UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #13

[Dotta]

Personally I think the Doctor knew she wouldn't take him up on the offer of using his car but it makes him appear like the nice guy willing to do that - brownie points in his book, standard woo'ing tactics haha.

I would have said
"I'll see the car keys"
"Where are they?"

 

[Parker Knoll]

Oh @Dotta … you do make me smile !

 

[Marantz4250b]

I'd disagree on that. The texts show; LL disclosing she has thyroid problems, LL disclosing she doesn't eat chocolate, discussing shared experiences of costal towns and also disclosing that she likes things "tidy" and "calm".

These texts show to me they are only just getting to know eachother and the texts are included to help set the scene, for the jury, of this 'relationship' and how it may impact the events. All my own irrelevant thoughts ofc.

Offering to lend the car is just an over eager move on the doctors part imo. Appear chivalrous and all that. Doesn't infer a close relationship imo, more a budding one.

I do get what you're say and, yes, I do go back-and-forth on this one.

It's the offer to loan the car that makes me think there is more going on here. It's very uncommon and anyone lending a car knows that it's essential to know whether the person you're offering it to is insured to drive it. Like I say, if it's a genuine offer then he already knows she's covered and has likely offered previously.

All IMO.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Oh dear

That is why I prefer bikes haha
Much healthier and environmentally friendly!
And she could burn some calories after all that chocolate!

JMO

Sorry, but I'll take a 6 litre W12 any day of the week!

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think it's a bit of a leap to think she was a named driver on his car insurance or that she'd driven it before. It's not unusual in the circles I mix in for people to use each others' cars. He probably just assumed she had third party cover to drive it.

Driving other people's cars, especially people you don't know very well is extremely unusual, in my experience.

On the very rare occasions I've let people drive mine I've made absolutely certain that they're insured. If they weren't then both parties would commit an offence, the driver for not being insured and the owner for allowing or causing a vehicle to be driven without insurance.

What I also think this situation tells us, which is probably totally irrelevant, is that he's almost certainly single. Can you imagine if she crashed it and his wife gets a phone call at silly-o'clock asking why a young woman in nurses uniform has just wrapped a car registered to her husband or worse, her??z

 

[Marantz4250b]

Personally I think the Doctor knew she wouldn't take him up on the offer of using his car but it makes him appear like the nice guy willing to do that - brownie points in his book, standard woo'ing tactics haha.

That's a very likely scenario, admittedly. Also quite likely that he'd offered before, though.

 

[ColourPurple]

He didn't, he said that the prosecution, defence and judge would know who they were but that their identities were otherwise not released. He also seemed to quote parts of the CPS guidance (which was previously linked to here) which deals with actual anonymity of witnesses. Witness identities can only be withheld under very narrow and specific circumstances and that is not what is happening here.

The public do know their identities because they are stated in open court. It's merely a restriction on publishing those identities.

Like I say, accuracy in these things matters. Whatever verdict the court arrives at there will likely be some conspiraloonatics out there who will happily claim that it was the wrong verdict and that justice was interfered with by having "anonymous" witnesses give evidence. Accuracy in legal reporting matters.

He used the word anonymity in exactly the same way that I used the word anonymous. Here's the quote, below. I know that the witnesses are named in court .. HE knows that the witnesses are named in court, but for simplicity we both used the term anonymous/anonymity to refer to the fact that the public (outside the court) does not know the witnesses names. (apart from the names of those witnesses who have chosen not to remain anonymous). As he's an expert in media law, I'm sure he wouldn't have used the term how he did, if it was likely to be problematic.

"The fundamental principle of the courts here in this country is that we have what they call Open Justice, where everyone gets named, the defendant, the witnesses, the lawyers, everyone involved with the case is named and the public get to see those names and they know who it is. But in some circumstances the courts can order anonymity... It's unusual though to have adult witnesses in court granted anonymity, but in this case an Order has been made doing that, because the view of the court and the judge in the case is that that will allow those witnesses...their evidence will be better for the court if they are granted that anonymity, but what that means though is that the babies have to be given anonymity as well, because if the babies were named then that would lead to the identification of their parents. So it's an unusual situation, it's not unheard of, but it is quite unusual."

