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

[marynnu]

Respiratory swabs? Sounds much nicer than a blood culture.

We used to take swabs from the ear, nose & umbilicus on all babies on admission, then weekly. Obviously poorly/very prem babies had more frequent screening. All NNUs do something very similar.

 

[marynnu]

How would dr bohin know the ventilator was set to high pls? Does that info come from the machine or notes?

It's recorded hourly on the observation charts & also in the notes.

 

[Phoenix Lazarus]

I'll be interested to learn what the trigger was for the police's involvement, which only began in May 2017, nearly a year after the last of the alleged crimes

 

[Tortoise]

I'll be interested to learn what the trigger was for the police's involvement, which only began in May 2017, nearly a year after the last of the alleged crimes

Probably the completion of the non-police investigations, I would think.

It looks like it took three months from the end of that for them to invite the police to come in. Clearly management was reluctant but the consultants would not relent on having LL excluded from the unit until police investigated.

JMO

 

[esther43]

As I said, I won't be surprised to see the Defence bringing it up though, especially as the prosecution witness introduced the 'competent doctor' factor. I'd definitely be doing the 'even competent doctors evidently make mistakes' thing if I were the defence barrister. After all, it's the jury of lay persons that they're going to be addressing. The prosecution will address it too; pointing out that what mistakes that were made have all been identified and admitted, and didn't cause or contribute to the deaths.

That is the angle they are going for and I am super curious to see how they will approach this. but I am unconvinced that they will be able to find experts of similar or higher medical standing that will hold up under cross examination, given the full medical context of these babies.
I think the biggest thing the defence have going for them would be if they could prove it was questionable that is was LL who did these things.
Myers' is going to have to rip apart the investigative process to demonstrate that whilst these incidents were likely foul play, it could have been anyone.
He is trying to create medical doubt where he can but he's not a doctor and probably never even taken a step inside the NICU. My guess is many of his initial angles have dried up already and he will not be able to encompass many of the points he proposed at the beginning into his closing speech but let's see!

 

[notsure]

A general question about the legal process: Does the defence counsel have to believe that the defendant is not guilty in order to defend them? If not, how do they square it with their conscience if they succeed in allowing a guilty person to walk free?

 

[Marie Bell]

That is the angle they are going for and I am super curious to see how they will approach this. but I am unconvinced that they will be able to find experts of similar or higher medical standing that will hold up under cross examination, given the full medical context of these babies.
I think the biggest thing the defence have going for them would be if they could prove it was questionable that is was LL who did these things.
Myers' is going to have to rip apart the investigative process to demonstrate that whilst these incidents were likely foul play, it could have been anyone.
He is trying to create medical doubt where he can but he's not a doctor and probably never even taken a step inside the NICU. My guess is many of his initial angles have dried up already and he will not be able to encompass many of the points he proposed at the beginning into his closing speech but let's see!

I don't think the defence will use medical experts. Myers will just have to try to create doubt, as you say. Sometimes that's all the barrister has to work with.

 

[Marie Bell]

Who did the adrenaline or was it not said ty

I'm sorry, I don't know if the person was identified, without going to re-read the trial updates.

 

[esther43]

A general question about the legal process: Does the defence counsel have to believe that the defendant is not guilty in order to defend them? If not, how do they square it with their conscience if they succeed in allowing a guilty person to walk free?

I don't think they have to believe that, no.
But if the defendant confesses then it become a different matter. They can't lie to the court.

 

[Sweeper2000]

A general question about the legal process: Does the defence counsel have to believe that the defendant is not guilty in order to defend them? If not, how do they square it with their conscience if they succeed in allowing a guilty person to walk free?

They do their job according to what they are told. If someone says i did it they wouldn’t defend them.

 

[esther43]

They do their job according to what they are told. If someone says i did it they wouldn’t defend them.

In a case as emotive as this and with the strength of the prosecution, I do wonder too how Myers' is juggling what he personally believes about this case with his professional belief that everyone is entitled to a defence. I did read somewhere that he claimed the secret of his success is that when he 'clocks off' he really clocks off and doesn't give his work another thought. I suppose that's the ideal rule of thumb with any professional working in an demanding role.

 

[Tortoise]

A general question about the legal process: Does the defence counsel have to believe that the defendant is not guilty in order to defend them? If not, how do they square it with their conscience if they succeed in allowing a guilty person to walk free?

