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

[ColourPurple]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

But if guilty, if both F and L were allegedly done to try to deflect blame away from LL and onto somebody else on the next shift, it makes sense that a different method would need to be used.

With Baby F she had had allegedly almost been "caught in the act" by Baby E's mother 24 hours before and her colleague had then told LL that she needed a break from it being on her shift as she was having a run of bad luck. If guilty and wanting to deflect attention away from herself and onto another shift then an insulin poisoning via TPN that would run over onto the next shift would be an "ideal" solution.

Although there's a bigger time gap between Baby K and Baby L (Feb to April) it's another case where she was allegedly almost "caught in the act" with Baby K by Dr J , and then the next alleged attack is an insulin poisoning that runs over onto the next shift, after LL had left thus potentially implicating somebody other than her. All JMO, if guilty.

A reminder of the text exchange following Baby E's death:

Jennifer Jones-Key, a nursing colleague, contacted Letby at 7.55pm to ask: 'Hey, how’s you? X'.

Letby replied: 'Not so good. We lost E overnight'.

Ms Jones-Key said: 'That’s sad. We’re on a terrible run at the moment. Were you in (Nursery) 1? x'.

Letby responded: 'Yes, I had him and F'.

Her colleague replied: 'That’s not good. You need a break from it being on your shift'.

The alleged killer responded: 'It’s the luck of the drawer (sic), isn’t it unfortunately. Only 3 trained (nurses) so I Iended up having both whereas just had F the other shifts.

Ms Jones-Key was again sympathetic, saying: 'You seem to be having some very bad luck though'.

Lucy Letby went salsa dancing hours after 'trying to kill baby'

The neonatal nurse, 32, is also accused of murdering the infant's twin brother by injecting him with air a day earlier at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[annpats]

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

CCTV installed in all rooms?

It's quite common place in some countries like Russia, even in adult hospital rooms.

I think it should be mandatory in all British elderly care homes. Too much abuse of seniors has happened.

 

[marynnu]

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

Have you taken our bets on the winner yet Tortoise?

 

[CS2C]

Have you taken our bets on the winner yet Tortoise?

No need Mary, My name is practically engraved on the trophy

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

 

[Tortoise]

Have you taken our bets on the winner yet Tortoise?

I forgot all about it!

Will update the list.

 

[Tortoise]

Length of Deliberations Predictions (and backers!)

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 (backed by @Tortoise )
28h - @squish (backed by @katydid23 )
28h 28m - @DianaWW
30h 10m - @WaxLyrical
31h 30m - @Sweeper2000
32h 14m - @Kittybunny (backed by @marynnu )
34h - @bbsaz
35h 25m - @Dotta
41h 15m - @Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc
45h 10m - @esther43
58h - @Jw192
70h - @bobbymkii
75h - @CS2C
80h - @V347

 

[Tortoise]

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

Obviously we don't know what order they are deliberating in, but IF they are going in date order and have progressed to baby F, there are also allegations regarding fictitious note-keeping for baby E, just 24-hours prior to her note of baby F's blood sugar reading - all part of the alleged evolution and patterns, if guilty.

JMO

 

[Luwin]

Length of Deliberations Predictions (and backers!)

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 (backed by @Tortoise )
28h - @squish (backed by @katydid23 )
28h 28m - @DianaWW
30h 10m - @WaxLyrical
31h 30m - @Sweeper2000
32h 14m - @Kittybunny (backed by @marynnu )
34h - @bbsaz
35h 25m - @Dotta
41h 15m - @Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc
45h 10m - @esther43
58h - @Jw192
70h - @bobbymkii
75h - @CS2C
80h - @V347

I'll back @Sweeper2000 please

 

[Sweeper2000]

lol I’ll back Dotta

think you’ve got a good chance

 

[esther43]

I'll back @Sweeper2000 please

Is this a sweepstake?

 

[Supernovae]

How can this help ? When it's been shown when the effects of the insulin "started"

I'm struggling with it because they don't have a "normal" c peptide ratio after the abnormal one to use ? If that makes sense

To me unless they have multiple C peptide ratios to compare the information is of no use ...and obviously if it was the defence or prosecution would have used it.

The most important facts are imo

A when did the poisoning start
B who was on duty when it started

I think this is why the judge referred them back to the "abnormal" results in hope that helps

Exactly yes thats what they should be focusing on not the case peptide and I think that's what the judge hinted at

The question is, is all of this clear to them?

The insulin evidence was really dense, was covered very briefly within the context of the overall trial and it was months ago.

