UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #8

[ColourPurple]

Today

Lucy Letby raised alarm to save infant, baby deaths trial hears

The consultant in charge of the neonatal unit where Lucy Letby allegedly murdered seven babies admitted he had made 'a serious error' in leaving a sick infant alone with her monitor switched off.

www.dailymail.co.uk

"The consultant in charge of the neonatal unit where Lucy Letby is alleged to have murdered five babies today admitted he had made 'a serious error' in leaving a sick infant alone behind a screen with her monitor switched off.
Dr John Gibbs, a paediatrician at the Countess of Chester Hospital for 20 years, acknowledged that he and his registrar colleague, David Harkness, should have handed over the child's care to a nurse.
But the two medics left Baby G lying on a treatment trolley moments after carrying out a difficult cannulation procedure to give her fluids and antibiotics."

Hmmn he doesn't actually admit to anything when you read the rest of the article. It's more him saying I don't remember doing that but if that did happen it would be a serious error, and well if the nurse says that's what happned , I guess that must be what happened.

Also his use of the word "should", as in when he says "'But if I'd been particularly concerned I should have recorded it in the medical notes and I didn't'.

And this bit is hard to explain but without hearing him speak it's not possible to tell whether he's using the word "should " to mean he "ought to have" or using it in the more formal way that some upper class people do to mean he "would have". Either way I think this may sew enough doubt in the jurors' heads to leave a question mark over this particular charge. Though there are of course, other charges for Baby G.

ETA This explains what I'm trying to say about the use of the word "should" a bit better

Should

Should - English Grammar Today - a reference to written and spoken English grammar and usage - Cambridge Dictionary

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[WaxLyrical]

If I was sitting on that jury, then today’s evidence would be planting some serious doubt in my mind. This hospital sounds like a show. According to Chester standard, this nurse raised her concern with her manager about these doctors not switching the monitor back on and leaving the baby on a trolley. And yet it still made it into the crown’s case that it was likely LL who switched the monitor off? Ridiculous.

At this rate, based on the appalling record keeping and general shoddiness in care demonstrated so far, I wouldn’t be surprised if Baby G was fed twice in error, with the first feeding not recorded, and the second feeding being done without the aspirations done at the start. Because the place sounds like a shambles.

I am so far away from feeling like LL’s guilt is a done deal.

 

[ColourPurple]

If I was sitting on that jury, then today’s evidence would be planting some serious doubt in my mind. This hospital sounds like a *advertiser censored* show. According to Chester standard, this nurse raised her concern with her manager about these doctors not switching the monitor back on and leaving the baby on a trolley. And yet it still made it into the crown’s case that it was likely LL who switched the monitor off? Ridiculous.

At this rate, based on the appalling record keeping and general shoddiness in care demonstrated so far, I wouldn’t be surprised if Baby G was fed twice in error, with the first feeding not recorded, and the second feeding being done without the aspirations done at the start. Because the place sounds like a shambles.

I am so far away from feeling like LL’s guilt is a done deal.

I don't think they said it was "likely" that LL turned it off but the prosecution did leave that possibility open, and it would have been better for them to have not done so.

It's still unclear whether LL was there with the doctors or if the doctors handed the baby over to her or another nurse, or whether she just happened to be passing and looked behind the screen.

But even if, as you suggest, the place was a shambles it would not explain somebody deliberately injecting insulin into a TPN bag when there is never any reason to do that, or somebody injecting air into babies, or why LL took babies' medical notes and records home.

 

[Dotta]

Umm
It all is becoming curiouser and curiouser... Sigh...

But the image of Baby G left on that hard trolley behind the screen, with dead monitor, all alone and hurting from painful procedure is just too much for me and Im sure her parents listening to all of this

What a shame!

JMO

 

[WaxLyrical]

The prosecution hinted strongly that LL had turned off the monitor.

Yes, it would appear insulin poisoning happened somehow. To two bags that were accessible by everyone, one of which was selected at random when LL wasn’t even there.

And the matter of notes being found at the home still lacks the vital context of whether there were piles of paperwork found at home, or only select documents linking her to babies in this case.

In fact, we are missing vital context on a lot of things. There has been discussion here about whether text messages were fishing for compliments, but we miss the context of the dynamic between LL and the unnamed nurse, was this person someone who was senior to LL? A mentor style person? Or was it a peer? Because that context changes things.