 

[marynnu]

I don't go with that theory - I think that the initial reports of her being "quiet and a bit awkward" are taking too much hold in people's minds. She is clearly very normally sociable. This is why I initially became so interested in this case because I can't think of any others where the people found guilty have been sociable people with a wide circle of friends as she clearly has.

All of her pics are either with other people or are taken by other people. She comes over as completely and utterly normal and respectable in every sense, which is why I will be utterly blown away if she's actually guilty.

AMOO, obvs.

I agree, there is nothing remarkable about this person. I get sick & tired of people thinking being quiet or socially awkward is of any significance or a problem, like we all need to be the same.
I'd just say though that IMO we can't assume anything from her life. It wouldn't surprise me at all if she were guilty, or innocent for that matter.

 

[ColourPurple]

Driving other people's cars, especially people you don't know very well is extremely unusual, in my experience.

On the very rare occasions I've let people drive mine I've made absolutely certain that they're insured. If they weren't then both parties would commit an offence, the driver for not being insured and the owner for allowing or causing a vehicle to be driven without insurance.

What I also think this situation tells us, which is probably totally irrelevant, is that he's almost certainly single. Can you imagine if she crashed it and his wife gets a phone call at silly-o'clock asking why a young woman in nurses uniform has just wrapped a car registered to her husband or worse, her??z

Our experiences are different. They're work colleagues, likely have mutual friends and colleagues. She wasn't some random stranger he woudl never see again. He knew she wasn't likely to do a runner with the car. Therefore I don't think she needed to be a named driver on his insurance, or to have driven his car before, for him to have offered.

And yes probably single, but not definitely.

 

[Dotta]

I agree, there is nothing remarkable about this person. I get sick & tired of people thinking being quiet or socially awkward is of any significance or a problem, like we all need to be the same.
I'd just say though that IMO we can't assume anything from her life. It wouldn't surprise me at all if she were guilty, or innocent for that matter.

IMO being "socially awkward" is a symptom and I mean - a worrying one.
It usually means extreme anxiety.
And I tell this as a teacher.

It is very important in this case.

JMO

 

[DinerMite]

I do get what you're say and, yes, I do go back-and-forth on this one.

It's the offer to loan the car that makes me think there is more going on here. It's very uncommon and anyone lending a car knows that it's essential to know whether the person you're offering it to is insured to drive it. Like I say, if it's a genuine offer then he already knows she's covered and has likely offered previously.

All IMO.

Yes I can understand your perspective with the car. I don't doubt they knew eachother before this exchange as he had care in Baby L after all but it's only now in the trial (June 2016) that he is giving testimony suggesting he had little presence in her daily life beforehand. Prosecution now seem to be painting their picture of Lucy (and her relationship to him is how they'll show it) - all my own irrelevant thoughts.

 

[marynnu]

IMO being "socially awkward" is a symptom and I mean - a worrying one.
It usually means extreme anxiety.
And I tell this as a teacher.

It is very important in this case.

JMO

It isn't important in my view. It has nothing to do with whether this person is guilty or not. This attitude is why outwardly confident, engaging people like psychopaths can get away with so much, people can't see past the superficial.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Our experiences are different. They're work colleagues, likely have mutual friends and colleagues. She wasn't some random stranger he woudl never see again. He knew she wasn't likely to do a runner with the car. Therefore I don't think she needed to be a named driver on his insurance, or to have driven his car before, for him to have offered.

And yes probably single, but not definitely.

It's nothing to do with her making off with the car. It's a criminal offence to drive without third party insurance and it's also an offence to allow someone to do so which means he could get done as well.

She doesn't need to be a named driver on his insurance if her insurance covers her to drive vehicles "...not owned by by the policy holder..." which is how the term is worded but, either way, he'd need to be 100% sure that her insurance allowed that. If it doesn't then she's either a named driver on her policy or they're both committing offences.

As you say, our experiences differ, but casually loaning cars between workmates is extremely rare, IME. Other on here have said similar.

