UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #4

[JosieJo]

These expert witnesses and witnesses to the events are taking the stand on oath and providing evidence for the Jury.
For the two (so far) who saw the rash ...both were quite clear they had not ever seen anything like it before or since. Both having worked with neonates closely for a long time.
These witnesses have been cross examined by defence who as yet have not shown any reason not to believe this.
This is the information the Jury have to use to make their decision they cannot start looking for their own version of events.
Obviously there's a lot of information still to come that may discredit that but not as yet.
The amount of people on social media coming up with all sorts of medical reasons for air and rashes is amazing.
I'm all for critical thinking and keeping an open mind on what the court tell us but I just don't get this need to "self defend"

 

[MachinaCollecta]

It’s worth remembering that we’re 4 days (of evidence) into a 6 month trial.

This is the information the Jury have to use to make their decision they cannot start looking for their own version of events.

Obviously there's a lot of information still to come that may discredit that but not as yet.
The amount of people on social media coming up with all sorts of medical reasons for air and rashes is amazing.
I'm all for critical thinking and keeping an open mind on what the court tell us but I just don't get this need to "self defend"

I completely agree. I’m seeing a lot of willingness to dismiss any evidence offhand going on.

 

[arrogantcat]

Still, since we can always accuse LL, is there a chance of hospital-acquired infection in these preemies? They come in outbreaks, but given they became more rare, this can be missed. Staph infections constitute 70% of septic infections in preemies, the other 20% fall on very nasty gas-forming bacteria. In this article, I paid attention that the carriers may be healthy staff. Neonatal Hospital-Acquired Infection - Pediatrics - Merck Manuals Professional Edition

P.S. and then I Googled "mottled skin in neonates". Two things popped up: strep B and (surprise!): in preemies - when they are exposed to cold. It doesn't take much because thermoregulation is impaired in them. So, either Lucy not covering them well, or something else not being regulated on the unit could cause that rash, blotches that later disappeared. The rash immediately dissappears when the baby is warmed up. But Google for yourself, I was surprised at how distinctive it looks.

I’m reminded of the recent cases where two women died from massive - and missed -internal HPV infections following uterine surgery from the same surgeon. Both had been HPV negative prior to the surgeries.

There’s no way this should be possible, as surgeons scrub in and OR’s are kept sterile, so nobody looked for it. But it clearly did happen. Last I read the surgeon was insisting his innocence but also refusing to take a HPV test to prove it.

Not suggesting the same thing is at work here in any way. Just that impossible infection events in health care do happen, and our current medical knowledge is not always sufficient.

 

[arrogantcat]

I completely agree. I’m seeing a lot of willingness to dismiss any evidence offhand going on.

In fairness, this will be an awfully quiet thread if people are made to reserve any judgement on the evidence until the full 6 months’ worth has been presented.

Personally I find it interesting to see how each piece of evidence lands with the public in real time. The differences in opinions, the way two people can hear the same evidence in two totally disparate ways.

It’s a small insight into how the jury’s minds might be consuming this information in real time - and of course, nobody here is actually a part of that jury, so there’s no obligation for people to withhold their opinions in line.

 

[arrogantcat]

Did you read the doctor's testimony of why there were no photos? Because by the time they came back with a hospital camera the blotchiness had disappeared.

You can't take medical photos of patients on a personal phone. There is protocol here - it's a hospital in the UK not some backwaters doctor's office. Data privacy and GDPR are very important, it could be a sackable or suspension worthy offence to take and save photos of body parts on anything but an official device or storage - that is secured and encrypted.

What the nurses were doing - well, that too would have been on a work device, not their personal phones. Synced up to an official hospital platform that allows these memory books to be securely created. If they did it on the parent's phone, that is completely different as it's their child.

Frankly this blotchiness being corroborated by a doctor and the head nurse is good enough evidence, as other cases have also had other nurses and doctors comment on it. I don't think even the defence is arguing the blotchiness didn't exist.

