Lucy Letby Case #42

[tay65]

I am almost up to date with this new thread, but I, like others, am really struggling with Dr BM's closing defence.

As a Mom of a NICU baby last year, I find it incredibly insulting that he just states that all these babies were on deaths door or had very little survival rates because they required NICU care.

I know many other parents will feel very similar to this and I can imagine those parents in the trial feel it more than most having to sit and listen to him.

Babies in NICU are little fighters and survivors. The vast majority of the human race thrives to survive against the odds, so that's why we can fight infections, survive horrific events. Sometimes, that requires some extra support. Whether it be breathing support, antibiotics, feeding support, etc... But we survive because that's what our bodies do.

From what others have shared, survival rates are really high amongst NICU babies. Even babies born very early have very good rates of survival and if BM had actually been inside of a NICU, he, like others, would be astounded at the technology that is available to these babies.

At the end of it all though, parents know their baby best and much better than BM. Sure, medical staff will get to know them during their stay in NICU, but parents will still know their babies the best. They will know whether the baby was screaming or just crying, they will know what they see on their baby, they will know their babies symptoms... I would believe a parent over any one else because they are not only a parent, but they are advocating for that baby.

When your baby is in NICU, you learn everything about what is going on with them. In my case, with my son being term, but poorly with Group B Strep Sepsis, you can bet I researched every single fact, symptom, website, case studies I found, the lot.

When he was in a second time, I again spent a lot of time researching what it meant when he had it a second time, what that meant for his future. I even began to research if there would be any effects for a baby having strong antibiotics for 3+ weeks in their first month of life, because I was terrified of what would happen after.

I researched so much that I have the symptoms of Group B Strep and Sepsis are ingrained into my brain, in case Sepsis happens to him ever again, because our consultant has concerns about his immune system.

I can guarantee every one of those parents were doing the exact same things I was when they couldn't sleep at night, when they were worried about their baby after visiting.

So BM, I know this is your job and I know without people like you, a fair trial wouldn't happen. However, I despise you for how you are describing these amazing little babies, that would have survived and lived happy and amazing lives, surrounded by so much love, with their families if it wasn't for Lucy Letby. She has destroyed lives and I hope the jury can see past his smoke and mirrors..

I am almost up to date with this new thread, but I, like others, am really struggling with Dr BM's closing defence.

As a Mom of a NICU baby last year, I find it incredibly insulting that he just states that all these babies were on deaths door or had very little survival rates because they required NICU care.

I know many other parents will feel very similar to this and I can imagine those parents in the trial feel it more than most having to sit and listen to him.

Babies in NICU are little fighters and survivors. The vast majority of the human race thrives to survive against the odds, so that's why we can fight infections, survive horrific events. Sometimes, that requires some extra support. Whether it be breathing support, antibiotics, feeding support, etc... But we survive because that's what our bodies do.

From what others have shared, survival rates are really high amongst NICU babies. Even babies born very early have very good rates of survival and if BM had actually been inside of a NICU, he, like others, would be astounded at the technology that is available to these babies.

At the end of it all though, parents know their baby best and much better than BM. Sure, medical staff will get to know them during their stay in NICU, but parents will still know their babies the best. They will know whether the baby was screaming or just crying, they will know what they see on their baby, they will know their babies symptoms... I would believe a parent over any one else because they are not only a parent, but they are advocating for that baby.

When your baby is in NICU, you learn everything about what is going on with them. In my case, with my son being term, but poorly with Group B Strep Sepsis, you can bet I researched every single fact, symptom, website, case studies I found, the lot.

When he was in a second time, I again spent a lot of time researching what it meant when he had it a second time, what that meant for his future. I even began to research if there would be any effects for a baby having strong antibiotics for 3+ weeks in their first month of life, because I was terrified of what would happen after.

I researched so much that I have the symptoms of Group B Strep and Sepsis are ingrained into my brain, in case Sepsis happens to him ever again, because our consultant has concerns about his immune system.

I can guarantee every one of those parents were doing the exact same things I was when they couldn't sleep at night, when they were worried about their baby after visiting.