I've been musing as to how I would choose to prosecute this case, if I had to. I think they needed to treat the insulin cases as the absolute cornerstone of the case: nail down a narrative of what happened with the bags, particularly the "second bag" with Child F and then really sell it to the jury, forensically. It didn't feel like they had a narrative nailed down going in, although more detail emerged during the process of the trial with Prof Hindmarsh. (as an aside I think the Occam' Razor best fit is that there was no second bag and the nurse just put the old bag back up). Further to that, narrow down the pool of suspects, forensically, as best they can, and sell to the jury why they favour Lucy Letby and have ruled out other members of that pool. Focus on a smaller, stronger number of additional cases to prosecute. I'd choose Child E (because of what his mother witnessed), O&P (as, aside from the suspicious liver injury, they were they weren't especially premature or underweight, and, unlike Child D, they didn't have pneumonia; clearly their deaths were considered completely shocking medically, they were under her direct care and were the final straw that got her removed from the unit) and possibly Child A as she had venous access shortly before his collapse. I don't think any of the non-insulin, non-fatal cases were particularly strong.

Further to that, sell to the jury exactly how the suspicions around her and the investigation came to be, and what the consultant group and staff at COCH more widely knew about the abnormal insulin test results and when they knew it. As part of that: who took the calls from the lab, what precisely was said, and what happened to that information? I don't know whether there are any legal barriers to this, but within that context you could cover some of the cases that didn't make the cut (including maybe some we haven't heard about, if they exist), as part of selling to the jury why the overall weight of events on her shifts was so abnormal (if it was), in comparison to what was going on when she wasn't around. Possibly, also under this heading, cover some of the more moderately suspicious occurrences like Dr Jayaram/baby K, and the lighting issue with baby I.

Wrap it up with some kind of consistent narrative as to her psychology, state of mind and motive, even if only tentatively. The notes, cards, Facebook searches and odd behaviours around families could fall under here.

I know a lot of these things have been covered in the trial to an extent, but I feel like the chronological approach and number of charges worked against the prosecution. The jury has had to sit through long stretches, sometime covering weeks at a time of, IMO, relatively weak cases: Lucy Letby is milling around doing utterly unremarkable work and social things; a sick baby (not even necessarily one of "her" babies) gets even sicker; the prosecution and expert witnesses assert she tried to kill them. In contrast I think some of the elements that could have been the strongest pieces of evidence were a little bit taken for granted, and it feels like there are some loose ends that still make me uneasy about a conviction.

All JMO.

 

[Dotta]

lol I’ll back Dotta

think you’ve got a good chance

If Sweeper backs me
I'll back Sweeper

Double chance to get drunk
Virtually!

 

[JosieJo]

The question is, is all of this clear to them?

The insulin evidence was really dense, was covered very briefly within the context of the overall trial and it was months ago.

I've been musing as to how I would choose to prosecute this case, if I had to. I think they needed to treat the insulin cases as the absolute cornerstone of the case: nail down a narrative of what happened with the bags, particularly the "second bag" with Child F and then really sell it to the jury, forensically. It didn't feel like they had a narrative nailed down going in, although more detail emerged during the process of the trial with Prof Hindmarsh. (as an aside I think the Occam' Razor best fit is that there was no second bag and the nurse just put the old bag back up). Further to that, narrow down the pool of suspects, forensically, as best they can, and sell to the jury why they favour Lucy Letby and have ruled out other members of that pool. Focus on a smaller, stronger number of additional cases to prosecute. I'd choose Child E (because of what his mother witnessed), O&P (as, aside from the suspicious liver injury, they were they weren't especially premature or underweight, and, unlike Child D, they didn't have pneumonia; clearly their deaths were considered completely shocking medically, they were under her direct care and were the final straw that got her removed from the unit) and possibly Child A as she had venous access shortly before his collapse. I don't think any of the non-insulin, non-fatal cases were particularly strong.

Further to that, sell to the jury exactly how the suspicions around her and the investigation came to be, and what the consultant group and staff at COCH more widely knew about the abnormal insulin test results and when they knew it. As part of that: who took the calls from the lab, what precisely was said, and what happened to that information? I don't know whether there are any legal barriers to this, but within that context you could cover some of the cases that didn't make the cut (including maybe some we haven't heard about, if they exist), as part of selling to the jury why the overall weight of events on her shifts was so abnormal (if it was), in comparison to what was going on when she wasn't around. Possibly, also under this heading, cover some of the more moderately suspicious occurrences like Dr Jayaram/baby K, and the lighting issue with baby I.

Wrap it up with some kind of consistent narrative as to her psychology, state of mind and motive, even if only tentatively. The notes, cards, Facebook searches and odd behaviours around families could fall under here.

