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

[Sweeper2000]

@Sweeper2000 regarding evidence or lack of;

putting aside the *how* people die or become injured etc for a moment if you will; when crimes are reported, even with a lack of hard evidence (but suspicious events) it all still requires such scrutiny as we are seeing.

I completely hear you when you mention “concrete evidence” and I recognise a lot of people - rightly so, feel that factor is needed to establish for definite there is foul play.

But equally, sometimes, lots of crimes do not have the kind of evidence some are hoping for to make firm/definite views. Domestic and sexual abuse is an example of that. The evidence might not be concrete or even at all noticeable (which has been reported in dozens of cases)- but in such situations they actually do need to examine who was doing what and also rely on medical experts reviews, notes and accurate record keeping to help establish events.

The problem we have is that we just don’t know *where* LL was stood for definite (in either baby M or N) but it doesn’t completely rule it out if she was there or went near etc. Another issue as we have already heard so far is some of the notes are not always recorded timely as they should. Therefore, if that is the case, equally then- is that timeframe accurate?

We have already heard LL has omitted medical results from baby Ns file yet shared it with this *unamed* doctor she’s messaging on social media. Her account of this babies care is quite inaccurate here on the very basis of withholding medical information from others involved in his care. She cannot explain herself for this reason and this is a major concern (imo and the professional duty) in her fitness to practice. It’s like playing roulette with peoples lives which simply isn’t right.


Lots of things to consider here, all my own opinions of course.

I hear yah really I do. Domestic abuse etc is always difficult to prove as it nearly always relies on witness testimony. would place a bet it’s other witnesses accounts of things being said that factor in those.

I do hear yah about times and record keeping as well but timings not so relevant so long as you have reliable witness testimony. example doesn’t make a difference if the 7.15 collapse happened at 8.15 but so long as it fits with the surrounding events it’s fine.

regarding the missing notes for baby n. That’s a pretty poor attempt at hiding information when you text what you were supposed to write down to a fellow member of staff.

do you think he is the reason she didn’t? Too absorbed with talking to him maybe? Also if poor note keeping is a factor it cannot be proven that she didn’t only that no one remembers it happened or indeed had failed to write the notes themselves.

was this the first recorded blood btw?
this factor 8? I read it’s some form of clotting agent. I’m wondering if she would be able to give this without supervision or permission from doc?

 

[Tortoise]

Okay so it's not that she omitted it from her notes, it's that she didn't escalate it according to the prosecution opening statement which isn't evidence.

As far as I can see, they didn't actually explore this with evidence in court reporting. She followed her message to tk the doctor you've quoted with "Looks like pulmonary bleed on xray...". So do we really think only LL was able to see this bleed on the xray? That nobody else knew about bleeding? It sounds unlikely.

It wouldn't be the first instance the opening speech mentioned something that hasn't been explored according to the reporting. We even had something in the opening statement which have been disputed by those giving evidence. So I think we probably shouldn't be viewing it as evidence to back up statements.

It says it's not recorded in the medical notes.

They won't report, in electronic evidence, a non-existent medical note.

The records entered into evidence will be the chart entry they mentioned.

 

[LorriB]

Re the timings. We've seen that doctors notes and other nurses notes have also had differing times to one another too. I imagine writing retrospectively is part of the issue and it isn't unique to LL.

 

[LorriB]

It says it's not recorded in the medical notes.

They won't report, in electronic evidence, a non-existent medical note.

The records entered into evidence will be the chart entry they mentioned.

But reporting said:

doctor colleague messages Lucy Letby before 11am to ask: "Is he ok?"

Letby notes, at 11am: 'Small amount of fresh blood orally and 1ml from NG tube'

Letby messages the doctor in response: 'Small amounts of blood from mouth & 1ml from NG. Looks like pulmonary bleed on xray...

 

[Tortoise]

But reporting said:

doctor colleague messages Lucy Letby before 11am to ask: "Is he ok?"

Letby notes, at 11am: 'Small amount of fresh blood orally and 1ml from NG tube'

Letby messages the doctor in response: 'Small amounts of blood from mouth & 1ml from NG. Looks like pulmonary bleed on xray...

how is that relevant to the medical records?

ETA apologies, I see what you mean.

I'm not sure how that relates to the 10am record, that she couldn't explain to police, and which wasn't reported to the doctors.

 

[LorriB]

how is that relevant to the medical records?

Where else do you think the 'Letby notes' refers to?

 

[Tortoise]

Apologies, I was editing my post before seeing your reply.

 

[LorriB]

how is that relevant to the medical records?

ETA apologies, I see what you mean.

I'm not sure how that relates to the 10am record, that she couldn't explain to police, and which wasn't reported to the doctors.

No problem.

Just responding to your eta. The point I was replying to initially was that she raised something with the doctor over messnger but didn't note it down. I disputed this as saw it was noted just before she replied.

Is there anything other than the prosecutions opening statement to say that the 10am note of blood wasn't raised further? I may have missed it in the reporting.

 

[Tortoise]

No problem.

Just responding to your eta. The point I was replying to initially was that she raised something with the doctor but didn't note it down. I disputed this as saw it was noted just before she replied.

Is there anything other than the prosecutions opening statement to say that the 10am note of blood wasn't raised further? I may have missed it in the reporting.

It would have to be raised with the doctor on duty that day when they are called to give evidence, because that's the only way they can do it if she doesn't take the stand.