So BM, I know this is your job and I know without people like you, a fair trial wouldn't happen. However, I despise you for how you are describing these amazing little babies, that would have survived and lived happy and amazing lives, surrounded by so much love, with their families if it wasn't for Lucy Letby. She has destroyed lives and I hope the jury can see past his smoke and mirrors..

A number of babies were 30+ weeks healthy babies with no major problems (including the triplets), and others close to discharge so he cannot use the fragility, could collapse anytime argument in these cases or in other cases as well. This part of the trial must be very difficult for these parents. Someone set up a thread last night on Reddit titled "Insulin". There are what sounds to be explanations posted by someone who has medical knowledge about insulin and has said that BM has misinformed the jury in his closing speech and that the Judge needs to rectify this.

 

[docmum]

Spoiler

thank you I've asked to join the group and I'm going to speak to the infant feeding team lady who deals with me and is so much better than the hv. She actually helps me so I'll see what she thinks too

Spoiler

if he’s unhappy unless he’s vertical I’d say definitely one for the GP to have a look at, they might try him on gaviscon before omeprazole, but definitely call the surgery today. Hope things improve asap!

 

[OldBlondie]

Like everyone else it pains me to listen to BM this week ugh. But keep the faith guys, the fab tattler fellas that have been to court have done a great summary of their experience on how BM’s theatrics were going down on the stage in court, and I’ve every faith the jury won’t be confused. Also he can spout all the medical opinions/jargon/bs he wants, but he is NOT a medical expert and had absolutely NONE in court to testify to any of his theories/suggestions. He can discredit all he likes but we are now talking about at least 4 well respected and knowledgeable medical experts VS dr Myers and the plumber!!!

Also just been sent this actual footage from court this morning

 

[amsmall]

The way I'm getting through this part of the trial is imagining LL chucking loads of post it notes at BM and him relaying what she's wrote. Because that's what she would say and accuse everyone if she could represent herself in closing speeches.

 

[sebanna]

There’s a user on another site with a legal background who did a good explanation of this, a lot of the NG crowd are banging on about a guy called Michael Hall who they think that BM has potentially consulted with after he cited a letter he wrote yesterday whilst talking about the air embolism in baby A. She suggests that he could have been consulted, but the reason he wasn’t called as a witness for the defense (and why other medical witnesses also may not have been called) is because his expert testimony could have potentially done more harm to Lucy in terms of getting her off than good.
View attachment 2270608
The letter is not the big break for the defense that the NG crowd seem to think it is either, it’s a case study of air embolism in a baby and Michael Hall is an expert who wrote a letter in response to it asking for clarification as to whether the air found in the baby was pure oxygen or actual air because it could potentially change the way it is distributed in the body. That was all.

I think it's obvious that this is the reason BM has no medical experts. They would have agreed with the prosecution's expert witnesses because they all have the same knowledge and training.

 

[yellowmellow]

Can't take another day of bullshit so not going to follow the live reporting. It's all hard to hear but certain ones I can't listen to him try and excuse her from responsibility for. Will just read on here instead.

 

[craig84]

Lucy herself even said she'd be guided by the expert witnesses' evidence.

Lucy says lots of things that aren’t true though

 

[MmmB777]

Just remember absolutely every hole out there that has pleaded not guilty has had a defence that will do everything they can to cast doubt, even when it feels blatantly obvious.
Shipman’s defence was his good character, his many other patients that didn’t die (lucky them), the way the morphine results were conducted and their validity were thrown into question, they were all old and ill and about to pop their clogs anyway.
Beverly Allitt’s colleagues took a battering (people killed themselves), the maternity unit that the same consultants worked on had just had a terrible report, they were chronically understaffed hence they employed BA despite having reservations, there was “no proof” BA had been there, there weren’t specifics of what BA had actually done for some children so I’m sure they made a meal of that, they questioned reliability of the insulin measurements, the children were apparently all acutely unwell and about to die (really laughable if you know much about her poor victims), I’m sure they will have given excuses for the medical equipment and recordings that they found at her home too.
This is just an annoying step in the process, one that will hopefully help keep her in prison forever. Judges directions were extremely helpful and the jury will finish on them
Prison name
Etta Bogeyeverydayintheprisoncanteen

 

[yellowmellow]

I think it's obvious that this is the reason BM has no medical experts. They would have agreed with the prosecution's expert witnesses because they all have the same knowledge and training.

