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

[crowmarsh]

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

Maybe she did but the prosecution would not present that as it would not support their case

 

[JosieJo]

Maybe she did but the prosecution would not present that as it would not support their case

Possibly but from what I can gather the prosecution were not aware of any possibility that the Dr's left the monitor on until this nurse told them during the trial

 

[crowmarsh]

Possibly but from what I can gather the prosecution were not aware of any possibility that the Dr's left the monitor on until this nurse told them during the trial

Yes and this is yet another example of the frustration in following this trial and trying to be objective but having to rely on scraps of testimony from the courtroom

 

[Anxala]

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.

I know and appreciate that, my point was to do with the problematic sceptisicm and doubt - as expressed in the post I responded to - that a 'not guilty' verdict would likely generate in the aftermath.

What could she do, who would employ her? That's not the position of someone who believes a not guilty verdict is likely, possible or believable.

 

[katydid23]

The interesting thing with the nursery nurse, (some kind of dislike, discussion etc, who knows) LL states she the nursery nurse didn’t know what to look out for or act on. Yet, the nursery nurse had worked there for over 10 years according to the statements in court. You’d think someone whether qualified or not, working in an environment for over 10 years (some time before LL even qualified) would absolutely “know” what to act on. Moo

It seems like LL was kind of pointing some blame towards the NN in those texts. JMO

 

[Supernovae]

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

Statements from expert witnesses are now being read to the court. The first was from Prof Simon Kenny and second Dr Stavros Stivaros. These statements are agreed evidence, meaning defence agree with content
2:58 PM · Dec 14, 2022

This is what I can find on the experts:

Stavros Stivaros

research.manchester.ac.uk

I currently hold a National Instituate for Health Research Clinician Scientist Award at the University of Manchester. My research is focused on the development, validation and eventual translation of advanced multi-paramentric brain imaging in children. Part of this translation entails the development of computerised decision support systems to facilitate advanced imaging provision in clinical practice.
Clinically I practice as an Honorary Consultant Paediatric Neuroradiologist in the department of Academic Department of Paediatric Radiology at the Royal Manchester Children's Hospital. I lead the paediatric neuro-radiological imaging unit in one of Europe's largest children's hospitals.
As well as my academic work I am also heavily engaged in the provision of expert neuro-radiological assessment in child protection issues. I routinely provide evidence to the court on such matters and provide paediatric neuroradiological opinions at the joint Manchester/Liverpool Child Protection Peer Review meetings.

Professor

www.nuffieldhealth.com

Simon is an experienced paediatric surgeon with a specialist interest in urology and lower gastrointestinal surgery. He trained in Birmingham, Liverpool and Australia prior to consultant appointment at the leading Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in 2003. He has a wide clinical practice with a particular interest in minimally invasive surgery. He is passionate about putting the child at the centre of care.

Other interests​

Specialist areas:

• Paediatric urology
• Paediatric gastrointestinal surgery
• Paediatric general surgery

Special interests:

• Paediatric laparoscopy and thoracoscopy
• Intersex anomalies
• Hypospadias

Interview with Professor Simon Kenny at NHS England - our podcast

In this episode, RCPCH President Dr Camilla Kingdon speaks with Professor Simon Kenny about his role at NHS England as national clinical director for children and young people. What does he actually do, how do he and his team keep hold of core priorities in a changing world, and what he is most...

www.rcpch.ac.uk

 

[Tortoise]

I think there is no difference today in the evidence heard than what prosecutors said in the opening speech. JMO


"At 3.30pm a consultant doctor was called to cannulate Child G. Privacy screens were erected and Child G was on a trolley, with the monitor still attached.
The nurse went to care for another baby.
The consultant doctor said he "could not recall" if Child G's monitoring equipment was switched off during the cannula fitting, but "it is his practice to transfer the sensor from one limb to another or if temporary detachment is required to reattach the monitor as soon as possible."
He added if Child G was not stable he would not have left her.

3:26pm

After the doctors had gone, the nurse responded to Lucy Letby's shout for help. When she attended, Child G's monitor had been switched off (power was off). Child G was struggling to breathe. Letby was giving ventilation breaths.
Child G responded to treatment.

