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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tortoise said:
No one knew about the bleeding event at 9pm until the mum was interviewed by police. It wasn't in the nursing records. Even Dr Evans didn't know about it. So no one would have been questioned about any of that until after the mother gave her statement to police.
Click to expand...
IMO, this is why LL said that she was told to omit the 9pm feed, if her notes were written retrospectively then she would have remembered E’s mum visiting and witnessing the blood, so she added in the bit about omitting the 9pm feed so there would be no need for E’s mum to visit the unit at that time, making it look like the 9pm visit never happened. But for all mum knew E needed feeding at 9pm, unless she went there she wouldn’t have known about the 9pm feed not happening anymore. So she must have gone there to either witness what she saw or be told the 9pm feed was omitted. So either LL saw her at 9pm and told her to leave. Or another member of staff told her the 9pm feed was omitted - even though no other member of staff knew about this. The only person who says the 9pm feed was omitted is LL, so the only member of staff who could have told E’s mum this is LL. Meaning that E’s mum must have come into contact with LL around the time of the 9pm feed. Otherwise they want us to believe that the mum of a newborn baby in neonatal decided to not take milk down to her baby when he was due a feed.

Am I getting this right? I’m kind of confused!

It’s LL vs the mum and I know who I believe.
 
Tortoise said:
"Entry to the neonatal unit was controlled through locked doors. One from the public entrance side, the other from the maternity/labour side.
Swipe cards would be used by staff to gain access to the neonatal unit, and their dates and times would be recorded.

12:17pm

Times when this would not record someone would be:
a) when person A swipes to open the door, and person B also enters at the same time
b) from inside the hospital via a push-button to open the door
c) via the buzz system of gaining entry - pressing a buzzer and a member of staff would provide entry for individuals
The system of entry is 'commonplace', the court hears."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, October 14
Click to expand...
Yeh it says record someone but not if the doors were operated At all. I just think if the prosecution had something to prove mum was there even the door opening near nine would be all it takes. Even if she did walk in with someone I would have thought they would present that data.

do we know when the mom was interviewed by police?
 
WaxLyrical said:
She wasn’t working the night shift of the 14th, she worked the day shifts of the 14th and 15th, neither of which appear on this chart. She wasn’t working the night of the 14th, where the baby suffered several desaturations, and for some reason she’s listed on this chart as working that shift, presumably because she turned up to have a chat with JJK prior to handover.

I cannot see how this would be considered working in her favour.
Click to expand...
You said

WaxLyrical said:
The chart doesn’t paint a full picture, which makes it less helpful that it could be. For example, Baby N had several desaturations on the shift prior to the second alleged attack, when LL wasn’t working, but that won’t appear on the chart as it only includes the shifts of LL’s alleged attacks.
Click to expand...

She arrived before handover from the night shift, and is alleged to have attacked baby N at that time. The night-shift staff are on that chart.

Increasing the pool of staff other than LL who could have been implicated is working in LL's favour.
 
Previous recent posters have suggested that LL may have had what might be called "delusions of grandeur", wanting to be and thinking she was some sort of "supernurse". Expecting praise and acclaim, and disappointed when that turned out to be a little underwhelming. And being too immature to shrug it off. Perhaps her personality had other negative elements too, and eventually everything combined to form a perfect storm. If guilty, of course.
 
"In May 2015 there was a course for medicine administration via a bolus at the hospital, where - under supervision from a doctor - nurses would be able to administer medication via a long line.
She said it was "different", and a "lot more risk", and said she was "competent" having done that training."

I really want to know how many other nurses took this course at the same time as LL and who taught the course. I’m very interested in what the defence do with this information. To me, it seems like an open goal the prosecution has potentially set up in relation to the air embolism cases.

On the one hand, you could argue that if guilty , this course was what taught LL how to give AE to harm babies (if guilty), as the first charge is very soon after this course.

But on the other hand , if you are the defence , you have a host of nurses (TBC how many) who are suddenly performing a new task on patients where that task has the potential to cause air embolism if done incorrectly. Seems ripe territory for an argument that the reason the AE cases started in June 2015 was because you had a load of ‘green’ nurses (in relation to the administration of the bolus ) performing tasks they didn’t use to.

I also wonder whether the defence is going to tie this in to the general concerns regarding the standard of care at the COCH at the time . I find it interesting that the stillbirth rate for COCH was also very high during the same period of LL’s alleged crimes. The high stillbirth rate could perhaps be used by the defence to support an argument that poor care is behind these collapses (ie the poor level of prenatal care/ care at delivery is what caused the stillbirth rate to skyrocket and that poor level of care is also responsible for the cases where LL is charged (with the exclusion of the insulin cases, unless the defence is going to throw a curve ball and argue that someone other than LL may have been so bad at their job that they accidentally injected insulin into the bags).

