use guilt they may have already established in other cases as evidence, so unless the only verdicts reached so far are not guilty ones, I’m confused by their question.

Oh to be a fly on the wall in that room…

MOO

And with both insulin charges both babies had a twin who was also allegedly attacked by LL. So for example IF the jury believe that LL is guilty of murdering Baby E, they could use that to consider whether LL or somebody else then targeted Baby E's twin, Baby F. If they conclude it was LL they can use the fact that they believe she killed Baby E to decide whether she intended to kill Baby F. On the other hand I guess they could decide that although Baby E died, she only meant to cause harm to Baby E and find her guilty of Baby E's murder but use use that to decide that she only intended to cause harm to Baby F too and find her not guilty of Baby F's attempted murder.

JMO, if guilty etc.

 

[Dcflag]

I assumed re the insulin timings they’re trying to work out if it could’ve been given earlier or later than the suggested timings. Perhaps to see if she really is in that window of opportunity. But as others have said it’s a moot point because the symptoms starting shows a pretty good starting time.

It’s probably a good thing mostly, they’re trying to make sure she’s the only one who had the opportunity, not that it didn’t happen.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Just a thought. Didn’t we hear evidence about short and long term acting insulin? One might think that would entail details about its longevity of action within the body.

 

[ColourPurple]

I just hope they take into account the vulnerability and fragile nature of preemie newborns, and realise that insulin poisoning is very dangerous and lethal. The babies would have died if not for medical interventions.

There was also the information that seemed to suggest that LL may have encouraged the other nurse not to check Baby F's blood sugar for a while because of concerns about his "poor heels". This meant there was a longer period between checks which could have had (but luckily didn't have) dire consequences for Baby F.

JMO

ETA link to @Tortoise orginal post quoting the text conversation between LL and the other nurse, re not taking the blood sugar for 3 hours after LL's 5am reading.

----------
Listening to the Mail Podcast (post #877) I've now got the full text conversation between LL and the designated nurse...


8am – LL finishes night shift

8.47am –
LL: "Did you hear what F's sugar was at 8am?"
Nurse: "No?"
LL: "1.8"
Nurse: "S***!!!!", now I feel awful but leaving it three hours didn’t seem excessive and it was only two and a half hours
LL: "Something isn't right if he is dropping like that with the amount of fluid he’s had and being 1.65kg, don’t think you needed to do it sooner, got to think of his poor heels too"
Nurse: "Exactly, he’s had so much handling. No something not right. Heart rate and sugars."
LL: "Dr Gibbs came so hopefully they will get him sorted. "He is a worry though."
Nurse: "Hope so. He is a worry."
LL: "Hope you sleep well, let me know how F is tonight please."
Nurse: "I will hun".


I think the 3 hours refers to the time between the blood sugar reading at 5am (that LL did), and 8am when the shifts changed.

From Prof Hindmarsh's evidence - Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, November 25

5.5 (11.32pm)
0.8 (1.54am)
2.3 (2.55am)
1.9 (4.02am)
2.9 (5am)
1.7 (8.09am)

"For the 5am reading, the blood sugar reading signature has the initials 'LL'."

It looks as if LL knew exactly which 3 hours she was referring to, they'd been testing it more or less hourly between 2am and 5am. The nurse was probably really encouraged by the 5am reading.

------

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

Defence disclosure 15.4.—(1) This rule applies where— (a)under section 5 or 6 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996(5), the defendant gives a defence statement; and (b)under section 6C of the 1996 Act(6), the defendant gives a defence witness notice. (2) The defendant must...

www.websleuths.com

 

[WaxLyrical]

I think baby F was prescribed a small dose of insulin just after he was born. I wonder if their question is relevant to that?

But it was about 4 or 5 days before the alleged poisoning, so perhaps not.

Really good point. Also I might be misremembering, but did it not transpire towards the end (maybe in closing statements?) that L also received a small amount of insulin after birth? Or am I completely making that up..

 

[Tortoise]

Really good point. Also I might be misremembering, but did it not transpire towards the end (maybe in closing statements?) that L also received a small amount of insulin after birth? Or am I completely making that up..

Baby L was mildly hypoglycaemic and he was put on dextrose just after his birth. It was that same bag, started at noon on 8th April, which they say she injected with insulin the following morning at about 9.30am.

 

[WaxLyrical]

Baby L was mildly hypoglycaemic and he was put on dextrose just after his birth. It was that same bag, started at noon on 8th April, which they say she injected with insulin the following morning at about 9.30am.

Ah, this is what I’m probably thinking of. Thanks!

 

[Tortoise]

There was also the information that seemed to suggest that LL may have encouraged the other nurse not to check Baby F's blood sugar for a while because of concerns about his "poor heels". This meant there was a longer period between checks which could have had (but luckily didn't have) dire consequences for Baby F.

JMO

And that she took the last reading before that, which was wildly out of kilter with the two readings either side, so could have been a false reading.

