UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #23

[Blondiexoxo]

The longer she’s on the stand, the more I’m getting major NPD vibes. I would like to go into this more and explain why I think this but I’m going to carry on taking notes and will do a post once the trial is over.

The falsifying documents and the accusation that she may have been trying to make it appear like babies were declining, if guilty setting it up so when the collapse happened, the records would indicate a gradual decline. When are they alleging she began doing this? Was it around baby H? If guilty, was she becoming more confident around this time to begin experimenting with other methods and thinking more about how to avert suspicion? Only if guilty of course.

All MOO

 

[marynnu]

I did not state that specifically, I am just explaining that nurses are not taught according to the same medical model as doctors, or other members of the immediate medical team.

What is 'the immediate medical team'?

 

[katydid23]

A re-cap of some aspects of baby H's case.


The first alleged attempted murder happened in the early morning hours of 26th Sept, the second in the early morning hours of 27th Sep.


(parts of) electronic evidence -
The sequence goes to the night shift of September 25-26, in which Lucy Letby is listed as a designated nurse in nursery room 1 for Child H. No other babies are in nursery room 1, with four babies (including Child G) in room 2, four in room 3 and four in room 4.

Dr Alison Ventress confirms in a clinical record she was crash called at 3.24am as Child H "had desat requiring bagging...Sats 60s then heart rate down to less than 100 so nurses crash called, wasn't being handled at all, no trigger identified.'

Dr John Gibbs, consultant paediatrician, records he was called from home at 3.30am and arrived at the neonatal unit at 3.36am. He saw 'CPR in progress', [...]

Letby records a Child H family communication at 4.28am: 'Parents visiting at start of shift. Updated on condition and advised to try and rest overnight. Midwife contacted during resus to [help take mum to the unit].'
A follow-up note said parents were concerned about the possibility of brain damage, and Child H remained poorly and could relapse. Dr John Gibbs offered a blessing to be administered and the parents accepted the offer.
Child H was then blessed with parents and family members present.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, January 18

Text messages after [1st] shift at approx 9am [BBM] -

Yvonne Griffiths (deputy manager) to LL: "Hope you have a good sleep. I just want to commend you for all you hard work these last few nights. You composed yourself very well during a stressful situation. It's nice to see your confidence grow as you advance through your career x"

LL messages a colleague, who cannot be named, asking her how she should reply. The conversation alludes to a disagreement among the neonatal unit staff regarding a Christening for one of the babies in the unit.

LL to YG: "Thank you. That's really nice to hear as I gather you are aware of some of the not so positive comments that have been made recently regarding my role which I have found quite upsetting. "Our job is a pleasure to do & just hope I do the best for the babies & their Family. Thank you to you & [another colleague] for your support X".

LL to her colleague: "I'm still frustrated/upset with what's gone on but don't think such rubbish nights & being tired help"

Colleague: "Good reply as it's important they know about the bitchiness which is all it is. Yes re tired..." "Anyway. You're a star. You've done yourself proud. You've given positive memories to the family whatever the outcome. Let's hope they can tease her in a few yrs about her 'attention seeking' ways. Sleep well. Xx "Always a pleasure to work with you even if we're a '[s***] magnet' team".

Lucy Letby: Nurse 'commended' for work during 'stressful situation'


The following nightshift, the night of the second alleged attempted murder of baby H, 26-27, nurse Shelley Tomlins was baby H's designated nurse and LL was allocated to a different nursery but texted a colleague to say she was helping Shelley with H and didn't have the responsibility. After the shift LL texted her mentor colleague and Dr Ventress (who were both on duty for the first collapse) to tell them about the resus just before 1am lasting 7 minutes. Her mentor says there's something odd with H, and LL replies none of them had breaks and it always seems to happen at night when less people, and they then discuss a change of unit, with LL saying she still thinks about the Women's. Dr Ventress asks if they know why it happened this time, and tells LL she's a fab nurse.