Back in 2015, department camera’s in my NHS trust were kept in their original box in a locked filing cabinet in the main admin office. They had to be pre-booked in order for the admin team to put them on charge in advance, and then signed out for a short term loan.

If the system here was remotely similar it’s unlikely we’ll be seeing any photos of the babies rashes, unless snapped on a parent’s mobile phone.

 

[JosieJo]

In fairness, this will be an awfully quiet thread if people are made to reserve any judgement on the evidence until the full 6 months’ worth has been presented.

Personally I find it interesting to see how each piece of evidence lands with the public in real time. The differences in opinions, the way two people can hear the same evidence in two totally disparate ways.

It’s a small insight into how the jury’s minds might be consuming this information in real time - and of course, nobody here is actually a part of that jury, so there’s no obligation for people to withhold their opinions in line.

I agree absolutely but I just think there is a difference between discussing different opinions on the evidence presented and desperately trying to find information not presented to try and discredit evidence that the defence hasn't

 

[Supernovae]

I’m reminded of the recent cases where two women died from massive - and missed -internal HPV infections following uterine surgery from the same surgeon. Both had been HPV negative prior to the surgeries.

There’s no way this should be possible, as surgeons scrub in and OR’s are kept sterile, so nobody looked for it. But it clearly did happen. Last I read the surgeon was insisting his innocence but also refusing to take a HPV test to prove it.

Not suggesting the same thing is at work here in any way. Just that impossible infection events in health care do happen, and our current medical knowledge is not always sufficient.

It was Herpes rather than HPV, but yes:

New mothers who died of herpes could have been infected by one surgeon

Two mothers who died of herpes after having Caesareans could have been infected by a single surgeon, the BBC has found. 

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Legal]

I am finding these discussions fascinating because I think there is usually a consensus of guilt on these threads. I know that for myself, I am generally convinced of the defendant's guilt during a trial. I am trying to think why there is so much doubt in this case when we all know that the bar is high for the CPS to decide to prosecute. I googled the Code for Crown Prosecutors and it states Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant. In addition, it must be in the public interest for the CPS to bring the case to court.( The Code for Crown Prosecutors | The Crown Prosecution Service )

The decision to hold a 6 month trial with the associated costs of the trial and hiring expert witnesses will not have been made lightly. So why is there so much doubt this time (including me!)? Is it because LL is young and female and white and blonde? Or is the idea of a nurse murdering babies too abhorrent to accept? I feel for some reason we are identifying with her and thinking how awful it would be to be in her shoes if she is innocent. But why?

Just my thoughts and ideas.

 

[Legally Bland]

The game in court is to find enough experts who will say what you need them to, and who look good enough on paper and on the stand to win the jury’s confidence.

RSBM.

I think that's overly cynical, at least in the UK. We haven't heard any evidence of investigators trawling for opinions and only selecting those which confirm a preconceived theory.

 

[Tortoise]

@Tortoise can you remember whether LL herself documented anything herself regarding the rash on Baby A ? I've been searching but can't find anything

Ignore my earlier answer, I've just spotted this bit in the opening speech JosieJo:

"3:36pm

When interviewed by police regarding the circumstances over Child A's death, Letby said she had given fluids to Child A at the time of the change of shifts.
She said within "maybe" five minutes, Child A developed 'almost a rash appearance, like a blotchy red marks on the skin'.
She said she had wondered whether the bag of fluid "was not what we thought it was".
In an interview in June 2019, Letby said she had asked for all fluids to be kept from the bag at the end to be checked, but the prosecution said there was was no record of her having made such a request.
It was suggested by police that Letby had administered an air embolus. She replied it would have been very hard to push air through the line."


Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

 

[JosieJo]

Ignore my earlier answer, I've just spotted this bit in the opening speech JosieJo:

"3:36pm

When interviewed by police regarding the circumstances over Child A's death, Letby said she had given fluids to Child A at the time of the change of shifts.
She said within "maybe" five minutes, Child A developed 'almost a rash appearance, like a blotchy red marks on the skin'.
She said she had wondered whether the bag of fluid "was not what we thought it was".
In an interview in June 2019, Letby said she had asked for all fluids to be kept from the bag at the end to be checked, but the prosecution said there was was no record of her having made such a request.
It was suggested by police that Letby had administered an air embolus. She replied it would have been very hard to push air through the line."


Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

Thanks so much for that you know when you think you read something but can't find it

 

[Dotta]

I am finding these discussions fascinating because I think there is usually a consensus of guilt on these threads. I know that for myself, I am generally convinced of the defendant's guilt during a trial. I am trying to think why there is so much doubt in this case when we all know that the bar is high for the CPS to decide to prosecute. I googled the Code for Crown Prosecutors and it states Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant. In addition, it must be in the public interest for the CPS to bring the case to court.( The Code for Crown Prosecutors | The Crown Prosecution Service )

The decision to hold a 6 month trial with the associated costs of the trial and hiring expert witnesses will not have been made lightly. So why is there so much doubt this time (including me!)? Is it because LL is young and female and white and blonde? Or is the idea of a nurse murdering babies too abhorrent to accept? I feel for some reason we are identifying with her and thinking how awful it would be to be in her shoes if she is innocent. But why?

Just my thoughts and ideas.

Looking charming and non threatening is a powerful weapon of serial killers.

After all, their killing sprees depend on gaining trust of unsuspecting unfortunate victims.

Moo

 

[Tortoise]

I don’t think you can rule out that other people searched that aren’t involved in the charges today were not potentially victims of harm.

Bit of a delayed reply but I got sidetracked and only remembered just now.

I agree with this.

I was looking at the charging details and I was puzzling over why there is this period of 2 1/2 months between Child J (November 27th 2015) and Child K (February 17th 2016). And I was struck by the details given by the prosecution* in regards to Child K:

[on February 17th 2016] "At 3.50am, Dr Jayaram was standing at the nurses’ station compiling his notes. Although he did not have a view into Nursery 1, Dr Jayaram was aware the deisngated nurse was not there, a fact backed up by door swipe data. Lucy Letby was the only nurse in room 1, alone with Child K.
"Feeling uncomfortable with this because he was beginning to notice the coincidence between the unexplained deaths and serious collapses and the presence of Lucy Letby, Dr Jayaram decided to check on where Lucy Letby was and where Child K was."

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders
*Note this is not in evidence yet, it comes from the opening speech.

It seems unusual to me that the doctor would have been acutely aware and uncomfortable over two months later if nothing else was happening. IMO. It was at this point that LL was moved over to day shifts.

 

[ShireChe]

I am finding these discussions fascinating because I think there is usually a consensus of guilt on these threads. I know that for myself, I am generally convinced of the defendant's guilt during a trial. I am trying to think why there is so much doubt in this case when we all know that the bar is high for the CPS to decide to prosecute. I googled the Code for Crown Prosecutors and it states Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant. In addition, it must be in the public interest for the CPS to bring the case to court.( The Code for Crown Prosecutors | The Crown Prosecution Service )

The decision to hold a 6 month trial with the associated costs of the trial and hiring expert witnesses will not have been made lightly. So why is there so much doubt this time (including me!)? Is it because LL is young and female and white and blonde? Or is the idea of a nurse murdering babies too abhorrent to accept? I feel for some reason we are identifying with her and thinking how awful it would be to be in her shoes if she is innocent. But why?

Just my thoughts and ideas.

I can only speak for myself, but the fact she was arrested twice and not charged suggests it took a long time to find the evidence and get the CPS to agree to a charge. Combined with some high profile cases where health professionals have been charged with similar and then later exonerated, along with growing incidence of healthcare scandals/cover ups

That is not to say I think that is what happened here, but it's down to the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. After hearing the prosecution opening I will admit I didn't think there could be any outcome other than guilty, but based on the evidence so far I don't think it's beyond thinking that some of the jury may potentially have reasonable doubt.

