UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #20

[esther43]

<modsnip - information not presented at trial>

My feeling is that while LL’s involvement is quite possible, immediately after the first babies died, no one suspected homicide, and now the case against her looks circumstantial because mostly, time has passed. Her behavior, notes and things in her house might be indicative of some unhealthy interest, but not iron-clad proof of murder. The most convincing aspect, insulin, is missing the direct connection with LL. ((

<modsnip - information not presented at trial>

<modsnip - response to snipped portions of quoted post>
I can see what you are saying about the insulin case. When first hearing the evidence on this, I thought it was the first case that seemed to be 'built around LL' rather than evidence linking to LL directly. We know the insulin cases were bought later, that they only identified them as a result of the investigation. Therefore the prosecution case relied entirely upon highlighting that LL had the 'means' and the 'opportunity' to initiate foul play.
But for the other cases the sinister picture around LL was grounded in suspicion and this suspicion came from multiple sources, including concerned members of staff, unexplained deaths and really importantly, reviewed pathology.
If a jury convict on even one other baby, they are highly likely to convict on the insulin too I'd have thought because the idea that there was more than one killer on the unit is very remote.
JMO

 

[katydid23]

OK, I don't see that. They're just people. But we're all different aren't we!

I guess it's just the context really. She is testifying at a formal trial, about 2 doctors at the hospital in question. So using their plain old names seems like a demotion of sorts.

I wonder, if she was being asked about which colleagues were supportive of her and will be speaking on her behalf, if she would call them by their first names and strip them of their doctor title?

If I was at the hospital as a new patient, and asked my nurse who was going to be coming to see me about my medication prescriptions, I doubt she'd say " I'll call Steve to come down to see you." Using the formal full name with Doctor at the front gives it more respect and gives me more confidence in their expertise, etc.

 

[Tortoise]

I guess it's just the context really. She is testifying at a formal trial, about 2 doctors at the hospital in question. So using their plain old names seems like a demotion of sorts.

I wonder, if she was being asked about which colleagues were supportive of her and will be speaking on her behalf, if she would call them by their first names and strip them of their doctor title?

If I was at the hospital as a new patient, and asked my nurse who was going to be coming to see me about my medication prescriptions, I doubt she'd say " I'll call Steve to come down to see you." Using the formal full name with Doctor at the front gives it more respect and gives me more confidence in their expertise, etc.

I noticed in her text messages throughout the year that she writes "Dr Gibbs". She refers to the registrars by their first names but not Dr Gibbs, who we know was a consultant.

 

[katydid23]

Wait, I am not sure that is correct. Did LL say it was around 9 pm?

I thought she said it was not at around 9 pm? But I will reread the testimony.

Mr Myers is now asked to look at her police interview in the section of Child E

Police ask about 9pm, which the mother said was when she arrived at the neonatal unit, seeing Child E crying and having blood come out of his mouth.

Letby said this was not the case. She said a 'large vomit of fresh blood' is at 10pm.

She said she was not accepting the mother's statement that blood was in Child E's mouth at 9pm.

Letby said she could not recall what Child E was like when the mother visited, but did not accept blood was present on Child E's mouth.

Letby says she first saw blood at 10pm.

Letby replies: "Not that I can recall, no" and there was "no blood at that point" in response to if she had cleaned up blood from Child E's mouth at 9pm.

She says there was a large mucky aspirate obtained prior to 9pm, but it did not have blood in it.

Letby said she did not ignore a bleed, and nor did any of her colleagues, as there was no bleed at 9pm. She denies failing to record a bleed.

She says when there was a bleed, she escalated it to the registrar.

Letby recalls, from 10pm onwards, the 15ml fresh blood aspirate was "very concerning".

A red line around Child E's abdomen was also displaying, around the umbilical cord area. Letby says that could have been a sign of a bleed in the abdomen.

The note '0036 acute deterioration' is made by Letby.

She tells the court Child E was intubated, was 'actively bleeding', and continued to decline.

Becoming tearful, Letby says Child E was "bleeding from his mouth and his nose".

She says Child E's parents were present for resuscitation.

She denies Child E's deterioration was something she had wanted to happen.

Following Child E's death, Letby says teddy bears were given to Child E and Child F, and on the parents' wishes, a photo was taken of the twins.

Letby says she continued to look after Child F after the night shift.

For Child E, she said she found his death "very traumatic", having not seen that kind of sight before.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, May 5 - defence continues

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

It looks like Meyers and Letby are trying to avoid calling the mother mistaken about the time she visited. They seem to be focusing on the blood, and saying there was no blood before 10 pm, so Mom was mistaken if she thought she saw any blood earlier. [ but they don't seem to be saying Mom was NOT there at 9 pm any more. ]

They have to make that distinction because there was no mention of blood by LL in the observation notes and that would have been crucial to call for a doctor if she had seen him bleeding at 9 pm.

 

[esther43]

I'm not sure LL has said it was around 9pm? That is the whole point at issue with the mother's account.