(part of) LL's mentor's testimony about the disputes involving LL -

Mr Myers asked the witness: “Was there an issue with Lucy Letby being relatively junior compared to others and some debate about her going into Nursery One to look after more poorly babies?”

“Sometimes, yes,” she replied.

Mr Myers said: “And sometimes a bit of an under-the-surface dispute about that, is that correct?”

The witness said: “Yes.”

Lucy Letby: Medics could find no reason why baby ‘suddenly collapsed’


(parts of) LL's evidence in chief for baby H -

[...]

The second event is being discussed.

[...]

Letby is asked if she had any awareness of any of the events, including at 0055, the event Letby is being blamed for by the prosecution.
Letby: "No."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, May 15 - defence continues

Five handover sheets featured the name of Child H - who we are hearing about currently.
"Why is it that you have a handover sheet for Child H in that bag when police come to your house several years later?" asks Ben Myers KC.
"It's just come back with me from working and inadvertently left in my home," Letby replies.
On the other handover sheets referring to Child H, Letby says they had not been taken out of her pocket at the end of her shift.
"They've come home with me and I've not disposed of them," she says.

[...]

In her response, Letby thanks her colleague and says it was "nice to hear" as she had received "not so nice comments" from other staff about her role, which she found "upsetting".
Asked what she is referring to, the defendant tells the court other colleagues were "not happy" with her looking after babies in the intensive care nursery as she was newly qualified.
"They wanted that experience and we had got that," she says.

Lucy Letby trial as it happened: Letby's Facebook messages shown in court - as lawyer says she 'cooked the records'



(parts of) LL's cross-examination for baby H -

The court hears this was with regard to Letby and colleague Shelley Tomlins being allocated shifts in room 1, over other nurses who needed the experience.
Letby says she cannot recall which nurses, specifically, had been making those comments, but they were band 6 nurses. Letby agrees this message followed events for Child H.
Mr Johnson refers to the staffing rota for September 25-26. Letby says it was not the night staff who were making the comments. Mr Johnson asks if it was the day staff, why did they allocate Child H to Letby? Letby replies the comments had come in recent days prior to this.

[...]
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, May 24 - cross-examination continues

Letby has previously said she was looking after "another severely disabled baby" at the time Child H first collapsed.
But paperwork from the unit shows the severely disabled baby in question was born later in the shift.

Lucy Letby trial as it happened: Letby's Facebook messages shown in court - as lawyer says she 'cooked the records'


(2/2) NJKC: "Were people talking about you being associated with the collapses of lots of children at different times?"
LL: "Not at all"
NJKC: "Was that the negative comments you were talking about?"
LL: "No"
NJKC: "Were people starting to notice (the association)?"
LL: "No"

https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz

[re shift of first collapse -]

Letby says she cannot recall which SHO was on duty that night. Mr Johnson says the SHO on duty was Jessica Scott, and she has not recorded a note saying she was present for this.

[...]

Mr Johnson says Child H's father's statement, which was agreed evidence, did not mention a collapse or an SHO being present.
Letby denies lying.

Dr Alison Ventress records a note for Child H, timed 11.50pm. It begins 'Several episodes of desaturation in past 2 hours...1st one after gas taken...became agitated...'
Mr Johnson says Letby told this information to Dr Ventress.
Letby says she did not know if she told her this information, she may have been present in the room.

[re shift of second collapse -]

At 12.45am on September 27, Letby is recorded as 'liking' a post on Facebook. At 12.46am, she liked a Facebook photo posted by a colleague.
Letby says she may have been on her break at this point.


Recap: Lucy Letby trial, May 25 - cross-examination continues

(parts of) LL's cross-examination for baby H -

The court hears this was with regard to Letby and colleague Shelley Tomlins being allocated shifts in room 1, over other nurses who needed the experience.
Letby says she cannot recall which nurses, specifically, had been making those comments, but they were band 6 nurses. Letby agrees this message followed events for Child H.
Mr Johnson refers to the staffing rota for September 25-26. Letby says it was not the night staff who were making the comments. Mr Johnson asks if it was the day staff, why did they allocate Child H to Letby? Letby replies the comments had come in recent days prior to this.