 

[Sweeper2000]

It isn't important in my view. It has nothing to do with whether this person is guilty or not. This attitude is why outwardly confident, engaging people like psychopaths can get away with so much, people can't see past the superficial.

the court of public favour. Ie getting what you want by showing all the traits people like.

tbh I always preferred quality over quantity and those still waters run deep.

 

[Dotta]

It isn't important in my view. It has nothing to do with whether this person is guilty or not. This attitude is why outwardly confident, engaging people like psychopaths can get away with so much, people can't see past the superficial.

Never mind.

You look at this case from professional medical point of view, as a nurse.

I view it from my perspective as a teacher who meets literally hundreds of different people every year and observe patterns of specific behaviours and their results.

Oh, and from the perspective of a premature baby who spent soooo much time in hospital incubator
(I wasn't believed to survive, but hey, here I am )

That is why I follow this trial although after Arthur LH and Logan M trials I promised myself not to engage in children's cases any more.

We all have different points of view.

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

Child N

1st allegation of attempted murder on night-shift of 2nd/3rd June 2016. At this time LL was supposed to be working day-shifts.

Draft Timeline




2 Jun 2016, Thursday



11.56am - a Facebook message from doc asks LL for an 'opinion on something'. LL replies: "Hope I can help!"

1.42pm - N was born at 34 weeks + 4 days, weighing 3lb 11oz. His clinical condition was excellent but he did have mild haemophilia, a blood disorder.

2pm - Nurse Caroline Oakley records N was admitted to the nnu at 2pm, and N had 'prematurity and clotting disorder'. (electronic evidence)

2.30pm - A blood sample was taken. (electronic evidence)

Time? - A clinical note by Dr Anthony Ukoh reports: '34+4 baby boy cried immediately, required no active resus'. 'Not for IM Vit K for now until haemophilia status known'. 'Observations: ...intermittently grunting++' (electronic evidence)

Afternoon - Dr Sudeshna Bhowmik’s statement - Dr SB says tests were carried out on N for haemophilia. It was discussed with the parents that N would be taken to the neonatal unit due to his prematurity, and would need an incubator for temperature control. N had intermittent grunting at one hour of age, which was not unusual for babies born via C-section as there would be increased fluid in the lungs. The usual practice was to observe for four hours to see if the baby would settle down. Vitamin K was withheld on the risk of increased bruising/bleeding for N, until test results came back. N was later screened for sepsis as he had continued grunting beyond the four-hour observation period. He was breathing without any support required.

3.10pm - A desaturation down to 67% oxygen saturation, lasting one minute, is recorded by nurse Caroline Oakley at 3.10pm. She noted: '[N] Allowed to rest. Sounds very mucousy. Grunting intermittently...dropped saturations to 67% when upset; temp being recorded and required 60% O2 to recover...awaiting blood results before being given Vit K.' The note adds: 'Decision made to screen and [nil by mouth], IV fluids/Vit K IV as prescribed as still grunting' (electronic evidence) X-exam of Dr Jennifer Loughnane: Mr Myers refers to notes made before the [evening] handover took place, in relation to N "intermittently grunting++" and an event of N desaturating to 67%. He asks if it is possible for a baby to desaturate because they are upset, via a 'false desaturation' from the Sats probe not picking up the trace. Dr JL says that can be the case, but it would usually be recorded as such in the medical notes. The number on the oxygen saturation reading could be lower, or not be displayed at all. A statement from Caroline Oakley describes N being born, transferred to the neonatal unit, and describes being aware the mother was a haemophilia carrier. N was dressed and placed in a 'hot cot'. He was 'grunting intermittently', which was not unusual. At 3pm, his temperature dropped to 36.4 degrees, and the temperature of the cot was increased to 39 degrees. N had a desaturation to 67% and was given 60% oxygen support, and was screened. N was presenting "quite typically" for a baby of his gestational age, and there were no overriding concerns at the time of the handover. A second statement by nurse Caroline Oakley said there was nothing to suggest the naso-gastric tube had been physically moved once inserted, nor any difficulties with the tube being initially inserted.

