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

[Music2022]

She told her friend she wanted “to see a living baby in the space that had previously been occupied by a dead baby”, the jury of eight women and four men was told.

Although she was supposed to be caring for a baby in another room, Letby allegedly entered the room of a four-day-old boy and injected him with air through a nasogastric line to his stomach.

As fellow nurses failed to resuscitate the boy, Baby C, she told one colleague: “He’s going,” jurors were told.

Johnson said Letby searched for Baby C’s parents on Facebook hours after his death, adding:

“The timing may suggest that it was one of the first things she did when she woke up.”

Mother walked in on nurse Lucy Letby trying to kill baby, court told

Defendant accused of murdering seven babies allegedly said ‘trust me, I’m a nurse’ when interrupted

www.theguardian.com

This whole thing of needing to perform a psychological ritual of seeing a living baby in that room for her own wellbeing is creeping me out. She should’ve been working looking after another child. If she needed support with the trauma she had other ways to seek help. It sounds off to me, sounds like an excuse to be in that room.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

But wasn't Rebecca Leighton charged and remanded to custody and then CPS dropped the charges later saying it was no longer appropriate to continue the case against her. And then 3 years later charged and convicted someone else? So it is possible that a defence could work to get charges dropped before the trial or the CPS can drop it if new evidence is provided to make the original charges seem unreasonable. I guess if there was a smoking gun from the Defence, that would have already happened to get charges dropped or a new line of investigation opened. It's likely their evidence isn't anything dramatic - just creating enough doubt in the prosecution's case. And a good defence lawyer can do that with very little.

I thought I'd made it reasonably clear that it is after the point of charge that the judicial process starts....I may have been making assumptions...apologies.

Generally a few weeks after charge the defence will receive full disclosure of the prosecution evidence, including any material obtained during the course of the investigation that undermines the prosecution case or supports the defence case. This is an ongoing process as the police may still be be conducting enquiries.

During this, as we know, often lengthy period the defence will likely instruct their own medical experts, who may have a different opinion from that of the defence.

There will be dialogue between the CPS and the defence solicitors which may ultimately result in alternative charges and charges being dropped etc.

During this stage the defence will also submit their statement to the CPS, after they have reviewed the prosecutions evidence.

The defence statement sets out the basis of how the defence will contest the prosecution case.

 

[annpats]

She does seem overly invested/obsessed in these children and their families...

Yes, I think with one or two of the children she looked up their parents online every month for about 7 months.

And one time she did it on Christmas day!

The Christmas day thing is bothersome and it really is a time to be spending with your family and indulging in food, drink and festivities. The fact she was indulging her obsessions on that day, makes me think there are signs of at least one psychiatric disorder.

I also question what her family life was like as being an only child.

Did she feel neglected and crave friends and attention from others?

Did she find if difficult to get to know people so used the internet to feel closer to acquaintances...?

I do get the feeling she's lived a very isolated life.

MOO.

 

[merrypason]

I thought I'd made it reasonably clear that it is after the point of charge that the judicial process starts....maybe not?

Generally a few weeks after charge the defence will receive full disclosure of the prosecution evidence, including any material obtained during the course of the investigation that undermines the prosecution case or supports the defence case.

During this, as we know, often lengthy period the defence will likely instruct their own medical experts, who may have a different opinion from that of the defence.

There will be dialogue between the CPS and the defence solicitors which may ultimately result in alternative charges and charges being dropped etc.

During this stage the defence will also submit their statement to the CPS, after they have reviewed the prosecutions evidence.

The defence statement sets out the basis of how the defence will contest the prosecution case.

Yes, I know this (my partner is in CID). I was just saying that even during the judicial process, the charges can be dropped/amended by CPS after dialogue with the Defence, before it gets to trial So to anyone who thinks there will be a surprising smoking gun revealed at the trial by the Defence, this is unlikely. And that if there were alternative theories, lines of investigation, evidence etc that were strong enough to sway the CPS to drop or change the charges, they could have been disclosed previously. This will be a far more subtle 'who and what is more believable' contest.

 

[annpats]

This whole thing of needing to perform a psychological ritual of seeing a living baby in that room for her own wellbeing is creeping me out. She should’ve been working looking after another child. If she needed support with the trauma she had other ways to seek help. It sounds off to me, sounds like an excuse to be in that room.

Yes. But I don't know what other excuse could she have given for being in a room where she wasn't supposed to be, looking at a baby she wasn't rostered to care for?

Although in saying this makes it sound like it was a positive thing, "seeing a living child after a deceased one had been there", but that in itself should've been an alarm bell as it sounds like a seeing deceased baby was starting to affect her.

A neo-natal nurse (or any nurse!) will see deceased and living people all the time. They come and go in a hospital, like a revolving door.

I'll be interested to hear what else she says about things she did on the baby unit.....

