Daisydunn15
VIP Member
Nah surely not, wouldn't that be a bit like being up for shoplifting and having other shops acting as witnesses cos you paid for them? I don't think they could argue it to be relevant to the charges against her.
- Notice
Futtrit
VIP Member
2:46pm
Mr Myers refers to the pathologist's report for Child D, recording damaged lungs, "continuing respiratory problems".
Presence of infection is "not ruled out" following negative microbiology tests, as Child D had been on antibiotics.
Mr Myers said despite that, Dr Marnerides "preferred" air embolus as a conclusion.
He said he had taken into account clinicians' views of how well Child D was doing.
Mr Myers says Child D was not doing well on respiration.
He says Dr Bohin had 'revealed' 'distress' was a sign of air embolus, for the first time in the case.
2:58pm
Mr Myers refers to nurse Caroline Oakley's notes of skin discolouration for Child D at the time.
He says there is nothing there to identify a discolouration that matches air embolus.
He says in cross-examination, she began to give colours such as 'red-brown', and "ended up saying 'I remember an unusual rash'".
He says Kathryn Percival-Ward [Calderbank] had said in 2018 police interview that [Child D] changed colour, was mottled, and had seen it before, but...it looked unusual'.
He says her memory had developed by the trial, calling it a 'mosaic' and giving a more detailed description with 'oval markings meeting up with each other'.
He says "five years later we have a lurid description".
He says he is repeating himself by witnesses giving more detailed descriptions five years later.
Mr Myers suggests staff had met up in the meantime to 'share recollections', and this 'almost certainly' happened.
He says for Dr Bohin, there had been lengthy cross-examination on air embolus, and it went 'increasingly circular' and 'self-feeding'.
He says Dr Bohin had said Child D had two non-fatal collapses by referring to research in dogs, pigs and rabbits, and the results were "variable".
Mr Myers says those "vague assertions" does not give confidence as to what happened with Child D.
He asks why the descriptions of discolourations vary each time, and why Child D was not seen to be in distress before the final collapse [having been in distress prior to an earlier collapse.
---
3:04pm
Mr Myers says doctors had agreed blood gas test results for Child D had declined - and Caroline Oakley agreed they "were not as good as they had earlier" on June 22, 2015, at 1.14am.
He refers to the 3.45am note by Caroline Oakley: '[Child D] desaturated and then became apnoeic. Called SN Letby to help.'
He says "yet again" Letby was being held responsible for an event where she did not have responsibility for that baby at that point.
He says there is nothing linked to doing any harm.
BM: "Again - what is meant to have happened?"
He says the jury have to be sure of what.
Mr Myers refers to the pathologist's report for Child D, recording damaged lungs, "continuing respiratory problems".
Presence of infection is "not ruled out" following negative microbiology tests, as Child D had been on antibiotics.
Mr Myers said despite that, Dr Marnerides "preferred" air embolus as a conclusion.
He said he had taken into account clinicians' views of how well Child D was doing.
Mr Myers says Child D was not doing well on respiration.
He says Dr Bohin had 'revealed' 'distress' was a sign of air embolus, for the first time in the case.
2:58pm
Mr Myers refers to nurse Caroline Oakley's notes of skin discolouration for Child D at the time.
He says there is nothing there to identify a discolouration that matches air embolus.
He says in cross-examination, she began to give colours such as 'red-brown', and "ended up saying 'I remember an unusual rash'".
He says Kathryn Percival-Ward [Calderbank] had said in 2018 police interview that [Child D] changed colour, was mottled, and had seen it before, but...it looked unusual'.
He says her memory had developed by the trial, calling it a 'mosaic' and giving a more detailed description with 'oval markings meeting up with each other'.
He says "five years later we have a lurid description".
He says he is repeating himself by witnesses giving more detailed descriptions five years later.
Mr Myers suggests staff had met up in the meantime to 'share recollections', and this 'almost certainly' happened.
He says for Dr Bohin, there had been lengthy cross-examination on air embolus, and it went 'increasingly circular' and 'self-feeding'.
He says Dr Bohin had said Child D had two non-fatal collapses by referring to research in dogs, pigs and rabbits, and the results were "variable".
Mr Myers says those "vague assertions" does not give confidence as to what happened with Child D.
He asks why the descriptions of discolourations vary each time, and why Child D was not seen to be in distress before the final collapse [having been in distress prior to an earlier collapse.
