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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
12:52pm

In police interview, Letby said he could remember Child E and he was "stable" at the time of the handover, with nothing of concern "before the large bile aspirate".
She said she and another member of staff had disposed of the aspirate and the advice was to omit the feed.
She said Child E's abdomen was becoming fuller and there was a purple discolouration, so had asked a doctor to review Child E.
She said she had got blood from the NG tube.
She was asked about the 10pm note and said if there had been any blood prior to the 9pm feed, "she would have noted it".
She said it was after 9pm that the SHO had reviewed Child E but could not reall if it was face-to-face or over the phone.
She said she could remember the mum leaving after 'the 10pm visit'.
In a June 2019 interview, she was pressed over a conversation with the SHO.
She said she had no independent memory of it.
Shesaid she could not remember the mum coming into the room at 9pm with milk, nor Child E being upset, with blood coming from the mouth.
She said she would not have told the mum to go back upstairs.
"We have a stark contrast between what the mum says and what Lucy Letby says," Mr Johnson tells the court.
"You know he was due to be fed...breastmilk. You know, we say, that is why [the mum] was there.
"This has been wiped out of the records, by Lucy Letby, because she knows the consequences of [the mum] being right about this."

12:54pm

In a November 2020 interview, Letby is asked why she had sent a text referring to Child E had queried whether he had Down Syndrome.
She said she could not remember whether there had ever been any mention of Downs in the medical notes.
The prosecution say Lucy Letby "took an unusual interest" in the family of Child E. She did social media searches on the parents two days after Child E’s death, and on August 23, September 14, October 5, November 5, December 7, and even on December 25.
The prosecution say there were further searches in January 2016.

12:55pm

The court is now adjourning for the lunch break.
It will resume later this afternoon, discussing the circumstances surrounding the collapse of Child F - Child E's twin brother.
The prosecution allege this was an attempted murder by insulin poisoning.


All those searches after the baby's death... that is just off and creepy.
 
I’ll be interested as the case progresses to see peoples opinions on whether the babies were actually murdered or not. Regardless of the feeling on LL.

What I'm really interested in is finding out what her coworkers thought of her. We might not find that out? Guess it depends on if they're going to be witnesses whose testimony is public? But for me I feel like just personally I really want to know what they really felt about her, if they trusted her, if they always actually thought she was a bit weird or shifty or whatever. Or if they were utterly shocked.

Similarly I want to know if there were suspicions about her from really early why wasn't she just sacked? It boggles the mind to me they just apparently changed her shift and watched it happen again?
 
What I'm really interested in is finding out what her coworkers thought of her. We might not find that out? Guess it depends on if they're going to be witnesses whose testimony is public? But for me I feel like just personally I really want to know what they really felt about her, if they trusted her, if they always actually thought she was a bit weird or shifty or whatever. Or if they were utterly shocked.

Similarly I want to know if there were suspicions about her from really early why wasn't she just sacked? It boggles the mind to me they just apparently changed her shift and watched it happen again?
In public sector jobs in the UK it's reaaaaaaaaaally hard to sack someone. You need a lot of proof of wrongdoing, unions get involved and you're stuck with them on suspension (sometimes fully paid suspension) until actual wrong doing is found. Which can take years.
 
In public sector jobs in the UK it's reaaaaaaaaaally hard to sack someone. You need a lot of proof of wrongdoing, unions get involved and you're stuck with them on suspension (sometimes fully paid suspension) until actual wrong doing is found. Which can take years.
Yikes. Even when they suspect murder? Shouldn't they then have least suspended her on full pay - surely a salary is a small price to pay for multiple babies lives - and not let her stay on the ward? Even as a paper pusher which I believe they did at one point. I don't know, it feels a little like failure of duty of care, unless there were people on staff who were in her corner and defending her to whoever makes those decisions - something I'd really be interested in finding out.
 