Agree. He might have been partly able to use their expertise to his advantage if he picked it apart but sit on the stand and be cross-examined by the BNE would have gone way wrong for him.

 

[sebanna]

Today will probably focus on the insulin poisonings. BM will probably say they weren't poisoned, they had no hypo symptoms, their blood sugars varied ( ignoring they only went up after glucose injections) the lab at the other hospital was part of the conspiracy and if they were poisoned Belinda must have done it to set Lucy up.

 

[Morning_Star]

Just re GDPR on the other thread - GDPR didn’t exist when she took the papers I think GDPR (enacted as data protection act 2018 in U.K. law) came in to force in May 2018.

Historic breaches would be judged against the law at the time which was the data protection act 1998, which had rubbish fines and no chance of prison I think.

Of courses health authorities still had to comply with data protection then, but if they get called out for what she has done, which they should do, the punishment is a max of £500,000 I think . It’s rubbish compared to GDPR hence why everyone went crazy when GDPR came in.

(Apologies if this has already been said)

Yes, GDPR came into effect 2018, but there was the Data Protection Act (DPA) prior to that. Institutions that held private client/patient information offered their employees basic DPA training (mine certainly did) and we had to sign agreements saying we understood the DPA, how it relates to private client data we were handling in our day-to-day work, and that we were responsible for ensuring none of this private data was shared, compromised or removed from the work premises.

From memory, someone in previous threads had mentioned that NHS staff received DPA training prior to the introduction of GDPR (for those who worked in NHS prior to GDPR, please correct me if I’m wrong) so any NHS staff (LL included) would’ve known that taking handover sheets home is not permissible.

Yes, GDPR was not in place, so institutions were not bound by the same privacy regulations, but employees (prior to the GDPR) were bound by the terms & conditions of their employment contract (which often explicitly states that sensitive client/patient data must not be taken out of work, shared, or used in ways other than explicitly stated).

So LL breached the terms & conditions of her employment contract by (1) taking the data out of work, (2) keeping it stored in her house (not destroying it) where it could’ve been found by someone else, and (3) using it in ways other than specified for her work (using it for personal reasons to snoop on parents on FB, and whatever else she used them for).

 

[Futtrit]

10:26am

The courtroom at Manchester Crown Court is filling up. Lucy Letby has arrived, as has Benjamin Myers KC, who has been delivering the closing speech for the defence the past two days.

 

[LilyRose1234]

There’s a user on another site with a legal background who did a good explanation of this, a lot of the NG crowd are banging on about a guy called Michael Hall who they think that BM has potentially consulted with after he cited a letter he wrote yesterday whilst talking about the air embolism in baby A. She suggests that he could have been consulted, but the reason he wasn’t called as a witness for the defense (and why other medical witnesses also may not have been called) is because his expert testimony could have potentially done more harm to Lucy in terms of getting her off than good.
View attachment 2270608
The letter is not the big break for the defense that the NG crowd seem to think it is either, it’s a case study of air embolism in a baby and Michael Hall is an expert who wrote a letter in response to it asking for clarification as to whether the air found in the baby was pure oxygen or actual air because it could potentially change the way it is distributed in the body. That was all.

I’m not going to lie, unless I’ve missed something, I don’t understand the relevance of the letter. As far as I’m aware it wasn’t used or referred to as evidence in this case. The author didn’t give evidence in court. On that basis it doesn’t matter if someone on Reddit or Facebook or anywhere outside the jury think it’s a big win for the defence, it’s not evidence and the jury won’t be considering it, so it’s entirely hypothetical?

 

[Futtrit]

10:35am

Mr Myers refers to the case of Child F.

He discusses the counts of insulin in general - for Child F and Child L.

He says the prosecution referred to Letby's 'concessions' of the insulin results.

He says the defence reject she has committed an offence for those two counts.

He says the jury 'may well accept' the insulin results.

He says it is insufficient to say Letby's concessions that the lab results are accurate when she cannot say otherwise.

