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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
marynnu said:
My personal feeling is that "always" is an error - I'm not aware that such arrangements ever exist in neonatal care, and it makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Tortoise said:
I think even if we take out the word 'always' the sentence is strange, and it would make sense if we knew what she was explaining or answering. I also think it would be unlikely that a reporter would insert a word that she didn't say, and if anything he would be more likely to miss words when trying to keep up with live reporting, IMO.

One angle that I think we are missing, with the lack of reporting last week, is that the defence would claim she wasn't in as good condition as doctors noted she was, the day following the alleged second and third attacks, and the transfer to Arrowe is evidence of that. Their narrative is bound to be that she wasn't a naturally well baby, the prosecution's narrative is that the recoveries showed this wasn't disease process or infection. They sent her with suspicion of NEC after the two cardiac arrests, even though she had improved, because they didn't understand what caused them, and she came back 2 days later.

JMO
Click to expand...



I reckon they meant to type "Also ". Then it would read:

"Child I was also going to be transferred out on Oct 15th."
 
Elaine Willcox

@ElaineWITV
·
43m

A nurse, Mary Griffith, who worked at the Countess of Chester hospital for more than 40 years before retiring in 2016 - agreed with the defence, that Lucy Letby was "knowledgeable", "caring" & "thorough" in her job. We'll hear from more staff & expert witnesses today.

Elaine Willcox

@ElaineWITV
·
6m

Nicola Dennison, a nursery nurse at Chester's neonatal unit - worked there since 1985. She cared for baby J- & said she was "a lively, alert and engaging baby, she had stomas, after a bow[e]l operation - but she was a well baby & getting ready to go home."
 
Tortoise said:
I think even if we take out the word 'always' the sentence is strange, and it would make sense if we knew what she was explaining or answering. I also think it would be unlikely that a reporter would insert a word that she didn't say, and if anything he would be more likely to miss words when trying to keep up with live reporting, IMO.

One angle that I think we are missing, with the lack of reporting last week, is that the defence would claim she wasn't in as good condition as doctors noted she was, the day following the alleged second and third attacks, and the transfer to Arrowe is evidence of that. Their narrative is bound to be that she wasn't a naturally well baby, the prosecution's narrative is that the recoveries showed this wasn't disease process or infection. They sent her with suspicion of NEC after the two cardiac arrests, even though she had improved, because they didn't understand what caused them, and she came back 2 days later.

JMO
Click to expand...
yes, according to this testimony:

Dr Stephen Brearey, who reviewed medical tests carried out that day, said "nothing explained" why the infant had collapsed.
"She [Child J] normalised very quickly over the course of the day and all the investigations we had undertaken couldn't identify why she had the desaturations or explain why she had a seizure.

I do know hypoxia causes seizures so that would be possibly the most likely cause.

"There remains the question why was [Child J] hypoxic when two or three weeks beforehand she had been breathing normally in air and there was no suggestion of infection.
"In fact, we stopped antibiotics 36 hours after starting them because there was no evidence of infection in the blood tests and she remained well for weeks afterwards."

He reviewed further tests two days later on 29 November 2015 where he described her as in a "good condition".
"I didn't have any concerns at that stage," he said.
"Looking back on it now we didn't have an explanation for the events on 27 November.
"Sometimes these can show themselves later down the line."

But he added "there was nothing of anything of concern at that time" following investigations undertaken by the hospital and discussions with Alder Hey Children's Hospital.
 
katydid23 said:
yes, according to this testimony:

Dr Stephen Brearey, who reviewed medical tests carried out that day, said "nothing explained" why the infant had collapsed.
"She [Child J] normalised very quickly over the course of the day and all the investigations we had undertaken couldn't identify why she had the desaturations or explain why she had a seizure.

I do know hypoxia causes seizures so that would be possibly the most likely cause.

"There remains the question why was [Child J] hypoxic when two or three weeks beforehand she had been breathing normally in air and there was no suggestion of infection.
"In fact, we stopped antibiotics 36 hours after starting them because there was no evidence of infection in the blood tests and she remained well for weeks afterwards."