Bef. 6pm - An x-ray result before 6pm recorded that N likely had an infection. (electronic evidence)

6.47pm - Nurse Caroline Oakley recorded at 6.47pm that N's temperature, which had been low, was recovering. A family communication is recorded: 'Dad has visited baby on unit and updated by [Belinda] Simcock. Nurse CO has also visited mum... and updated...' A haemophilia diagnosis is confirmed for N. (electronic evidence)

7.30pm - LL is recorded as starting her night shift. Shift leader is Melanie Taylor and other designated nurses being Christopher Booth and Sophie Ellis. Booth has two babies in room 1, including Child N, Ellis had one in room 2 and two in room 3, and LL had two babies in room 4. Two babies were in transitional care, and another baby was 'rooming in with her parents' - that baby's designated nurse was LL.

A few minutes after 7.30pm –
A few minutes after entering the neonatal unit, LL Whatsapps a colleague and says she had a 'paper handover' as colleague Caroline had gone home.

8pm – Nurse Christopher Booth records 'care taken over approx 2000...oxygen saturations predominantly in mid 90s-100%'. He also records the usual handover checks.

Abt 8pm –
LL texted friends and sent a message to a colleague: “we’ve got a baby with haemophilia”.
Colleague: How many weeks?
LL: 34
Colleague: oh
LL: “everyone bit panicked by seems of things although baby appears fine”.
Colleague: male?
LL: Yeah.
8.04pm –
LL text to colleague: I’ll have to google it later, don’t know much about it
8.11pm –
LL texted her colleague: “complex condition, yeah 50:50 chance antenatally”.
Abt 8.30pm –
colleague: be careful with cannula and blood samples
LL: Oh and had weird FB message from [doctor] earlier
coll: 'Did u? Saying what?' 'Go commando? (cry laughing emoji)
LL: (4 x cry laughing emojis)
LL: 'Asking when I was working next week as wants to talk to me about something, has a favour to ask..?'
coll: 'Think he likes you too...'
coll: 'Hmm did u not ask what it was?'
LL: 'No just said when I was working and he said wants my opinion on something'
LL: Hmm... (puzzled emoji)
coll: 'Hmm'
LL: 'Do you think he's being odd?
coll: 'Thought as flirty as u'
LL: 'Shut up!'
coll: 'What?!'
LL: 'I don't flirt with him!'
coll: 'Ok'
LL: 'Certainly don't fancy him haha just nice guy'
coll: 'Ok'
LL/Coll: The conversation continues back on work, asking why there was a staff shortage on the unit. One of the staff members is speculated to be off with stress.

Night-shift - door swipe data and observation charts for Child N on June 2/3 2016 are entered into evidence.

10pm – The mother first visited the unit where N was. (mother’s statement)

After 10pm –
The conversation on Whatsapp, now continuing after 10pm, discusses another baby's condition.

10.55pm – Dr Jennifer Loughnane registrar’s evidence – Dr JL carried out a routine review, which included an examination of N. Dr JL has noted N's history up to that point in the first 12 hours of his life, and noting a concern of a growth restriction during pregnancy, and the weight of 1.67kg indicating N was "a small baby". No risk factors for sepsis were detected. N was 'screened [for infection] - due to grunting at four hours'. The grunting was, the court hears, due to N having extra fluid in the lungs. N was 'self-ventilating in air', 'respiratory rate 60', 'Sats 96% room air' Dr JL says there were no concerns re N other than the blood disorder he had.

Up to 1am - Further observations are recorded regularly for N up to 1am. (electronic evidence)

3 Jun 2016, Friday

1am - Nurse CB’s statement - He recalls N was stable, with oxygen saturations "almost 100%, and "no abnormalities" present. He says it was likely on the hour when he left for his one-hour meal break, saying he had "no concerns". He handed over care to a nurse, but does not recall who that was. When he returned from his break, he was "surprised" to learn N had become 'unsettled' and 'fractious' suffered a desaturation. He adds he had not been called back from his break.