In a text sent by Letby to a colleague, she wrote Child G: "...looked rubbish when I took over this morning then she vomited at 9 and I got her screened … mum said she hasn’t been herself for a couple of days”. [...]

Mr Johnson: "Someone had switched off the monitor when Child G collapsed, and she was 'discovered' by Lucy Letby"."

---
It's all a distraction, imo

The monitor does not cause a collapse.

LL was there with baby G without hearing an alarm, apparently.

LL's texts don't mention the big error doctors made, but do mention nursery nurse care at the weekend.

There's no certainty that LL would be truthful to the nurse about doctors leaving the monitor off, with the evidence of baby E's mother, even less if she herself, as the nurse who found it like that, did not make a complaint but suggested the other nurse did.

MOO

 

[Dotta]

I think there is no difference today in the evidence heard than what prosecutors said in the opening speech. JMO


"At 3.30pm a consultant doctor was called to cannulate Child G. Privacy screens were erected and Child G was on a trolley, with the monitor still attached.
The nurse went to care for another baby.
The consultant doctor said he "could not recall" if Child G's monitoring equipment was switched off during the cannula fitting, but "it is his practice to transfer the sensor from one limb to another or if temporary detachment is required to reattach the monitor as soon as possible."
He added if Child G was not stable he would not have left her.

3:26pm

After the doctors had gone, the nurse responded to Lucy Letby's shout for help. When she attended, Child G's monitor had been switched off (power was off). Child G was struggling to breathe. Letby was giving ventilation breaths.
Child G responded to treatment.

In a text sent by Letby to a colleague, she wrote Child G: "...looked rubbish when I took over this morning then she vomited at 9 and I got her screened … mum said she hasn’t been herself for a couple of days”. [...]

Mr Johnson: "Someone had switched off the monitor when Child G collapsed, and she was 'discovered' by Lucy Letby"."

---
It's all a distraction, imo

The monitor does not cause a collapse.

LL was there with baby G without hearing an alarm, apparently.

LL's texts don't mention the big error doctors made, but do mention nursery nurse care at the weekend.

There's no certainty that LL would be truthful to the nurse about doctors leaving the monitor off, with the evidence of baby E's mother, even less if she herself, as the nurse who found it like that, did not make a complaint but suggested the other nurse did.

MOO

But the child had difficulty with breathing and the alarm did not sound.

If not for LL's shout, who knows how it would have ended?
The other nurse was occupied elsewhere and only came when LL shouted for help.

JMO

 

[Sundial]

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

Absolutely. Rather detailed conversations, visiting off shift etc.. but no mention whatsoever about that monitor.

 

[katydid23]

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

This^^^^^

 

[ColourPurple]

Maybe she did but the prosecution would not present that as it would not support their case

But the defence would have had access to the texts too if they existed.

 

[katydid23]

But the child had difficulty with breathing and the alarm did not sound.

If not for LL's shout, who knows how it would have ended?
The other nurse was occupied elsewhere and only came when LL shouted for help.

JMO

Ummmm.....are we sure that's how it happened?

LL may have shouted, but what did she do just before the shout? Why was the baby having trouble breathing?

The doctor said he would not have left the baby alone if she was having difficulties at the time. He said he thought a nurse would have been there while he cannullated the child.

So I find the situation confusing. JMO

 

[ColourPurple]

I think there is no difference today in the evidence heard than what prosecutors said in the opening speech. JMO


"At 3.30pm a consultant doctor was called to cannulate Child G. Privacy screens were erected and Child G was on a trolley, with the monitor still attached.
The nurse went to care for another baby.
The consultant doctor said he "could not recall" if Child G's monitoring equipment was switched off during the cannula fitting, but "it is his practice to transfer the sensor from one limb to another or if temporary detachment is required to reattach the monitor as soon as possible."
He added if Child G was not stable he would not have left her.

3:26pm

After the doctors had gone, the nurse responded to Lucy Letby's shout for help. When she attended, Child G's monitor had been switched off (power was off). Child G was struggling to breathe. Letby was giving ventilation breaths.
Child G responded to treatment.