I am trying to understand this part^^^. Why would band 6 nurses need more experience with poorly babies than LL would, as a band 5?


Mr Johnson says Child H's father's statement, which was agreed evidence, did not mention a collapse or an SHO being present.
Letby denies lying.

That^^^ makes LL look very sketchy. I think the jury will believe the parents of the victims over the defendant. Their memories will be firmly imprinted as they have just one emotional experience in the hospital as opposed to LL's hundreds of routine work experiences

And I don't see a doctor or a SHO leaving a collapse totally out of their work notes. That is not going to happen.



Letby has previously said she was looking after "another severely disabled baby" at the time Child H first collapsed.
But paperwork from the unit shows the severely disabled baby in question was born later in the shift.

I don't think that ^^^lie /inconsistency will be lost on the jury. Dings her credibility for sure, IMO.

 

[marynnu]

Do you mean nursing is not part of medicine?

It's just English terminology, Dotta. Medic=doctor. You'd never say a nurse studies medicine in any way either.

 

[Dotta]

It's just English terminology, Dotta. Medic=doctor. You'd never say a nurse studies medicine in any way either.

Phew!
In earlier thread I called a "doctor" a "medic" and immediately I was jumped on by some poster that medic is "below a doctor" .

Go figure!

OK - LL is medical staff.
Is it OK now?

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

(parts of) LL's cross-examination for baby H -

The court hears this was with regard to Letby and colleague Shelley Tomlins being allocated shifts in room 1, over other nurses who needed the experience.
Letby says she cannot recall which nurses, specifically, had been making those comments, but they were band 6 nurses. Letby agrees this message followed events for Child H.
Mr Johnson refers to the staffing rota for September 25-26. Letby says it was not the night staff who were making the comments. Mr Johnson asks if it was the day staff, why did they allocate Child H to Letby? Letby replies the comments had come in recent days prior to this.

I am trying to understand this part^^^. Why would band 6 nurses need more experience with poorly babies than LL would, as a band 5?


Mr Johnson says Child H's father's statement, which was agreed evidence, did not mention a collapse or an SHO being present.
Letby denies lying.

That^^^ makes LL look very sketchy. I think the jury will believe the parents of the victims over the defendant. Their memories will be firmly imprinted as they have just one emotional experience in the hospital as opposed to LL's hundreds of routine work experiences

And I don't see a doctor or a SHO leaving a collapse totally out of their work notes. That is not going to happen.



Letby has previously said she was looking after "another severely disabled baby" at the time Child H first collapsed.
But paperwork from the unit shows the severely disabled baby in question was born later in the shift.

I don't think that ^^^lie /inconsistency will be lost on the jury. Dings her credibility for sure, IMO.

But the father’s evidence is contradicted by Dr V’s own notes which says she was there and moving the chest drain .

 

[marynnu]

Phew!
In earlier thread I called a "doctor" a "medic" and immediately I was jumped on by some poster that medic is "below a doctor" .

Go figure!

OK - LL is medical staff.
Is it OK now?

No! In the UK medic/medical only refers to doctors. Nurses, physios etc are health care professionals.

 

[Dotta]

No! In the UK medic/medical only refers to doctors. Nurses, physios etc are health care professionals.

It does not change the simple fact that she as a nurse (health care pro) does NOT have to Google how to harm a patient!

Re her "search history" or the lack of it.
JMO

 

[katydid23]

I can’t help but ponder, how a seemingly normal young nurse, who enjoyed socialising, watching strictly and coronation street (i.e., different strokes for different folks ) without any previous red flags indicative of a psychopathology (e.g., a dark triad) throughout her personal life or previous work - has ended up on trial accused of such monstrous crimes.

First of all, we don't know if she had any previous red flags. We have had very little testimony about her personal life or younger days.

As for the socialising, it seemed pretty surface , not deep, type of co-worker hanging out for a drink, level relationships. IMO

Who cares what she watched on TV? IMO, that has zero to do with the allegations.