And we’re still missing context on the FB searching, and just how much searching she did. Someone who was taking pleasure in someone else’s misery I would have thought would be searching more often than once every couple of months.

I cannot shift the feeling that this case is built on her happening to be there when certain things happen, and as soon as some of those instances falls apart, then what is left?

All JMO. I don’t have an overwhelming feeling that she’s innocent, but remain very much on the fence at the moment.

 

[Tortoise]

same reporter different report

tweet

Dr Gibbs says he cannot remember, but adds if the nurse said this then 'it must have happened'

report

Dr Gibbs told the court he "can't remember" the events of 21 September, but said if the nurse had made those comments, "presumably that's what happened".

Lucy Letby: Doctor cannot recall baby monitor error, trial told

A doctor tells nurse Lucy Letby's trial he "can't remember" failing to reattach a monitor to a baby.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[ColourPurple]

The incident is said to have taken place shortly after a consultant paediatrician fitted an intravenous cannula to Child G behind a privacy screen in a nursery room at about 3.30pm on September 20.....

A nurse, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, told jurors at Manchester Crown Court she heard Letby call for help from the nursery.

She said the screen was still up when she entered and a “concerned” Letby was trying to revive the youngster who was not breathing.

And she recalled a nearby monitor, which also measures heart rate, was not switched on.

On Wednesday, she confirmed to Ben Myers KC, defending, that she spoke to detectives last month after reading the opening speeches online which suggested Letby had switched off the monitor.

Mr Myers said: “From what happened you knew that was not the case?”

The nurse replied: “As far as I’m aware I believe that was not the case.”

She said two doctors, consultant Dr John Gibbs and registrar Dr David Harkness, approached her the same afternoon to apologise for leaving Child G behind the screen and for not turning the monitor back after completing the procedure.

Mr Myers said: “I suggest Ms Letby was cross that the doctors had left her behind the screen with the monitor off?”

The nurse said: “I don’t remember that.

“I remember her being concerned.”

Mr Myers said: “Do you recall she said this is something to make a formal complaint about?”

The witness replied: “I don’t remember but I went to my manager to report it myself without anyone suggesting it.”...

Dr Gibbs said normally he would have told a nurse, ideally in the same room, when he was leaving but added when inserting a cannula a nurse would usually still be around.

Lucy Letby trial: Doctor questioned over status of baby monitor

A DOCTOR has accepted he must not have turned back on a monitor for a baby girl allegedly attacked by nurse Lucy Letby.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

So from that it says it happened in the nursery shortly after the doctors had fitted a cannula, and that a nurse would normally be present while a cannula was fitted, and that LL called for help from the nursery. So either LL got there pretty quick or she was already there. And seens as she made a point of telling her colleague that it was her who got Baby G screened, it would make sense for her to have been there. And it also sounds like it was LL who could've told the nurse that the doctors were the ones who left the monitor switched off and mentioned making a complaint.

Yes it's possible that the doctors left the monitor turned off and apologised for it. But it's also possible that if the nurse reported to her manager that LL had said it was the doctors who had turned the monitor off, then thats' why the doctors came and apologised the same afternoon. They jsut accepted that version of events, because why would anyone make that up? Rather than the doctors apologising because they suddenly thought oh *%%^$ we forgot to switch that monitor back on.

All in all, yeah I reckon there may be enough doubt on this charge for it to be a not guilty verdict. I haven't felt that about any of the other charges, but obviosuly we are yet to hear from the defence in full.

 

[Dotta]

same reporter different report

tweet

Dr Gibbs says he cannot remember, but adds if the nurse said this then 'it must have happened'

report

Dr Gibbs told the court he "can't remember" the events of 21 September, but said if the nurse had made those comments, "presumably that's what happened".

Lucy Letby: Doctor cannot recall baby monitor error, trial told

A doctor tells nurse Lucy Letby's trial he "can't remember" failing to reattach a monitor to a baby.

www.bbc.co.uk

Hmmm
Isn't the meaning the same?
I ask as Im not a native En speaker.
They seem to mean the same to me.
Am I missing sth?

 

[Tortoise]

So strange that LL didn't mention the monitor incident in the texts to her colleague that night, which was blaming her deterioration on being with nursery nurses that weekend.

 

[Anxala]

If LL is found innocent (I doubt she will be, but it's possible), I wonder what she will do? I can't imagine she would want to go back to nursing, and I can't imagine anyone wanting to employ her as a nurse to be honest.

