I agree, GDPR is a huge issue in clinical settings with employers having the risk of being fined massive amounts over breaches.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
He’s looking at each case in isolation and trying to offer legitimate reasons why the baby collapsed or died. He only needs to make the jury have some doubt that it was attempted/completed murder at the hands of LL. And that is possible to do and could get NG verdict if this was just one or two babies but this is 22 charges over a very short period. The judge’s directions will be so important because the overall picture is essential to seeing the wood from the trees. I can picture being on the jury and feeling like BM has a point here and there. But when you stand back and look at it in the context of an external investigation suggesting something other than failure of care at the unit you come back to reality. There are sadly many examples of institutional failures within the NHS, particularly maternity/neonatal and they get investigated (eventually 
), reported on and hopefully changes made. Sometimes individual sanctions or higher ups moved on. You don’t see the entire blame being pinned on one person and murder charges brought!
), reported on and hopefully changes made. Sometimes individual sanctions or higher ups moved on. You don’t see the entire blame being pinned on one person and murder charges brought!
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".
Constantly busy - bus station busy - but understaffed to the point babies are neglected and die? Has he heard himself?
2:27pm
Mr Myers says Sophie Ellis "should not have been looking after" Child C, as she was "inexperienced" and put in charge of a "fragile little boy".
He says the collapse of Child C follows "the one and only feed" he received.
He says Sophie Ellis "didn't see Lucy Letby do anything wrong".
Mr Myers says the evidence of Melanie Taylor "contradicts" in court to what she said to police in 2018, "swapping Lucy Letby for Sophie Ellis".
He says she was "utterly brazen about this" in cross-examination.
He says the account changed so it put Lucy Letby in the room.
He says a female nurse colleague said in evidence was consistent with what she told police.
She had been dealing with a different baby, in a different room, with Lucy Letby.
She said between 10-11pm, she was called to assist Child C.
She 'went to nursery 1, where Sophie Ellis and Melanie Taylor were Neopuffing [Child C]'.
Mr Myers says Letby is "nowhere near nursery room 1" at the time of the collapse.
2:39pm
Mr Myers moves to the case of Child D.
He says the "evidence is very clear" that Child D was "very unwell" at 12 minutes of age, but she wasn't given antibiotics for four hours, and Child D was born with pneumonia, and required ventilation, and was on it for 11 hours, and there were continuing signs of respiratory difficulties, requiring the use of CPAP.
He says after Child D's first collapse, it was discussed what to do, and there woul 'be a low threshold to intervene from a respiratory point of view'.
He says after the second collapse, Child D was taken off CPAP, and Child D later collapsed fatally, and post-mortem was found with acute lung damage.
He says Child D was "very ill from the outset".
He says it is "a very unfortunate decision" after the second collapse that Child D was taken off CPAP after a discussion of a 'low threshold to intervene'.
Mr Myers says Sophie Ellis "should not have been looking after" Child C, as she was "inexperienced" and put in charge of a "fragile little boy".
He says the collapse of Child C follows "the one and only feed" he received.
He says Sophie Ellis "didn't see Lucy Letby do anything wrong".
Mr Myers says the evidence of Melanie Taylor "contradicts" in court to what she said to police in 2018, "swapping Lucy Letby for Sophie Ellis".
He says she was "utterly brazen about this" in cross-examination.
He says the account changed so it put Lucy Letby in the room.
He says a female nurse colleague said in evidence was consistent with what she told police.
She had been dealing with a different baby, in a different room, with Lucy Letby.
She said between 10-11pm, she was called to assist Child C.
She 'went to nursery 1, where Sophie Ellis and Melanie Taylor were Neopuffing [Child C]'.
Mr Myers says Letby is "nowhere near nursery room 1" at the time of the collapse.
2:39pm
Mr Myers moves to the case of Child D.
He says the "evidence is very clear" that Child D was "very unwell" at 12 minutes of age, but she wasn't given antibiotics for four hours, and Child D was born with pneumonia, and required ventilation, and was on it for 11 hours, and there were continuing signs of respiratory difficulties, requiring the use of CPAP.