I know a lot of these things have been covered in the trial to an extent, but I feel like the chronological approach and number of charges worked against the prosecution. The jury has had to sit through long stretches, sometime covering weeks at a time of, IMO, relatively weak cases: Lucy Letby is milling around doing utterly unremarkable work and social things; a sick baby (not even necessarily one of "her" babies) gets even sicker; the prosecution and expert witnesses assert she tried to kill them. In contrast I think some of the elements that could have been the strongest pieces of evidence were a little bit taken for granted, and it feels like there are some loose ends that still make me uneasy about a conviction.

All JMO.

My worry is ...is it clear to them?.
I do think all you suggest was covered..but I agree because of the number of charges and the way it was presented it was disjointed and its very difficult to put it all together.
Although obviously not allowed and I understand why ..I can totally understand why they asked for a copy of the judges sumning up

 

[Dotta]

My worry is ...is it clear to them?.
I do think all you suggest was covered..but I agree because of the number of charges and the way it was presented it was disjointed and its very difficult to put it all together.
Although obviously not allowed and I understand why ..I can totally understand why they asked for a copy of the judges sumning up

But they have all relevant data with them - notes/documents/iPods.

They were sitting there listening to all witnesses/experts/Prosecution and Defence.

What else is needed?

They are discussing things, checking all angles to be sure beyond reasonable doubt.

Why would anybody on a forum think something is not clear to them?

So
Does it mean it is clear to ppl busy on Internet but not to those who devoted 9 months of their lives sitting in Court???

The public knows only fragments but the Jury knows all.

JMO

 

[marynnu]

But they have all relevant data with them - notes/documents/iPods.

They were sitting there listening to all witnesses/experts/Prosecution and Defence.

What else is needed?

They are discussing things, checking all angles to be sure beyond reasonable doubt.

Why would anybody on a forum think something is not clear to them?

So
Does it mean it is clear to ppl busy on Internet but not to those who devoted 9 months of their lives sitting in Court???

The public knows only fragments but the Jury knows all.

JMO

Well said Dotta. I agree 100%.

 

[WaxLyrical]

The question is, is all of this clear to them?

The insulin evidence was really dense, was covered very briefly within the context of the overall trial and it was months ago.

I've been musing as to how I would choose to prosecute this case, if I had to. I think they needed to treat the insulin cases as the absolute cornerstone of the case: nail down a narrative of what happened with the bags, particularly the "second bag" with Child F and then really sell it to the jury, forensically. It didn't feel like they had a narrative nailed down going in, although more detail emerged during the process of the trial with Prof Hindmarsh. (as an aside I think the Occam' Razor best fit is that there was no second bag and the nurse just put the old bag back up). Further to that, narrow down the pool of suspects, forensically, as best they can, and sell to the jury why they favour Lucy Letby and have ruled out other members of that pool. Focus on a smaller, stronger number of additional cases to prosecute. I'd choose Child E (because of what his mother witnessed), O&P (as, aside from the suspicious liver injury, they were they weren't especially premature or underweight, and, unlike Child D, they didn't have pneumonia; clearly their deaths were considered completely shocking medically, they were under her direct care and were the final straw that got her removed from the unit) and possibly Child A as she had venous access shortly before his collapse. I don't think any of the non-insulin, non-fatal cases were particularly strong.

Further to that, sell to the jury exactly how the suspicions around her and the investigation came to be, and what the consultant group and staff at COCH more widely knew about the abnormal insulin test results and when they knew it. As part of that: who took the calls from the lab, what precisely was said, and what happened to that information? I don't know whether there are any legal barriers to this, but within that context you could cover some of the cases that didn't make the cut (including maybe some we haven't heard about, if they exist), as part of selling to the jury why the overall weight of events on her shifts was so abnormal (if it was), in comparison to what was going on when she wasn't around. Possibly, also under this heading, cover some of the more moderately suspicious occurrences like Dr Jayaram/baby K, and the lighting issue with baby I.

Wrap it up with some kind of consistent narrative as to her psychology, state of mind and motive, even if only tentatively. The notes, cards, Facebook searches and odd behaviours around families could fall under here.

I know a lot of these things have been covered in the trial to an extent, but I feel like the chronological approach and number of charges worked against the prosecution. The jury has had to sit through long stretches, sometime covering weeks at a time of, IMO, relatively weak cases: Lucy Letby is milling around doing utterly unremarkable work and social things; a sick baby (not even necessarily one of "her" babies) gets even sicker; the prosecution and expert witnesses assert she tried to kill them. In contrast I think some of the elements that could have been the strongest pieces of evidence were a little bit taken for granted, and it feels like there are some loose ends that still make me uneasy about a conviction.