Her nursing note written up hours after he died said the mother was present at the start of the shift (which would be around 8pm) and again at around 10pm.

Thanks, you're right, no direct reference from LL about being there at 9.00 but also no direct confirmation of it being 8.30 by LL herself.

 

[Dotta]

It looks like Meyers and Letby are trying to avoid calling the mother mistaken about the time she visited. They seem to be focusing on the blood, and saying there was no blood before 10 pm, so Mom was mistaken if she thought she saw any blood earlier. [ but they don't seem to be saying Mom was NOT there at 9 pm any more. ]

They have to make that distinction because there was no mention of blood by LL in the observation notes and that would have been crucial to call for a doctor if she had seen him bleeding at 9 pm.

If this "mental gymnastics" used by Defence was physical one, we would see some barristers doing pirouettes at Olympics

JMO

 

[katydid23]

That is odd. It’s in all the newspapers that she was accused of injecting the children with insulin? massive levels also

Lucy Letby trial: Astonishing level of insulin found in baby, jury told

Lucy Letby is accused of trying to murder a premature twin boy by intentionally giving him insulin.

www.bbc.co.uk

She is accused of attempted murder for two children she is accused of poisoning with insulin. But they both recovered, thank goodness.

 

[Tortoise]

If this "mental gymnastics" used by Defence was physical one, we would see some barristers doing pirouettes at Olympics

JMO

Yes. I think I might stock up on Pretzels for when court resumes on Thursday.

 

[esther43]

If this "mental gymnastics" used by Defence was physical one, we would see some barristers doing pirouettes at Olympics

JMO

Agree, they seem to be steering away from the direct assertion that it was 8.30.

 

[BrownRice]

Yes, we now have nurses who are called Advanced Nurse Practitioners (ANPs). On NNU they're ANNPs of course! They train in their own specialist area, for example A&E, and take on some roles previously done only by doctors. They are very expert in their field and I find them much more reassuring than a doctor just out of training! Our ANNPs would intubate, insert lines, prescribe a limited amount if drugs etc. Invaluable.

To bow down to someone is not literal! It means to treat them as if they are better than you & do as they tell you without question.

In the US, we have Nurse Practitioners as well as Physician Assistants. Both are classified as Advanced Practice Providers and are well-paid. These fields are the future of healthcare. Less expensive training compared to med school and highly desired in the medical field.

 

[Tortoise]

Agree, they seem to be steering away from the direct assertion that it was 8.30.

I haven't seen 8.30 mentioned.

 

[katydid23]

Thanks, you're right, no direct reference from LL about being there at 9.00 but also no direct confirmation of it being 8.30 by LL herself.

HOWEVER, originally she did say mom was mistaken when she said she came to the unit at 9, and LL claimed it was actually a visit to cuddle the baby around 8 or 8:30,<<<< according to LL<

and then later at around 10 she brought the breast milk and may have seen some blood. <<<<according to LL

In her testimony and her cross examination, Mom denied that timeline set forth by Letby.

So in this trial testimony, Meyers and Letby seem to be skirting the issue of the time mom came with the milk, and are just refuting her claim that she saw blood at 9 pm. They seem to be saying, this time around, that IF mom was there around 9 pm, she may have seen aspirated gunk, but not any blood.

I HOPE THE JURORS SEE THE CHANGE IN HER TESTIMONY FROM THE ORIGINAL STATEMENTS TO THIS MODIFIED ONE

 

[esther43]

I haven't seen 8.30 mentioned.

Sorry, I meant 8pm!! Nothing gets past you does it! ?

 

[katydid23]

I haven't seen 8.30 mentioned.

Meyers mentioned it in his cross exam of baby E's mom after her testimony, I believe...

I think he said " I suggest to you that you came for cares closer to 8 or 8:30, then returned later around 10 and saw the blood.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Great to have your perspective! The only notable ' 'bug' that stands out as leading to morbidity in neonates is strep B but I'm confident that this would have been ruled out and also raised in the defence opening if it was a route they were ultimately planning to pursue.
I can see what you are saying about the insulin case. When first hearing the evidence on this, I thought it was the first case that seemed to be 'built around LL' rather than evidence linking to LL directly. We know the insulin cases were bought later, that they only identified them as a result of the investigation. Therefore the prosecution case relied entirely upon highlighting that LL had the 'means' and the 'opportunity' to initiate foul play.
But for the other cases the sinister picture around LL was grounded in suspicion and this suspicion came from multiple sources, including concerned members of staff, unexplained deaths and really importantly, reviewed pathology.
If a jury convict on even one other baby, they are highly likely to convict on the insulin too I'd have thought because the idea that there was more than one killer on the unit is very remote.
JMO

I've been thinking about how to express it but that's very much the way I feel about those cases. They definitely feel to have been "built around" LL, as you say. They just seem totally different and out of context to all the others.