He says the defence can't test the results as they have long since been disposed of.

He says the evidence at face value shows how the insulin results were obtained. He says it is not agreed evidence.


10:38am

He says 'it seems', insulin continued throughout, and Letby 'cannot be held responsible for, realistically'.

He says Letby was accused of adding insulin to bags already put up [for Child F], or 'spiking it three times' for Child L.

He says these explanations are "contrived and artificial".


10:41am

Mr Myers says a 'striking' matter that neither Child F or Child L "come close" to exhibiting serious symptoms as a result of high doses of insulin.

Child F had a vomit.

Child L "only ever seemed to be in good health", other than low blood sugar levels.

 

[sebanna]

Child F blood sugar fell from 5.5 to 0.8 in two hours.

 

[Deeznutslol]

I’m not going to lie, unless I’ve missed something, I don’t understand the relevance of the letter. As far as I’m aware it wasn’t used or referred to as evidence in this case. The author didn’t give evidence in court. On that basis it doesn’t matter if someone on Reddit or Facebook or anywhere outside the jury think it’s a big win for the defence, it’s not evidence and the jury won’t be considering it, so it’s entirely hypothetical?

That’s exactly what I said, it’s irrelevant.

 

[OldBlondie]

10:35am

Mr Myers refers to the case of Child F.

He discusses the counts of insulin in general - for Child F and Child L.

He says the prosecution referred to Letby's 'concessions' of the insulin results.

He says the defence reject she has committed an offence for those two counts.

He says the jury 'may well accept' the insulin results.

He says it is insufficient to say Letby's concessions that the lab results are accurate when she cannot say otherwise.

He says the defence can't test the results as they have long since been disposed of.

He says the evidence at face value shows how the insulin results were obtained. He says it is not agreed evidence.


10:38am

He says 'it seems', insulin continued throughout, and Letby 'cannot be held responsible for, realistically'.

He says Letby was accused of adding insulin to bags already put up [for Child F], or 'spiking it three times' for Child L.

He says these explanations are "contrived and artificial".


10:41am

Mr Myers says a 'striking' matter that neither Child F or Child L "come close" to exhibiting serious symptoms as a result of high doses of insulin.

Child F had a vomit.

Child L "only ever seemed to be in good health", other than low blood sugar levels.

Wish there was a rolling eye emoji reaction on here, need it for every single piece of BS bowel movement comes out with for pretty much his entire closing speech.

Do we have any Tattle Burgundy’s attending today do we know?

ETA @Lucyxxxx can we have a thread title for this thread (if we were allowed them ofc), feel like we need something funny to get us through today

ETA for a second time, @DellaC and @docmum can we have snog marry avoid answered today pls, for same reasons as above it’s BNE™️, Wrong Fella Della and BM that you have to answer plsssss

 

[DellaC]

I don't know much but 1 thing is for certain.

I will be obese by the end of this trial.

 

[Futtrit]

10:53am

He says for Child F, if accurate, received exogenous insulin administered, according to the laboratory result.

He says it was 12.25am when a TPN bag is put up for Child F by Letby and a colleague, and that was changed at noon by two other nurses as the cannula line had tissued.

He says the lab sample came at a time when Letby was not on duty, and was after the second bag had been put up.

Mr Myers says the readings of blood glucose found for Child F and Child L are not that different for their respective days, but the levels of insulin found in the lab sample differ [Child F had a reading of 4,659; Child L had a reading of 1,099].

He says Professor Peter Hindmarsh was asked to describe the signs of high insulin/low blood glucose.

He said there was the potential for brain damage in low blood glucose levels.

The other symptoms in serious cases include death of brain cells, seizures, coma, and even death.

He says "fortunately", "neither of these babies" exhibited the serious symptoms.

He says that is surprising if both babies had the high levels of insulin alleged.

 

[LilyRose1234]

That’s exactly what I said, it’s irrelevant.

Oh sorry it wasn’t an attack on you! I was agreeing, but I also wasn’t sure if I’d misread something or missed something that might mean it was relevant! I just don’t get why they keep banging on about it?! They know they’re not the ones who will be deliberating right?!