UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #2

[HongKongPhooey]

I don't think it would have mattered. The prosecution would still have painted it as being weird and unprofessional.

Besides, perhaps she couldn't remember doing it when asked?

I think it’s possibly going to matter to the jury. Maybe they will accept that she didn’t remember. I think it’s going to depend how all the evidence stacks up (or not).

 

[Cherwell]

What do they mean by facebook "stalking", just viewing someones fb profile? Isn't that what everyone does? isn't that the point of fb? Ok she was a nurse so it's a bit different, but still...

People here on WS are always checking out the FB pages of complete strangers

 

[Popcorn80]

As a neonatal nurse myself, albeit in a large level 3 unit that specialises in surgery and cardiac conditions. One thing I’ll agree with it’s hard to get onto a neonatal unit unless you work or have a reason to be on the unit.

I am so torn hearing the early details in this case. I know what it’s like to work during periods of being very short staffed from a nursing and medical side and feeling like you will miss something as it’s so busy.

The early reports suggest different causes of death and interesting to read that death/collapse happened when her shift patten changed.

Every neonatal death/ resuscitation would have been looked into very closely in the early days but a lot of times will not go for pm.

I feel this is going to very hard for the jury, we are going to hear a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Plus if she didn't kill these babies, why look up their families on Facebook?
Why look up and stalk patients families online? That's not right for a start.

MOO.

Maybe she was just concerned about the family's wellbeing or, as WH1212 has suggested, it may have been her way of dealing with what would have been an upsetting time?

 

[merrypason]

What do they mean by facebook "stalking", just viewing someones fb profile? Isn't that what everyone does? isn't that the point of fb? Ok she was a nurse so it's a bit different, but still...

They said it was an unusual pattern of checking their social media. I assume if it was just normal FB stalking, it wouldn't have warranted them mentioning it in the opening statement as that isn't unusual. It could be that she was spending all her free time checking them out? Or created an account to only check them? Or created a fake account and befriended them?? It was mentioned she checked the victim's families in succession, so one after another. That's not the same as checking out random people now and then for a short period. We don't know when she started checking them out either. If this started BEFORE the victims were attacked, and carried on after, for years - that is odd behaviour. I'm sure more evidence on this will come to light but I would assume they noticed a pattern that makes it suspicious.

My Own Opinion.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

As a neonatal nurse myself, albeit in a large level 3 unit that specialises in surgery and cardiac conditions. One thing I’ll agree with it’s hard to get onto a neonatal unit unless you work or have a reason to be on the unit.

I am so torn hearing the early details in this case. I know what it’s like to work during periods of being very short staffed from a nursing and medical side and feeling like you will miss something as it’s so busy.

The early reports suggest different causes of death and interesting to read that death/collapse happened when her shift patten changed.

Every neonatal death/ resuscitation would have been looked into very closely in the early days but a lot of times will not go for pm.

I feel this is going to very hard for the jury, we are going to hear a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence.

Thanks for your experiential post.

I also considered that it will be hard on the jury. I hope that some provision has been made to support them, but within the limits of their confidentiality requirement regarding conversation in the jury room.

Regarding the reporting of NN death/resus. The RCPCH were invited in by CoCH in mid 2016 to perform a review due to the concerns. They identified a need for improvement in the review process. This may have been a factor in not identifying the cause or causes sooner and taking robust action then....whether there was criminal intent or not.

 

[Jules2021]

They said it was an unusual pattern of checking their social media. I assume if it was just normal FB stalking, it wouldn't have warranted them mentioning it in the opening statement as that isn't unusual. It could be that she was spending all her free time checking them out? Or created an account to only check them? Or created a fake account and befriended them?? It was mentioned she checked the victim's families in succession, so one after another. That's not the same as checking out random people now and then for a short period. We don't know when she started checking them out either. If this started BEFORE the victims were attacked, and carried on after, for years - that is odd behaviour. I'm sure more evidence on this will come to light but I would assume they noticed a pattern that makes it suspicious.

