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

[mart321]

I dont think the prosecution actually said she turned it off ..more insinuated it ..though can't remember 100%
It's definitely not common for Dr's to just walk away from behind a screen .. even in an emergency they would tell a nurse they were leaving.

The biggest thing for me is there is nothing mentioned in LLs texts ..there are criticisms around decisions etc but absolutely nothing about Dr leaving the baby with no monitor..it doesn't sit well with me

I agree, she made no mention of it. But it was apparently a major thing.


There's nowhere to go with that though it's just circumstantial. I would love to know the kind of discussion that goes on with a jury. Are they only allowed to discuss the "facts" or the information presented or do they make assumptions and discuss what this may mean in this context or that context.


It seems like it's a given fact now the doctors left the monitor off. But isn't that just what they are being told from a nurse who was told this by NN and remembers that.

She remembers LL telling her the monitor was off and because she remembers that, it's been taken as fact because the Drs can't really remember. But that doesn't mean LL was telling the truth

Its like if someone told me id left a light switch on 5 years ago. I guess I would probably have to agree with them. Its not likely they would remember.

 

[ColourPurple]

This does not look good for the prosecution. I personally don't think it means a lot. And if G then it could be that LL took the opportunity with the monitor being off. But the defence are pulling it apart now and the Drs haven't helped the situation.

But if she noticed the monitor was off why didn't she turn it back on?

If she is G then its an opportunity to do harm without the monitor being on and also having a privacy screen up and then claim credit for saving the day.

Is it common for the Drs to hand care over without turning the monitor on. If so then it presents a perfect opportunity for LL to strike.

The prosecution can't exactly say this though now, would the jury even presume that. Are they even allowed to make presumptions?

Obviously not on the same scale and I'm not trying to be disrespectful to Baby G or compare the two situations..

but if you had a burgler up in court, accused of numerous burglaries and in one of those cases the property was burgled whilst its security alarm was switched off (and a witness says it wasn't the burglar who switched off the alarm as somebody else had apologised for doing that ). It's like arguing over who switched the alarm off,which then allowed the burglary to take place, when that's a minor point compared to who burgled the property.

But as I said before, I think it may be enough in this case, to muddy the waters enough for the jurors to reach a not guilty verdict on this particular charge.

 

[Tortoise]

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

Court back in session, judge has said it is not possible to hear anymore evidence today meaning we will now adjourn for Christmas - trial will resume on 9 January

 

[Jazmania]

Obviously not on the same scale and I'm not trying to be disrespectful to Baby G or compare the two situations..

but if you had a burgler up in court, accused of numerous burglaries and in one of those cases the property was burgled whilst its security alarm was switched off (and a witness says it wasn't the burglar who switched off the alarm as somebody else had apologised for doing that ). It's like arguing over who switched the alarm off,which then allowed the burglary to take place, when that's a minor point compared to who burgled the property.

But as I said before, I think it may be enough in this case, to muddy the waters enough for the jurors to reach a not guilty verdcit on this particular charge.

This is true, but we'll have to see what the other evidence is for this attempted murder charge. If the monitor being switched off by LL was the main evidence that the prosecution were relying on, then it has fallen apart.

I think I remember from the opening argument that there are other incidences later on where monitors are switched off. In a case where no one has directly seen LL harming babies, the closest evidence we may get is seeing her by a babies cot side when they collapse, or monitors being switched off when they shouldn't be. If you can get the jury to believe that LL switched them off, then that is hugely incriminating. If however you can get the jury to believe that the medical staff were so untogether and negligent that they would do it accidentally, then it is a huge win for the defence.

It's just such an own goal here for the prosecution. Whether this nurse who recalls the doctors owning up to switching off the monitor is telling the truth or not, if only the prosecution had been aware of her testimony beforehand they could have prepared better and maybe dropped this charge.

 

[JosieJo]

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

Court back in session, judge has said it is not possible to hear anymore evidence today meaning we will now adjourn for Christmas - trial will resume on 9 January

Wow ..bit early

 

[JosieJo]

Does anyone know ..are the 3 attempted murder charges on baby G all separate charges or linked into one charge for baby G?

 

[Tortoise]

The other two cases where the prosecution allege that LL tampered with the monitors were where the monitors were on but they didn't sound an alarm, meaning that the alarm function had been paused.

 

[Tortoise]

Does anyone know ..are the 3 attempted murder charges on baby G all separate charges or linked into one charge for baby G?

Three separate charges, two on this day in question. The first being the projectile vomiting that morning (the second time it had happened in 2 weeks), and the second being after the cannula fitting and the heart monitor was off.