The others are essentially "contact" assaults, where it is alleged that someone has applied "hands-on", physical force in order to do something directly to the victims. The insulin ones are done at a distance. It, to me, seems strange that someone would carry out numerous crimes of one type and then totally change MO for a couple and then switch back again. Not that it's impossible, obviously, but they just seem totally detached from the others.

Also, IMO, they are far too circumstantial. At least in the others LL can be placed right at the scene or very nearby. Yes, I know she hung up the bags (some of them) but so did at least one other nurse. Also, as I said previously, we still don't know, specifically, how many people would have had access to those bags during their life. One other nurse certainly did so how many other people did?

Agreed that it's remarkably remote that there were two people trying to kill patients at the same time (assuming she's guilty) but it's not impossible.

 

[Tortoise]

Meyers mentioned it in his cross exam of baby E's mom after her testimony, I believe...

I think he said " I suggest to you that you came for cares closer to 8 or 8:30, then returned later around 10 and saw the blood.

Ah, I haven't seen that report.

I've seen this timing in cross-exam across all reporting -

"Mr Myers said: “I am suggesting there were three times you went down that evening.
“I am going to suggest you went down about 8pm… then actually it’s nearer to 10pm – rather than 9pm – when you went down with the breast milk. And you then went back again when (Child E) was being resuscitated at about 11pm.
“Do you disagree with that?”
Child E’s mother said: “Absolutely.”
Mother ‘completely trusted’ nurse when she left ‘screaming’ son in her care

 

[Tortoise]

I've been thinking about how to express it but that's very much the way I feel about those cases. They definitely feel to have been "built around" LL, as you say. They just seem totally different and out of context to all the others.

The others are essentially "contact" assaults, where it is alleged that someone has applied "hands-on", physical force in order to do something directly to the victims. The insulin ones are done at a distance. It, to me, seems strange that someone would carry out numerous crimes of one type and then totally change MO for a couple and then switch back again. Not that it's impossible, obviously, but they just seem totally detached from the others.

Also, IMO, they are far too circumstantial. At least in the others LL can be placed right at the scene or very nearby. Yes, I know she hung up the bags (some of them) but so did at least one other nurse. Also, as I said previously, we still don't know, specifically, how many people would have had access to those bags during their life. One other nurse certainly did so how many other people did?

Agreed that it's remarkably remote that there were two people trying to kill patients at the same time (assuming she's guilty) but it's not impossible.

I think the text from her friend that day (right before the shift of baby F's poisoning) saying 'you need a break from it being on your shift' and LL saying quite defensively, 'there's not a lot I can do, it's luck of the draw', is standout.

When there was a repeat with baby L, some eight months later, LL was sent a text the morning after her shift asking if she could do an extra that night and she turned it down, saying she needed the time off. Also quite remarkable, if we consider that the poisoning was intended to continue in her absence.

One can see why these texts were included.

JMO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I said pages ago that I'd like to see more police pics of the shredder; I still wonder whether it hit its duty cycle leading it to shut off for 20 minutes and her to think it was broken and never try to use it again.

I feel quite sure that if LL can understand and use complicated medical procedures and equipment, she's got the hang of shredders.

It would be interesting to have it clarified if it was still functioning.

 

[katydid23]

Ah, I haven't seen that report.

I've seen this timing in cross-exam across all reporting -

"Mr Myers said: “I am suggesting there were three times you went down that evening.
“I am going to suggest you went down about 8pm… then actually it’s nearer to 10pm – rather than 9pm – when you went down with the breast milk. And you then went back again when (Child E) was being resuscitated at about 11pm.
“Do you disagree with that?”
Child E’s mother said: “Absolutely.”
Mother ‘completely trusted’ nurse when she left ‘screaming’ son in her care

I found the testimony that was confusing me [ this is testimony of baby E's mom at trial] :

She said she was still "sore and sensitive" but "over the moon" as her two boys were "perfect".


She said she went up to the post-natal ward to express breast milk and have something to eat, 'between 7pm and 8.30pm'.
She then took the expressed breast milk "straight down" to the neonatal unit where her twins were.

She said she arrived there "a touch before nine o'clock."

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, November 14


[So that's where I got the 8:30 pm from. Nevermind....]

 

[Marantz4250b]

I feel quite sure that if LL can understand and use complicated medical procedures and equipment, she's got the hang of shredders.

It would be interesting to have it clarified if it was still functioning.

I'm educated to degree level, I've run businesses, I'm a firearms dealer and seem to spend at least 50% of my time sorting mechanical issues for people who are sometimes incapable of grasping very simple engineering concepts and I didn't know that shredders did this until mine did it several times! I'm sure I chucked at least one shredder which stopped working in the mistaken belief that it was broken. I'd not at all be surprised if LL's shredder hit it's duty cycle limit and stopped working and she thought it was broken.

Now, I'm not sure if we've had a verbatim report of her actual words in relation to it or whether the "I don't have a shredder" was just paraphrasing by the reporters but it may be some variation on "I don't have a working shredder". We've already had one very badly reported point have an entirely different meaning put to it when the actual words she used were reported accurately, after all.

<modsnip - off topic>