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

[Sundial]

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.

It’s really quite strange imo;
I read that ll had said the SHO told them to omit the feed at 9pm and he was/going to speak to the parents.
Yet on the stand ll then said she couldn’t recall who had said to omit that feed. When the SHO was asked in police interviews, there was a report where he said he couldn’t remember saying this or speaking to the parents. It seems no-one can confirm her version of events.
JMO

 

[Sundial]

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.

I disagree about the ammount of ml because if it’s an “oversight” here and also an “oversight” with the shredder; it makes you question how many other “oversights” are in her notes and how accurate or believable her records indeed are. Clinically of course it matters; notes should be factual, accurate and wrote as close to (within reason of course) the event as is practically possible.

How can you trust anything she’s saying? We have already heard she wrote notes 4 hours after events, returning to work to write them, incorrect ml of aspirate, we also see there are those who cannot account for her versions written in the medical notes. For me it seems really super dodgy.
IMO if guilty etc

 

[Sundial]

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.

In addition, this shredder thing, she said it was an oversight but had aqquired it fairly recently. I find it a bit odd someone would forget they had one if they had acquired it quite recently imo.

EBM to adjust a typo!

 

[WaxLyrical]

I thought she described the 14ml thing as a typo, not an oversight.

My next question on that would be whether there would be any benefit to understating it. For example, if there’s a requirement for calling a doc immediately if 15ml or above. If not though, then it could well just be a typo..

 

[Sundial]

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

I must say (at least for me), it’s really not looking good at all. Even if she has a compulsion or whatever reason that may be with those notes; applying the other evidence to it such as medical testimony, witness statements from parents and colleagues (baby E who the SHO and nurse Oakley) cannot confirm her version of the 9pm feed/mother as just one example), I find myself really questioning her integrity.

If guilty. IMO

 

[WaxLyrical]

I disagree about the ammount of ml because if it’s an “oversight” here and also an “oversight” with the shredder; it makes you question how many other “oversights” are in her notes and how accurate or believable her records indeed are. Clinically of course it matters; notes should be factual, accurate and wrote as close to (within reason of course) the event as is practically possible.

How can you trust anything she’s saying? We have already heard she wrote notes 4 hours after events, returning to work to write them, incorrect ml of aspirate, we also see there are those who cannot account for her versions written in the medical notes. For me it seems really super dodgy.
IMO if guilty etc

Lots of the notes written by other nurses in this case were written retrospectively, some the next day.

Also, we had an expert witness say the staff were notoriously poor at recording whether NG tubes were in situ for the babies at all, and so in some cases they were just assuming an NG tube was present.

 

[esther43]

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

If it was a compulsion, why not just say so?

 

[Sundial]

Lots of the notes written by other nurses in this case were written retrospectively, some the next day.

Also, we had an expert witness say the staff were notoriously poor at recording whether NG tubes were in situ for the babies at all, and so in some cases they were just assuming an NG tube was present.

Equally; they are not the ones on trial here though.

We could take another nurse and explore, scrutinise and examine they didn’t write notes when they should, but do we hear of them taking lots of patient confidential information home? No, they are not on trial.

We could explore the whole background to dr j and pick it to pieces, but it’s irrelevant as he is not the defendant. I think whilst we can take that into consideration, it is not a trial about or for others. It is only the accused.
JMO

 

[WaxLyrical]

Equally; they are not the ones on trial here though.

We could take another nurse and explore, scrutinise and examine they didn’t write notes when they should, but do we hear of them taking lots of patient confidential information home? No, they are not on trial.

We could explore the whole background to dr j and pick it to pieces, but it’s irrelevant as he is not the defendant. I think whilst we can take that into consideration, it is not a trial about or for others. It is only the accused.
JMO

No my point is it’s normal to write notes retrospectively. They have a job to do that doesn’t involve them logging onto a computer every 5 minutes to type up what’s happening. That’s why they jot the info down on their handover notes and then type them up later.

Eg if they are dealing with parents etc they can’t just go “sorry can you wait there for a while, I need to go type up some notes”.

 

[Sundial]

No my point is it’s normal to write notes retrospectively. They have a job to do that doesn’t involve them logging onto a computer every 5 minutes to type up what’s happening. That’s why they jot the info down on their handover notes and then type them up later.

Eg if they are dealing with parents etc they can’t just go “sorry can you wait there for a while, I need to go type up some notes”.

I’m well aware of that.
My point is the contrast of the accused doing it WITH all the other evidence that has been presented in the case.

 

[Becci]

A good insight here;

Catalogue of failings at hospital probed over mystery baby deaths

Review into Chester hospital had slammed understaffed wards and remote bosses

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk

 

[WaxLyrical]

I’m well aware of that.
My point is the contrast of the accused doing it WITH all the other evidence that has been presented in the case.

Wouldn’t it be more notable if her notes had been meticulous and completed suspiciously on time, compared to the general nurse population. That might suggest she anticipated they might come under a high degree of scrutiny at some point.

But actually, her notes appear to be consistent with how everyone else does their notes.

 

[Becci]

15 mystery deaths so why they all not included on the chart?
I guess ll couldn't have been implicated but it would open the door for others been on more shifts when babies mysteriously died.
BM saying it's a self serving chart is so right imo

 

[marynnu]

A good insight here;

Catalogue of failings at hospital probed over mystery baby deaths

Review into Chester hospital had slammed understaffed wards and remote bosses

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk

This is rather sensationalist, just quoting a few selected negative points from the report. It doesn't have any bearing on the case IMO.

 

[JosieJo]

I think that’s a reasonable security feature but then why no door swipe data or a log that the door was opened a touch before 9? Or human memory if the buzzer when operated isn’t recorded?

