UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #10

[esther43]

Part two from yesterdays testimony:

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, February 10

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

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Letby says, in a message to a colleague, she had not had a good shift, as Child J had '2 profound desats' and there were 'only 5 staff' on duty.

The colleague replies: 'We closed again then? x'

Mr Johnson explains to the court 'closed' by this definition means the unit would be closed to new arrivals, not closed entirely.

Letby confirms the unit is closed until they can get someone in.

7:41am

A note is made at 7.15am recording that the parents of Child J are informed of the collapse and to come to the hospital as soon as possible.

Child J had a further collapse at about 7.24pm. Dr John Gibbs records the event in his notes.
Resuscitation efforts are made and a range of medication is administered, while observations are recorded and an x-ray made.

Letby is recorded as using her swipe card at the neonatal unit acess door at 8.55am.

Lucy Letby messages Jennifer Jones-Key just before 10.30am: "Wow it turned manic - left at 9.15 but others still there."

The reply: "Warned you..don't know what it is", adding that things seem to go "pear-shaped".

Jennifer Jones-Key messages Letby saying, of the staffing situation, 'more staff will just go off sick'.

A colleague of Letby messages her on the afternoon of November 27 to say: 'Oh and Tony Chambers n some woman turned up earlier! x'

Letby replies: 'Gosh it's mad. At least things are moving in right direction. Is it bit calmer now? Still only 5 tonight? Hope Tony got stuck in and helped!!'

'Hope Tony got stuck in and helped'
Comes off to me like she's shutting this conversation down. Is she not interested in the nature of his visit? Especially given how 'stretched' the ward is.
Usually CEO's only come into wards for things like special achievements or photographs.
As a CEO, pretty sure he would be the last person to step in clinically. Even if he does have a nursing background.

 

[esther43]

I think it has to do with LL's notes, compared to his notes, and the references to skin bruising and discolouration.

It is pretty confusing, but Meyers is maybe trying to discredit the notion that LL did anything to cause the bruising, when she was with the baby at around 5 am?

LL writes about the 'bruising/discolouration' in notes she took 19 hours after Dr Neames initial note. Then Meyers said that Dr Neames made no reference to that bruising/discolouration in his note. So he concludes the bruising happened much later and is not connected to the incident.

Dr Bohin disagrees with that conclusion and Meyers pushes back, accusing Dr Bohin of using that unrelated bruising as evidence of an air embolism. But then, after a short break, Meyers admits that he made a mistake, and Dr Neames DID mention the bruising/discolouration in his early morning medical notes. So did that mean that timing question didn't matter anymore?



"Lucy Letby's note of 'some bruising/discolouration evident on sternum and right side of chest, ?from chest compressions', written from 19 hours after the incident.Dr Bohin says this note is not from the time of the incident.


Dr Matthew Neame's note from the time of the October 13 incident is shown to the court, and Mr Myers says there is 'no reference to any discolouration' in that note, which described the collapse and the efforts to stabilise Child I.


Dr Bohin agrees there is not.

Mr Myers suggests the bruising appeared later and the discolouration 'does not link to that incident'.


Dr Bohin says it does, as bruising is not a result of chest compressions. It was first noted 18-19 hours later.


Mr Myers suggests Dr Bohin is using that unrelated evidence to support an air embolism. Dr Bohin disagrees.


After a short break, Dr Neame's note is shown again to the court. Mr Myers says he has been made aware the word 'mottled' appears in the note. Dr Bohin agrees she can see it.


Lucy Letby's note from the morning of October 14 is shown to the court. the note includes 'at 0500 abdomen noted to be more distended and firmer in appearance with area of discolouration spreading on right hand side'.


Dr Matthew Neame's note, made at 5.55am, is shown to the court. Mr Myers asks if it is a note from 5am. Dr Bohin says it does not say it was written retrospectively. She says if that note was related to 5am, then she had missed it.


Mr Myers asks if, from Dr Neame's note showing Neopuff was used, it could have contributed to the distended abdomen. Dr Bohin said it would not have done so to that extent.


Dr Bohin said the team did not have an obvious cause for Child I's deteriorations and she was always going to be transferred out to Liverpool on October 15.

Confused about this comment ' Child I was always going to be transferred out on Oct 15th. Does anyone know if this was a planned transfer?

 

[Music2022]

The first was definitely an error, I agree, though to be fair had nothing to do with the neonatal unit. With the second, I can sort of understand the first time as they might possibly have put it down to an error in the testing. I think they should have been more proactive the second time though.

Those two examples were just off the top of my head. There was another case when they forgot to give liquids to a baby for hours. Just small things like these demonstrate poor standard of care/attention. Not a hospital I would want to use. Like Dotta says it would be the perfect place to hide murder. But also it can give the jury reasonable doubt if the defence presents more examples of poor care or if things haven’t been done in time etc.