Technically, she can't be found innocent, just either guilty or not guilty. For her to be found innocent and cleared of all charges against her, someone else would need to be found guilty of the same charges, if proven BARD to be true, and that's a whole other court case.

I think all we can hope is that the verdict is conclusive and leaves no room for doubt, either way, because, if she's innocent, you've just highlighted ^above, the problems that an 'inconclusive' verdict would mean for her.

 

[Tortoise]

Hmmm
Isn't the meaning the same?
I ask as Im not a native En speaker.
They seem to mean the same to me.
Am I missing sth?
Moo

'must have happened' means I have no doubt

'presumably that's what happened' is without as much certainty, it seems like it, but I don't have all the facts to be sure.

 

[Dotta]

'must have happened' means I have no doubt

'presumably that's what happened' is without as much certainty, it seems like it, but I don't have all the facts to be sure.

I have no doubt=it happened IMO

Must have happened = certain doubt
IMO

Example:

I saw her yesterday vs
I must have seen her (but Im not sure)
JMO

Am I mistaken?
Oh well :/

 

[ColourPurple]

So strange that LL didn't mention the monitor incident in the texts to her colleague that night, which was blaming her deterioration on being with nursery nurses that weekend.

I was just about to say this. She mentions getting Baby G screened but doesn't mention something that she apparently told the other colleague was worthy of making a formal complaint about. The text exchange was after the monitor was left off, yes?

 

[ColourPurple]

Umm
It all is becoming curiouser and curiouser... Sigh...

But the image of Baby G left on that hard trolley behind the screen, with dead monitor, all alone and hurting from painful procedure is just too much for me and Im sure her parents listening to all of this

What a shame!

Moo

We're not even sure if that happened though. We jsut know that the doctors left and then "shortly after" LL shouted for help from where Baby G was.

 

[Tortoise]

Technically, she can't be found innocent, just either guilty or not guilty. For her to be found innocent and cleared of all charges against her, someone else would need to be found guilty of the same charges, if they're proven to be fact-based, and that's a whole other court case.

I think all we can hope is that the verdict is conclusive and leaves no room for doubt, either way, because you've just highlighted ^above, if she's innocent, what an 'inconclusive' verdict would mean for her.

In England there is either guilty, not guilty, or no verdict (hung jury), in which case the prosecution can have a new trial with a different jury.

 

[Tortoise]

I was just about to say this. She mentions getting Baby G screened but doesn't mention something that she apparently told the other colleague was worthy of making a formal complaint about. The text exchange was after the monitor was left off, yes?

it was at 8.56pm after her shift ended at 8pm

 

[ColourPurple]

it was at 8.56pm after her shift ended at 8pm

Well yes then, seens as the conversation was about Baby G and she mentioned getting her screened, you'd expect her to say if the doctors had switched her monitor off.

 

[ColourPurple]

I have no doubt=it happened IMO

Must have happened = certain doubt
IMO

Example:

I saw her yesterday vs
I must have seen her (but Im not sure)
JMO

Am I mistaken?
Oh well :/

Yeah "must" is used more when you can't think of another explanation for something , whereas "presumably" is a little less certain but you're still saying that that explanation would make sense.

 

[JosieJo]

If I was sitting on that jury, then today’s evidence would be planting some serious doubt in my mind. This hospital sounds like a *advertiser censored* show. According to Chester standard, this nurse raised her concern with her manager about these doctors not switching the monitor back on and leaving the baby on a trolley. And yet it still made it into the crown’s case that it was likely LL who switched the monitor off? Ridiculous.

At this rate, based on the appalling record keeping and general shoddiness in care demonstrated so far, I wouldn’t be surprised if Baby G was fed twice in error, with the first feeding not recorded, and the second feeding being done without the aspirations done at the start. Because the place sounds like a shambles.

I am so far away from feeling like LL’s guilt is a done deal.

Although I agree this mess from the prosecution has caused confusion..I don't think the baby could have been fed twice as the evidence showed that the milk had to be forcibly pushed into the baby via a plunger ..as the tube method the nurse said she used prior to her break relies on gravity and excess milk wouldn't flow in

 

[JosieJo]

Well yes then, seens as the conversation was about Baby G and she mentioned getting her screened, you'd expect her to say if the doctors had switched her monitor off.

Based on her texts I would have definitely expected her to mention the monitor being off.