UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #27

[Tortoise]

12:25pm

The judge says Mr Myers "repeatedly expressed his opinions" on the merits of the expert evidence, questioning and challenging them. He says that is his right, but it is up to the jury to determine the reliability of the expert evidence.
The judge refers to Prof Owen Arthurs' evidence, who "considered each case on its own merits".
Prof Arthurs was provided with radiograph images of Child A. He noted the umbilical catheter was "slightly in the wrong place", and there was "a line of gas in front of the spine" on one of the images, which was "an unusual finding". He said it was "so unusual", he reviewed other cases at Great Ormond Street Hospital, to compare for a similar images. He said such gas would normally only be seen in heavy impacts such as road traffic incidents - this could obviously be discounted.
The other usual case would be "overwhelming infection" in organs of the body, such as sepsis, but Child A did not have any such identifiers.
He said he had "not seen this much gas" in any baby, other than in the case of Child D. He said it was 'consistent with air administered' to him, but 'not diagnostic' of it.
In cross-examination, he said he found no unexplained cases, and accepted this was an observational study, not a controlled study - the judge says for obvious reasons, the latter could not be carried out.

12:29pm

Prof Arthurs said radiographic evidence of air embolus was "rare", and in suspected cases, seeing anything on the radiograph was "rare". He said the absence of it on the radiograph did not rule that cause out.
He said one of the reasons is the imaging of the event is not important, the main priority is to save the life. An x-ray taken an hour later "wouldn't show anything".

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 3 - judge's summing up

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Tortoise]

12:41pm

The judge refers to expert witness Dr Andreas Marnerides' evidence.
His expertise, the court is told, is on the pathology of conditions on those who had died.
He said there was "no evidence of infection" or "any other abnormalities".
He said he could see, from his study, "empty structures" of fat or air in Child A - after testing, he ruled out the former.
He said he could see evidence of air in the brain when the baby was alive.
The findings "could not be taken as absolute proof of air embolus".
He said there was "no evidence of any natural cause of death", or any of natural disease.
He took the view that Child A's death was of air embolus via injection.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 3 - judge's summing up

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Jazmania]

So good seeing all this evidence summed up in one go like this. Can see this taking more than one week though. More like 6 full days is my bet.

 

[Tortoise]

12:54pm

The judge refers to Dr Dewi Evans, and his role in providing background evidence for Child A.
He said: "On the whole, babies don't suddenly collapse".
He said Child A was the fifth case he looked at, and the cause of the collapse was "unusual". He said as he looked at further cases, he noticed a "pattern", as he received more evidence.
He said Dr Evans' evidence came for criticism by the defence. He had not been in practice since 2009, and the defence said he had "constructed theories" and "acted as an investigator" and was "biased", " putting himself forward...at the outset".
The judge says the prosecution point to a large number of incidents for review with "no apparent reasons for an event or death". They point to Dr Evans' long experience in neonatalogy, and provided "clear evidence" in Child F and Child L that identified two babies on the unit were being poisoned. The prosecution say Dr Evans was not handed other potentially incriminating evidence, such as shift patterns for staff.
Dr Evans said Child A was "stable" and "as well as could be expected" before the collapse. Repeated attempts to insert a UVC or long line may have caused upset to Child A, but would not have caused the collapse, he said. The lack of fluids "would not make a material difference".
'Bright pink' skin discolouration would be unusual in a baby's collapse - but skin discolouration is "not diagnostic" of an air embolus alone, Dr Evans said.
He denied he had been "influenced" in reaching his conclusion by a 1989 medical paper. He said in Child A's case, there had been colour change, sudden and unexpected collapse, air in various parts of the body, and no explanation for death. He said it was probably an air embolus intravenously.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 3 - judge's summing up

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Tortoise]

1:02pm

The judge refers to Dr Sandie Bohin, and her evidence for Child A.
He says the defence accused her of lacking independence, and "enthusiastically supported" Dr Evans' evidence. She repeatedly denied this assertions, and said her views were her own. The judge says it is up to the jury to assess the validity of the defence's assertions.
Dr Bohin said neither the UVC or long line contributed to Child A's collapse. She said Child A was "so well", that there was consideration to giving him feeds, and babies doing well do not develop pink fluctuating rashes that come and go.
She said, excluding other possibilities, air embolus was the "only plausible explanation", and believed air getting in accidentally "was extremely unlikely".
Studies on air emboli should be "treated with caution" as they are on adults or animals, she said.
In cross-examination, she said she did not know of any genetic condition that would cause a collapse and death within 24 hours of birth.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 3 - judge's summing up

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[JosieJo]

On holiday so struggling to look in ..any clues from judge ? How's his summary going

 

[ColourPurple]

On holiday so struggling to look in ..any clues from judge ? How's his summary going

Seems pretty fair so far IMO

He's including what the medical experts said but also including Myers doubts and opinions of the experts/their views.