He says after Child D's first collapse, it was discussed what to do, and there woul 'be a low threshold to intervene from a respiratory point of view'.
He says after the second collapse, Child D was taken off CPAP, and Child D later collapsed fatally, and post-mortem was found with acute lung damage.
He says Child D was "very ill from the outset".
He says it is "a very unfortunate decision" after the second collapse that Child D was taken off CPAP after a discussion of a 'low threshold to intervene'.
do you know if my friend James Walker still goes regularly?
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:
BM is very good at what he does and already stated he only needs to place a tiny seed of doubt. I’m starting to sway that we’ll get a not guilty verdict on some of the charges (not guilty is very different to her being innocent though).
Also if Dr Evans is such a controversial figure why did the prosecution not call on another expert? Surely there’s a few out there that would have been seen to be more ‘credible’ if that’s the correct term?
I don’t know what to think about it all anymore. I’m still in the guilty camp I think but it’s just very messy and I can’t see these parents getting the justice they deserve for their little babies.
Also if Dr Evans is such a controversial figure why did the prosecution not call on another expert? Surely there’s a few out there that would have been seen to be more ‘credible’ if that’s the correct term?
I don’t know what to think about it all anymore. I’m still in the guilty camp I think but it’s just very messy and I can’t see these parents getting the justice they deserve for their little babies.
*My BIB. Just lovely for the parents. No need imo.*
3:07pm
He says there is "such a blunt point to be made": "We are looking at intentions to kill, from somebody whom the prosecution allege knows what they are doing [as it has already happened by this point, in their view].
"It's not going to take three goes is it? It would be one shot, sudden, and fatal."
Mr Myers the suggestion Child D did not die of pneumonia, as opposed to with pneumonia, is "unrealistic".
He says the case against Letby is "incoherent".
3:07pm
He says there is "such a blunt point to be made": "We are looking at intentions to kill, from somebody whom the prosecution allege knows what they are doing [as it has already happened by this point, in their view].
"It's not going to take three goes is it? It would be one shot, sudden, and fatal."
Mr Myers the suggestion Child D did not die of pneumonia, as opposed to with pneumonia, is "unrealistic".
He says the case against Letby is "incoherent".
He really could have saved himself and everyone else involved time...
Just say....LL is the most wonderful nurse to walk the earth and the most " unlucky"
All her colleagues are tit nurses and liars and deserve to be under that bus that she threw them under
The parents are all liars also.
The doctors and
consultants involved in these poor babies care are also tit
The hospital is tit
The NNU is tit
The expert witnesses are all tit and know nothing, I know better...but sorry I can't produce any of my own medical experts witnesses to back up my theories, I just know better!!
The police and investigation team who spent years putting this together are also tit, as are the CPS for even daring to bring this to court
Most importantly the poor babies who are at the heart of all this were destined not to survive anyway
Those babies all had a chance, most of them more than a good chance,of going home and should be here today.. but, because of all the above they aren't??????
Sorry i can't accept that
Just say....LL is the most wonderful nurse to walk the earth and the most " unlucky"
All her colleagues are tit nurses and liars and deserve to be under that bus that she threw them under
The parents are all liars also.
The doctors and
consultants involved in these poor babies care are also tit
The hospital is tit
The NNU is tit
The expert witnesses are all tit and know nothing, I know better...but sorry I can't produce any of my own medical experts witnesses to back up my theories, I just know better!!
The police and investigation team who spent years putting this together are also tit, as are the CPS for even daring to bring this to court
Most importantly the poor babies who are at the heart of all this were destined not to survive anyway
Those babies all had a chance, most of them more than a good chance,of going home and should be here today.. but, because of all the above they aren't??????
Sorry i can't accept that
3:20pm
The trial is resuming after a short break.
Mr Myers is turning to the case of Child E.
---
3:23pm
He says there is a lot of pressure with all these events, and it is traumatic for the parents of Child E. He says it is important to look at the evidence as objectively as the jurors can.
He says the defence will look at the evidence of Child E's mother as 'sensitively' as they can.
The trial is resuming after a short break.
Mr Myers is turning to the case of Child E.