But we have a long way to go and don't hear everything that takes place in the court and how it may be coming across to the jury

 

[Marantz4250b]

What makes you feel the Dr's and nurses have seen air embolism before? It's quite rare

They all said that they'd never seen the particular colouring on babies before. They have said that the colouring is "consistent with" an air embolism.

By that choice of words, from more than one medical professional, it suggests that they have seen AE's but not with that particular skin colouring. Alternatively, they haven't seen an AE so are quoting from medical texts/theory.

So, have they seen an AE before but without that colouring or; have they never seen a AE and recognised that it was one by the colouring? The former is the most logical explanation, surely? If the latter were the case then they'd presumably immediately realise it due to the extremely rare colouration and give treatment to suit?

In any event, and with the above in mind, we still have the words "consistent with" to deal navigate. Those words are not synonymous with "caused by". Coincidence does not equal causation. Something consistent with one thing may also be consistent with many other medical conditions - and someone has already mentioned it being consistent with an inability to control temperature.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Well that's for the defence to question and come up with alternative theories. But they haven't, maybe because there isn't one.

No it isn't. They can do if they want but it's not their job to come up with anything. They are there to question the prosecution's case and to show that their theories are not sustainable. By saying that the defence has to come up with an alternative explanation is dangerously close to saying that they have to prove the defendant is innocent. They do not.

 

[Tortoise]

They all said that they'd never seen the particular colouring on babies before. They have said that the colouring is "consistent with" an air embolism.

By that choice of words, from more than one medical professional, it suggests that they have seen AE's but not with that particular skin colouring. Alternatively, they haven't seen an AE so are quoting from medical texts/theory.

So, have they seen an AE before but without that colouring or; have they never seen a AE and recognised that it was one by the colouring? The former is the most logical explanation, surely? If the latter were the case then they'd presumably immediately realise it due to the extremely rare colouration and give treatment to suit?

In any event, and with the above in mind, we still have the words "consistent with" to deal navigate. Those words are not synonymous with "caused by". Coincidence does not equal causation. Something consistent with one thing may also be consistent with many other medical conditions - and someone has already mentioned it being consistent with an inability to control temperature.

Which of the hospital staff have said the colouring was consistent with air embolism?

 

[Marantz4250b]

It would be interesting to be informed how long these doctors/nurses had been working on the unit. Even after many years of experience in such a setting, there will always be conditions they have never seen before.

I think lay people often have the idea that a qualified doctor will know almost everything about every medical condition/complication, and nothing could be further from the truth!

This is very true. Doctor's are not infallible, far from it. My father had many episodes of dizziness, falling over and other motor control issues over a few months many, many years ago when I was about 12. His GP diagnosed a virus or some sort of infection. It was actually a brain tumor which eventually killed him.

Doctors are far from perfect.

 

[Kemug]

I wonder if witnesses of the rash/mottling on the babies have been asked to draw a picture of what they saw? True, not photographic proof, but it would be interesting to see what they remember, and how similar their depictions might be.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Their statements are as definitive as anyone can be in the medical profession. As an example, birth control has a few% chance of failing. On the witness stand, someone testifying to its effectiveness would have to agree there was a chance it could fail. It still doesn't stop majority of the medical profession recommending it as a strong choice for protection against pregnancy and the public accepting that risk.

So for a lot of people hearing the same expert medical opinion from three people, of different regions/specialisms/assessing different info (x-rays v just medical notes etc) is powerful. No one knows how the jury will take in the information, but I would expect some of them would see today's testimony as evidence Child A's death was intentional.

That's a totally irrelevant comparison when we are talking about a legal case. The degree of certainty in a criminal case sets a higher bar than the pill.

In order to convict someone, and the judge will say these very words in his instructions to the jury, the prosecution must have made their case to the degree that..."you are sure"...that the defendant is guilty. If you ask "Are you sure that I won't get pregnant on this pill" the answer must always be no. The jury must be sure that LL is guilty so it's a higher bar than any form of contraception.

Although this is getting a bit silly now, to be honest.