 

[JosieJo]

Three separate charges, two on this day in question. The first being the projectile vomiting that morning (the second time it had happened in 2 weeks), and the second being after the cannula fitting and the heart monitor was off.

So in theory they may drop this individual instance? Is that possible at this stage?

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

Court back in session, judge has said it is not possible to hear anymore evidence today meaning we will now adjourn for Christmas - trial will resume on 9 January

Wonder if it was always scheduled to break from today until 9th or if this is related to the 'legal discussion'
I think that Nurse really surprised the prosecution with what she said, I can't imagine they're very happy with that.

 

[JosieJo]

Presumably they would have run baby G case then broke for Xmas? Easily time

 

[Tortoise]

So in theory they may drop this individual instance? Is that possible at this stage?

They can withdraw charges at any stage before closing arguments. Maybe they want time to consult their experts on this testimony.

 

[JosieJo]

Even without being specifically asked during statement taking ..I'm surprised this was not in the witnesses statement

 

[mart321]

If this charge falls apart after this nurses testimony then it's quite damaging to further instances in the case, where LL is alledged to have done the same.
The evidence is tainted before its even been heard.


Will be interesting to hear what the details of the charges are in relation to LL apparently muting the alarms on machines in cases further down the line

 

[Tortoise]

No one has testified that baby G wasn't attached to the monitor, the nurse only said the monitor was switched off.

If the practice is to transfer it to a different limb while fitting a cannula, I can't see any reason for them to have switched it off, to then have to remember to switch it back on. That's just a whole unnecessary procedure that they would have had no reason to even think of doing.

Both doctors said they would have ensured baby G was stable after cannulation. How does a doctor measure stability if not looking at her monitors.

I think this situation with the monitor was entirely a case of gaslighting.

I can see two doctors apologising because baby G destabilised soon after they left, and they accepted what the nurse said while perhaps not fully comprehending how their own individual actions contributed to that. Two apologies for one power switch seems to bear that out. JMO

 

[mart321]

I dont think the prosecution actually said she turned it off ..more insinuated it ..though can't remember 100%
It's definitely not common for Dr's to just walk away from behind a screen .. even in an emergency they would tell a nurse they were leaving.

The biggest thing for me is there is nothing mentioned in LLs texts ..there are criticisms around decisions etc but absolutely nothing about Dr leaving the baby with no monitor..it doesn't sit well with me

Who was the colleague she was texting though. If it was the nurse that she told then it would make sense that she wouldn't mention it, as they had already spoken in person about it.

 

[Marantz4250b]

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

I've not been on here much as been busy with work so apologies if I'm not picking things up correctly.

If the monitor was turned off, and that was because a doctor turned it off and didn't turn it back on again, then how are they intending to make an attempted murder charge fly?

The accusation is that LL did something to try to murder the child; LL was, allegedly, with the child, hidden from view behind a screen with an inactive monitor - which she 100% knew she did not turn off (as we now know from the testimony of the other nurse) so easier to distance herself from everything - yet she called for help from others! If she was trying to kill the child then surely all she had to do was to watch while the girl died or simply walk away. She appears to have had a 100% perfect opportunity to kill a child yet she called for help!

Surely making a call for help is pretty good evidence that she did not try to kill this child?

 

[Marantz4250b]

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

She is charged with attempted murder of this child, though. If she has called for help then that seriously undermines the case against her because it is reasonable to conclude that she did not actually intend to cause death. Especially in light of the circumstances as she appears to have had the perfect opportunity to cause death without anyone noticing - yet she brings attention to the child's condition!

Those facts (if correct) tend to contradict the suggestion that she tried to cause death.

 

[Powermjp]

Was this nurse a defence witness?

She says LL called out for help, and also says the doctor apologies to her. Was this the same nurse?

Which are both strong points for LL on this charge.

 

[katydid23]

I've not been on here much as been busy with work so apologies if I'm not picking things up correctly.

If the monitor was turned off, and that was because a doctor turned it off and didn't turn it back on again, then how are they intending to make an attempted murder charge fly?

The accusation is that LL did something to try to murder the child; LL was, allegedly, with the child, hidden from view behind a screen with an inactive monitor - which she 100% knew she did not turn off (as we now know from the testimony of the other nurse) so easier to distance herself from everything - yet she called for help from others! If she was trying to kill the child then surely all she had to do was to watch while the girl died or simply walk away. She appears to have had a 100% perfect opportunity to kill a child yet she called for help!

Surely making a call for help is pretty good evidence that she did not try to kill this child?

Not necessarily, because the call for help is the payoff. The potential motive for this whole charade, allegedly, is the drama and the attention that comes with the urgent situation. JMO