Sweeper ..this has been covered In depth..the mum would not see anyone as she would be buzzed in

There is no record of people in and out

A nurse who opens the door at the desk when buzzer goes would just just glance up ..see its a mum in nightie and dressing gown and press the switch...not a chance of remembering who came in when

 

[Marulinka]

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.

IF guilty...i can see the patterns. I can accept it all being intentional. One thing I just cannot comprehend is what the motivation for all the alleged attacks was??? For the love of god I cannot wrap my head around the WHY. I would expect any nurse who gets urges to kill tiny NICU babies in their care to take a step back...to seek therapy...to try and figure out what is wrong with them...? I mean she seemed to be intelligent and perfectly sensible in regular life situations, right?

I wonder what her childhood was like and if there were any tendencies already there.

Of course this is only my speculation and it is applicable only IF the accused is found guilty by the jury...

 

[Sundial]

Wouldn’t it be more notable if her notes had been meticulous and completed suspiciously on time, compared to the general nurse population. That might suggest she anticipated they might come under a high degree of scrutiny at some point.

But actually, her notes appear to be consistent with how everyone else does their notes.

But I wasn’t actually referring to her notes alone. If you look at my post, I was referring to her accuracy in her records and the “oversight” of the aspirate with baby E.
I then referred to her reports of speaking to the SHO in her police report and she said, he was/had spoke to the parents.

On the stand last week she stated she can’t remember quite who spoke to him. The SHO can’t recall that conversation ever happening anyway and the parents also said that didn’t happen.

I’ve also made reference to the “oversight” of the shredder thing. You seem to have taken just one part of the things I have mentioned with their notes that “how everyone else does them” and that wasn’t really the point I was trying to put across. My point was more about whether you could trust what she says based on numerous inaccuracies. There are quite a few inaccuracies with baby Es case.

Even the SHO cannot account for ll version and the mother cannot account for it either. So we take the point with the notes inaccuracy, how she writes up (whether others do this or not), along with the accuracy of the shredder, those who cannot account for her versions- and add that along with the other evidence also heard so far. I can’t help but question her integrity. The accuracy in her notes and when she writes them is not in isolation.

If we were looking soley ONLY how timely a nurse writes notes, sure I would absolutely agree with you. But that wasn’t quite what I was referring to.

 

[Marantz4250b]

If it was a compulsion, why not just say so?

As I say in my post, perhaps there's some psychological reason as to why she can't describe it as that? Maybe she doesn't even realise herself what it is or why she does it?

Perhaps it's some really misguided defence strategy in that she thinks that admitting to any psychological problem or illness is going to be more likely to see her convicted?

I have no idea, and I'm certainly no expert, but her explanations aren't remotely believable to me. I'm not sure that the hoarding of them is necessarily directly linked to these crimes if she is indeed guilty, though.

MOO, obvs.

 

[JosieJo]

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?

No the aspirate does not need 2 signatures

 

[marynnu]

Just catching up from Friday evening as I took the weekend off from WS.

Something that is still really getting my back up is the insinuation that the mother of baby E and F is remembering things incorrectly.

I have had 2 babies in NICU, my eldest 14 years ago, there are things that happened during the time she was in there that I can recall clearly even now 14 years later. They were the first days of my daughters life and even though I’d had a c section, was tired, emotional, overwhelmed and in pain I can remember with such clarity it’s asif it happened yesterday.

My youngest was born at 35 weeks, 6 years ago now. She was in NICU for 2 weeks. When I think back I can picture the room, the layout of where everything was, I can see one of the nurses in my mind and if I saw her I’d recognise her. I will never ever forget them trying to put a cannula in her the day she was born, we were asked to wait outside and the sound of her screaming ignited my mother’s instinct like nothing I had ever felt before. I needed to get to my baby, she was in pain. They kept trying for what felt like an eternity, I was sobbing because I was having to ignore my instinct to rush in and grab my baby from them. It is a traumatic memory that I remember so well I could tell you exactly where my daughter was. I could also recall which bed my eldest daughter was in 14 years ago.

For LL to insinuate that the mother of baby E isn’t remembering correctly is so insulting I just can’t believe she would have the gall to get up there and accuse a grieving mother of lying. One of the only memories Baby E’s mum has is of her baby bleeding and screaming hysterically. When she says he was screaming I believe her. A mother knows the difference between ‘unsettled’ and hysterical.

I understand LL wanting to answer the accusations against her. But as she has said her memory isn’t good, she can’t recall many things, and I expect we are going to hear a lot more ‘I don’t remember’ while she is on the stand. IMO Baby E’s mum knows what she saw and heard, she knows what was said to her.

She has no reason to make it up, to ‘help a conviction’ as someone has theorised. If your baby passes away you would much rather believe it was down to an illness and that nothing more could have been done to save them, than believe that someone intentionally harmed your child, and that if not for them your baby would be thriving and alive right now. When you’ve already grieved for a baby thinking they died unexpectedly but not suspiciously. To get a phone call and be told that your baby may have been murdered must be horrific and it would be the natural response to think ‘not my baby, maybe someone else’s but not mine’ if anything you would try and convince yourself they’ve got it wrong and your baby wasn’t the victim of foul play because it would bring on a whole lot of anger and another grieving process that you do not want to go through. You would be relieved to hear that the investigation is closed and that there was no foul play, but to have to hear all of this evidence in court, why would any grieving parent want to go through that?

That’s another reason why I believe baby E’s mums statement, why would you want to believe that your baby was murdered as opposed to passing away from some other cause and that doctors did all they could to save them?

All IMO anyway.

Thanks for sharing your experience. I can only imagine what it was like for you when your baby had the cannulla inserted.
I agree that this mom would have known the difference between just crying and horrendous screaming. In addition, at this point these twins would only have been 30+2 days' gestation I believe. Babies born so early barely cry, never mind scream. JMO