Just pure speculation on my part as to what the defence may do. But we will no doubt find out for sure in the next couple of weeks.
 
Sweeper2000 said:
Yeh it says record someone but not if the doors were operated At all. I just think if the prosecution had something to prove mum was there even the door opening near nine would be all it takes. Even if she did walk in with someone I would have thought they would present that data.

do we know when the mom was interviewed by police?
Click to expand...
The thing is, even if the door was opened at 9pm there’s no way of telling who was let in. It’s not even slightly circumstantial evidence that a door opened near 9pm. It could have been anyone coming on to the unit.

Baby E’s mum has a phone call to her husband at 9.11pm in which she was very upset about the blood and screaming. They then both visited at 10pm (i think both mum and dad but maybe just mum). There is also evidence of LL saying the 9pm feed was omitted when no one else was aware of this, not even the doctor she says told her to omit it. If mum came on the unit around 9pm and was on the phone to her husband upset and worried by 9.11pm that gives a very short window that she was actually on the unit for. Not long enough to even have a cuddle with her baby or tend to any cares IMO. It does however give enough time for her to see blood, screaming, ask LL what is wrong and be told to leave, ‘trust me I’m a nurse’.
 
Tortoise said:
You said



She arrived before handover from the night shift, and is alleged to have attacked baby N at that time. The night-shift staff are on that chart.

Increasing the pool of staff other than LL who could have been implicated is working in LL's favour.
Click to expand...
Does it also include all the staff who worked the day shift of the 15th?
 
Blondiexoxo said:
The thing is, even if the door was opened at 9pm there’s no way of telling who was let in. It’s not even slightly circumstantial evidence that a door opened near 9pm. It could have been anyone coming on to the unit.

Baby E’s mum has a phone call to her husband at 9.11pm in which she was very upset about the blood and screaming. They then both visited at 10pm (i think both mum and dad but maybe just mum). There is also evidence of LL saying the 9pm feed was omitted when no one else was aware of this, not even the doctor she says told her to omit it. If mum came on the unit around 9pm and was on the phone to her husband upset and worried by 9.11pm that gives a very short window that she was actually on the unit for. Not long enough to even have a cuddle with her baby or tend to any cares IMO. It does however give enough time for her to see blood, screaming, ask LL what is wrong and be told to leave, ‘trust me I’m a nurse’.
Click to expand...
I don’t think would matter. Anything that corroborates the moms testimony on top of the phone record.

I was wondering about the alleged mucky bile stained aspirate ll recorded. Would that take more than one signature when obtained or discarded of?
 
GoodDayToYouSir said:
"In May 2015 there was a course for medicine administration via a bolus at the hospital, where - under supervision from a doctor - nurses would be able to administer medication via a long line.
She said it was "different", and a "lot more risk", and said she was "competent" having done that training."

I really want to know how many other nurses took this course at the same time as LL and who taught the course. I’m very interested in what the defence do with this information. To me, it seems like an open goal the prosecution has potentially set up in relation to the air embolism cases.

On the one hand, you could argue that if guilty , this course was what taught LL how to give AE to harm babies (if guilty), as the first charge is very soon after this course.

But on the other hand , if you are the defence , you have a host of nurses (TBC how many) who are suddenly performing a new task on patients where that task has the potential to cause air embolism if done incorrectly. Seems ripe territory for an argument that the reason the AE cases started in June 2015 was because you had a load of ‘green’ nurses (in relation to the administration of the bolus ) performing tasks they didn’t use to.

I also wonder whether the defence is going to tie this in to the general concerns regarding the standard of care at the COCH at the time . I find it interesting that the stillbirth rate for COCH was also very high during the same period of LL’s alleged crimes. The high stillbirth rate could perhaps be used by the defence to support an argument that poor care is behind these collapses (ie the poor level of prenatal care/ care at delivery is what caused the stillbirth rate to skyrocket and that poor level of care is also responsible for the cases where LL is charged (with the exclusion of the insulin cases, unless the defence is going to throw a curve ball and argue that someone other than LL may have been so bad at their job that they accidentally injected insulin into the bags).

Just pure speculation on my part as to what the defence may do. But we will no doubt find out for sure in the next couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

Was this course definitely for giving drugs by bolus? I'd like to know if anybody went on to perform this procedure at all. It seems odd to me as long lines are treated as sterile, so you don't break the line unless it's unavoidable to reduce the risk of infection. I only ever saw it done when it was impossible to get peripheral access. It's slso difficult because hou can't flush infusions like TPN.
 
Last edited:
WaxLyrical said:
Does it also include all the staff who worked the day shift of the 15th?
Click to expand...
We haven't been given the names of the nurses who worked that day. I can't see why they would be excluded since the allegations relate to the night-shift prior and to the day shift.

