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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
This person is someone she's more involved with then we realise, I think. It's not common to lend cars to people because of insurance reasons and suchlike so she's maybe on his insurance as a named driver?

It could be that she's insured to drive other people's cars but that's not as common as it used to be and bearing in mind she was barely 25 at this point and driving other people's cars isn't generally allowed until about 25.
Some time ago in the reporting there was a neighbour who claimed there was a male seen leaving her home. It could well have been collection of the car if she’s borrowed it etc. I feel she may have been able to drive or something otherwise he wouldn’t have suggested the loan of it. Jmo
 
Some time ago in the reporting there was a neighbour who claimed there was a male seen leaving her home. It could well have been collection of the car if she’s borrowed it etc. I feel she may have been able to drive or something otherwise he wouldn’t have suggested the loan of it. Jmo
She had her own car Suzuki Jazz or something. It was mentioned being on her drive when she was first arrested and several of the media sites have pics of her in front of it, presumably on a night out or something.
 
Regarding sub judice - if there was pretty damning evidence given it court pointing to guilt, can the media report that? Or no?
The media, and anyone, can report anything said in court unless there is a reporting restriction on place or an automatic anonymity by process of law such as in sex cases.
 
It would be interesting to see when Alder Hey did send the Factor 8 clotting agent. I was assuming it was around the time of the first collapse on June 3rd but could be wrong. They've reported that he was nearly ready to go home by 15 June, but after the bleeding and collapse that day (that LL is accused of causing) he was transfered to Alder Hey.
Yes. This is a good point. There may have been no concerns with the ability of CoC to deal with the issues prior to the 'events' , however I was under the impression that the plan from the start was to transfer as soon as possible
 
I think she meant that she was googling what the likely outcome may be. I'm sure she knew what it is but not surprised she didn't know a lot about it. Not her specialty.
And I think it is DOCTOR'S task to make judgements about patients' outcome.

Everybody should do their OWN tasks as best as they can.

JMO
 
I find the thyroid issue being mentioned really interesting. Added stress from a less well managed that usual health condition. Can thyroid have any effect on congnition?

It's an interesting text for both sides to have agreed to include, so must have some relevance. It also refers to the blips happening over the previous 12 months, which correlates with the timeframe of the alleged offences.

However, as the defence have not said anything about accepting that she may have harmed the babies as a reult of her suffering from a medical condition, I'm thinking it can't be to do with that.

Maybe it will turn out that she prosecution will have evidence that she didn't have that condition at all? Which if guilty, may then allow them to go down the lines of aying he had been seeking attention for a medical condition she didn't actually have. Or maybe they will confirm she did have it, and suggest that, if guilty, her noticing the possible deterioration in her condition around June 2015 (and maybe worrying about associated infertilty that it can cause) may be what triggered the alleged attacks?

ALL IMO
 
Yes. This is a good point. There may have been no concerns with the ability of CoC to deal with the issues prior to the 'events' , however I was under the impression that the plan from the start was to transfer as soon as possible


It doesn't seem that that was the case, as he was born on 2nd June , and was said to be nearly ready to go home by the 15th.
 
A lot will hinge on the much-publicized doctor's testimony I think.

prosecution opening speech:

"Child N was a "stable baby" who did not suffer any other "spontaneous bleeds" at any time as a result of his condition."
Lucy Letby trial - latest: Nurse 'adamant' she's done nothing to harm any of the babies in the case as defence begins

father's statement :
"On the day Child N was due to come home, on June 15, the father was at work."
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, March 2


electronic evidence (day before bleed):

"In a family communication note: 'Mummy visiting this morning, carried out cares and feed. Put infant to breast. Discussed feeding at home'
The notes show Child N was ready to go home, apart from further treatment required for jaundice, and was on phototherapy.
Other family members visited Child N at the neonatal unit that day."
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, March 2


prosecution opening speech re. 1st intubation (baby now 13 days old):

"Doctors were called and an attempt was made to intubate Child N.
He was “surprised by his anatomy more than anything else … I could not visualise parts of the back of his throat because of swelling”.
The doctor saw "fresh blood" in Child N's throat, which the prosecution say was the same seen in Childs C, E and G.
The doctor was unable to get the breathing tube down the throat of Child N as he was unable to visualise the child's tracheal inlet.
He attempted to intubate Child N on three occasions."

and

"She excluded the possibility of a pulmonary haemorrhage - in other words, bleeding in the lungs, causing the collapse on June 15. In her opinion such bleeding would not have occurred spontaneously in a child with Child N's degree of haemophilia.
It follows, the prosecution say, the bleeding was caused by trauma.
Professor Kinsey also ruled out heavy-handed intubation as a cause."

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

defence opening speech:

Regarding the allegation Letby did something to cause Child N to bleed, the prosecution say the intubating doctor already saw blood, because Letby harmed him.
The defence disagree and say blood was "not identified until intubation had already happened, or was in the process of happening".
There were three attempts to intubate him.
The defence say, again, there was "sub-optimal care" for Child N.
Lucy Letby trial recap: Prosecution finishes outlining case, defence gives statement


electronic evidence :

Lucy Letby records, in a note written at 1.53pm for care at about 9am: 'Unable to intubate - fresh blood noted in mouth and yielded via suction ++.'