I think the weakest argument for her innocence is the one just made---that she seems "so nice and normal.' If Guilty, it was that veneer of niceness that helped her continue the chaos for a full year.

Previous health care workers and parents, who have been convicted of 'pretending' to care for sick dependents, while actually harming them, have very similar ways of presenting themselves, just like LL does. Seemingly being compassionate and caring and oh so helpful, and concerned. All the while poisoning the patients or putting air into the lines. Munchausen type disorders can be very tricky to discover.

 

[katydid23]

One thing that surprises me about LL IF she is guilty is the fact that we haven’t heard of her searching for anything incriminating on her devices.Considering she has left the notes, hasn’t destroyed the hand over sheets and has been overall really sloppy, it surprises me there is nothing else on her search history or something more incriminating.

I don't think she googled anything incriminating because she knew already how to harm a vulnerable fragile newborn. Who doesn't?

And she was experimenting, if guilty, because it was all hit and miss. She kept cfhanging things up, trying this and that, so it shows that she didn't really have an exact plan. JMO

 

[Charlot123]

The longer she’s on the stand, the more I’m getting major NPD vibes. I would like to go into this more and explain why I think this but I’m going to carry on taking notes and will do a post once the trial is over.

The falsifying documents and the accusation that she may have been trying to make it appear like babies were declining, if guilty setting it up so when the collapse happened, the records would indicate a gradual decline. When are they alleging she began doing this? Was it around baby H? If guilty, was she becoming more confident around this time to begin experimenting with other methods and thinking more about how to avert suspicion? Only if guilty of course.

All MOO

The problem is, many conditions might manifest as NPD, so it still won’t explain what the heck was she thinking and expecting as the outcome. Probably not being restrained from working at the NICU, arrested and put on trial. Detachment from reality.

 

[CS2C]

I don't think she googled anything incriminating because she knew already how to harm a vulnerable fragile newborn. Who doesn't?

And she was experimenting, if guilty, because it was all hit and miss. She kept cfhanging things up, trying this and that, so it shows that she didn't really have an exact plan. JMO

Yes I wasn’t referring so much to methods to kill but maybe searches for people who have been convicted of similar offences such as Beverly allit or Harold shipman or maybe even something as obvious as Nurses who kill, just something to indicate this was the path she was heading down.

People may say she wouldn’t be so stupid as to search the above but she openly searched for the parents of children she cared for (possibly for sick reasons) kept the notes she wrote and also the handover sheets (possibly as trophies) so I find it odd there isn’t anything more incriminating even circumstantially speaking on her phone or computer.

All based on her actually being found guilty of course.

 

[Tortoise]

But to add to this, baby H’s father doesn’t mention a desat or a SHO being present. He says he left the ward at about midnight.

But Dr Ventress’ own notes say she attended at 2350 and moved the chest drain back 4 cm. So he should have been there when this happened, but he doesn’t mention it in his recollection.

So I question how reliable baby H’s father’s memory is here (I don’t for a second think he is lying to be clear).

I wouldn't expect him to have made a note of the time. Around midnight is an approximation. If he left at quarter to midnight, or even 11.30pm, it's neither here nor there, it's a ballpark figure in a statement two years after the fact IMO. He knows he didn't see his daughter collapse at 10pm, or a doctor being called to her, before he left to go home with his mother-in-law.

There is also agreed evidence from the mother "We stayed with our daughter until quite late, probably about 11pm at which point staff told me I needed to go and get some sleep, so I returned to the maternity ward and my husband went home." She didn't mention seeing her daughter collapsing at 10pm or being attended to by a doctor before she left her cotside either.

More testimony from cross-examination - (it's exactly the same scenario as happened with baby E, unnamed SHO's being put in LL's retrospective notes, with no corresponding doctor's notes) :

An intensive care chart is shown to the court. It includes, for 2200 - '2210 desat...SHO present...serous fluid++ x2 drain'
Letby says she cannot recall which SHO was on duty that night. Mr Johnson says the SHO on duty was Jessica Scott, and she has not recorded a note saying she was present for this.

