UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #24

[Sweeper2000]

I wouldn't agree with that, depending on what one's definition of 'conscientious' is and what people mean by that word.

For example, people who have zero empathy are often extremely adept at establishing the rules of the environment they're in and adhering to them if they wish to be seen as 'good'. They can be very 'stepford' / robotic in that regard and be seen as utterly dependable and reliable. They can even go the extra mile if it's for a purpose and intended to have themself viewed in a good light or given higher privileges.

One's conscience is a different thing altogether.

JMO MOO

I tend to think conscientious people are people who are hurt by something they do or say that they deem to be wrong. Regardless of other. So they will feel bad about something even if no one is saying it’s a wrong thing to do. Almost a failure of ones own morales and principles which relates to an individual’s code of ethics, noted To be absent in people with high levels of psychopathy.

difficult to say if she is just mirroring.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

All this time I've been unwilling to fully believe that LL has perpetrated these crimes but now the penny dropped and I see exactly what's being dealt with here.

It's terrifying and chilling to know someone who has zero empathy and if guilty, and if this theory is true, everyone who has known her over time will have noticed this.

JMO MOO

I think we need to be careful not to put the cart before the horse.

We (and indeed the jury) don’t even get onto the question of whether LL is guilty until we have cleared the first stage, which is being satisfied that the medical evidence shows that these collapses are the result of someone doing something to these babies which was not the result of negligent care .

For example: I could enter a house and 60 minutes later, the police could burst in and find me sat there next to a dead person . I could be laughing saying “I murdered this person , I’m glad he’s dead.” But if an autopsy shows that the person in fact died 24 hours earlier from a brain aneurysm, then I clearly didn’t kill them. It doesn’t matter how dodgy or frankly offensive my behaviour is when the police find me, or that I say that I killed the person.

This is obviously an extreme example to illustrate the point . But I think that the prosecution hasn’t proved foul play for some of the charges . JMO

 

[Tortoise]

10:59am

Mr Johnson moves to the 3.50am desaturation - the first of the three desaturations for Child K.
Letby agrees Joanne Williams was Child K's designated nurse. She agrees Joanne Williams left Child K before the 3.50am desaturation. She accepts that nurse left at 3.47am.
Letby says she cannot recall Dr Ravi Jayaram's whereabouts at this point.

11:03am

A note from the transport team at 3.41am is shown to the court: 'Called Dr Jayaram back with the above plan and he was agreeable totally with all the above'.
Letby accepts that if this note is accurate, Dr Jayaram would have been around the nursing station at this time.
Letby accepts that Joanne Williams would have asked someone to 'babysit' Child K in her temporary absence from the nursery.
Asked if she disputes it was her to babysit Child K: "I have no memory of that."
Letby says she has no memory of Dr Ravi Jayaram's account of him walking into the unit and seeing her standing over Child K's cotside, or that Child K was desaturating, or that Child K's ET Tube was displaced.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 5 - cross-examination 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,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Sweeper2000]

Assuming it’s genuine the note she wrote about the baby that she still thought about I think a year after being put on clerical might indicate emotional attachment, if it’s genuine that suggests a lament about the could have beens.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I’m wondering if we will hear more about baby P’s collapse when NJ cross examines her on that. One thing I’m curious about is the finger pricking incident.. it seems very unusual IMO and convenient. Will it be suggested that it was done purposely as a distraction or a way to get off the unit for some reason? It’s just an event that sticks out to me, and the whole fainting episode in a and e too. MOO

 

[Sundial]

The different methods used and when they were used suggests IMO someone who became aware that if babies were all showing the same symptoms and dying then suspicion would arise. After the first few collapses when her colleague was messaging about how strange it was and LL says ‘were they really that similar?’ Or words to that effect.