In a text sent by Letby to a colleague, she wrote Child G: "...looked rubbish when I took over this morning then she vomited at 9 and I got her screened … mum said she hasn’t been herself for a couple of days”. [...]

Mr Johnson: "Someone had switched off the monitor when Child G collapsed, and she was 'discovered' by Lucy Letby"."

---
It's all a distraction, imo

The monitor does not cause a collapse.

LL was there with baby G without hearing an alarm, apparently.

LL's texts don't mention the big error doctors made, but do mention nursery nurse care at the weekend.

There's no certainty that LL would be truthful to the nurse about doctors leaving the monitor off, with the evidence of baby E's mother, even less if she herself, as the nurse who found it like that, did not make a complaint but suggested the other nurse did.

MOO

I agree that it doesn't really make much difference as to whether she did something to Baby G, as she didn't need to be the person who switched off the monitor in order to allegedly attempt to murder Baby G. But I think it may be enough to muddy the water on this particular charge.

 

[Little Nicki]

I was wondering this. Not that I'm a doctor but I did wonder if the 1st incident, whoever may or may not have been responsible could have lead to some kind of physical damage to the digestive system due to the distention, or if the onset of the neurological injury was between the events that could be relevant. I believe there's a known link between neurodisability and GI problems and the father said in his statement that she'd projectile vomited several times since this.

There is definitely a link between neuro and GI problems. MOO as a ADHD'er with Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome

 

[crowmarsh]

But the defence would have had access to the texts too if they existed.

If they do exist the defense can only introduce them when its their turn to present their evidence

 

[Tortoise]

Maybe she did but the prosecution would not present that as it would not support their case

I don't think the prosecution would withhold part of a text message that doesn't support their case, knowing the defence would bring it up later and make the prosecution look like they were intentionally trying to mislead the jury. It's paramount to have the trust of jurors.

 

[Dcflag]

It will be interesting to see how pivotal the monitor being turned off is to this 2nd attempted murder charge. I think it is a great error by the prosecution to have not found out previously that it was the doctors that switched it off and not Letby. From the opening prosecution statement the monitor being switched off was highlighted as the main incriminating evidence imo.

However I also think that Letby's texts to her colleague about G looking 'rubbish' in the morning and having been off for days could be key. I wonder if the mom will testify that she never told Letby that her baby was off, showing Letby to be lying in order to make the collapse look less sudden. Maybe there will also be more medical evidence to show G vomited up a lot more milk than should have been in her system too.

I feel like I’m missing something. The nurse is testifying two doctors apologised to her as they turned the monitor off. Yet there are no doctors on the stand testifying this interaction happened?

 

[Tortoise]

I feel like I’m missing something. The nurse is testifying two doctors apologised to her as they turned the monitor off. Yet there are no doctors on the stand testifying this interaction happened?

Dr Gibbs testified today and said he couldn't remember any of it.

The manager of the unit also testified today and said she had no recollection of any issues reported to her, after the nurse said she reported it to the manager.

The other doctor mentioned by the nurse as apologising to her, Dr Harkness, hasn't testified yet.

 

[Jazmania]

I feel like I’m missing something. The nurse is testifying two doctors apologised to her as they turned the monitor off. Yet there are no doctors on the stand testifying this interaction happened?

Today a consultant testified that although he doesn't remember the interaction he believes that the nurse wouldn't make it up and therefore it must have happened

 

[Dcflag]

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.

Or, they left because LL was present, assuming she would reconnect and turn on the monitor. Essentially handing the care back over to the nurse in the room as they left..

I think we can assume she was present or incredibly close by given a) she was the designated nurse for babies in that room b) she was the one who screen off baby g and c) she was the one who noticed baby g crashing despite there being no monitor on, and a screen up around the baby.

If the drs had left the baby unattended (as is perhaps implied) then it’s negligence. If they left and left LL present, well that’s normal enough practice right? But gives someone with a more malicious intent a rather perfect window.

How does the nurse on the stand know the drs didn’t hand over to LL? Is it on LL say so? Did she make a complaint to her manager based on LL kicking off when she’s observed trying to stabilise baby G which has resulted in management talking to drs and them in turn apologising?

I don’t think the reports are giving enough context at all.