 

[ColourPurple]

And that she took the last reading before that, which was wildly out of kilter with the two readings either side, so could have been a false reading.

Yup. I've just edited my post to add your original post about that, as reported on the podcast, but I'll add it here too.

----------
Listening to the Mail Podcast (post #877) I've now got the full text conversation between LL and the designated nurse...


8am – LL finishes night shift

8.47am –
LL: "Did you hear what F's sugar was at 8am?"
Nurse: "No?"
LL: "1.8"
Nurse: "S***!!!!", now I feel awful but leaving it three hours didn’t seem excessive and it was only two and a half hours
LL: "Something isn't right if he is dropping like that with the amount of fluid he’s had and being 1.65kg, don’t think you needed to do it sooner, got to think of his poor heels too"
Nurse: "Exactly, he’s had so much handling. No something not right. Heart rate and sugars."
LL: "Dr Gibbs came so hopefully they will get him sorted. "He is a worry though."
Nurse: "Hope so. He is a worry."
LL: "Hope you sleep well, let me know how F is tonight please."
Nurse: "I will hun".


I think the 3 hours refers to the time between the blood sugar reading at 5am (that LL did), and 8am when the shifts changed.

From Prof Hindmarsh's evidence - Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, November 25

5.5 (11.32pm)
0.8 (1.54am)
2.3 (2.55am)
1.9 (4.02am)
2.9 (5am)
1.7 (8.09am)

"For the 5am reading, the blood sugar reading signature has the initials 'LL'."

It looks as if LL knew exactly which 3 hours she was referring to, they'd been testing it more or less hourly between 2am and 5am. The nurse was probably really encouraged by the 5am reading.

------

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

Defence disclosure 15.4.—(1) This rule applies where— (a)under section 5 or 6 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996(5), the defendant gives a defence statement; and (b)under section 6C of the 1996 Act(6), the defendant gives a defence witness notice. (2) The defendant must...

www.websleuths.com

 

[notsure]

The question indicates they are nowhere near a unanimous decision for a while yet.

 

[Dotta]

I think insulin cases are crucial for the Jury.

JMO

 

[Popcorn80]

Can’t see this verdict coming any time soon! (I really hope I’m wrong!) off to Google the longest UK deliberation time.

 

[Dotta]

"Open Justice"

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I’m really surprised at that question from the jury today. Baby F and L for me were 2 of the strongest cases. It has already been established that those 2 babies were poisoned with insulin IMO. The question seems to suggest that jurors are trying to work out the discrepancy about whether a second bag was poisoned, how blood glucose continued to fall whilst LL wasn’t on shift and possibly trying to rule out someone else having poisoned either or both babies.

It’s undisputed by the defence that these babies received synthetic insulin. It’s just a case of deciding if LL was the perpetrator IMO and establishing intent to kill, it would be known IMO by any nurse that administering insulin to a baby who’s blood glucose was already low would only cause the baby to deteriorate and likely die. IMO had the insulin been injected directly in one single dose the intent is slightly less obvious than what is alleged here. By poisoning the TPN bag, whoever did it knew that insulin would slowly and continuously drip into the child’s system throughout the day/night. One single dose given all at once would be more likely to successfully be rectified with dextrose than a slow and continuous administration over a period of hours. Each dextrose infusion would be counteracted by more insulin, leading to more likelihood of death.

Perhaps things are tense in the jury room with some jurors believing certain cases are solid and others believing the prosecution doesn’t have strong evidence. Baby F and L are 2 cases where we know harm was done intentionally to these babies. If they are only just debating the timings of blood glucose readings etc, perhaps they haven’t even moved onto intent to kill yet. I think it may be the first week in August before we see a verdict. I can’t see it being this week anyway.

All MOO

Also insulin would be pre-meditated as one would need the equipment and means to do so in advance. This is no 'felt angry and aggressively shoved tube in baby's throat' or 'over fed child as was texting doc choc' or 'attention seeking and delib harmed child in the moment'.

That is forward planning and secrecy to a high level.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I think a verdict a while off. I noticed on the podcast the girls said only one jury member “ missing “ or words to that effect, was one missing and one unwell ?

 

[annpats]

I think the 3 hours refers to the time between the blood sugar reading at 5am (that LL did), and 8am when the shifts changed.
5.5 (11.32pm)
0.8 (1.54am)
2.3 (2.55am)
1.9 (4.02am)
2.9 (5am)
1.7 (8.09am)

Do you think it could be possible that LL's 5am reading (and interestingly the last reading of her shift) was entirely fabricated - to give everyone else false hope that the baby was getting better? And to deflect any suspicion on herself?

As in "Well, the baby was doing fine when I left, getting much better, look at the blood sugar readings!"

 

[marynnu]

LL: "Hope you sleep well,

Right, just after I told you about the low blood sugar to make you feel bad.