 

[marynnu]

Yes, I agree with that. If she is guilty, I think it is almost certain that she did things to harm babies earlier on, because from all the research on serial killers, they don’t just suddenly commit a murder, but start off with lesser assaults . And even if, as you say, the assaults she allegedly committed on the babies still cannot be identified now because there were no witnesses and no major effect on the babies’ health, I think it remains that something has to have happened in order for her to allegedly move from “just” hurting babies (whether that was by pinching them, sticking them with sharp implements, intermittent, smothering, or whatever) to actually allegedly murdering one.

You can call it a stressor or a trigger or something else , but in these cases, something happens in the perpetrator’s life that causes them to move onto actual killing. It is the absence of any evidence as to a stressor or a trigger in this case, which I find curious. The police will have gone through every aspect of LL’s life with a fine tooth comb by now. They must have been able to identify something which, if guilty, occurred in the days/weeks/months before baby A died which could constitute a stressor or trigger for LL to allegedly move to murder. It could be many things: a breakdown in a romantic relationship, or disciplinary issues at work, or a personal medical condition or something else entirely.

But at the moment, it just seems there is a huge gap in the place where you would expect this kind of evidence

Your post reminds me of something I've wondered about from the start. After Baby A's sad death, her colleague messaged "...You're not having a good run at the moment.". We'll probably never know what this refers to, but it does make me wonder.

 

[marynnu]

Those two examples were just off the top of my head. There was another case when they forgot to give liquids to a baby for hours. Just small things like these demonstrate poor standard of care/attention. Not a hospital I would want to use. Like Dotta says it would be the perfect place to hide murder. But also it can give the jury reasonable doubt if the defence presents more examples of poor care or if things haven’t been done in time etc.

Just a small point. I don't think they forgot the fluids, I believe they had a lot of trouble getting a line in. This is very common as the blood vessels in neonates are so small. We've all been there in the world of neonatal care!
JMO

 

[Music2022]

Just a small point. I don't think they forgot the fluids, I believe they had a lot of trouble getting a line in. This is very common as the blood vessels in neonates are so small. We've all been there in the world of neonatal care!
JMO

Should've gotten a senior consultant to do it in that case. I noticed often there is just a registrar dealing with issues there.

 

[Dotta]

The Prosecution have LL's admission of guilt.

Yes, the note.

Defence may protest that it is a note of despair/anguish etc, etc, and so on and so forth....

But...
although chaotic and one may wonder about the author's mental state -
This confession

"I did it. I'm evil"

was written by her own hand and voluntarily.

It is all "black on white".
Or rather "black on green" in this case.

PS
My dear Grannie used to say:
"Nothing stains a woman worse than INK"


JMO

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Your post reminds me of something I've wondered about from the start. After Baby A's sad death, her colleague messaged "...You're not having a good run at the moment.". We'll probably never know what this refers to, but it does make me wonder.

An excellent point .

I think we will find out what this refers to but not for a few years. Clearly once LL was arrested , and definitely once she was charged, the police will have crawled all over her life. If there are other suspicious incidents capable of being discovered , they will have found some of them by now.

But whether LL is found guilty of these charges or not, I don’t think we will get the background for a some time. I am assuming that a lot of it has been deemed inadmissible in court because it would be unfairly prejudicial .

The police investigation into LL is still going on and is expected to last for another couple of years. So whatever the outcome of this case, I don’t think we’ll immediately hear about a lot of the inadmissible evidence because so long as there is the prospect of further charges being brought against LL, everyone will be keen to ensure that her ability to get a fair trial isn’t prejudiced by the premature release of prejudicial information .

 

[Dotta]

The police investigation into LL is still going on and is expected to last for another couple of years. So whatever the outcome of this case, I don’t think we’ll immediately hear about a lot of the inadmissible evidence because so long as there is the prospect of further charges being brought against LL, everyone will be keen to ensure that her ability to get a fair trial isn’t prejudiced by the premature release of prejudicial information .

This must be absolute nightmare for her parents - for over several years now.

And future years still.

Stress can ruin one's health - both mental and physical.
No more joy of life

And I respect their devotion to daughter - to be in this Court listening to trial every day, showing support to their child is really admirable.

Usually families are the most suffering victims.


JMO

 

[marynnu]

This must be absolute nightmare for her parents - for over several years now.

And future years still.

Stress can ruin one's health - both mental and physical.
No more joy of life

And I respect their devotion to daughter - to be in this Court listening to trial every day, showing support to their child is really admirable.

Usually families are the most suffering victims.


JMO

People often forget the families of the accused/perpetrators don't they, or worse blame them in some way. I have a son and can't begin to imagine the hell they're going through.

 

[marynnu]

An excellent point .

I think we will find out what this refers to but not for a few years. Clearly once LL was arrested , and definitely once she was charged, the police will have crawled all over her life. If there are other suspicious incidents capable of being discovered , they will have found some of them by now.

But whether LL is found guilty of these charges or not, I don’t think we will get the background for a some time. I am assuming that a lot of it has been deemed inadmissible in court because it would be unfairly prejudicial .