PS have a good holiday

 

[Tortoise]

On holiday so struggling to look in ..any clues from judge ? How's his summary going

We've had a backdrop to the case, the plumber's been and gone, and judge has more or less finished summing up for baby A, summarising the evidence of the doctors and nurses, Letby's evidence and police interviews, and the experts one by one - with commentary about Myers' repeatedly expressed opinions that the experts are unreliable, which is a matter for the jury to decide.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Just a few other things Jo, the court are not sitting on Friday, it is going to be a very long nerve wracking week and it’s raining and very windy where I am notwithstanding it is JULY.
Hope you are somewhere hot and sunny !

 

[CS2C]

I still cannot fathom why the opinion of Myers is not being given in the context of him not being a medical professional. I certainly thought it would look worse for Letby at this stage. MOO

 

[Tortoise]

I still cannot fathom why the opinion of Myers is not being given in the context of him not being a medical professional. I certainly thought it would look worse for Letby at this stage. MOO

It's coming in because when these expert witnesses were on the stand he accused them of being biased and non-independent etc, and they refuted it. Therefore it's their denials of being non-partisan under cross-examination and their assertions that they carried out independent research, which is for the jury to determine, not what Myers said to them. If he didn't raise it, or it was agreed evidence, but Myers made a comment about something being unbelievable in his closing speech, that's not evidence.


JMOO

 

[ColourPurple]

I still cannot fathom why the opinion of Myers is not being given in the context of him not being a medical professional. I certainly thought it would look worse for Letby at this stage. MOO

I think this part touched on it a little without outright saying Myers is no medical expert

The judge refers to expert witnesses who have given evidence in the case.
He says the jury would expect to hear evidence from experts with relevant expertise. Their role is to be a witness, not an advocate.
He says the defence have criticised that evidence, and will come to that when going through the relevant cases.
He says the jury are entitled to consider their opinions when coming to conclusions on the case. It is up to them to consider some or all of their evidence.
He says their evidence is part of the case, and the jury should not consider it in isolation, and should be considered in the context of expert, clinical and relevant circumstantial evidence.
The experts did exclude some reasons for collapses based on their own knowledge and expertise.

 

[CS2C]

I think this part touched on it a little without outright saying Myers is no medical expert

The judge refers to expert witnesses who have given evidence in the case.
He says the jury would expect to hear evidence from experts with relevant expertise. Their role is to be a witness, not an advocate.
He says the defence have criticised that evidence, and will come to that when going through the relevant cases.
He says the jury are entitled to consider their opinions when coming to conclusions on the case. It is up to them to consider some or all of their evidence.
He says their evidence is part of the case, and the jury should not consider it in isolation, and should be considered in the context of expert, clinical and relevant circumstantial evidence.
The experts did exclude some reasons for collapses based on their own knowledge and expertise.

I don't think it should be alluded to but written in bold and stamped across the courtroom tbh. My opinion of course

 

[ColourPurple]

I don't think it should be alluded to but written in bold and stamped across the courtroom tbh. My opinion of course

I know what you mean but he has to be careful with his wording and I think this line says it in a round about way "The jury would expect to hear evidence from experts with relevant expertise."

 

[Dotta]

I think this part touched on it a little without outright saying Myers is no medical expert

The judge refers to expert witnesses who have given evidence in the case.
He says the jury would expect to hear evidence from experts with relevant expertise. Their role is to be a witness, not an advocate.
He says the defence have criticised that evidence, and will come to that when going through the relevant cases.
He says the jury are entitled to consider their opinions when coming to conclusions on the case. It is up to them to consider some or all of their evidence.
He says their evidence is part of the case, and the jury should not consider it in isolation, and should be considered in the context of expert, clinical and relevant circumstantial evidence.
The experts did exclude some reasons for collapses based on their own knowledge and expertise.

This Judge is very diplomatic

Very cautious as not to give reasons for appeal.

Just My Opinion.

 

[Dcflag]

The judge saying Myers repeatedly expressed HIS opinions (on the merits of the experts) makes me feel like at least it’s being acknowledged in some form that he is giving his own opinions against those of medical experts.

 

[Dotta]

The judge saying Myers repeatedly expressed HIS opinions (on the merits of the experts) makes me feel like at least it’s being acknowledged in some form that he is giving his own opinions against those of medical experts.

To be honest, I think Jurors are perfectly capable to notice it, just as we did.

But, of course, the Judge's task is to mention it in his summing up.

JMO

 

[CS2C]

I know what you mean but he has to be careful with his wording and I think this line says it in a round about way "The jury would expect to hear evidence from experts with relevant expertise."

With all due respect, who in that courtroom would know if what Mr Myers has said is medically incorrect ? That is my issue with it.

 

[ColourPurple]

With all due respect, who in that courtroom would know if what Mr Myers has said is medically incorrect ? That is my issue with it.

I understand that concern but I'm assuming that at least one of the jurors will have the same thought process as many here do and will be joining the dots in what the judge has said about:

• Expert witnesses having relevant expertise
• The defence giving their opinions of the medical experts/their views
• It being up to the jury to assess the validity of the defence's assertions.

 

[CS2C]

I understand that concern but I'm assuming that at least one of the jurors will have the same thought process as many here do and will be joining the dots in what the judge has said about:

• Expert witnesses having relevant expertise
• The defence giving their opinions of the medical experts/their views
• It being up to the jury to assess the validity of the defence's assertions.

Yes I see what you are saying.