UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #21

[Tortoise]

Indeed, but that’s the only mention of it anywhere. Chester standard was on that day, and bbc were tweeting, and neither made mention of the time period the sheets related to.

I’m just concerned it might be a reporting error in that mail online article, and it would change the landscape of the handover note situation quite a bit if it’s not true.

I don't see any reason to think it's an error, it seems to be a specifically crafted sentence which a reporter is unlikely to make up. It's not unusual in this case for different reporters to note different facts, and the Mail Online being the producers of the podcast always get more information than the other news outlets for text messages too.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Why would you think that someone capable of premeditated murder on this scale wouldn't keep other handover notes? It's not like she could effectively target 100% of babies. She would have to to a little discerning and the handover sheets could have potentially aided that process by serving as an effective tool imo

I find it particularly strange that it seems for a year she was ferrying the handovers of baby b through to baby n with a few exceptions to and from work. As I said i don’t think that’s explainable by coincidence.

there is one exception she found the events remarkable and that was why those particular notes she kept at the front of the line so to speak. that suggestion is weakest weak.

 

[nyvictoria]

I have a "living" shredder
My mini schnautzer (the cutest doggie on the whole planet Earth) is absolutely delighted when he sees a piece of paper lying on the floor!

Nothing can stop him shredding it. He is the happiest then.
View attachment 420372

I have one for those too. Any piece of paper will do.

 

[Tortoise]

Why would you think that someone capable of premeditated murder on this scale wouldn't keep other handover notes? It's not like she could effectively target 100% of babies. She would have to to a little discerning and the handover sheets could have potentially aided that process by serving as an effective tool imo

I agree with this. The handover sheets gave details of the clinical condition of every baby on the unit which is information she might have been interested in.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Agree, she was ambitious and organised. Something very strange about hanging on to those handover notes and people forget how weird keeping them under her bed is. Especially when she had another room dedicated to 'household maintenance'
She ferried these notes back and fourth, she stored some and took others two and fro.
She may have wanted to access them whilst in the work place as well as at home. imo

I don’t think it’s weird she kept them under her bed. This is someone who doesn’t have a barrier between work and play. I’m not sure that’s a good thing atm, who knows may even in fact I think I will say. If she’s guilty it’s probably got something to do with that. There’s “living and breathing work“ but I don’t think people see work as the true defining feature of themselves. that’s not good IMO and that’s not looking good.

 

[Tortoise]

I find it particularly strange that it seems for a year she was ferrying the handovers of baby b through to baby n with a few exceptions to and from work. As I said i don’t think that’s explainable by coincidence.

there is one exception she found the events remarkable and that was why those particular notes she kept at the front of the line so to speak. that suggestion is weakest weak.

Well we don't know if she had the handover sheets in it when she was using it as her work bag.

 

[esther43]

I don’t think it’s weird she kept them under her bed. This is someone who doesn’t have a barrier between work and play. I’m not sure that’s a good thing atm, who knows may even in fact I think I will say. If she’s guilty it’s probably got something to do with that. There’s “living and breathing work“ but I don’t think people see work as the true defining feature of themselves. that’s not good IMO and that’s not looking good.

I keep thinking about sleepovers in my mid 20's. I noted from texts LL was not keen on having friends stay over. Often wondered why, she mentions not having beds but at that age I'd have happily camped on the floor or sofa. Moo

 

[katydid23]

posted by Observe_dont_Absorb

In terms of the statistics

I appreciate it is calculated that LL is the only person that was there for all 22 incidents (allegedly) and the average being 7.

However, this could easily be explained by her being a consistent member of staff day in day out when agency staff or incompetent staff or trainees were passing through and in a high churn / turnover. If the transient staff were making a variety of errors, it would still look like LL is the common denominator. So for me, this argument doesn't work too well.

I disagree that it could easily be explained by incompetent staff. The injuries left behind on the victims were not from accidents. The medical experts diagnosed them as malicious attacks.

There was no transient staff. So cannot blame it on them.

 

[esther43]

Just some points

this point I think is noticeable and I think really damning. The handover sheets in the Morrison’s bag earliest date is Baby b birth june 2015 then through to baby n April 2016. Two months approx off of a year. Also O p q were in the Ibiza bag after just coming back from Ibiza right? Only thing is the Rest of that year’s handovers were in the folder. Also the dates for the babies in the Morrison’s bag are broad and often far between, The only thing that doesn’t make that look like deliberate and selective placement is the other sheets in the Morrison’s bag Not related to charges. I don’t think you can explain that.