 

[Marantz4250b]

Seems to me a slightly autistic way that someone might try to deal with their own trauma from being involved in each drama. I can see myself behaving exactly like that. Yes, it is a pattern of behaviour, and obviously it is "not done". But I don't see it helps to prove guilt. It does help to prove to the jury that LL is a bit odd person, and hence it will help them believe she could have done those terrible things.

I'm absolutely no expert but it does sound a bit like that.

I can only imagine the stories journalists would make up about me if they saw my internet history, pictures and comments about my job! I'm not saying this is the case for LL, but as someone mentioned here about possible autism or OCD, I have OCD and when not doing well, I will search the same things over and over again in a sort of obsessive routine that I can't beat. I won't even be reading what I'm searching or taking in any information on the webpage (so if you asked me when I searched it, what I read on that day, I wouldn't remember) but it's just part of a ritual that I cannot break.

When I worked in care, it wasn't professional I know but sometimes we'd text each other a heads up like "K is in a bad mood", "K has had bad news today", just so we could prepare the staff on next shift. We had a really fast paced job, and whilst we had notes to write up, you often got in and the client would be waiting for you so they could go to the toilet etc and you didn't always get a chance to read the notes before starting. At least if you knew the client was in a bad mood, you knew to be quieter when you got on shift, and that would avoid upsetting the client and having a hard shift.

Similar thoughts have crossed my mind about my own life; it's wildly off topic so I'll not go on too much but my life is to a degree somewhat unconventional and I have a job which is quite our of the norm. If a major crime were committed round these parts which happened to overlap in some way with my life it wouldn't take much for the press to concoct a wildly disparaging picture of me.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I wonder what the exact words were. Did he say it’s the only possible explanation for those blood results, or it was a possible explanation. I don’t think he would say “only” if he knew there were other scenarios to cause it as that would hurt his credibility. Difficult to form an opinion without knowing the exact wording.

Didn't the prosecution use the phrase "consistent with" or similar? That's a very long way from saying something definitely happened in that manner.

 

[Marantz4250b]

To me it shows consciousness of guilt that she claimed she didn't remember. She looked through the SM of grieving parents repeatedly for two months and forgot?

Or, if you're a bit autistic or OCD and can't help doing these things then you might just say you don't remember as the real reason makes you look like a bit of a weirdo?

What was the specific question she was asked? I think it was "Do you remember searching these names?". It may have been subtly different such as, "why did you search these names?". In the latter case an "I don't remember" answer may be the truthful answer if you suffer from the above conditions.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Yes, I know this (my partner is in CID). I was just saying that even during the judicial process, the charges can be dropped/amended by CPS after dialogue with the Defence, before it gets to trial So to anyone who thinks there will be a surprising smoking gun revealed at the trial by the Defence, this is unlikely. And that if there were alternative theories, lines of investigation, evidence etc that were strong enough to sway the CPS to drop or change the charges, they could have been disclosed previously. This will be a far more subtle 'who and what is more believable' contest.

There are so many elements to this case, not least it's very nature, complexity and degree of public interest that make it unwise to make such an assessment at this stage.

One charge has previously been dropped, although the CPS must have felt it reached the threshold originally. Maybe some or all of the remaining charges didn't fly over the bar, but stumbled!

This prosecutions angle of attack is to say that in a few instances the medical evidence for death/collapse makes a determination of unnatural causes and shows that LL must be responsible. They then use circumstantial evidence of like circumstances to make the case that LL is responsible for those also.

This is one of those controversial cases where statistics are featuring again, if not in the court yet, but certainly outside. It may be that they come into play in the defence case and that is where it could get even more compelling.

Ultimately, all anyone can ask for is the right decision. Although both will have significant fall-out afterwards.

 

[Music2022]

Didn't the prosecution use the phrase "consistent with" or similar? That's a very long way from saying something definitely happened in that manner.

I think one of the sources used more definite phrases “must have” “only conclusion”. It makes them sound very certain like there’s no other explanation for the blood works?

“The 5.56pm sample recorded a "very high insulin measurement of 4,657".
Child F's hormone level of C-peptide was very low - less than 169.
The combination of the two levels, the prosecution say, means someone must have "been given or taken synthetic insulin" - "the only conclusion".

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Yes. But I don't know what other excuse could she have given for being in a room where she wasn't supposed to be, looking at a baby she wasn't rostered to care for?

Although in saying this makes it sound like it was a positive thing, "seeing a living child after a deceased one had been there", but that in itself should've been an alarm bell as it sounds like a seeing deceased baby was starting to affect her.

A neo-natal nurse (or any nurse!) will see deceased and living people all the time. They come and go in a hospital, like a revolving door.

I'll be interested to hear what else she says about things she did on the baby unit.....

Bearing in mind what we are hearing is the Crowns opening statement, which comes with all the noise and action in the opening scene of a Bond movie. It's there to grab the juries attention and give Mr Johnson KC an early lead.

There is an awful long way to go and there will be many revelations and challenges before we have a real feel of which way it is likely to go.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I've returned for some sanity here.