---
3:04pm
Mr Myers says doctors had agreed blood gas test results for Child D had declined - and Caroline Oakley agreed they "were not as good as they had earlier" on June 22, 2015, at 1.14am.
He refers to the 3.45am note by Caroline Oakley: '[Child D] desaturated and then became apnoeic. Called SN Letby to help.'
He says "yet again" Letby was being held responsible for an event where she did not have responsibility for that baby at that point.
He says there is nothing linked to doing any harm.
BM: "Again - what is meant to have happened?"
He says the jury have to be sure of what.
Last edited:
Lucyxxxx
VIP Member
It can be quiet catty can't it.I've spotted a few of you over there - very comfortingbut some of the posts are
Futtrit
VIP Member
10:34am
He cites examples by the prosecution case - her presence when something happens, or not being present, or just leaving the unit, or just turning up for her work.
Her making a note, or not making a note - 'guilty'.
He says if she signs for medical records, or signs for others - 'guilty'.
A baby in her care doesn't show signs of deteriorations - guilty.
A baby does show signs of deteriorations - guilty.
He says it is "twisting and turning".
She cries when giving evidence - guilty.
She doesn't cry when giving evidence, or doesn't cry at the right times - guilty.
He cites examples by the prosecution case - her presence when something happens, or not being present, or just leaving the unit, or just turning up for her work.
Her making a note, or not making a note - 'guilty'.
He says if she signs for medical records, or signs for others - 'guilty'.
A baby in her care doesn't show signs of deteriorations - guilty.
A baby does show signs of deteriorations - guilty.
He says it is "twisting and turning".
She cries when giving evidence - guilty.
She doesn't cry when giving evidence, or doesn't cry at the right times - guilty.
Faith61
VIP Member
Futtrit
VIP Member
12:14pm
Mr Myers says Letby was asked about how long she had been on the phone when feeding a baby not on the indictment, and how long she was spending texting.
Letby had said: "You think I pushed it in, didn't you?" Mr Myers said Nicholas Johnson KC, for the prosecution, replied: "I do."
Mr Myers asks where had that come from, and "there was no evidential basis" for that.
He says it was "an allegation on the hoof".
He says no-one suggested that baby had a vomit was unwell.
He says that allegation was "made in passing"
Mr Myers says Letby was asked about how long she had been on the phone when feeding a baby not on the indictment, and how long she was spending texting.
Letby had said: "You think I pushed it in, didn't you?" Mr Myers said Nicholas Johnson KC, for the prosecution, replied: "I do."
Mr Myers asks where had that come from, and "there was no evidential basis" for that.
He says it was "an allegation on the hoof".
He says no-one suggested that baby had a vomit was unwell.
He says that allegation was "made in passing"
justkeepscrolling111
Chatty Member
No, once the defence finish with their closing submissions the judge will give his directions. He’s already done this to an extent so he will mainly (i) summarise the factual matters raised by both sides in closing speeches; and (ii) advise the jury on how they should verdict a verdict - essentially he’ll remind them of the questions to go through when considering each charge.
---
Estimated to be Monday 10 July now
---
Presumably the Judge, or other parties involved in the case, have other business calling in the latter part of w/c 3 July. For example, the judge may begin his directions on Thursday but court may not sit on Friday, he may continue the directions the following Monday but have other matters calling Tuesday - Thursday so complete his directions on the Friday/Monday and then send them to deliberate. Will depend on other court business, commitments of parties involved etc.
Futtrit
VIP Member
11:26am
Mr Myers says the jury know what an air embolus looks like, from how Professor Owen Arthurs described it, and a radiograph image was supplied with the research article.
He says it looks "nothing like" what was shown in this case.
He says for Child G, the image looks "nothing like", and the UVC is "misplaced" to the lower liver.
A second image for Child G shows the baby 'in life', with an air embolus.
He says an air embolus can happen "by accident" in legitimate medical treatment.
He says Dr Bohin "reluctantly" accepted that could be the case.
He says Dr Evans refused to accept it.
Mr Myers says the scientific evidence "falls short" on air embolus in this case, with background research "poor", and the guidance has been applied "inconsistently".
He says the evidence "is so poor" it "cannot be used" to back the allegations.
Mr Myers says the jury know what an air embolus looks like, from how Professor Owen Arthurs described it, and a radiograph image was supplied with the research article.
