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

[Sweeper2000]

Your bang on.

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.

not just all of that, but would also be apparent that she would have had to have waited for a opportune time to inject the bags. Hanging about with a preloaded syringe Like a tiger in the bushes.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Do you think it could be possible that LL's 5am reading (and last one 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?

Makes me think a bit about what she said to the other nurse when she was told about being off clinical duties. Something like “babies were already unwell at or near handover times”.

 

[annpats]

Makes me think a bit about what she said to the other nurse when she was told about being off clinical duties. Something like “babies were already unwell at or near handover times”.

Yes, how interesting LL had noticed that.
Anyone would think she had engineered it, so if a baby's health was disintegrating as she left, it would be on the next shift to deal with it, and most likely take the grief/blame if the baby passed away.

The gaze would be off her, she'd already left! Or at least that's the way she planned it..... allegedly.

 

[Jazmania]

It's concerning to me the jury asked that question. It makes them seem quite confused, as the question isn't really that relevant. It appears they're trying to solve the mystery of whether a second bag was put up and pre-poisoned by Letby for F. They've already been told that they're not there to solve mysteries. The important thing is that the blood sugar fell when she was on shift and remained low until that bag was removed. I personally would have thought that the totality of the evidence would lead to a fairly swift verdict. But if they are questioning that then a verdict is a long way away imo.

 

[Tortoise]

It's concerning to me the jury asked that question. It makes them seem quite confused, as the question isn't really that relevant. It appears they're trying to solve the mystery of whether a second bag was put up and pre-poisoned by Letby for F. They've already been told that they're not there to solve mysteries. The important thing is that the blood sugar fell when she was on shift and remained low until that bag was removed. I personally would have thought that the totality of the evidence would lead to a fairly swift verdict. But if they are questioning that then a verdict is a long way away imo.

It could be one juror, as opposed to the whole jury, and the other jurors couldn't answer their question.

If it was relevant to guilt it would have been covered by the prosecution or the defence in evidence, IMO. Hopefully the judge's answer showed that they didn't need to know.

JMO

 

[Dotta]

It's concerning to me the jury asked that question. It makes them seem quite confused, as the question isn't really that relevant. It appears they're trying to solve the mystery of whether a second bag was put up and pre-poisoned by Letby for F. They've already been told that they're not there to solve mysteries. The important thing is that the blood sugar fell when she was on shift and remained low until that bag was removed. I personally would have thought that the totality of the evidence would lead to a fairly swift verdict. But if they are questioning that then a verdict is a long way away imo.

Well,
They try to do their job as well as they can.

Insulin cases are crucial IMO.

Allegedly,
They show "criminal mind".
They show INTENT.

As @Observe_dont_Absorb so eloquently put it upthread.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

Yes, how interesting LL had noticed that.
Anyone would think she had engineered it, so if a baby's health was disintegrating as she left, it would be on the next shift to deal with it, and most likely take the grief/blame if the baby passed away.

The gaze would be off her, she'd already left! Or at least that's the way she planned it..... allegedly.

I don’t remember that conversation very well or the timings of the texts in relation to her being informed But is interesting to think the words were as preloaded as the syringe if guilty. Might be two telling details there.
1. she does remember at least some deaths and events
2. does remember the timings of the events
interesting because I wouldn’t necessarily expect someone to remember the timings. However if she noted the near handover problems that might be because she thought the baby might be receiving sub standard care which is due diligence.

 

[Jw192]

Not gonna lie, I'm starting to get proper twitchy about where this could go '-'

 

[JerseyGirl]

Lucy Letby trial jury sent home after resuming deliberations

THE jury in the trial of baby murder-accused nurse Lucy Letby resumed deliberations today (Monday, July 24).

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Sweeper2000]

Does anyone think in the event of a g verdict that it will have consequences on either law or nursing practice?

 

[Tortoise]

Length of Deliberations Predictions

Mon 10th - day 1 (afternoon only) - 2pm to 4pm minus 5mins = 1h 55m
Tues 11th - day 2 - 4h 20m
Wed 12th - day 3 - 4h 20m
Thur 13th - day 4 - 4h 20m
Fri 14th - day 5 - 4h 20m
Mon 24th - day 6 - 4h 20m

Running total = 23h 35m


Still in the game -

23h 12m - @Dcflag
24h 10m - @Blondiexoxo
25h - @Sarahlou
28h - @squish
28h 28m - @DianaWW
30h 10m - @WaxLyrical
31h 30m - @Sweeper2000
32h 14m - @Kittybunny
34h - @bbsaz
35h 25m - @Dotta
41h 15m - @Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc
45h 10m - @esther43
58h - @Jw192
70h - @bobbymkii
75h - @CS2C
80h - @V347

 

[CS2C]

Jurors have been sent home, back tomorrow

 

[WaxLyrical]

What’s the actual process for sending the jury home each day, does the judge ask them if they’ve reached verdicts, they say no, and then he calls it a day?