He reviewed further tests two days later on 29 November 2015 where he described her as in a "good condition".
"I didn't have any concerns at that stage," he said.
"Looking back on it now we didn't have an explanation for the events on 27 November.
"Sometimes these can show themselves later down the line."

But he added "there was nothing of anything of concern at that time" following investigations undertaken by the hospital and discussions with Alder Hey Children's Hospital.
Click to expand...
Dr Bohin's evidence was in relation to child I. Sorry katydid that's my fault for replying to questions that were posted at the weekend about child I after they've moved on now to child J. :)

This was about Child I's 2nd and 3rd collapses on 13th and 14th October, and her transfer to Arrowe on 15th October. The evidence reported was -


"Court now being read a statement from Dr David Harkness. His notes from October 14 2015 recorded that Child I had suffered two cardiac arrests - both lasting 20minutes or so. He said it was suspected that the infant was suffering from necrotising enterocolitis (NEC)

NEC is a serious condition that can affect newborn babies, where tissue in the bowel (small and large intestines) becomes inflamed

Dr Harkness' notes from 4pm on 14 October stated that Child I's condition was 'much improved'. They also noted that there were plans to put radioactive dye in her bow[e]l to find what was causing problems in her abdomen. It may have required surgery, his notes say

But these were 'all plans for one to two weeks down the line'

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue
 
I have not been following the case too closely. It is most distressing and I really feel for parents and anybody involved in this case.
I wanted to ask a couple of things, does anyone know how the hospital discovered something suspicious and what brought them to the conclusion that Nurse Letby was involved?
Perhaps these answers are not available and that's ok. I certainly do not wish to jeopardise a case.
 
I wonder...
The Jury must consider a verdict for EACH case, right?
Each Baby's case will be treated individually, won't it?

So, even one of all these numerous cases, if proven beyond reasonable doubt, may mean guilty verdict for murder.

There are 2 kinds of charges:
- murder
- attempted murder

So, does it mean that there might be 2 separate sentences?
Running concurrently?

Of course, if found guilty.

And what about the nurse's job as a position of trust?
Public's trust?
Patients' trust?

And that the alleged crimes took place at work place and during working hours?

And the fact that some surviving victims were left brain damaged?
Isn't it serious bodily harm?

Are all these factors being taken into consideration by a Judge?

Just my musings...

JMO
 
Last edited:
Wakefield6042 said:
I have not been following the case too closely. It is most distressing and I really feel for parents and anybody involved in this case.
I wanted to ask a couple of things, does anyone know how the hospital discovered something suspicious and what brought them to the conclusion that Nurse Letby was involved?
Perhaps these answers are not available and that's ok. I certainly do not wish to jeopardise a case.
Click to expand...
They haven't said that there was any one event that caused them to suspect her, it was a sudden spate of unexpected collapses and deaths that they began to notice she was present at and when they moved her from night shifts to day shifts the pattern moved to day shifts.
 
Dotta said:
I wonder...
The Jury must consider a verdict for EACH case, right?
Each Baby's case will be treated individually, won't it?

So, even one of all these numerous cases, if proven beyond reasonable doubt, may mean guilty verdict for murder.

There are 2 kinds of charges:
- murder
- attempted murder

So, does it mean that there might be 2 separate sentences?
Running concurrently?

Of course, if found guilty.

And what about the nurse's job as a position of trust?
Public's trust?

And that the alleged crimes took place at work place and during working hours?

And the fact that some surviving victims were left brain damaged?
Isn't it serious bodily harm?

Are all these factors being taken into consideration by a Judge?

Just my musings...

JMO
Click to expand...
I think if she is found guilty the exceptional seriousness of the offending, and associated premeditation, would qualify her for a whole life sentence in either a prison or a secure psychiatric unit, dependent on expert evaluations of her. The cases where the children who survived were brain damaged have been charged as attempted murder and the sentence for that would put it at the maximum end of the scale already. The judge considers the position of trust as an aggravating feature at sentencing. JMO
 
Dotta said:
I wonder...
The Jury must consider a verdict for EACH case, right?
Each Baby's case will be treated individually, won't it?

So, even one of all these numerous cases, if proven beyond reasonable doubt, may mean guilty verdict for murder.

