UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #2

[JosieJo]

Very few medications on a ward or unit are controlled (as in they have to be signed in and out of a register)
Almost all drugs a nurse could go to a cupboard and take out without being noticed.
It would take a large number of drugs going missing before Pharmacy notice.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It definitely won't be anonymous in the court. You have a right to challenge your accuser which you cannot do effectively if you don't know who they are.

Sometimes witness are shielded by a curtain....not visible to the press and public etc.

 

[1morequestion]

and Letby was the "constant malevolent presence" when things took a turn for the worse

I'm surprised the prosecution is allowed to make such dramatic statements in court, I guess 'was present' doesn't sound as sinister

 

[gill1109]

Prosecution opens​

From Mark Dowling at the Chester Standard

Prosecuting, Nicholas Johnson KC said everyone should be aware of the city of Chester, and its busy general hospital. Said hospital includes a neonatal unit, caring for premature and sick babies.

"It is a hospital like so many others in the UK," he added. "But unlike so many others, within the neonatal unit, a poisoner was at work."

The statistics of the mortality rate were comparable, prior to January 2015, but there was "a significant rise" in the number of babies dying or having "catastrophic collapses".

This rise was "noticed" and the concern was the babies had died "unexpectedly", and when babies collapsed, they did not respond to sufficient resuscitation.

The collapses "defied" the expectations of the treating doctors.

Usually, when an intervention is taken, a positive reponse can be expected, he told the jury.

Babies "who had not been unstable at all" or "on the mend", "suddenly deteriorated", "for no reason at all".

Consultants noted there was "one common denominator" - the presence of neonatal nurse Lucy Letby.

There were between 25-30 nurses and 15-20 nursery unit nurses in that part of the hospital, working day/night shifts. More would work on the day than the night shifts, typically.

Parents tended to visit their sick children during the day, Mr Johnson added.

Many of the events occurred "during the night shifts".

When Letby was moved to the day shifts, the rate of collapses "shifted to the day shift pattern".

Police were then called in, and commissioned a "painstaking review" by "experienced doctors with no connection to the Countess of Chester Hospital".

The review concluded that two children were "poisoned" with insulin.

The prosecution say the "only reasonable conclusion" is the babies were poisoned "deliberately - these were no accidents".

The prosecution say other collapses could be due to "sabotaging".

The prosecution adds these deaths and non-fatal collapses were deliberate, and Letby was the "constant malevolent presence" when things took a turn for the worse in these 17 children, Mr Johnson added.

They have to prove that she was malevolent. I do imagine there has to be motive, means and opportunity. It will be interesting to hear what the psychologists have to say. I expect we will hear from the criminologists and forensic psychologists who have published academic papers explaining the minds of the perpetrators in such cases. In the UK, I think that the best known are the authors of this paper, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jip.1434. If anyone wants to read it but can't get through the paywall, do send me a PM. I think there is a small problem with this field of academic research. The population which is studied consists of those who were successfully prosecuted for health care serial killings, and the materials are the newspaper reports of the prosecution case. So the "red flag lists" which are drawn up in this line of work, are the compilations of factors which lead to a successful prosecution.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Yes, of course. We have seen this in other trials. No msm reports, but names all openly known in court.

Not always. They can be referred to as Witness A, Witness B etc., snd shielded from public, press and sometimes others if anonymity is required.

 

[JosieJo]

I'm surprised the prosecution is allowed to make such dramatic statements in court, I guess 'was present' doesn't sound as sinister

Unfortunately it's the prosecution barristers job to set the scene in its opening statement and this is what they do.

 

[annpats]

What is often unique to insulin overdose is that despite treating with intravenous glucose the blood sugar will not rise

We don't know that it was insulin being used in this case, although that was the method used by Beverly Allitt.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I might be the odd one out here but I think they will have some pretty strong evidence against her. That is a lot of charges.
But I hope the full truth comes out, whatever it is.

It's a game of two halves.....bear that in mind

 

[JosieJo]

We don't know that it was insulin being used in this case, although that was the method used by Beverly Allitt.

Prosecution has stated insulin in 2 cases

Mr Johnson said the two children poisoned with insulin, who cannot be identified, were two baby boys, both born twins; the first born in summer 2015 and the other born in spring 2016.

Both were poisoned a couple of days after they were born.

 

[Marantz4250b]

We don't know that it was insulin being used in this case, although that was the method used by Beverly Allitt.

The prosecution has mentioned insulin specifically in its opening statement. At least they are alleging it was.

 

[annpats]

The prosecution has mentioned insulin specifically in its opening statement. At least they are alleging it was.

Ahh, thanks for that, still catching up today ....