Maybe she has a system:
'current babies' (in Ibiza bag)
' recently deceased/ discharged' (under bed)
Long since discharged (shredder box and other locations)
Like a referral system if all 2015-2016 jmo

 

[Sweeper2000]

Maybe she has a system:
'current babies' (in Ibiza bag)
' recently deceased/ discharged' (under bed)
Long since discharged (shredder box and other locations)
Like a referral system if all 2015-2016 jmo

That’s an idea. I’m wondering if there is anything significant about the ones that are missing. obviously baby a is the first, but you have c, d and k missing. Three deaths and baby k.

 

[Dotta]

I have one for those too. Any piece of paper will do.

My Azor sends his love
Bow wow!

 

[marynnu]

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, May 2 - defence begins

"The Morrisons bag had 31 handover notes, 17 relating to babies in the indictment."

The Trial of Lucy Letby: Episode 29, Arrested

...She returned on the 22nd of June and it’s the prosecution’s case that over the next three days she attacked and murdered two of the three triplets and attempted to murder another baby.

Jurors were shown a photo of the Ibiza bag and its contents. Inside were four handover sheets relating to her shifts on these dates and another from a shift on June 28th.

In fact the jury were told that in total 257 shift handover sheets were recovered from Lucy Letby’s home, and that of her parents, by police. Of those, 21 related to 13 of the alleged victims in the case. Four of the babies, babies A, C, D and K did not feature in any of the handover sheets recovered.

--

No handover sheets for babies A,C,D or K, means handover sheets for 13 babies.

21 handover sheets related to the other 13 babies.

Three of the 21 sheets, for three babies O,P & Q, were in the Ibiza bag.

That means 18 of the sheets related to 10 babies, B, E,F,G,H,I,J,L,M,N

17 of those 18 sheets relating to 9 or 10 of the 10 babies [B, E, F, G, H, I, J, L, M, N] were in the Morrisons bag - so 14 sheets in the Morrisons bag were not case-related.

1 sheet relating to a baby in the case was not in the Morrisons or Ibiza bags.

Thanks for this Tortoise. It's exactly what was in my head when I mentioned that the sheets related to the babies in the trial had been 'separated out'. I knew it wasn't 100% precise, but it still feels like that to me.

 

[JosieJo]

Maybe she has a system:
'current babies' (in Ibiza bag)
' recently deceased/ discharged' (under bed)
Long since discharged (shredder box and other locations)
Like a referral system if all 2015-2016 jmo

Yes they definitely seemed organised in a way for her own use

 

[Tortoise]

Yes they definitely seemed organised in a way for her own use

I'm wondering if there is something about the handover sheets we don't know, such as when they say they're not related to babies in the case could they be sheets which include babies in the case but notes written on the back for treatments etc relate to babies not in the case. For instance when she is not the designated nurse for a baby who collapsed, notes on the back being for her actual designated babies.

I'm a bit confused as to why the prosecution highlighted that she was found with the handover sheet for baby B, if she was obviously designated a different baby that night and it was her handover sheet for her designated baby. Did she perhaps pick up baby B's designated nurse's sheet with baby B's notes on the back? Why didn't prosecution make a point of it for all of the babies where handover sheets were in her house?

If that is the case, we might find that the 14 'non-case related' sheets in the Morrisons bag had notes on the back for her designated babies on the shifts she worked where non-designated babies collapsed or died.

The shifts where she was not the designated nurse when a baby collapsed or died, where she would have had other babies allocated to her are

B, C, D, F, G, H, I x 2, J, K, L, M, N x 1 = 13, which would almost account for the 14 sheets said to be non-case-related. From looking at the nursing spreadsheet it looks as if there was a second incident with baby J which is not included in the charges against her, which could account for the 14th.

JMO

 

[esther43]

Dbm

 

[esther43]

Yes, I think there could be info on the back of them, we know for example she already wrote details about child P on who died on 23rd June on a handover note dated 28th June.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I'm wondering if there is something about the handover sheets we don't know, such as when they say they're not related to babies in the case could they be sheets which include babies in the case but notes written on the back for treatments etc relate to babies not in the case. For instance when she is not the designated nurse for a baby who collapsed, notes on the back being for her actual designated babies.