Crap reporting

Jury are currently being read statements of agreed evidence from doctors and nurses who worked 15 June. They're in relation to the treatment of Child N, who crashed several times that day

A nurse, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said in her statement that she remembers being 'shocked' at Child N's deterioration that day. She said that he was previously stable and ready to go home that day

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue
 
mummyshark said:
I get your point, but they didn't ask her how many shredders she had. In fact, I don't think they asked her if she had a shredder, she voluntarily said she didn't have one.

It was said in evidence that they identified the documents that had been shredded - bank statements - I'd be interested to know the dates of these statements. Equally, I'd like to know if the shredder box which had some handover notes in it was the box for the same shredder.
Click to expand...
I too would be interested in the date these bank statements were shredded. She said when asked about this it was an oversight and she had recently acquired one (I believe), given the box was at her parents in a wardrobe/cupboard; if this is the same box for that shredder- did her parents give it her?

On a separate note, last week when discussing the aspirate of baby E (I believe) she reported 14ml but nurse Oakley had said it was 15ml. When questioned about this ll then said it should have been 15ml and was an oversight on her behalf.

Its possible the second point “could” be an “oversight” (if anyone can confirm the link/exact words), but there appears to be a lot of strange “oversights” in this case: like taking home dozens of medical information and it can’t be helped be question how truthful she actually is.

JMO
 
marynnu said:
Was this course definitely for giving drugs by bolus? I'd like to know if anybody went on to perform this procedure at all. It seems odd to me as long lines are treated as sterile, so you don't break the line unless it's unavoidable to reduce the risk of infection. I only ever saw it done when it was impossible to get peripheral access. It's slso difficult because hou can't flush infusions like TPN.
Click to expand...
Based on the quote I posted, yes it was for giving drugs by bolus.

But no idea whether it was ever actually performed
 
Observe_dont_Absorb said:
I hadn't seen this, that's pretty damning indeed :(

What if LL is the one who is straight up incompetent and makes a lot of mistakes?

Then her note is a form of berating herself for not being good enough and acknowledging her failings have caused deaths and that this must be because she is evil?

We keep hearing she was a 'good' nurse but she wasn't was she? I appreciate the 'good nurse' concept is in order to ensure that there is no doubt she set out to cause harm intentionally but maybe she's a completely bumbling fool when she's distracted or tired or didn't eat properly or such?
Click to expand...
It’s difficult to get one’s head around it and for me it makes one realise why the consultants were shocked or apprehensive, the “not nice Lucy” comments. This is weird too when she referred to herself as “serious lucy” with her hair in a bun etc.

But i also feel, how could she be a bumbling fool as you describe; when dr choc and another nurse had said how “fab” she was, her reply “thanks for letting me do it”, and dr choc several times saying how calm she was at resus etc and recommending she apply for the advanced practioner role. None of it really makes a lot of sense.

JMO if guilty etc
 
Sundial said:
I too would be interested in the date these bank statements were shredded. She said when asked about this it was an oversight and she had recently acquired one (I believe), given the box was at her parents in a wardrobe/cupboard; if this is the same box for that shredder- did her parents give it her?

On a separate note, last week when discussing the aspirate of baby E (I believe) she reported 14ml but nurse Oakley had said it was 15ml. When questioned about this ll then said it should have been 15ml and was an oversight on her behalf.

Its possible the second point “could” be an “oversight” (if anyone can confirm the link/exact words), but there appears to be a lot of strange “oversights” in this case: like taking home dozens of medical information and it can’t be helped be question how truthful she actually is.

JMO
Click to expand...
I don’t think the difference in the ml reported in the notes makes even a slight bit of difference. Clinically or in testimony but it’s a extremely valid point about how truthful she is. She did say the shredder thing was an oversight, in other words “part of the furniture“ ie completely unremarkable and forgettable.
 
Sundial said:
Its possible the second point “could” be an “oversight” (if anyone can confirm the link/exact words), but there appears to be a lot of strange “oversights” in this case: like taking home dozens of medical information and it can’t be helped be question how truthful she actually is.

JMO
Click to expand...
With reference to the hand-over sheets she had. Whether she's guilty or not, I don't believe her when she says they were an oversight, taken home unintentionally or that they were of "no importance" to her or however she refers to them.

She clearly has them for a reason and isn't saying what that is. They are obviously important to her. That doesn't, however, automatically translate into them being evidence against her of the crimes for which she's charged. At least not in my mind.

I don't know why she has them. I'm certainly no expert but I just get the feeling that this is some form of compulsion rather than trophy gathering or planning victims. I'm not even sure that she knows herself why she does it or why they are important to her.

It's all deeply strange.

MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 54 more.
Total: 2,439 (members: 55, guests: 2,384)

Online statistics

Members online
55
Guests online
2,384
Total visitors
2,439
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,663
Messages
18,144,693
Members
231,476
Latest member
ceciliaesquivel2000@yahoo
Back
Top