---
3:23pm
He says there is a lot of pressure with all these events, and it is traumatic for the parents of Child E. He says it is important to look at the evidence as objectively as the jurors can.
He says the defence will look at the evidence of Child E's mother as 'sensitively' as they can.
He says there is a lot of pressure with all these events, and it is traumatic for the parents of Child E. He says it is important to look at the evidence as objectively as the jurors can.
He says the defence will look at the evidence of Child E's mother as 'sensitively' as they can.
See, I don't think he wants to mention baby E, but has no choice coz of that murdering bleep
He says the defence will look at the evidence of Child E's mother as 'sensitively' as they can.
See, I don't think he wants to mention baby E, but has no choice coz of that murdering bleep
total contradiction to the judges direction.
Mr Myers suggests staff had met up in the meantime to 'share recollections', and this 'almost certainly' happened.
Oooh he's a bit of a witch int he.
I'm actually hating this and can't help but feel even if they find her guilty it won't be on all charges with everything he's waffling sticking in their head. Ugh.
Oooh he's a bit of a witch int he.
I'm actually hating this and can't help but feel even if they find her guilty it won't be on all charges with everything he's waffling sticking in their head. Ugh.
3:30pm
He says it is important to note there was no post-mortem examination - "in this, of all cases", and that absence has 'allowed the prosecution to make all sorts of suggestions'.
He says doctors failed to deal with a bleed for Child E which was identified or suspected at 10.10pm on August 3.
Mr Myers says it was "obvious" a transfusion would be required.
He says a further note by Dr David Harkness at 11pm recorded a further gastrointestinal blood loss.
He says "even here, no action for a transfusion".
He says it was "delayed a further 45 minutes".
A female doctor said it was a "serious situation" at 10pm and a "very serious situation" by 11pm, and she agreed she wished she had got there sooner, as it was a medical emergency.
He says this is "obviously sub-optimal care".
He says it is important to note there was no post-mortem examination - "in this, of all cases", and that absence has 'allowed the prosecution to make all sorts of suggestions'.
He says doctors failed to deal with a bleed for Child E which was identified or suspected at 10.10pm on August 3.
Mr Myers says it was "obvious" a transfusion would be required.
He says a further note by Dr David Harkness at 11pm recorded a further gastrointestinal blood loss.
He says "even here, no action for a transfusion".
He says it was "delayed a further 45 minutes".
A female doctor said it was a "serious situation" at 10pm and a "very serious situation" by 11pm, and she agreed she wished she had got there sooner, as it was a medical emergency.
He says this is "obviously sub-optimal care".
All babies are obviously sad but C and G get me every time.
Not caught up so might be jumping in, but is Dr Evans career as an expert witness over?
Not because of anything he’s done wrong but because of all the discrediting and mud slinging?
Sad state of affairs.
Not because of anything he’s done wrong but because of all the discrediting and mud slinging?
Sad state of affairs.
I think the Judge will do a good job of steering the jury back to his opening speech - looking at the charges as a collective, rather than as individual cases. Currently BM is trying to look at them all individually and not mentioning any links. His closing guidance will sum up both BNE's and BM's closings. I'm wondering if the judge will mention that it's not the hospital/other staff on trial etc, it's about LL
3:35pm
Mr Myers it may not have been anyone's fault that Child E was at the Countess, but Liverpool Women's was 'full'.
He says it is "not extraordinary" that Child E became unwell, and one of the nurses suggested that stress could have caused acidosis and, as a consequence, bleeding.
Mr Myers says Dr Bohin would not consider bleeding as a cause of death.
He says he knows it is distressing to talk about, and Child E did bleed to death.
He says "everybody here could see [Child E] needed a blood transfusion".
Mr Myers it may not have been anyone's fault that Child E was at the Countess, but Liverpool Women's was 'full'.
He says it is "not extraordinary" that Child E became unwell, and one of the nurses suggested that stress could have caused acidosis and, as a consequence, bleeding.
Mr Myers says Dr Bohin would not consider bleeding as a cause of death.
He says he knows it is distressing to talk about, and Child E did bleed to death.
He says "everybody here could see [Child E] needed a blood transfusion".
- Status