 

[Tortoise]

What’s the actual process for sending the jury home each day, does the judge ask them if they’ve reached verdicts, they say no, and then he calls it a day?

I don't think he will even ask if they've reached verdicts, it's probably just a quick reminder not to discuss the case until they are back tomorrow.

I think they will let him know, by note, if/when they reach the point that they can't all agree, at which time he will probably ask if they've been able to agree on any, and give them a majority direction.

 

[esther43]

Does anyone think in the event of a g verdict that it will have consequences on either law or nursing practice?

I think the impact of this will come about as a result of the trial regardless of whether found guilty or not guilty. The main impact will be on future parents. Before all this started they were already 'terrified' leaving their babies at night.
Parents with babies in NICUs have heightened anxiety anyway, it's standard for parents to think their baby might die, when you add potential SK into the mix it's pretty terrifying for them.
I think nurses who followed the trial will be inclined to document things more.
I don't think there will be any additional safeguards like CCTV to protect against SK's because they are thankfully very rare.
However, in 2020 at the NHS patient safety summit they advised that they had already changed protocols in relation to how piques in deaths are detected and acted upon.
Since that time, once deaths go over the average it automatically sparks an independent review, through the data bases. So I do believe nationally there has already been action to a small extent.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Yes, how interesting LL had noticed that.
Anyone would think she had engineered it, so if a baby's health was disintegrating as she left, it would be on the next shift to deal with it, and most likely take the grief/blame if the baby passed away.

The gaze would be off her, she'd already left! Or at least that's the way she planned it..... allegedly.

And the time she went in early to visit a nurse friend so she said IIRC and wasn't actually on shift yet.

 

[JosieJo]

I feel the insulin cases are very important because they are the only cases where there is "forensic" proof of foul play.
There is no "reasonable doubt" otherwise.
Everything was covered

No other baby on insulin which may indicate an error

Two different base fluids used so not a "stock" of faulty batches.

Pharmacy ..unreasonable to think it was added there.

It only leaves the possibility of someone on the unit and only two people were on shift for both.

Only one person on trial for many other unexplained collapses with signs of foul play.

I do not think its a worry that there are only 2 cases as too many would spark suspicion very quickly

I honestly think it's as simple as that

 

[Dotta]

I feel the insulin cases are very important because they are the only cases where there is "forensic" proof of foul play.
There is no "reasonable doubt" otherwise.
Everything was covered

No other baby on insulin which may indicate an error

Two different base fluids used so not a "stock" of faulty batches.

Pharmacy ..unreasonable to think it was added there.

It only leaves the possibility of someone on the unit and only two people were on shift for both.

Only one person on trial for many other unexplained collapses with signs of foul play.

I do not think its a worry that there are only 2 cases as too many would spark suspicion very quickly

I honestly think it's as simple as that

What a pity it wasn't analyzed at that time.
Until Dr Evans noticed and took care of it.

It says a lot IMO

JMO

 

[katydid23]

I feel the insulin cases are very important because they are the only cases where there is "forensic" proof of foul play.
There is no "reasonable doubt" otherwise.
Everything was covered

No other baby on insulin which may indicate an error

Two different base fluids used so not a "stock" of faulty batches.

Pharmacy ..unreasonable to think it was added there.

It only leaves the possibility of someone on the unit and only two people were on shift for both.

Only one person on trial for many other unexplained collapses with signs of foul play.

I do not think its a worry that there are only 2 cases as too many would spark suspicion very quickly

I honestly think it's as simple as that

That^^^ is how I have always looked at it.

 

[Trebor5591]

Has it been confirmed that jury aren’t sitting due to illness related absence? I only ask as on all other occasions it’s been clarified, and also baffling that 2 jurors were absent yesterday.

I think I’m just worrying as really want to see this trial go over the line, it’s gone on so long and would be devastating for the families if it was to collapse at this stage. I hope I’m just being a panty wetter and worrying over nothing!

A panty wetter? Is that a worrier? Never hear that one before...