It’s strange IMO how after this message was baby E I think, who presented with bleeding (something not seen in the first 4 collapses if I recall) so a slightly different symptom, then F was insulin so that was also very different, then came the overfeeding (again a different method) however - F & G didn’t die from the insulin or overfeeding. If guilty I think when the change of method didn’t work, air embolism was settled on as the MO and to try and avert suspicion, the falsifying of notes before the actual collapse began, to show a gradual decline so not to draw suspicion. Somewhere along the way insulin was tried again which also failed to cause death, so back to air embolism again.

IMO there is a pattern between the methods used, what colleagues were saying in messages - a colleague questioning the incidents prompted a slight change in method aswell as in some instances, a gap before the next collapse - the falsifying notes before the event came around or just after child E who’s mother turned up unexpectedly and took her by surprise, this required notes to be altered after the fact, to reflect a different time in order to cover tracks. So going forward, notes started to show a gradual decline documented (by LL allegedly) before the sudden collapse. Only if guilty..

All MOO

I’ve been thinking about this; the gradual decline vs the sudden collapses. In earlier cases I think from A-E ?..there was discussion I think from her co-workers too/via message?It is quite strange; babies were “suddenly collapsing” or sudden deterioration without any identifiable cause (babies doing so well and due their immunisations for example).. and as the cases have gone on (if guilty) we then hear the alleged falsifying of nursing notes with various errors by LL which then appears like this gradual decline.
It’s almost like a change of tactic here aswell, not just in the method used, but also the “sudden” to seemingly gradual decline and these very odd errors she’s making in the notes that seem to crop up more often.

JMO
If guilty etc

 

[Blondiexoxo]

10:59am

Mr Johnson moves to the 3.50am desaturation - the first of the three desaturations for Child K.
Letby agrees Joanne Williams was Child K's designated nurse. She agrees Joanne Williams left Child K before the 3.50am desaturation. She accepts that nurse left at 3.47am.
Letby says she cannot recall Dr Ravi Jayaram's whereabouts at this point.

11:03am

A note from the transport team at 3.41am is shown to the court: 'Called Dr Jayaram back with the above plan and he was agreeable totally with all the above'.
Letby accepts that if this note is accurate, Dr Jayaram would have been around the nursing station at this time.
Letby accepts that Joanne Williams would have asked someone to 'babysit' Child K in her temporary absence from the nursery.
Asked if she disputes it was her to babysit Child K: "I have no memory of that."
Letby says she has no memory of Dr Ravi Jayaram's account of him walking into the unit and seeing her standing over Child K's cotside, or that Child K was desaturating, or that Child K's ET Tube was displaced.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 5 - cross-examination 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,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

BBM - interesting that she is not saying that she wasn’t with baby K, she’s not disputing that she was asked to look after her while JW went on a break, nor is she disputing that Dr J saw her standing over baby K just saying she has no memory. Hasn’t she basically said before that Dr J was lying about this incident? I’m sure she refused to accept this happened at one point, now she just can’t remember….

 

[katydid23]

it has been stated she was noticed to be very conscientious, generally that takes empathy.

NO, not necessarily. These are two very different qualities.

Conscientious
adjective

(of a person) wishing to do what is right, especially to do one's work or duty well and thoroughly.
"a conscientious and hardworking clerk"

Being a conscientious person entails the ability to set and keep long-term goals, be more deliberate about choices, act more cautiously, and take your obligations seriously.


Empathy:
the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another

the ability to sense other people's emotions, coupled with the ability to imagine what someone else might be thinking or feeling.

I think we need to be careful not to put the cart before the horse.

We (and indeed the jury) don’t even get onto the question of whether LL is guilty until we have cleared the first stage, which is being satisfied that the medical evidence shows that these collapses are the result of someone doing something to these babies which was not the result of negligent care .

For example: I could enter a house and 60 minutes later, the police could burst in and find me sat there next to a dead person . I could be laughing saying “I murdered this person , I’m glad he’s dead.” But if an autopsy shows that the person in fact died 24 hours earlier from a brain aneurysm, then I clearly didn’t kill them. It doesn’t matter how dodgy or frankly offensive my behaviour is when the police find me, or that I say that I killed the person.