My Own Opinion.

Thanks, yeh I guess it warrants attention the fact they've picked it up from what was years ago, though I guess all fb activity is logged. Weird as hell this case.

 

[Dcflag]

If people have publicly viewable FB pages, I can't see how data protection comes into it.
As for looking up patients' families - not necessarily "stalking" them - it could just be curiosity. Have you never looked up anyone on social media with whom you have only a passing connection, or none at all? I certainly have, but with no "creepy" or "sinister" intent.

The data protection comes from the fact that you met that person at work, and had identifying details such as a name, address, work place etc etc that you obtained through your work.

You can quite happily look up people you have a passing connection with. You cannot be searching people using data stored by your employer. That there is the breech.

 

[branmuffin]

Oh not sure that's a correct interpretation. There was an RCPH review conducted in 2016 - "In July 2016, when the unit changed admission arrangements and stopped providing intensive care, the trust asked the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) to conduct a review into the increased mortality rate."

This was the review where no toxicology reports were done, as it wasn't a criminal investigation. And what the last line of the ITV article refers to.

The police were asked to investigate in 2017 and had only just begun when the article was printed. "The Countess of Chester Hospital Hospital Foundation Trust has asked police to investigate a higher than usual number of baby deaths on the neonatal unit between June 2015 and June 2016."

So we don't know if toxicology reports at post mortem were done as part of the police investigation or other forensic evidence was indeed found.

That may be true but when the hospital board noticed that the deaths in 2015 and 2016 became outliers compared to neonatal deaths in other hospitals it prompted their own investigation before handing it over to the police. I find it egregious that the hospital did not do full autopsies on the deceased children, at least those who died in 2016, considering they were trying to determine cause of death.

 

[MadeleineMaxwell]

The unit was downgraded in June/July 2016 meaning it no longer accepted the more vulnerable/ill babies, they would have been cared for at another unit. Something to take into account when considering the number of adverse outcomes.

 

[Sylwia11]

The data protection comes from the fact that you met that person at work, and had identifying details such as a name, address, work place etc etc that you obtained through your work.

You can quite happily look up people you have a passing connection with. You cannot be searching people using data stored by your employer. That there is the breech.

I work in the care sector in the UK and it's a big no no to have interaction on social media with our service users or their families unless special permission is given and there is a lot of paperwork involved. I know thats not a hospital setting but I would imagine the policies are similar in regards to it being frowned upon.

 

[branmuffin]

As a nurse in that unit I would think, as I’m a nurse myself, she was one on one or two on one with those babies and in her own kind of secluded pod… so it’s not like you are being watched closely.

Article 4.1.4 lists the hierarchal structure of attending to babies in neonatal care. I don't know what level of care these children had to ascertain how many nurses would be in attendance. I don't live in the UK so I'm not sure what the difference is between intensive care and special care.

The wording in the article " all nurses should have undertaken NLS" suggests some nurses on that ward were not trained on resuscitation for Newborn Life Support.

 

[MadeleineMaxwell]

I work in the care sector in the UK and it's a big no no to have interaction on social media with our service users or their families unless special permission is given and there is a lot of paperwork involved. I know thats not a hospital setting but I would imagine the policies are similar in regards to it being frowned upon.

That's very true, I cared for a woman (in hospital) who I knew vaguely from school, she tried to add me as a friend on FB and I had to decline and explain why. I know the NMC takes a very dim view of anything even vaguely dodgy on social media.

 

[cuecard]

I think the question being asked was: how hard did they look for anyone else?

Given the enormity and severity of the situation for everyone involved, I'd imagine thorough investigations of every avenue possible had been explored. There's no chance they just decided it was her on a whim.

 

[Jules2021]

We don't know she was attempting to interact with them though?

 

[MadeleineMaxwell]

Article 4.1.4 lists the hierarchal structure of attending to babies in neonatal care. I don't know what level of care these children had to ascertain how many nurses would be in attendance. I don't live in the UK so I'm not sure what the difference is between intensive care and special care.