I'm a bit confused as to why the prosecution highlighted that she was found with the handover sheet for baby B, if she was obviously designated a different baby that night and it was her handover sheet for her designated baby. Did she perhaps pick up baby B's designated nurse's sheet with baby B's notes on the back? Why didn't prosecution make a point of it for all of the babies where handover sheets were in her house?

Isn't it the case, though, that the hand-over sheets aren't specific to the nurse and their allocated patients? Rather, they are all identical and list every patient on the ward, their designated nurses and histories, etc and every nurse gets one?

This is something which was influencing my thinking in my previous posts where I was questioning why she actually had them. If they are that general in nature it undermines their supposed significance as trophies or other nefarious reasons for keeping them. If she's simply keeping all of them then the vast majority of names on them would be entirely irrelevant to the charges to begin with. And, if that is the case then even where they do mention the names of the babies in the charges then there is surely little evidential value or pointers towards guilt because she kept them all anyway!

 

[Tortoise]

Isn't it the case, though, that the hand-over sheets aren't specific to the nurse and their allocated patients? Rather, they are all identical and list every patient on the ward, their designated nurses and histories, etc and every nurse gets one?

This is something which was influencing my thinking in my previous posts where I was questioning why she actually had them. If they are that general in nature it undermines their supposed significance as trophies or other nefarious reasons for keeping them. If she's simply keeping all of them then the vast majority of names on them would be entirely irrelevant to the charges to begin with. And, if that is the case then even where they do mention the names of the babies in the charges then there is surely little evidential value or pointers towards guilt because she kept them all anyway!

Yes, but if she had her own handover sheet plus the designated nurse's handover sheet with notes they wrote on the back, in effect taking two home for those shifts, it would indeed be relevant to point out that she had baby B's handover sheet. In the same way she had baby M's paper towel which Mary had made notes on. Perhaps it hasn't come out yet or it's difficult for journos to follow the detail. It's just a suggestion anyway, I don't know how likely it is. I was surprised it matched the number of non-designated incident shifts.

 

[marynnu]

I'm wondering if there is something about the handover sheets we don't know, such as when they say they're not related to babies in the case could they be sheets which include babies in the case but notes written on the back for treatments etc relate to babies not in the case. For instance when she is not the designated nurse for a baby who collapsed, notes on the back being for her actual designated babies.

I'm a bit confused as to why the prosecution highlighted that she was found with the handover sheet for baby B, if she was obviously designated a different baby that night and it was her handover sheet for her designated baby. Did she perhaps pick up baby B's designated nurse's sheet with baby B's notes on the back? Why didn't prosecution make a point of it for all of the babies where handover sheets were in her house?

If that is the case, we might find that the 14 'non-case related' sheets in the Morrisons bag had notes on the back for her designated babies on the shifts she worked where non-designated babies collapsed or died.

The shifts where she was not the designated nurse when a baby collapsed or died, where she would have had other babies allocated to her are

B, C, D, F, G, H, I x 2, J, K, L, M, N x 1 = 13, which would almost account for the 14 sheets said to be non-case-related. From looking at the nursing spreadsheet it looks as if there was a second incident with baby J which is not included in the charges against her, which could account for the 14th.

JMO

I'm a bit confused. I'd forgotten about the specific mention of documents relating to Babies B, M & Q. I thought the handover sheets related to all babies on the unit. So why were these highlighted? Help!

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

What’s ambiguous about that? “Relating to more than 250 shifts she worked between June 2015 and June 2016” to Me that reads all the handover sheets found were within june 2015 to june 2016.

I can see where the confusion lies.

Within the context of the full sentence, it could be misinterpreted to mean that handover documents were not limited to that period of time. The word “including” is not particularly helpful, in terms of clarifying when the handover sheets relate to.

However, for what it’s worth, this report does appear to definitively state that over 250 handover sheets were found which relate to shifts Ms Letby worked between June 2015 and June 2016.

This doesn’t look good from a defence point of view.
How anyone can possibly explain accidentally or mistakenly/unwittingly taking and keeping virtually every handover sheet home for an entire year is baffling.

JMO