What I'm really interested in is finding out what her coworkers thought of her. We might not find that out? Guess it depends on if they're going to be witnesses whose testimony is public? But for me I feel like just personally I really want to know what they really felt about her, if they trusted her, if they always actually thought she was a bit weird or shifty or whatever. Or if they were utterly shocked.

Similarly I want to know if there were suspicions about her from really early why wasn't she just sacked? It boggles the mind to me they just apparently changed her shift and watched it happen again?
The running theme in all this, and I think why there has been lots and lots of talk as to her not being guilty, is that literally everything in the pubic domain is from people who have said that she's totally lovely, very caring and have been, as you say, utterly shocked at her being implicated in this. Her photos show her as being pretty normal and sociable which tend to support the things we've heard about her.
 
That looks really, really strange!

It does.....and that we know is exactly the feeling Nick Johnson KC wants to engender.

Playing devils advocate again.....LL is a young, maybe naive, single (at the time?), slightly awkward woman. I suspect children's nursing was a passion in her life, something she loved doing, maybe to the point of obsession.

Some jobs/careers are like that.....often the ones that are action packed and have moments of pure adrenaline. The adrenaline is addictive, physiologically. When you are not at work, you may crave to be at work to get your fix.

Cue Facebook, You Tube......Websleuths etc. The next best thing when you can't be at work for the fix is to be reminded of work. Maybe by viewing the families FB accounts, LL was doing just that. Maybe she was going through a grieving process for those children that she didn't harm or have any intent to harm. Maybe she IS a cold, callous killer.

My point is that there is more than one possible reason for her FB activity. Maybe she wasn't able to articulate it or didn't say because she knew it looked obsessive and creepy, not realising quite how this would all play out.

One last thing. I believe LL may have been an only child. I wonder if she lost a sibling in childhood and what the circumstances were?

All just my very non-expert opinion
 
Last edited:
Speaking in general terms here regarding 'can't remember'. Is it possible this is due to the manner in which questions were posed? For example 'what were you doing on the evening of February 19th 2015' would evoke 'can't remember' in most people.

Or is it another way of saying 'no comment'? Would a solicitor / barrister advise a person to respond 'can't remember'? Could it imply a person has some quite serious issue such as dissociating or blacking out (that may or may not be a severe mental health problem or a substance use problem)?

Also, when a person is accused of a heinous crime such as this one, do they get quite heavily medicated whilst either on remand in prison or at home in the community? Some psychiatric medications can render a person barely able to function or interact but may well be needed.

I can't begin to imagine what state of mind an innocent person would come to arrive at if accused of this horror.
 
It does.....and that we know is exactly the feeling Nick Johnson KC wants to engender.

Playing devils advocate again.....LL is a young, maybe naive, single (at the time?), slightly awkward woman. I suspect children's nursing was a passion in her life, something she loved doing, maybe to the point of obsession.

Some jobs/careers are like that.....often the ones that are action packed and have moments of pure adrenaline. The adrenaline is addictive, physiologically. When you are not at work, you may crave to be at work to get your fix.

Cue Facebook, You Tube etc. The next best thing when you can't be at work for the fix is to be reminded of work. Maybe by viewing the familes FB accounts, LL was doing just that. Maybe she was going through a grieving process for those children that she didn't harm or have any intent to harm. Maybe she IS a cold, callous killer.

My point is that there is more than one possible reason for her FB activity. Maybe she wasn't able to articulate it or didn't say because she knew it looked obsessive and creepy, not realising quite how this would all play out.

One last thing. I believe LL may have been an only child. I wonder if she lost a sibling in childhood and what the circumstances were?

All just my very non-expert opinion
Yes, very good points and similar has been going through my mind, especially as regards your penultimate paragraph.
 
1:44pm

2:04pm

The court will shortly be resuming with its afternoon session.