That is, if the reporting covers it. I don't think the tweeters usually go into details like that.

Her bringing it to the attention of the off-duty doctor wouldn't be considered alerting medical staff to the problem. IMO

And I have no idea how the x-ray fits into this.

 

[LorriB]

It would have to be raised with the doctor on duty that day when they are called to give evidence, because that's the only way they can do it if she doesn't take the stand.

That is, if the reporting covers it. I don't think the tweeters usually go into details like that.

Her bringing it to the attention of the off-duty doctor wouldn't be considered alerting medical staff to the problem. IMO

And I have no idea how the x-ray fits into this.

If you're talking about the 10am note, we don't know that it wasn't raised further. I've not seen any evidence or reporting to say it wasn't.

If you're talking about the 11am note not being raised further, then as I said above, an xray showed a bleed which I would say backs up that bleeding is being explored by doctors. We have no evidence it wasn't raised further.

In either case, LL has noted this in the medical notes which should be viewed by the doctor doing their regular rounds as that's the whole point. The bleeding certainly isn't being kept secret.

This was covered by the Chester on Thursday so to a better degree of accuracy.

 

[Tortoise]

If you're talking about the 10am note, we don't know that it wasn't raise further. I've not seen any evidence or reporting to say it wasn't.

If you're talking about the 11am note not being raised further, than as I said above, an xray showed a bleed which I would say backs up that bleeding is being explored by doctors. We have no evidence it wasn't raised further.

In either case, LL has noted this in the medical notes which should be viewed by the doctor doing their regular rounds as that's the whole point. The bleeding certainly isn't being kept secret.

There won't be evidence of it being raised with doctors until the doctors give evidence.

Also the only reference to x-ray in the reporting for that morning has been in her text message, so again we need to wait to hear the doctor's testimony on that and how it relates to LL's diagnosis.

We don't have clarity on whether the bleed was at 10am or 11am, but I'm certain she was given records to look at in her police interviews and we are told that she said she didn't know why she hadn't brought the 10am bleed to the attention of the doctors.

JMO

 

[Dotta]

I wonder how all these collapses affected his health.
I would be horrified if he also is brain damaged.

 

[Dotta]

Baby N

"His clinical condition was described as "excellent" although he did have mild haemophilia - a blood disorder.

Mr Johnson said this meant Letby believed, wrongly, that his haemophilia gave her "cover" to attack him - because if he bled it would be put down to the condition.

Independent medical experts suggested the blood in child N’s mouth was as a result of the "thrusting" of a tube into the back of his throat to inflict injury, the court heard."

Who are the children alleged to have been murdered by Lucy Letby? | ITV News

Nurse Lucy Letby is accused of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill 10 more. Here is a breakdown of the babies and the allegations. | ITV News Granada

www.itv.com

 

[LorriB]

Yes, there may well be evidence still to come to show she didn't escalate things - but nothing at the moment so we can't say for a fact she didn't escalate something. We shall see what next week brings.

 

[WaxLyrical]

@Tortoise Ibiza mystery solved. Just saw on yesterday’s evidence that text discussion was about her plans to go to Torquay with her parents in July.

 

[Dotta]

Yes, there may well be evidence still to come to show she didn't escalate things - but nothing at the moment so we can't say for a fact she didn't escalate something. We shall see what next week brings.

Next weeks?

Baby O - dead (liver injury).

"Mr Johnson said the most likely cause was an impact-type trauma, adding: "In brutal terms, an assault."

Baby P - dead

"Independent experts who were tasked with reviewing child P’s case said the most likely cause was air injected into his stomach which compromised his breathing."

Baby Q -

Rapid recovery in another hospital.

Link in my post above

 

[marynnu]

I hear yah really I do. Domestic abuse etc is always difficult to prove as it nearly always relies on witness testimony. would place a bet it’s other witnesses accounts of things being said that factor in those.

I do hear yah about times and record keeping as well but timings not so relevant so long as you have reliable witness testimony. example doesn’t make a difference if the 7.15 collapse happened at 8.15 but so long as it fits with the surrounding events it’s fine.

regarding the missing notes for baby n. That’s a pretty poor attempt at hiding information when you text what you were supposed to write down to a fellow member of staff.

do you think he is the reason she didn’t? Too absorbed with talking to him maybe? Also if poor note keeping is a factor it cannot be proven that she didn’t only that no one remembers it happened or indeed had failed to write the notes themselves.

was this the first recorded blood btw?
this factor 8? I read it’s some form of clotting agent. I’m wondering if she would be able to give this without supervision or permission from doc?

Re. Factor 8. No medication can be given without a prescription, and in addition there would have to be a protocol either from pharmacy or a specialist unit as it's not something normally given on neonatal units.

 

[Tortoise]

@Tortoise Ibiza mystery solved. Just saw on yesterday’s evidence that text discussion was about her plans to go to Torquay with her parents in July.

Ah yes! thank you, and that will explain the two weeks versus her one week in Ibiza.

 

[ColourPurple]

@Tortoise Ibiza mystery solved. Just saw on yesterday’s evidence that text discussion was about her plans to go to Torquay with her parents in July.

Aha so Ibiza in June, Torquay in July. Good spot!

 

[LorriB]

Next weeks?

Yes, next week we will likely hear further evidence for baby N.

What's your point here?

Edit: ah I see, you mean you think we are moving onto the next babies. Yes as Tortoise says we've been told we will hear from the doctors.