Just got sucked into an argument with someone on FB who doesn't understand the difference between an opening argument and actual evidence.

If NICU training is anything like the additional clinical skills I've completed, it's individual study days followed by a certain number of observed practice skills, then you're signed off to work independently.

The level of ignorance, prejudice and hatred displayed on places like FB are staggering, quite honestly. I don't know what it is but I think that lots people seem to think they're on some sort of game show that you win by making the most ignorant, bigoted or plainly undereducated comments.

My FB spent many months switched off recently, I think it's going that way again, quite honestly!

 

[amayla]

I feel like if I had a patient die on my watch I would likely google the family from time to time. It doesn’t stand out as weird to me. I can only imagine what people would think about my searching history.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

To me it shows consciousness of guilt that she claimed she didn't remember. She looked through the SM of grieving parents repeatedly for two months and forgot?

That's one of a number of possible reasons.

If LL takes the stand after hearing the evidence against her in court, she may offer a more open answer.

Although, the judge may instruct the jury that they may draw an inference as to its reliability, as she had failed to mention the reason before.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I agree, and you've put it very well.

I think that a lot of responses come from a feeling of "I wouldn't have done that, therefore it's weird/sinister/creepy/suspicious." But people aren't clones of each other, and we all react in our own various ways.
We also need to use our imagination and try to understand how people may behave differently when stressed or anxious.

These are very good points. It's very easy to paint someone as weird, unusual or potentially even dangerous if their life doesn't accord with what society in general considers to be "normal" or, in many people's case, like them and their lives. If someone is already in the frame for doing something nefarious then it's extremely easy to identify and highlight the parts of their lives which don't meet with the "norm" and amplify them into something they aren't.

Publications like the Daily Mail profit handsomely from that sort of stuff and are very good at painting pictures in people's minds which, although they may be constructed heavily of "facts" those facts are presented in such a way as to give whatever sensational picture they decide to paint. The headlines in the stories linked to only a few posts back being a case in point.

What the gullible always fail to spot though is that there are things in everyone's life, theirs included, which don't accord with what is considered "normal" and if someone wants to exploit them to make you look bad then they will.

 

[PoirotPink]

Didn't the prosecution use the phrase "consistent with" or similar? That's a very long way from saying something definitely happened in that manner.

I would use the word "consistent" in order to ensure the evidence being put before the jury was factually accurate and not at risk of misleading in any way. IMO, this is a perfectly acceptable turn of phrase to hear during legal proceedings and, to me, it does not imply that the person who uses the phrase is unsure about the assertion they're making.

Perhaps, in cases like these, there are other things that could technically have caused the same issues to occur (faulty equipment etc.). But all of that would have been thoroughly investigated prior to any suspicions of foul play, and long before the police got involved. For the case to have reached the point that member of staff was suspected, it is implied that all other causes had definitively been ruled out by medics at the hospital.

 

[PoirotPink]

I have to say, when I read about this case on Monday, my view was leaning towards circumstantial evidence and coincidence. Unfortunately, after hearing about some of the details that were released on Tuesday, it does seem that there was foul play by someone, and when you start to look at it like that you have acknowledge the unlikelihood of the same nurse being involved in multiple similar unusual incidents.

Also, someone asked why she wasn't suspended but had been moved to day shifts instead. I believe this might be because night shifts typically have a higher incident rate (because the same level of resources / expertise are not available). So when she was moved to the day shifts, it's possible that they were still trying to figure out what had gone wrong during the night shift incidents and had put this down to resourcing? Obviously when the same patterns emerged during the day shift, that was a possibility they had to rule out.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I do get the feeling she's lived a very isolated life.

MOO.

Where do you get that impression from though? Look at her photos - every single one of them features her in social situations around other people. Even the photos with only her in were obviously taken by other people, they weren't selfies. She hardly comes over as some sort of recluse in them either.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I agree, and you've put it very well.

I think that a lot of responses come from a feeling of "I wouldn't have done that, therefore it's weird/sinister/creepy/suspicious." But people aren't clones of each other, and we all react in our own various ways.
We also need to use our imagination and try to understand how people may behave differently when stressed or anxious.

I can completely relate. I dealt with particularly unpleasant suicide in a house.

For years I connected the scene with that particular style of house, which triggered the image each time I saw such a style of house, so I avoided them.

LL couldn't avoid that room in her workplace. She may have had the insight to realise that facing her negative feelings head on was the way to overcome them.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think one of the sources used more definite phrases “must have” “only conclusion”. It makes them sound very certain like there’s no other explanation for the blood works?

“The 5.56pm sample recorded a "very high insulin measurement of 4,657".
Child F's hormone level of C-peptide was very low - less than 169.
The combination of the two levels, the prosecution say, means someone must have "been given or taken synthetic insulin" - "the only conclusion".

The prosecution say. That is not the same as "the prosecution's expert says".

I can't recall the prosecution ever saying (yet) that any of their experts have made such a definite statement.