Assuming the accused hasn't told them they did it, they don't have to 'believe' their client is innocent in order to defend them. They just have to focus on testing the evidence, because everybody is entitled to that process. The barrister is not the trier of facts and could be wrong in their belief, so the system is there to protect everybody who might one day be accused of a crime. In doing their job, even defending a 'guilty' client, they are upholding the justice system. It keeps the prosecution on their toes to ensure they maintain a high bar for bringing charges.

MOO

 

[Dotta]

All 24 episodes on YouTube

https://twitter.com/x/status/1639593610407444489

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I hope that someone on the jury can develop an effective format for group analysis. My biggest fear is a lack of structure. Control freak that I am

I think you have to go through each case first and decide whether the medical evidence has proved a murder or attempted murder (no considerations of LL or any of the evidence against her at this stage).

Then once you have decided which , if any , cases you are satisfied are murders or AMs, you discard the other ones and then go through the evidence to consider whether LL is guilty.

Otherwise, I think the danger will be that issues will be improperly conflated.

 

[Dotta]

If she is found guilty...

I guess the former management which refused to listen to respected, experienced Consultants in their hospital -
will be sued by parents of later victims.
B/c inertia cost their children's lives.

This disgusting case will drag for many years.

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

I think you have to go through each case first and decide whether the medical evidence has proved a murder or attempted murder (no considerations of LL or any of the evidence against her at this stage).

Then once you have decided which , if any , cases you are satisfied are murders or AMs, you discard the other ones and then go through the evidence to consider whether LL is guilty.

Otherwise, I think the danger will be that issues will be improperly conflated.

They cannot use the medical evidence to determine whether an attempted murder took place. Attempted murder is all about intention. The medical evidence is there solely in those cases to show they suffered adverse events, not how close they did or didn't come to dying. All that needs to be shown is that something was done to the baby, with the intention of causing death.

In the example I gave above, with the empty gun, there would be no bullet fired, and no wounds. If I thought I was poisoning someone because I bought a bottle saying lethal poison, but there was a harmless substance inside it, and I added it to their drink, I've still committed attempted murder. In the same way you cannot look at these events and say the attempted murders weren't likely to cause death because, for instance, they didn't get the dose right or there were doctors on hand who would rescue them, or the babies who had insulin didn't go into a coma or collapse, the intention behind an act is an entirely different matter and totally unquantifiable by looking at what happened to the baby medically.

That is why I say intent for attempted murder can be assessed by the circumstances, and the circumstances include consideration of the deaths that happened. It would be improper for the jury to look at each case as a stand alone event. That is why they are being tried together.

JMO

Attempted Murder​

In contrast to the offence of murder, attempted murder requires the existence of an intention to kill, not merely to cause grievous bodily harm: R v Grimwood (1962) 3 All ER 285. The requisite intention to kill can be inferred by the circumstances: R v Walker and Hayles (1990) 90 Cr App R 226.
Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

Part I​

Attempts etc.​

Attempt​

1Attempting to commit an offence.​

(1)If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence.

[F1(1A)Subject to section 8 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (relevance of external law), if this subsection applies to an act, what the person doing it had in view shall be treated as an offence to which this section applies.

(1B)Subsection (1A) above applies to an act if—

(a)it is done in England and Wales; and

(b)it would fall within subsection (1) above as more than merely preparatory to the commission of an offence under section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 but for the fact that the offence, if completed, would not be an offence triable in England and Wales.]

(2)A person may be guilty of attempting to commit an offence to which this section applies even though the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible.

(3)In any case where—

(a)apart from this subsection a person’s intention would not be regarded as having amounted to an intent to commit an offence; but

(b)if the facts of the case had been as he believed them to be, his intention would be so regarded,

then, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, he shall be regarded as having had an intent to commit that offence.

Criminal Attempts Act 1981

 

[Sweeper2000]

i could easily see the jury taking a very long time to come to a conclusion if any. I might argue the medical evidence is quite strong.

 

[Imogenia]

As I said, I won't be surprised to see the Defence bringing it up though, especially as the prosecution witness introduced the 'competent doctor' factor. I'd definitely be doing the 'even competent doctors evidently make mistakes' thing if I were the defence barrister. After all, it's the jury of lay persons that they're going to be addressing. The prosecution will address it too; pointing out that what mistakes that were made have all been identified and admitted, and didn't cause or contribute to the deaths.

Alleged Clinical Negligence

The ‘competent doctor’ standard in UK law is that which is comparable with other doctors practising their particular art.

Thus, if any commission or omission can be argued to have caused harm to a patient, what the solicitor or barrister does is to get expert witnesses to testify that they, as doctors, would have/would not have done the same thing.