There are 2 kinds of charges:
- murder
- attempted murder

So, does it mean that there might be 2 separate sentences?
Running concurrently?

Of course, if found guilty.

And what about the nurse's job as a position of trust?
Public's trust?
Patients' trust?

And that the alleged crimes took place at work place and during working hours?

And the fact that some surviving victims were left brain damaged?
Isn't it serious bodily harm?

Are all these factors being taken into consideration by a Judge?

Just my musings...

JMO
Click to expand...

Yes, each charge of murder or attempted murder has to be considered and a verdict given. Just because you find her guilty of one crime, it doesn’t mean that the jury can just swipe up all of the remaining charges into a guilty verdict without giving them proper consideration as well.

In my opinion, even if LL is only found guilty of one murder, that will be sufficient for the judge to impose a whole life tariff on her. I know that there are obviously some differences, but look at the case of Wayne Couzens (who murdered Sarah Everard). That was a conviction for “only” one murder, but because he was a police officer and the abuse of his position of trust as a police officer that the murder represented, he was given a whole life tariff - and that’s even though he pled guilty, which usually results in a partial reduction of the sentence.

So I think that if a neonatal nurse were to be found guilty of murdering one of her patients, a judge would reach a similar conclusion, particularly since she hasn’t entered a guilty plea .
 
This phrase
"Trust me, I'm a nurse"
stuck in my mind.

I'm also following a terrible case of Idaho 4 - murdered students.

And the alleged perp said to his victim

"It's OK. I'm here to help you"

before slaughtering her with a massive knife.
o_O
OMG
Does it ring a bell??

Both phrases make me shudder - although they mean to reassure.

If guilty, of course, in both cases.

JMO
 
Last edited:
10% from BBC

[...]

Giving evidence on Tuesday, expert medical witness Dr Dewi Evans told prosecutor Nick Johnson KC: "The first pair of collapses were unexpected because she was nice and stable before that. [...]

Mr Johnson asked the retired consultant paediatrician: "So far as the hypoxic incidents that had caused these seizures were concerned, could you identify any natural process that might have caused that?"
Dr Evans replied: "No, I could not. There was no reason why she suddenly became hypoxic." [...]

Lucy Letby: Baby's seizures did not happen naturally, trial hears
 
10% Chester Standard

“The second pair of events were more serious and required more in the way of resuscitation, but again were unexpected and I noted the markers for inflammation were normal which tended to rule out infection.

“The second pair coincided with what the doctors describe as a seizure or a fit. This is indicative of something going wrong with the brain.

“My opinion was that (Child J’s) brain was deprived of oxygen for a sufficient level of time to cause hypoxia ie loss of oxygen to the brain causing fits.

[...]

Lucy Letby: Baby girl's seizures 'did not happen naturally'
 
Tortoise said:
From what I can see, LL wrote a retrospective note after the end of her shift recording for 5am baby I's abdomen was 'more distended' with 'discolouration spreading'. This would have been 5 minutes before she administered medication at 5.05am.
Click to expand...
Do you know if LL called a doctor urgently about this discolouration before 5am when she wrote her notes? I didn't follow that case.
 
Music2022 said:
Do you know if LL called a doctor urgently about this discolouration before 5am when she wrote her notes? I didn't follow that case.
Click to expand...
No she didn't. The doctor testified LL asked him to see the baby at 5.55am. He then ordered an urgent x-ray which happened at 6.05am.

LL wrote her note at 8.43am, after the end of her shift.

(just to avoid any confusion, this is in relation to baby I)
 
Last edited:
Tortoise said:
No she didn't. The doctor testified LL asked him to see the baby at 5.55am. He then ordered an urgent x-ray which happened at 6.05am.

LL wrote her note at 8.43am, after the end of her shift.

(just to avoid any confusion, this is in relation to baby I)
Click to expand...
What was her reasoning to leaving a child with discolouration and not calling a doctor immediately? Sounds like setting the stage and there was no discolouration. Otherwise surely any nurse will call a doctor?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 151 more.
Total: 2,382 (members: 152, guests: 2,230)

Online statistics

Members online
152
Guests online
2,230
Total visitors
2,382
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,125
Messages
18,104,245
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top