He says it looks "nothing like" what was shown in this case.
He says for Child G, the image looks "nothing like", and the UVC is "misplaced" to the lower liver.
A second image for Child G shows the baby 'in life', with an air embolus.
He says an air embolus can happen "by accident" in legitimate medical treatment.
He says Dr Bohin "reluctantly" accepted that could be the case.
He says Dr Evans refused to accept it.
Mr Myers says the scientific evidence "falls short" on air embolus in this case, with background research "poor", and the guidance has been applied "inconsistently".
He says the evidence "is so poor" it "cannot be used" to back the allegations.
justkeepscrolling111
Chatty Member
They can’t make any mention of sentencing - as things stand she hasn’t been found guilty of anything. Would be a serious case of contempt of court.
Futtrit
VIP Member
Court was back at 2.02 but ho reports yet......?
Just as i posted...
---
2:18pm
Mr Myers says, for the case of Child C, he looks at the post-mortem evidence of whether there was a gastrointestinal blockage.
He refers to the agreed evidence by the pathologist, Dr Kokai, who conducted the post-mortem examination, who recorded a 'distended colon' for Child C, which was not normal.
He says Dr Marnerides refused to accept this evidence, who said the bowel was 'normal'.
The stomach contained 'a large amount of air'.
Mr Myers says Dr Evans was prepared to accept air being forced down the NG Tube on June 12 - when Letby was not on duty - but 'just came out' with air being forced down the tube, and an air embolus, in evidence for June 13, when he had not mentioned it in his pre-trial reports.
Mr Myers says that was "without any evidential basis at all".
He says Dr Bohin agreed that pneumonia was a contributory factor for Child C's death.
He says the defence's position is that pneumonia made Child C more vulnerable, and Dr Bohin 'refused' to consider a combination of pneumonia and something else - such as an abdominal blockage - caused the collapse.
He says Child C was a "very poorly little boy" who "should have been transferred out of [Chester] with the problems he had", and had "sub-optimal care".
Just as i posted...
---
2:18pm
Mr Myers says, for the case of Child C, he looks at the post-mortem evidence of whether there was a gastrointestinal blockage.
He refers to the agreed evidence by the pathologist, Dr Kokai, who conducted the post-mortem examination, who recorded a 'distended colon' for Child C, which was not normal.
He says Dr Marnerides refused to accept this evidence, who said the bowel was 'normal'.
The stomach contained 'a large amount of air'.
Mr Myers says Dr Evans was prepared to accept air being forced down the NG Tube on June 12 - when Letby was not on duty - but 'just came out' with air being forced down the tube, and an air embolus, in evidence for June 13, when he had not mentioned it in his pre-trial reports.
Mr Myers says that was "without any evidential basis at all".
He says Dr Bohin agreed that pneumonia was a contributory factor for Child C's death.
He says the defence's position is that pneumonia made Child C more vulnerable, and Dr Bohin 'refused' to consider a combination of pneumonia and something else - such as an abdominal blockage - caused the collapse.
He says Child C was a "very poorly little boy" who "should have been transferred out of [Chester] with the problems he had", and had "sub-optimal care".
DianaBanana
VIP Member
Yes. But also that she’s definitely innocent and the babies died of natural causes. Or Dr Gibbs did it….absolute ghoul.
mrs.darcy
VIP Member
Me too and she's guilty, guilty, guilty in my book.Kinda worried BM is gonna sway some of the jury
---
And me, and I've not caught up with all the posts yet. I am nervous about how the jury will process BM's summing up.
Futtrit
VIP Member
2:15pm
Mr Myers refers to the 'striking' notes.
He says they demonstrate the "anguish caused to Lucy Letby by what was happening".
He refers to the 'not good enough' note.
He says Letby wrote that not to the court, not to the police, but to herself, plainly "showing how she feels".
He says that was "utterly consistent" of Letby being distraught about being taken off the unit.
He says Letby wasn't 'pretending to need anti-depressants' for years, and wasn't 'pretending to be suicidal'; "the impact was immense".
Mr Myers refers to the 'striking' notes.
He says they demonstrate the "anguish caused to Lucy Letby by what was happening".
He refers to the 'not good enough' note.
He says Letby wrote that not to the court, not to the police, but to herself, plainly "showing how she feels".