Letby is asked why the '52% desautation' is not in her nursing note.
"Not every single thing gets written down...that is an error on my part."
Letby says the SHO was present for that earlier desaturation.

Dr Alison Ventress records a note for Child H, timed 11.50pm. It begins 'Several episodes of desaturation in past 2 hours...1st one after gas taken...became agitated...'
Mr Johnson says Letby told this information to Dr Ventress.

Mr Johnson says the notes (on the observation chart and Letby's nursing notes) don't match.
Letby agrees it's an "innocent coincidence" (as said by Mr Johnson).
An observation chart for Child H is shown for September 25-26. Letby is asked if the results show any concern up to midnight.
Letby: "This [the observations taken] reflects that specific moment in time" and says that chart shows no concerns, with all readings in the normal range.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, May 25 - cross-examination continues

 

[katydid23]

But the father’s evidence is contradicted by Dr V’s own notes which says she was there and moving the chest drain .

[re shift of first collapse -]

Letby says she cannot recall which SHO was on duty that night. Mr Johnson says the SHO on duty was Jessica Scott, and she has not recorded a note saying she was present for this.

[...]

Mr Johnson says Child H's father's statement, which was agreed evidence, did not mention a collapse or an SHO being present.
Letby denies lying.

Dr Alison Ventress records a note for Child H, timed 11.50pm. It begins 'Several episodes of desaturation in past 2 hours...1st one after gas taken...became agitated...'
Mr Johnson says Letby told this information to Dr Ventress.
Letby says she did not know if she told her this information, she may have been present in the room.
======================================================================

Did Dr V really contradict the father? I don't believe so.

The father said he left around midnight, and during his evening there, he did not mention a collapse of his child, not a SHO being there.

Dr V's note shows she was there @ 11:50 pm. Had Dad left the room by then? He said he left around midnight, so he could have left about the time she arrived.

Johnson stated that Dr V was told about the previous desaturations by LL, and LL admitted that was possible.

BUT there were no contemporaneous notes of Dr V actually being there while a collapse was happening. The mention of the 2 defats were noted @ 11:50, when she came and checked on the baby.

I don't Johnson would have said what he said if he did not have evidence that DR V was told about it and had not seen the collapse herself. JMO

 

[Dotta]

Yes I wasn’t referring so much to methods to kill but maybe searches for people who have been convicted of similar offences such as Beverly allit or Harold shipman or maybe even something as obvious as Nurses who kill, just something to indicate this was the path she was heading down.

People may say she wouldn’t be so stupid as to search the above but she openly searched for the parents of children she cared for (possibly for sick reasons) kept the notes she wrote and also the handover sheets (possibly as trophies) so I find it odd there isn’t anything more incriminating even circumstantially speaking on her phone or computer.

All based on her actually being found guilty of course.

If guilty...

Why would she be checking "losers" who got caught?

IMO she might have felt superior to others.
Didn't she write "there is no evidence" of her (alleged) crimes?

No wonder she got PTSD after the arrest/s.

JMO

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

(parts of) LL's cross-examination for baby H -

The court hears this was with regard to Letby and colleague Shelley Tomlins being allocated shifts in room 1, over other nurses who needed the experience.
Letby says she cannot recall which nurses, specifically, had been making those comments, but they were band 6 nurses. Letby agrees this message followed events for Child H.
Mr Johnson refers
Mr Johnson says Child H's father's statement, which was agreed evidence, did not mention a collapse or an SHO being present.
Letby denies lying.

That^^^ makes LL look very sketchy. I think the jury will believe the parents of the victims over the defendant. Their memories will be firmly imprinted as they have just one emotional experience in the hospital as opposed to LL's hundreds of routine work experiences

I think that the argument that the parents’ testimony should be seen as the most reliable because they will have the most accurate memory of the events because it was the worst thing that had ever happened to them (ie their baby collapsed and in some cases died) is a dangerous one. (Just to be clear, I don’t for a second think any of the parents’ are lying or exaggerating in their evidence).