The wording in the article " all nurses should have undertaken NLS" suggests some nurses on that ward were not trained on resuscitation for Newborn Life Support.

Intensive care - the most ill/premature bbaies
High Dependency - 2nd most serious
Special Care - less serious
Transitional Care - least serious

ETA I would be deeply shocked if any qualified staff were not trained in neonatal life support. Children's nurses and midwives are taught it before they even qualify. Qualified staff should have refresher courses every year. I'm a midwife btw

 

[Blondiexoxo]

As for LL searching up family members of the babies that died, I would be interested to hear if this was something she did on other occasions, after deaths of babies she cared for that they know were not murdered and she isn’t charged with killing. If she only looked up the families of the babies she is on trial for murdering then I would consider that pretty damning IMO.

Yes there is a chance that she may have just been curious about the family of the infants who passed away. However, if she only looked up the families of those she is suspected of killing then IMO that is relevant evidence and doesn’t look good atall. When finding someone guilty it’s beyond a reasonable doubt, that doesn’t mean beyond any doubt at all. Just that it is much more likely than not that the accused did commit the offence they are charged with. There is room for slight doubt in that it is impossible to say with 100% certainty in some cases. But when looking at the totality of the evidence if it appears very unlikely that someone else committed the crime then you can find a person guilty.

For example, if it’s proven that the babies definitely were murdered, and LL was the only person who was present at the time each child deteriorated, then it’s reasonable to draw the conclusion that she did it. You can’t say for certain that someone didn’t sneak in to the ward and commit the murders, but with the number of deaths she is charged with it becomes increasingly less likely that a random person would sneak into a secure nicu on multiple occasions and kill babies when LL just happened to be present each time. Of course that is just an example, we haven’t heard anywhere near enough evidence to decide one way or another just yet.

MOO

 

[merrypason]

That may be true but when the hospital board noticed that the deaths in 2015 and 2016 became outliers compared to neonatal deaths in other hospitals it prompted their own investigation before handing it over to the police. I find it egregious that the hospital did not do full autopsies on the deceased children, at least those who died in 2016, considering they were trying to determine cause of death.

I don't think the hospital trust did do their own review? They commissioned the RHPC to do an independent clinical review in 2016 as to why the mortality rates were increasing. Not what the cause was of baby deaths. Point being, they couldn't do their own review so needed an independent body to do it for them - who would only look at processes and procedures, staffing levels etc as no one would have thought murder was a possible hypotheses (would not have been the scope of review).

The hospital didn't do post mortems at the time of baby deaths (which the RHPC did note - so those results weren't available for them), but post mortems aren't always standard practice unless there's a reason to be suspicious. And single deaths would not be suspicious, it's only when it was all put together it was suspicious. But first the RHPC review had to rule out any possible operational or obvious negligence problems, then the police come in to do a criminal investigation where it's possible forensic evidence was collected by independent clinicians they commissioned. Not sure many trusts jump straight into criminal intent as the first step in an enquiry.

Hospital probe report after death rate rise for high risk babies

Hospital ordered review into greater number of deaths than it would normally expect

www.cheshire-live.co.uk

 

[Rusty Braincells]

We don't know she was attempting to interact with them though?

If it is true as stated in court today that LL looked up & at their social media pages at all without communicating as such, I’d consider that “interaction”, but I wonder if there was something more.

 

[cuecard]

The Facebook search info is superficially reminiscent of that awful case of the hospital mortuary rapist from last year, who would look up his victims before attacks.

But it will be vital to know whether she also searched for other families she was involved with who had good outcomes for their babies. It’s entirely possible she would just look up families she had an emotional attachment to, at times. To my knowledge, there’s no rules or laws against that.

I’m interested to hear what they offer as a motive. Why target these particular babies, sometimes repeatedly, while letting - helping, even - countless others live?

Same. I am really interested to find out what they present as her motive. I think that is one of the biggest questions in this case.