This is known as the Bolam test.

Other case law has modified this in some respects, eg Bolitho and Montgomery.

Link: “A responsible body of medical men”

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

They cannot use the medical evidence to determine whether an attempted murder took place. Attempted murder is all about intention. The medical evidence is there solely in those cases to show they suffered adverse events, not how close they did or didn't come to dying. All that needs to be shown is that something was done to the baby, with the intention of causing death.

In the example I gave above, with the empty gun, there would be no bullet fired, and no wounds. If I thought I was poisoning someone because I bought a bottle saying lethal poison, but there was a harmless substance inside it, and I added it to their drink, I've still committed attempted murder. In the same way you cannot look at these events and say the attempted murders weren't likely to cause death because, for instance, they didn't get the dose right or there were doctors on hand who would rescue them, or the babies who had insulin didn't go into a coma or collapse, the intention behind an act is an entirely different matter and totally unquantifiable by looking at what happened to the baby medically.

That is why I say intent for attempted murder can be assessed by the circumstances, and the circumstances include consideration of the deaths that happened. It would be improper for the jury to look at each case as a stand alone event. That is why they are being tried together.

JMO

Attempted Murder​

In contrast to the offence of murder, attempted murder requires the existence of an intention to kill, not merely to cause grievous bodily harm: R v Grimwood (1962) 3 All ER 285. The requisite intention to kill can be inferred by the circumstances: R v Walker and Hayles (1990) 90 Cr App R 226.
Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

Part I​

Attempts etc.​

Attempt​

1Attempting to commit an offence.​

(1)If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence.

[F1(1A)Subject to section 8 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (relevance of external law), if this subsection applies to an act, what the person doing it had in view shall be treated as an offence to which this section applies.

(1B)Subsection (1A) above applies to an act if—

(a)it is done in England and Wales; and

(b)it would fall within subsection (1) above as more than merely preparatory to the commission of an offence under section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 but for the fact that the offence, if completed, would not be an offence triable in England and Wales.]

(2)A person may be guilty of attempting to commit an offence to which this section applies even though the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible.

(3)In any case where—

(a)apart from this subsection a person’s intention would not be regarded as having amounted to an intent to commit an offence; but

(b)if the facts of the case had been as he believed them to be, his intention would be so regarded,

then, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, he shall be regarded as having had an intent to commit that offence.

Criminal Attempts Act 1981

I disagree. I think you have misunderstood my point , so apologies if I wasn’t clear in my explanation.

The medical evidence is relevant to whether an AM took place because before you get anywhere near considering who committed the act and what their intentions were, you have to decide whether this baby collapsed because of something done to it by a third party (ignoring whether it was intentional or accidental, or intended to cause death), or was the collapse because of extreme prematurity or antibiotics being given later than they should have been or one of the other things the defence has said?

That is surely the first question in any of these cases and the nub of the difference of opinion between the defence and prosecution for every case (except the insulin cases, where the defence seems to accept something was done and the only dispute is whether or not it is LL).

IMO, you have to consider each case separately on the first question of whether someone has done something to each baby. Once you’ve got your group of charges where you think something has been proven to have been done, then I agree, you can consider patterns which occur across the cases.

 

[Tortoise]

I disagree. I think you have misunderstood my point , so apologies if I wasn’t clear in my explanation.

The medical evidence is relevant to whether an AM took place because before you get anywhere near considering who committed the act and what their intentions were, you have to decide whether this baby collapsed because of something done to it by a third party (ignoring whether it was intentional or accidental, or intended to cause death), or was the collapse because of extreme prematurity or antibiotics being given later than they should have been or one of the other things the defence has said?

That is surely the first question in any of these cases and the nub of the difference of opinion between the defence and prosecution for every case (except the insulin cases, where the defence seems to accept something was done and the only dispute is whether or not it is LL).

IMO, you have to consider each case separately on the first question of whether someone has done something to each baby. Once you’ve got your group of charges where you think something has been proven to have been done, then I agree, you can consider patterns which occur across the cases.

Yes, I think I misunderstood you saying 'I think you have to go through each case first and decide whether the medical evidence has proved a murder or attempted murder (no considerations of LL or any of the evidence against her at this stage).'

I agree what has to be established first is if something was done to the baby that had no innocent explanation and would be harmful.

Fortunately the jury doesn't need to worry about how to approach this, because the judge will give them a very clear map, which looks something like a flowchart, answering yes or no to questions they must ask and answer, to get to a verdict.

JMO