Letby messages her colleague on Whatsapp before 10am: 'Thanks for staying to help. Much appreciated.'

Before 11am
Doctor to LL: Is he ok?
LL: Small amounts of blood from mouth & 1ml from NG. Looks like pulmonary bleed on xray... Sorry if I was off during intubation...[reference to other nurse faffing] I like things to be tidy & calm (Well, as much as possible!)
Doctor: No, you were perfectly fine with me...I thought you were wanting to just get on with in case there was another desat.
LL: Well I have got my hair in a bun today, it's only fitting that I was 'serious Lucy' !!
 
As my previous, I think the two of them are much closer than we realise.

Is he who she was in Ibiza with?
I think everyone here accepts that they seem to be/or were becoming more than just friends. I don't think anything suggests he was going to Ibiza with her though, as he's asking her questions about her holiday rather than their holiday.

“Are you doing anything nice before you go on holiday? You're not having to do a long run of shifts to get the time off for that are you?”

 
I wonder if they will delve into this 'relationship' when he next gives evidence.

She only worked as a nurse for about one more week after she returned from her holiday.

If they dated after that I'm thinking it could be beneficial to the defence. Was he the doctor she texted and asked if she needed to be worried? (not that we know the answer to that but I'm thinking it's likely)

25th June -

10.46pm –
LL text to a doctor: do I need to be worried about what Dr G was asking?
Doctor replied that Dr G was only asking to make sure that the normal procedures were carried out.
LL replied that after Child Q had collapsed she (LL) had walked into the equipment room and Dr G was asking a nurse 'who was present when Child Q collapsed and how quickly someone had gone to him because LL had not been there'.
She continued her texts to the doctor, telling him that she had needed to go to her designated baby in room 1.
A change in pattern.
She's getting blamed for not been there?
 
She had her own car Suzuki Jazz or something. It was mentioned being on her drive when she was first arrested and several of the media sites have pics of her in front of it, presumably on a night out or something.
Ah ok, interesting, I’ve not heard of that before. Potential for it to be in the garage or something then (or she walked? Distance to the hospital from her home??).
Jmo
 
Ah ok, interesting, I’ve not heard of that before. Potential for it to be in the garage or something then (or she walked? Distance to the hospital from her home??).
Jmo
She lived relatively near to the hospital so my guess is would walk most of the time, but sometimes a car is nice when you are tired after a long day/run of shifts
 
It would be interesting to see when Alder Hey did send the Factor 8 clotting agent. I was assuming it was around the time of the first collapse on June 3rd but could be wrong. They've reported that he was nearly ready to go home by 15 June, but after the bleeding and collapse that day (that LL is accused of causing) he was transfered to Alder Hey.
'We had (Child N) baptised during the day and that was recommended to us by Lucy.'

In written statements read to the court, the parents expressed surprise that the neonatal unit had no Factor 8 for their baby, even though they were aware he had haemophilia.

At one point a specialist haemophilia nurse had been sent from Alder Hey Children's Hospital to bring some factor in a taxi.

The father added: 'I remember feeling confused because his sats seemed normal. No one told us what (had) happened or why'.



must have been same time as the baptism maybe?
 
This person is someone she's more involved with then we realise, I think. It's not common to lend cars to people because of insurance reasons and suchlike so she's maybe on his insurance as a named driver?

It could be that she's insured to drive other people's cars but that's not as common as it used to be and bearing in mind she was barely 25 at this point and driving other people's cars isn't generally allowed until about 25.
I think these messages suggest they weren't in a relationship at that time (especially being only 2 weeks since she told her friend she didn't fancy him)

Doc: 'Are you doing anything nice before you go on holiday? You're not having to do a long run of shifts to get the time off for that are you?'

LL: 'No off for nearly 2 weeks!'



Doc: 'Chocolate makes bad days a little better. Hope you liked it.'

LL: 'That's true. Just a shame I don't usually eat chocolate ... but on this occasion ...'

MOO
 
I think these messages suggest they weren't in a relationship at that time (especially being only 2 weeks since she told her friend she didn't fancy him)

Doc: 'Are you doing anything nice before you go on holiday? You're not having to do a long run of shifts to get the time off for that are you?'

LL: 'No off for nearly 2 weeks!'



Doc: 'Chocolate makes bad days a little better. Hope you liked it.'

LL: 'That's true. Just a shame I don't usually eat chocolate ... but on this occasion ...'

MOO
I would agree. This is the “build a bond stage“ here I think. I’m not sure but your other post mentioned him putting in more effort. Would agree with that but I’m not convinced it doesn’t mean she is interested. Same as the don’t fancy him texts. I think that might just be her, not a particularly chatty person and no real experience in dating. She might have been working at that time as well so wouldn’t have much time to write lengthy engaged texts. Could be a factor in the staff texti on the unit as well. It’s ok but keep it brief.
 
Either he is genuinely caring or a complete player and knows the right things to say. Either way I can see why he chose to stay anonymous, based on the texts alone.
Just to be very pedantic, he's not anonymous, none of the witnesses are. It's just that there are reporting restrictions in place as regards publising their identities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
158
Guests online
1,787
Total visitors
1,945

Forum statistics

Threads
600,125
Messages
18,104,259
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top