This is obviously an extreme example to illustrate the point . But I think that the prosecution hasn’t proved foul play for some of the charges . JMO

Have they proved them for any of the charges, in your opinion?

 

[Tortoise]

11:13am

Letby denies trying to kill Child K.
Letby is shown a copy of her 2019 police interview, specifically police talking through Dr Ravi Jayaram's account of events from the night.
That was the evidence he had given in the trial, that he had felt 'uncomfortable' with Letby being in the nursery room 1 and entered, and saw Letby.
Letby, in police interview, said she "didn't remember" the event. Mr Johnson suggests Letby is lying. Letby denies this.
Letby denied, in police interview, dislodging the tube.
Mr Johnson says Letby had earlier said the event "didn't happen".
LL: "I don't believe it did happen, but I have no direct memory of it."

11:15am

Letby says it was "standard practice" at the Countess of Chester Hospital's neonatal unit to wait "a few seconds" - "10, 20" to see if a baby self-corrected during a desaturation.
NJ: "30 seconds?"
LL: "I can't say."
NJ: "You are lying, aren't you?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "Because you were trying to kill [Child K]."
LL: "No."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 5 - cross-examination 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,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[katydid23]

Assuming it’s genuine the note she wrote about the baby that she still thought about I think a year after being put on clerical might indicate emotional attachment, if it’s genuine that suggests a lament about the could have beens.

There is a difference between true emotional empathetic attachment and obsession. JMO

 

[Tortoise]

11:21am

The nursing notes for Joanne Williams recorded 'large amount blood-stained oral secretions' for Child K.
Letby says she did not believe she gave Joanne Williams that information.
NJ: "Did you ever see [Child K's] parents?"
LL: "I can't recall."
NJ: "Did you ever meet them?"
LL: "I can't recall."
NJ: "Then why did you search for them [on Facebook] on April 20, 2018?"
LL: "Because I have thought of babies on the unit over the years, and I do look back at them."
NJ: "You have a very good memory for names?"
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "Her name didn't appear on the handover sheet, did it?"
LL: "I can't say."
Mr Johnson says Child K had been born earlier that day, and handed over to the care of Melanie Taylor, and Child K was transferred out of the hospital.
NJ: "How can you remember that name [of Child K]?"
LL: "I can't."
NJ: "Can't or won't?"
LL: "I can't."
NJ: "What was the significance of April 20, 2018?"
LL: "I can't recall."
NJ: "Do you remember the answer you gave to your counsel on May 16?"
LL: "No."
Mr Johnson says Letby said you look back on 'all the babies you care for'.
Letby says it was taken out of context, and she played a part in Child K's care via the morphine infusion.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 5 - cross-examination 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,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[WaxLyrical]

11:13am

Letby denies trying to kill Child K.
Letby is shown a copy of her 2019 police interview, specifically police talking through Dr Ravi Jayaram's account of events from the night.
That was the evidence he had given in the trial, that he had felt 'uncomfortable' with Letby being in the nursery room 1 and entered, and saw Letby.
Letby, in police interview, said she "didn't remember" the event. Mr Johnson suggests Letby is lying. Letby denies this.
Letby denied, in police interview, dislodging the tube.
Mr Johnson says Letby had earlier said the event "didn't happen".
LL: "I don't believe it did happen, but I have no direct memory of it."

11:15am

Letby says it was "standard practice" at the Countess of Chester Hospital's neonatal unit to wait "a few seconds" - "10, 20" to see if a baby self-corrected during a desaturation.
NJ: "30 seconds?"
LL: "I can't say."
NJ: "You are lying, aren't you?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "Because you were trying to kill [Child K]."
LL: "No."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 5 - cross-examination 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,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Where is this 30 seconds coming from? Have we heard about this before, that it would take 30 seconds? I thought Dr J saw the baby deteriorated into “the 80s”, which feels like it would happen in less than 30 seconds, in my completely non-medical mind.