I dont think that is how trauma and memory work.

The idea that memory of a traumatic event will be “imprinted” in a person’s head , with the memory being just as accurate as a Technicolor, surround sound recording of the event, has been shown to be incorrect by numerous studies . That’s just not how memories formed in the crucible of trauma work. There are often gaps in a person’s memory, and difficultly in recalling events in a linear fashion. We see this often in the context of sexual assault victims .

So although the urge to believe everything the parents have said is strong, I think it is a dangerous blanket approach to adopt. I think their evidence needs to be properly scrutinised just like any other but also through the lens of how memories of traumatic events are known to be formed.

I think baby E’s mum’s evidence is in a different category because as far as I’m aware, trauma makes a person lose chunks of memory and misremember the order in which events took place and the timings. It doesn’t make you hallucinate events which did not take place. So her evidence that she heard her baby screaming, saw blood, and had the conversation with LL, can’t IMO be said to be incorrect on the basis that it is a memory formed during a traumatic moment .

She also has the benefit of several external events which can help her to correctly locate the events at certain times (ie the baby’s feeding schedule and the phone calls to her husband). Both are events capable of independent corroboration .

This of course doesn’t mean that LL is guilty of baby E’s murder or indeed any murder , as there can be other explanations for the differences in the recollections of the two women.

 

[katydid23]

But the father’s evidence is contradicted by Dr V’s own notes which says she was there and moving the chest drain .

[re shift of first collapse -]

Letby says she cannot recall which SHO was on duty that night. Mr Johnson says the SHO on duty was Jessica Scott, and she has not recorded a note saying she was present for this.

[...]

Mr Johnson says Child H's father's statement, which was agreed evidence, did not mention a collapse or an SHO being present.
Letby denies lying.

Dr Alison Ventress records a note for Child H, timed 11.50pm. It begins 'Several episodes of desaturation in past 2 hours...1st one after gas taken...became agitated...'
Mr Johnson says Letby told this information to Dr Ventress.
Letby says she did not know if she told her this information, she may have been present in the room.
======================================================================

Did Dr V really contradict the father? I don't believe so.

The father said he left around midnight, and during his evening there, he did not mention a collapse of his child, not a SHO being there.

Dr V's note shows she was there @ 11:50 pm. Had Dad left the room by then? He said he left around midnight, so he could have left about the time she arrived. And I am sure the father would have known and remembered if he had seen his baby collapse at that time.

Johnson stated that Dr V was told about the previous desaturations by LL, and LL admitted that was possible.

BUT there were no contemporaneous notes of Dr V actually being there while a collapse was happening. The mention of the 2 defats were noted @ 11:50, when she came and checked on the baby.

I don't Johnson would have said what he said if he did not have evidence that DR V was told about it and had not seen the collapse herself. JMO

 

[katydid23]

I think that the argument that the parents’ testimony should be seen as the most reliable because they will have the most accurate memory of the events because it was the worst thing that had ever happened to them (ie their baby collapsed and in some cases died) is a dangerous one. (Just to be clear, I don’t for a second think any of the parents’ are lying or exaggerating in their evidence).

If the parents are not lying or exaggerating then are they accurate memories?

I dont think that is how trauma and memory work.

The idea that memory of a traumatic event will be “imprinted” in a person’s head , with the memory being just as accurate as a Technicolor, surround sound recording of the event, has been shown to be incorrect by numerous studies . That’s just not how memories formed in the crucible of trauma work. There are often gaps in a person’s memory, and difficultly in recalling events in a linear fashion. We see this often in the context of sexual assault victims .

I don't see any gaps in memory or problems with the timelines in either the parents of baby E or H. There is corroboration for their timelines, *advertiser censored* opposed to LL's.

So although the urge to believe everything the parents have said is strong, I think it is a dangerous blanket approach to adopt. I think their evidence needs to be properly scrutinised just like any other but also through the lens of how memories of traumatic events are known to be formed.