The police investigation into LL is still going on and is expected to last for another couple of years. So whatever the outcome of this case, I don’t think we’ll immediately hear about a lot of the inadmissible evidence because so long as there is the prospect of further charges being brought against LL, everyone will be keen to ensure that her ability to get a fair trial isn’t prejudiced by the premature release of prejudicial information .

I seem to recall that originally the enqiry was from March 2015, but I could be making that up!

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I seem to recall that originally the enqiry was from March 2015, but I could be making that up!

Operation Hummingbird is the name of the investigation into the deaths and collapses at COCH. Just last year (June), the police force was advertising for a new leader for the investigation which was described to be a contract for 36 months.

Detective Chief Inspector - Op Hummingbird - Cheshire Police

ID: 697. Title: Detective Chief Inspector - Op Hummingbird. Location: Chester. Closing Date: 12/06/2022, 23:55. Salary: £58,332 - £60,732

cheshirepolice.tal.net

 

[esther43]

Im not sure if that is it?

I get that there may be points to be made / evidence to be inferred from comparing notes written by the doctor with notes written by LL retrospectively 19 hours after the event.

But even after Myers is alerted to the presence of the word “mottled” in the doctors notes, he then starts asking whether dr Neames notes written at 5:55am were in fact about observations made at 5:55 am or whether the note was retrospectively recording observations made at 5 am. So they are quibbling about a 55 minute period.

LL’s notes say there was discolouration to baby I’s abdomen. Dr N’s notes appear to agree with that in that they record “mottling”. So I don’t understand what point Myers is trying to make . Why does this 55 minute period matter?

The first was definitely an error, I agree, though to be fair had nothing to do with the neonatal unit. With the second, I can sort of understand the first time as they might possibly have put it down to an error in the testing. I think they should have been more proactive the second time though.

Confused about this comment ' Child I was always going to be transferred out on Oct 15th. Does anyone know if this was a planned transfer?

Your post reminds me of something I've wondered about from the start. After Baby A's sad death, her colleague messaged "...You're not having a good run at the moment.". We'll probably never know what this refers to, but it does make me wonder.

Your post reminds me of something I've wondered about from the start. After Baby A's sad death, her colleague messaged "...You're not having a good run at the moment.". We'll probably never know what this refers to, but it does make me wonder.

 

[marynnu]

I s the above a glitch?

 

[Dotta]

I s the above a glitch?

At the end of this trial we might all end like this

 

[marynnu]

Confused about this comment ' Child I was always going to be transferred out on Oct 15th. Does anyone know if this was a planned transfer?

I noticed that. My guess would be that 'always' might be an error, as it doesn't fit with anything else we know, but that's JMO!

 

[katydid23]

I noticed that. My guess would be that 'always' might be an error, as it doesn't fit with anything else we know, but that's JMO!

How far in advance do they usually schedule the transfers? I assume it is a case by case decision so it would vary.

I wonder because IIRC, a couple of the babies that were allegedly attacked were also scheduled to be transferred but were victimized before the transfer happened.

 

[marynnu]

How far in advance do they usually schedule the transfers? I assume it is a case by case decision so it would vary.

I wonder because IIRC, a couple of the babies that were allegedly attacked were also scheduled to be transferred but were were allegedly attacked were also scheduled to be transferred but were victimized before the transfer happened.

I don't know why this baby was going to be transferred, but assuming it was because of ongoing problems that decision would presumably have been made sometime after the previous collapse. IMO dates for transferring neonates - back to their referring hospital, for surgery etc. - are made usually a couple of days before, maybe a week max.

 

[katydid23]

Those two examples were just off the top of my head. There was another case when they forgot to give liquids to a baby for hours. Just small things like these demonstrate poor standard of care/attention. Not a hospital I would want to use. Like Dotta says it would be the perfect place to hide murder. But also it can give the jury reasonable doubt if the defence presents more examples of poor care or if things haven’t been done in time etc.

But also it can give the jury reasonable doubt if the defence presents more examples of poor care or if things haven’t been done in time etc.

Maybe, but I'm not sure it would work that way in the cases where LL was ,allegedly, closely connected to the babies that collapsed.

It seems like she put in some effort to take detailed notes about the good care she was taking of each child. I don't think it would be easy to say that any of those particular babies were being medically neglected or were dehydrated, malnourished or uncared for. JMO

 

[ColourPurple]

..

But also it can give the jury reasonable doubt if the defence presents more examples of poor care or if things haven’t been done in time etc.

Maybe, but I'm not sure it would work that way in the cases where LL was ,allegedly, closely connected to the babies that collapsed.

It seems like she put in some effort to take detailed notes about the good care she was taking of each child. I don't think it would be easy to say that any of those particular babies were being medically neglected or were dehydrated, malnourished or uncared for. JMO

Plus the medical experts have been clear that where care wasn't optimal, eg the delay in giving fluids, it would not have caused death/near death(ressus) etc.