 
Yes, exactly. She had the option at police interview to speak the truth or at least provide some responses/context, to help herself. People here are suggesting it may have equipment failure, errors, a cover up etc - but it doesn't seem like LL gave LE anything to work with. Being evasive and lying at interview isn't going to help anyone. Avoiding trial is normally the goal.

To be fair....Mr Johnson KC has been very selective in his quotes from the police interviews. When the interviewing officer/s give evidence is when we will get a clearer picture of LL's responses.

Whilst they don't appear to be full and frank interviews, she doesn't appear to have relied on "no comment", which is a plus for LL.
 
Speaking in general terms here regarding 'can't remember'. Is it possible this is due to the manner in which questions were posed? For example 'what were you doing on the evening of February 19th 2015' would evoke 'can't remember' in most people.

Or is it another way of saying 'no comment'? Would a solicitor / barrister advise a person to respond 'can't remember'? Could it imply a person has some quite serious issue such as dissociating or blacking out (that may or may not be a severe mental health problem or a substance use problem)?

Also, when a person is accused of a heinous crime such as this one, do they get quite heavily medicated whilst either on remand in prison or at home in the community? Some psychiatric medications can render a person barely able to function or interact but may well be needed.

I can't begin to imagine what state of mind an innocent person would come to arrive at if accused of this horror.
I doubt that that was the case. The way it was presented to the court gives the impression that she was asked as to why she was searching for specific people.

No legal adviser would suggest that his client say something they believed not to be true, Never, ever.
 
2:21pm

Child F - attempted murder allegation (by method of insulin poisoning)
The prosecution say Child F was marginally the younger of the twins, and he required some resuscitation at birth and later intubated, ventilated and given a medicine to help his lungs.

 
2:22pm

He was recorded as having 'high blood sugar' so was prescribed 'a tiny dose of insulin'.
He had his breathing tube removed and was given some breathing support.
Child F had small amounts of breast milk and given fluid nutrients via a long line.

 
2:24pm

If it is known in advance that a baby cannot have milk and needs to be fed fluids then the TPN bag is prepared by the Aseptic Pharmacy Unit (APU) at the CoCH on receipt of a prescription.
The pharmacy bag is delivered back to the ward and is bespoke, prepared for an individual patient.
"If, for whatever reason, there is no need for a TPN bag, there are a couple of stock bags...kept in reserve."

 
Yikes. Even when they suspect murder? Shouldn't they then have least suspended her on full pay - surely a salary is a small price to pay for multiple babies lives - and not let her stay on the ward? Even as a paper pusher which I believe they did at one point. I don't know, it feels a little like failure of duty of care, unless there were people on staff who were in her corner and defending her to whoever makes those decisions - something I'd really be interested in finding out.
I'm not clear on when she stopped working on the ward in a clinical capacity completely. We know she did an admin role for a bit (in 2016) and then it seems she was suspended at some point before or after police investigation? The time when they moved her from night shift to day shift, I don't know if that was intentional or just part of her normal shift plan. If it was intentional because they had doubts about malice, I agree it was irresponsible to not move her out completely.

But they wouldn't have been able to suspend her until a review found the deaths deliberate, and her involvement was being investigated.


MOO
 
2:27pm

"As a matter of practice", insulin is "never" added to a TPN bag.
Insulin is "given via its own infusion, usually in a syringe which delivers an automatic dose over a period of time".
The prosecution adds insulin is not added to a TPN bag as it would "stick to the plastic - or bind" to the bag, making it difficult to accurately give a reliable dose.

 
2:28pm

Early on August 4, Child E had died. Later that day, the pharmacy received a prescription for a TPN bag for Child F, the twin brother.
A confirmation document was printed, at 12.32pm, for Child F. The pharmacist produced a handwritten correction to say it was to be used within 48 hours of 11.30pm that day.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
84
Guests online
1,495
Total visitors
1,579

Forum statistics

Threads
605,983
Messages
18,196,367
Members
233,685
Latest member
momster0734
Back
Top