And their testimony has been scrutinised. And I think it withstands the scrutiny.

I think baby E’s mum’s evidence is in a different category because as far as I’m aware, trauma makes a person lose chunks of memory and misremember the order in which events took place and the timings. It doesn’t make you hallucinate events which did not take place. So her evidence that she heard her baby screaming, saw blood, and had the conversation with LL, can’t IMO be said to be incorrect on the basis that it is a memory formed during a traumatic moment .

She also has the benefit of several external events which can help her to correctly locate the events at certain times (ie the baby’s feeding schedule and the phone calls to her husband). Both are events capable of independent corroboration .

This of course doesn’t mean that LL is guilty of baby E’s murder or indeed any murder , as there can be other explanations for the differences in the recollections of the two women.

So if E's mum is credible, what does that say about LL and her testimony?

What would the explanation be for LL's difference in recollection about the blood on the baby's face at 9 pm?

 

[Tortoise]

Yes I wasn’t referring so much to methods to kill but maybe searches for people who have been convicted of similar offences such as Beverly allit or Harold shipman or maybe even something as obvious as Nurses who kill, just something to indicate this was the path she was heading down.

People may say she wouldn’t be so stupid as to search the above but she openly searched for the parents of children she cared for (possibly for sick reasons) kept the notes she wrote and also the handover sheets (possibly as trophies) so I find it odd there isn’t anything more incriminating even circumstantially speaking on her phone or computer.

All based on her actually being found guilty of course.

I'm not sure it's a common thing for murderer's to google other murderer's, as if they are copycats. I imagine they are what they are because of their own internal drives and psychopathologies.

Hypothetically speaking, not referring to LL, or anyone in particular.

JMO

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

[re shift of first collapse -]

Letby says she cannot recall which SHO was on duty that night. Mr Johnson says the SHO on duty was Jessica Scott, and she has not recorded a note saying she was present for this.

[...]

Mr Johnson says Child H's father's statement, which was agreed evidence, did not mention a collapse or an SHO being present.
Letby denies lying.

Dr Alison Ventress records a note for Child H, timed 11.50pm. It begins 'Several episodes of desaturation in past 2 hours...1st one after gas taken...became agitated...'
Mr Johnson says Letby told this information to Dr Ventress.
Letby says she did not know if she told her this information, she may have been present in the room.
======================================================================

Did Dr V really contradict the father? I don't believe so.

The father said he left around midnight, and during his evening there, he did not mention a collapse of his child, not a SHO being there.

Dr V's note shows she was there @ 11:50 pm. Had Dad left the room by then? He said he left around midnight, so he could have left about the time she arrived.

Johnson stated that Dr V was told about the previous desaturations by LL, and LL admitted that was possible.

BUT there were no contemporaneous notes of Dr V actually being there while a collapse was happening. The mention of the 2 defats were noted @ 11:50, when she came and checked on the baby.

I don't Johnson would have said what he said if he did not have evidence that DR V was told about it and had not seen the collapse herself. JMO

My post was talking about Dr V adjusting the chest drain , not the desats. Dr V’s own notes say she adjusted the chest drain at 2350. Thats different to being told by LL that the baby had already had desats earlier in the evening (which I agree Dr V doesn’t say she witnessed).

Dr V says she was there at 2350. The father says he left about midnight. I agree, maybe he had in fact already left by the time Dr V appeared, meaning that he left before 2350. Or maybe when he was questioned a few years later about the evening, he got his times wrong or didn’t remember a doctor visiting to adjust the chest drain. Both would be perfectly understandable explanations IMO .

But I think it is important for us also to acknowledge that when LL says she remembers something and her memory is either lacking a particular detail , or the times she remembers are off, people seem to jump all over that as evidence of her alleged guilt and deception.

I think we need to be fair and consistent in relation to what we expect of all concerned when it comes to the accuracy of their memories , including the timings , and we need to be fair and consistent in relation to what we are willing to tolerate with regards to examples where the memories stated by a person deviates in some way from other people say / what the records say.