[opening speech - 1.05am – [1st attempted murder allegation] - N suffered a sudden lowering of his oxygen levels from 99% to 40% - life-threatening levels. He was screaming and cried for 30 minutes. He recovered after emergency assistance.]

1.05am - electronic evidence: Child N then suffered a desaturation at 1.05am. Nurse CB noted: 'One episode whilst I was on my break, whereby infant was crying++ and not settling. He became dusky in colour, desaturating to 40s. Responded to facial oxygen within 1-2 minutes, crying [subsided] after 30 minutes. The note adds N's colour returned to pink perfusion. Nurses Taylor, Ellis, Booth and Thomas gave statements about not being present for the collapse.

[Opening Speeches - Prosecution: Independent experts say his sudden deterioration was consistent with inflicted injury which caused severe pain, or an injection of air. Dr Sandie Bohin said such a profound desaturation followed by a rapid recovery, in the absence of any painful or uncomfortable procedure, suggested an inflicted painful stimulus. She said – “this is life threatening. He was also noted to be … ‘screaming’ and apparently cried for 30 minutes. This is most unusual. I have never observed a premature neonate to scream. Professor Sally Kinsey describes the collapse on June 3 as dramatic with no recognised medical cause.” Defence: the defence say there are "many reasons" why a baby would shout or scream. "It was far more likely to be hunger" - "you certainly won't find evidence of anything else".]

1.10am - Dr JL’s evidence: At 1.10am Dr JL is informed about N having a desaturation. She does not recall who did so. The note at the time records: N 'got upset, looked mottled, dusky, sats 40%, O2 100%'. 'On my arrival, 40% O2, screaming, sternal recession, poor trace on Sats probe, pink'. Dr JL testifies on her arrival N’s oxygen level had dropped to 40% and he was screaming. She says 40% is a “quite significant desaturation”. She says “screaming” is unusual and “not a word I tend to write in notes very often.” Dr JL testified attempts were made to settle the baby, but she was crash bleeped away. On her return, N's saturation levels recovered to 100%, and he was asleep. The time of Dr JL’s return is not recorded. X-exam: Mr Myers asks about N 'screaming' and being 'pink', which he says if N had suffered a desaturation, he was "certainly recovering" from that. Dr JL agrees. Mr Myers asks about the relevance of the 'poor trace on Sats probe'. Dr JL says she had been told of the 40% sats reading, but on her arrival, she had seen N was pink. Mr Myers says there were no signs of N having any fresh blood anywhere. Dr JL agrees. Dr JL also agrees it is rare to be looking after a baby at the Countess of Chester Hospital - or any hospital - who has haemophilia. The prosecution re-examines Dr JL to clarify the '40% O2 (on my arrival)' note, and ask if that is a saturation reading or the oxygen support for N. Dr JL testifies she cannot be sure, but believes it would be the latter. Prosecution asks if the 40% oxygen saturation recorded by the nurse was inaccurate, it would have been noted as such in medical notes – Dr JL agrees that would be the case. Dr JL says she doesn’t recall if any movements of N associated with his screaming would have affected the security of the [blood oxygen] probe [giving an inaccurate reading].

Bef. 2am – Dr JL’s evidence: The plan was to continue to observe N and carry out the blood gas reading at 2am, indicating the note was made sometime before 2am.

2.04am – Dr JL’s evidence: A blood gas reading is carried out at 2.04am, and Dr JL says there is a raised lactate reading for N. Mr Myers says other than the raised lactate reading, the blood gas record at 2.04am was normal. Dr JL agrees.

2.04am - Nurse CB noted (up to 2.04am): 'No further episodes observed. Oxygen saturations have been consistently mid 90s-100%...in view of earlier episode, infant remains nil by mouth...' (electronic evidence)

8am – End of LL’s night shift

Nurse Ashleigh Hudson takes over care of N for the day shift on June 3. 'Tachypnoeic [my note – rapid shallow breathing] on handover, unsettled' (electronic evidence)

LL messages the same colleague (as at 8pm and 10pm): 'been busy” ...adding what had happened to a number of babies during the night shift, and what staff on duty had been doing. “Glad to be off, survived my nights tho ” (electronic evidence)

Dr Sudeshna Bhowmik records a list of 'problems' for N, including prematurity, jaundice and respiratory distress. A plan was to discuss with Alder Hey Children's Hospital haematology, and that discussion was carried out. (electronic evidence)

A dose of vitamin K is prescribed for N during the day shift.

