Letby Case (part 2)

[OneFrenchEgg]

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4652340-lucy-letby-court-case?reply=121815754

follow up, remember rules around discussion of active cases

I find this interesting, I must have missed this the first time it was brought up (obviously this is just the prosecution’s argument but would be interested in seeing what the defence’s take is on it)

It's all so hard to unpick isn't it? I think for me LL has an amazing memory when it suits her and cannot recall information that would potentially incriminate her.

Ok thank you for clarifying it just sounded to me like he had a bad feeling and took himself off to check then had watched her which seemed awful but Thankyou for clearing that up

My question was who are these people - Most people on the country? In the court? On the thread? That you know?

I stand by what I said but no point repeating as it was deleted.

If you don't agree I'd love to hear what it is that convinces you they weren't? Something relevant to this case. Even the women on trial for murder agrees that some of them were attacked, the insulin babies and the baby whose liver suffered trauma on her watch.

He could have Datixed it.

I completely agree. All this talk of "data" about the alarm and desat, it doesn't exist! Yet the defence haven't pointed that out.

I agree with @Mirabai that there are quite a few things the defence could have brought in to bolster reasonable doubt. I'd love to know why Myers has chosen the approach he has.

Not sure how you would datix someone possibly acting suspiciously. He's already said he didn't see anything and it's the prosecution that are presenting the narrative that exists in court today.

I don't think any staff member wanted to believe these babies were being harmed deliberately and in my mind it only strengthens the prosecutions case that it wasn't the gang of 4 targeting her. Of they were they would have done a much better job surely?

You can Datix errors, misjudgements, negligence, bad behaviour etc etc so he could have if he'd wanted to. If he felt she should have intervened and didn't he could have Datixed it. I can't remember who, but someone on the prev page said about not being able to document the event and I'm merely saying he could have if he wanted to go down that route.

That’s why I said he was surmising, based on what he saw on the monitor. I guess we just have to accept (or not accept) his word (he is a professional with lots of experience) on this without knowing the actual data evidence. But I don’t think it helps that she admitted she didn’t do anything to help (verifying what he said) and that the alarm that should have gone off didn’t go off (indicating that it had been purposely paused, so how much time passed between the alarm being ‘paused’ and him walking in). Again, she stated that if what Dr Jayaram said happened she would expect the alarm to have gone off. So why didn’t it?

I also think she’s shot herself in the foot a few times whilst she was on the stand and there’s not really a lot that the defence can do when she is contradicting what they are presenting as their evidence (but that’s a whole other post). I think her defence have been quite poor to be honest, especially with their only other witness being the plumber.

I'm really not sure how he would have. I don't think datix would have been right in this situation I've tried to datix things which you would have thought are straightforward to end up perplexed and stressed, it's supposed to be fact not opinion and not emotional and would have been his opinion at the time so not appeoproprate.

@whatausername yeah he admitted this

He said “All of these events were unusual. Yes, if we put in Datix we could have investigated sooner and been here [in court] sooner."

He also said he and the other consultants, wanted to know how this could be investigated, and tried to escalate concerns higher up the hospital. But the defence state there is no record anywhere of the suspicious behaviour noted.

Dr Jayaram says he did not anticipate being sat in a courtroom, years down the line, speaking to the defence.

So yeah, he knows he ballsed up and could have Datixed it in hindsight.

Thats the thing isn't it. Nobody wanted to believe it at the time, the situation now is so different and im not convinced he would have written a datix with no proof to back up his suspicions at the time, we have to remember it was in the midst of all of it. We didn't know what we know now.

I think that was ruled out quite early on.

Just re read the information for baby F, seems there were more than one blood test and that it's other factors such as high heart rate, adrenaline production etc.... That fit together like jigsaw pieces so they can say when he must have started receiving it etc...
Says he was receiving 17 times more insulin than any therapeutic would have been and blood sugar even remained low when he was been given twice the levels of sugar that would usually be needed in such a case to bring his levels back to normal. Once they stopped the bag he made a recovery.

Suspicious behaviour is a matter for the police not datix. It would be totally inappropriate to dating this event.

I think it's agreed the 2 insulin cases are indisputable.

Yes this is what I've mentioned before. There have been no legitimate attempts to defend whatsoever, in the ways you would expect. It baffles me.

Completely agree, some people don't seem to though. I have no idea how.

@DSDaisy its kind of complicated to explain properly on here but there was a witness, a pharmacist, who took the jurors through the method of how the bags are made up.

The neonatal unit send the prescription request down to pharmacy and they assemble the prescription on site. Two operators make a bag and have checks in place to confirm all of the identities and quantities of the ingredients used before they make it. They also check all the empty vials/ampoules that have been used after to account for all the ingredients that have gone into the bag. It then goes up to neonatal and is stored in a fridge.

They are also subject to regulatory monitoring to ensure the safety, quaity and effectiveness of the products.

So I think that’s why they ruled out that it was tampered with before it went up to the unit, as it couldn’t have happened accidentally (as everything is accounted for at least twice over) and if it was done maliciously more than one pharmacist would have had to be in on it at any one time the bags are assembled.

I've been following the trial closely from the beginning and trying to be impartial as the jury would etc it's been a very long and complex case but if you read through the prosecution closing argument so far, then it draws the timeline and evidence together in a way that makes certain patterns and conclusions leap out. Up until now, it's been like looking through fog. The defence have a chance to pull all this to bits of course but there's a mountain to climb at this point.

Oh and just to add, I agree with pp's that whatever the verdict is, the hospital has been well and truly trashed and there are many questions for them to answer.

@LoisWilkersonslastnerve i'm in total agreement with your last two posts

I also agree @LoisWilkersonslastnerve