He says that was "utterly consistent" of Letby being distraught about being taken off the unit.
He says Letby wasn't 'pretending to need anti-depressants' for years, and wasn't 'pretending to be suicidal'; "the impact was immense".
FastAndTheCurious7
VIP Member
Yes it’s called TFMR Termination for medical reasons
nosycowmoo
Well-known member
Hmm
did you stay over last night and drive back today?
Futtrit
VIP Member
12:22pm
Mr Myers says there is missing post-mortem examination evidence for Child E, which allowed the prosecution to present evidence of 'bleeding from the throat'.
He says that allowed the prosecution to provide linked evidence. He says there is no evidence to show it, post-mortem.
Mr Myers says there is missing post-mortem examination evidence for Child E, which allowed the prosecution to present evidence of 'bleeding from the throat'.
He says that allowed the prosecution to provide linked evidence. He says there is no evidence to show it, post-mortem.
Futtrit
VIP Member
12:07pm
Mr Myers says for this allegation, Letby would have to be close to Child B - "and of course, she is not".
He said it was "normal" for her to be assisting a nursing colleague in room 1, in assisting putting up the TPN bag at 12.05am.
He says the nursing colleague is "not going to miss that" if air is injected, and it would not take 25 minutes for it to have an effect [when the deterioration takes place].
Mr Myers says at the time of deterioration, Letby was with the nursing colleague and not with Child B.
He says the nursing colleague had said she was "keeping a particularly close eye on [Child B]", given the prongs had been dislodged and what had happened to Child A.
12:12pm
Mr Myers says the deterioration was not rapid in this case, and resuscitation was successful.
A radiograph was taken 40 minutes after the deterioration.
He says 'no-one is suggesting air' is present.
He says that is different from the radiograph image for Child G, which was taken at Arrowe Park, where the air was still there.
He says for discolouration, there was contemporaneous notes at the time.
He says the defence are not disputing these discolouration descriptions at the time.
He says none of the descriptions match that from the research paper.
12:17pm
My Myers said a doctor who had been present for Child A and Child B said what she had seen on Child B was something she had "not seen before", Mr Myers tells the court.
He says it is accepted the skin discolouration is 'striking', but what happened was 'not air embolus'.
He says it is not a particularly nice detail [to point out in comparison to other cases], but there was 'no screaming or distress' for Child B.
He says that detail of 'screaming/crying/distress' was 'worked into the theory' by medical experts later in the case.
Mr Myers says for this allegation, Letby would have to be close to Child B - "and of course, she is not".
He said it was "normal" for her to be assisting a nursing colleague in room 1, in assisting putting up the TPN bag at 12.05am.
He says the nursing colleague is "not going to miss that" if air is injected, and it would not take 25 minutes for it to have an effect [when the deterioration takes place].
Mr Myers says at the time of deterioration, Letby was with the nursing colleague and not with Child B.
He says the nursing colleague had said she was "keeping a particularly close eye on [Child B]", given the prongs had been dislodged and what had happened to Child A.
12:12pm
Mr Myers says the deterioration was not rapid in this case, and resuscitation was successful.
A radiograph was taken 40 minutes after the deterioration.
He says 'no-one is suggesting air' is present.
He says that is different from the radiograph image for Child G, which was taken at Arrowe Park, where the air was still there.
He says for discolouration, there was contemporaneous notes at the time.
He says the defence are not disputing these discolouration descriptions at the time.
He says none of the descriptions match that from the research paper.
12:17pm
My Myers said a doctor who had been present for Child A and Child B said what she had seen on Child B was something she had "not seen before", Mr Myers tells the court.
He says it is accepted the skin discolouration is 'striking', but what happened was 'not air embolus'.
He says it is not a particularly nice detail [to point out in comparison to other cases], but there was 'no screaming or distress' for Child B.
He says that detail of 'screaming/crying/distress' was 'worked into the theory' by medical experts later in the case.
reCAPTCHA
VIP Member
It’s not all or nothing. They will make individual judgement each of the (14?) charges and then sentencing comes after that. Technically they could find her guilty on May one count and she could be sentenced to life behind bars. I think?!
Danica Catrick
Chatty Member
I'm not sure I'd say looking forward to it, but I'm definitely interested to hear what BM has to say. I mean, he's got nothing to counter all the evidence of her guilt so I'm curious to see how he'll spin it...