Abt. 6pm - Nurse Ashleigh Hudson records a 'slightly mucky aspirate' for N towards the end of the day shift, at about 6pm. The note of a summary of care between 8am-6pm records N was 'settled for the rest of the day', with 'minimal aspirates obtained. Aspirates clear with tiny old blood specks. 'Paeds have liaised with AHCH' (electronic evidence)

Dr Bhowmik’s statement - (re. desaturation event at 1.05am 3 June) - He had had 'an episode' where he desaturated to 40%, with colour change noted, but had "settled thereafter" and did not need "supplementary oxygen for very long". The rest of the examination by Dr Bhowmik on June 3 was "normal", and Child N was seen to be pink and well perfused, and doing "well from a respiratory point of view".

8pm nightshift - Nurse Christopher Booth, at the time of the night shift handover for June 3-4, records at 8pm N was settled. A family communication note by nurse Hudson: 'Both parents updated on current condition and plan of care. Mum very anxious, worried about baby being in the incubator. Explained need for it, to keep baby warm and make observation easier.' (electronic evidence)

4 Jun 2016, Saturday

3am - The sequence of events goes up to June 4 at 3am, where Nurse Christopher Booth records 'No significant desaturations, bradycardias or apnoeic episodes observed overnight...' (electronic evidence)

links in part 2 timeline

 

[ColourPurple]

It's nothing to do with her making off with the car. It's a criminal offence to drive without third party insurance and it's also an offence to allow someone to do so which means he could get done as well.

She doesn't need to be a named driver on his insurance if her insurance covers her to drive vehicles "...not owned by by the policy holder..." which is how the term is worded but, either way, he'd need to be 100% sure that her insurance allowed that. If it doesn't then she's either a named driver on her policy or they're both committing offences.

As you say, our experiences differ, but casually loaning cars between workmates is extremely rare, IME. Other on here have said similar.

Who knows whether they would have had a conversation about insurance if she'd accepted. I'm not going to get into how rare somebody else thinks lending a colleague your car for a short journey, while you're working is. It doesn't change my opinion that offering his car doesn't suggest that she's a named driver on his insurance or has driven his car before.

 

[Anxala]

I think that may have been my post. If so you've completely misinterpreted what I was saying.I wasn't saying that merely referring to herself as "Serious Lucy" was done to try and impress him. He would have to be very easily impressed for that to be the case!

It was the resus itself, and then her pointing out afterwards how calm she was compared to the other "faffing" nurse, that may have been done to impress him .. IF guilty, and if, as the prosecution allege, she caused the collapse that led to that resus, in the first place.

All IMO, if guilty, etc.

^ I really didn't get that at all from the exchange between them.

But I appreciate that the lens through which we view LL is always going to impact on how we perceive her and the things she says and does.

We'll have to differ on that because I definitely think it's something to do with trying to impress him or be flirty in some way or other.

It's very obvious that these two know each other rather well so it's way past the "trying to impress him" stage, though, I think.

Oh flirty, for sure. They clearly had 'something' going on. I think we're in agreement really.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Never mind.

You look at this case from professional medical point of view, as a nurse.

I view it from my perspective as a teacher who meets literally hundreds of different people every year and observe patterns of specific behaviours and their results.

Oh, and from the perspective of a premature baby who spent soooo much time in hospital incubator
(I wasn't believed to survive, but hey, here I am )

That is why I follow this trial although after Arthur LH and Logan M trials I promised myself not to engage in children's cases any more.

We all have different points of view.

JMO

Nobody thought I’d survive either but that was when I was grown up. :/

 

[ColourPurple]

^ I really didn't get that at all from the exchange between them.

But I appreciate that the lens through which we view LL is always going to impact on how we perceive her and the things she says and does.

I look at everything through both lenses. Bifocals