 

[Marantz4250b]

Prosecution has stated insulin in 2 cases

Mr Johnson said the two children poisoned with insulin, who cannot be identified, were two baby boys, both born twins; the first born in summer 2015 and the other born in spring 2016.

Both were poisoned a couple of days after they were born.

The incidence of twins and triplets throughout this seems somewhat unusual, does it not?

 

[gill1109]

Exactly! Lets face it murder in a medical setting via insulin seems to be extremely common; Allitt did it that way and there have been numerous other cases where insulin has been used. These cases have been occurring for absolutely decades. If these deaths and collapses were genuinely unexpected and unexplained then surely poisoning by insulin would be an almost automatic thing to look in to?

This is what Lucia De Burk was accused of, was it not? We all know how that ended.

The common 'murder weapons' in this kind of case seem to be insulin, and potassium chloride. Both easily obtainable in many hospitals, fairly easily admitted to a patient who is hooked up to a drip, and after a few hours hard to see *what* the patient died of. Without rapid and thorough post-mortem, impossible to know for sure. See http://longtermcareinquiry.ca/wp-co...eport-of-Professor-Beatrice-Crofts-Yorker.pdf

 

[JosieJo]

The incidence of twins and triplets throughout this seems somewhat unusual, does it not?

Possibly yes ..but I suppose because twin pregnancy often ends up with babies in Neonatal units I suppose it's difficult to say

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It may be that they are trying to ensure Justice is done especially for the families..if for example they have evidence that LL tried to kill or cause harm but because of the lack of criminal post mortems at the time they can't prove exactly the cause of death because of the babies being so unwell or premature.
They won't want Justice not to be done

For LL to have been charged the CPS, on the evidence alone, must have assessed that there a realstic prospect of conviction on each individual charge.

It is an objective test based on the evidence alone.

Unfortunately the families considerations do not come into it. It is a pure test of law.

 

[Sarahlou]

I've got an awful feeling she's going to be found guilty.

So many deaths stacked up against her.

I know the Countess of Chester Neo-natal Unit is in special measures and has been graded as not acceptable, and there was talk she could have been added a scapegoat for failures.....but the CPS must be satisfied that there is evidence that points to her actively killing these babies with intent.

She's not up for manslaughter or medical negligence, it's murder.

Had there not been the evidence, the case wouldn't have got this far.

I'm scared for her, and her parents and also sorry for her colleagues, and most of all, for the people who lost their children.

MOO.

She might be guilty though. Why are you so sure she's innocent? We've hardly heard anything yet

Edit- Actually, sorry, I misread your post

 

[Marantz4250b]

The common 'murder weapons' in this kind of case seem to be insulin, and potassium chloride. Both easily obtainable in many hospitals, fairly easily admitted to a patient who is hooked up to a drip, and after a few hours hard to see *what* the patient died of. Without rapid and thorough post-mortem, impossible to know for sure. See http://longtermcareinquiry.ca/wp-co...eport-of-Professor-Beatrice-Crofts-Yorker.pdf

I get that - I have to admit that I thought it would be locked up and signed for but that seems not to be the case.

Yes, it may be fairly easily administered but you'd think that the sheer number of these alleged acts by her would not have gone entirely unnoticed. As you say, hospitals during the day are busy places and she only needs to be seen to be doing something nefarious on one occasion and it's game over.

 

[cuecard]

She might be guilty though. Why are you so sure she's innocent? We've hardly heard anything yet.

Have to agree. We've not even scratched the surface of this case yet.

 

[gill1109]

For LL to have been charged the CPS, on the evidence alone must have assessed that there a realstic prospect of conviction on each individual charge.

It is an objective test based on the evidence alone.

Unfortunately the families considerations do not come into it. It is a pure test of law.

What you say is the theory. In practice, it doesn't work like this. The fact that there were many "unexplained" bad events at which LL was present is *supporting evidence* that she murdered one particular child. It suggests that she is a psychopath with a desire to harm young babies. Hence, it supports the question of "motive". Instructing a jury that they must treat each case on its own merits is an impossible instruction. In fact, it is one of the major issues brought up in our report. 64 pages of wisdom, aimed at lawyers and journalists as much as at statisticians. https://rss.org.uk/RSS/media/File-l...pected_medical_misconduct_Sept_2022_FINAL.pdf

 

[gill1109]

I get that - I have to admit that I thought it would be locked up and signed for but that seems not to be the case.

Yes, it may be fairly easily administered but you'd think that the sheer number of these alleged acts by her would not have gone entirely unnoticed. As you say, hospitals during the day are busy places and she only needs to be seen to be doing something nefarious on one occasion and it's game over.

Exactly. Now, was she ever seen doing something nefarious on any occasions at all? In numerous earlier cases, nobody saw anything.