All JMO.

Couldn’t agree more on the insulin, and nailing things down as forensically as possible.

If I were a juror, I’d need more than what they presented to feel truly comfortable. I would really struggle with the ‘finger in the air’ guesswork around how much insulin, when and where and how many bags, the ‘sticky’ insulin. I would need them to have at least tested running various levels of insulin through one of the machines, to get some clarity around how much sticks to the giving set etc. They presented evidence that 3 extra vials were ordered, but then suggested some minute amount like 0.1ml was needed to poison one of the babies. There’s just so much left to the imagination.

And the thing is, if I felt comfortable with the insulin charges, then as a juror I’d feel a thousand times more comfortable reaching verdicts on the other charges.

With regard to the second bag. My gut says the bag was never changed. But I struggle massively with that, because all that does is adds weight to the idea that this hospital was providing very low standards of care. For every nurse out there who says “I’d never accumulate 257 handover sheets”, they’d also be saying “I would never hook an old bag back up to a sick infant”. And if there was some kind of appropriate circumstance in which to do that, I would hope it would be agreed and recorded, not just done on the sly. If that old bag was put back up, it feels to me like it wasn’t the first time, that is wasn’t out of the ordinary. Which is horrifying.

 

[WaxLyrical]

But they have all relevant data with them - notes/documents/iPods.

They were sitting there listening to all witnesses/experts/Prosecution and Defence.

What else is needed?

They are discussing things, checking all angles to be sure beyond reasonable doubt.

Why would anybody on a forum think something is not clear to them?

So
Does it mean it is clear to ppl busy on Internet but not to those who devoted 9 months of their lives sitting in Court???

The public knows only fragments but the Jury knows all.

JMO

I think though the difference is, those of us here have discussed medical issues, testimony, have went round and round in circles on various topics, been researching information. We’ve went back again and again to review what was said and when (thanks tortoise), and personally I’ve been corrected more times than I care to admit when I’ve got things wrong or misremembered.

The jury have not been able to discuss things at all. They have not been allowed to take those iPads or notes home and review them. Every day they were listening to today’s testimony only, never getting a chance to review back on previous days, weeks, months.

It must be exceptionally hard for them. Such a long long time has passed. Especially when different things might stand out to each of them, different people remembering differing things.

I think they’d be able to sit together and discuss this for 6 months if they could.

Put it this way, I highly doubt any of them would be scoring 10/10 on Tortoise or Parker’s quizzes..

 

[Parker Knoll]

I too do not think the bag was changed - just re hung but I don’t think we will ever get to the bottom of that, nobody will actually come out and say it and that’s if they can remember with clarity as they couldn’t when cross examined.
However, babies were dying without any medical explanation when they were due to go home. That’s not down to the unit being a mess.
I have always said I do not believe in coincidences.
Somebody was sabotaging these babies.
JMO

 

[JosieJo]

But they have all relevant data with them - notes/documents/iPods.

They were sitting there listening to all witnesses/experts/Prosecution and Defence.

What else is needed?

They are discussing things, checking all angles to be sure beyond reasonable doubt.

Why would anybody on a forum think something is not clear to them?

So
Does it mean it is clear to ppl busy on Internet but not to those who devoted 9 months of their lives sitting in Court???

The public knows only fragments but the Jury knows all.

JMO

I totally agree they will have heard far more than us and it certainly wasn't meant as any of us would know better.
My worry is the sheer volume of information and being able to recall it to piece it all together even having it all there to hand. It must be a mammoth task.
My worry is based on the interpretation of the medical evidence mainly and I worry because they asked a question that's absolutely not going to help them and any answers they may want around timings of insulin is not in a c peptide result. Its in the blood sugars and the Endocrinology consultant evidence

 

[esther43]

I totally agree they will have heard far more than us and it certainly wasn't meant as any of us would know better.
My worry is the sheer volume of information and being able to recall it to piece it all together even having it all there to hand. It must be a mammoth task.
My worry is based on the interpretation of the medical evidence mainly and I worry because they asked a question that's absolutely not going to help them and any answers they may want around timings of insulin is not in a c peptide result. Its in the blood sugars and the Endocrinology consultant evidence

I agree that the insulin case is compelling. But I also worry when I hear people relying on the insulin cases because to me, it's super obvious that there's a problem outside of the insulin cases. They were an add on. Personally I'd be be satisfied that the other cases were abnormal on their own merit. I worry that this hasn't come across to the jury, how abnormal the other cases were.