 

[katydid23]

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue

Mr Johnson tells Ms Letby 'on three occasions you deliberately displaced (Child K's tube)…because you were trying to kill her' - Ms Letby rejects this

Mr Johnson is turning to Dr Jayaram's account of an incident at 03:50 on 17 February 2016. Dr Jayaram has told the court he found Ms Letby alone with Child K in nursery one while the infant was desaturating, with no alarm sounding

Ms Letby has said she has 'no memory' of this incident and cannot 'confirm or deny' Dr Jayaram's recollection.

Dr Jayaram said in his evidence that for a baby to reach the level of desaturation Child K had, she would have had to have been desaturating for 30 seconds. Mr Johnson puts this to Ms Letby

She tells the court it was 'standard practice' at the Countess of Chester to wait 'a few seconds', (she says 10 or 20) to see if a baby self-corrected during a desaturation

Mr Johnson asks "30?", she says 'I can't say'. 'You are lying, aren't you?', Mr Johnson says. 'Because you were trying to kill (Child K)' 'No', she says


[ From my memory banks, I am pretty sure there was an AGREED STATEMENT read by a senior nurse to the court, saying that preemie newborns were not expected to recover on their own so protocol was a nurse was not going to stand and do nothing.]

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think we need to be careful not to put the cart before the horse.

We (and indeed the jury) don’t even get onto the question of whether LL is guilty until we have cleared the first stage, which is being satisfied that the medical evidence shows that these collapses are the result of someone doing something to these babies which was not the result of negligent care .

For example: I could enter a house and 60 minutes later, the police could burst in and find me sat there next to a dead person . I could be laughing saying “I murdered this person , I’m glad he’s dead.” But if an autopsy shows that the person in fact died 24 hours earlier from a brain aneurysm, then I clearly didn’t kill them. It doesn’t matter how dodgy or frankly offensive my behaviour is when the police find me, or that I say that I killed the person.

This is obviously an extreme example to illustrate the point . But I think that the prosecution hasn’t proved foul play for some of the charges . JMO

Which ones do you think don’t meat that criteria? I’ve got questions For baby i and o.

 

[ColourPurple]

slight proof might be the text she sent saying they have to be careful about the heel prick on the babies as it causes discomfort. difficult to say but it’s true that emotionally unempathic people understand physical pain (individualistic) but not emotional which is collective. so Is she addressing physical discomfort but not emotional?

eta.
it might be possible for an individual to discount the physical pain caused if there is a gain for them.
as frightening and sickening as that sounds.

The comment LL made about having to think about the baby's "poor heels" was in relation to not testing Baby F's blood sugar because of how sore repeated test could make the heels. If guilty, and if LL's aim was for Baby F's blood sugar to go so low he died, then telling a nurse not to test him for a while because of his poor heels would suit her agenda. So would be more a case of using somebody else's empathy to achieve her own aims. We don't know for sure that she did tell the other nurse that, but the mention of his poor heels and the other nurse nto questioning it,indicated that they may have already discussed this as a reason for not testing.

We don't know the full exchange that happened at the time but if guilty, and if was something like this then I don't think it demonstrates any empathy on LL's part at all. I think it shows manipulation IMO

Baby F's blood sugar is testing low for hours
LL records a reading at 5am that seems to indicate that it's now improving and says that they shouldn't test for a while because of his sore heels
The other nurse doesn't test for a couple of hours
When Baby F's blood sugar is finally tested at handover, it has fallen to a dangerously low level.
(LL then messages the other nurse to tell her how low the blood sugar had fallen at handover, the nurse feels awful for not testing, LL says they had to think of his poor heels, before telling her "hope you sleep well")

 

[JosieJo]

The exchange so far today seems very good for the prosecution

 

[JosieJo]

Searching for a baby she did not care for and was only at the hospital a very short time ?

 

[katydid23]

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue

Mr Johnson is now moving to the case of Child F - the prosecution say he was injected with insulin by Ms Letby. The court has been told that shortly after the baby received intravenous nutrients on 4 August 2015, his heart rate surged and his blood sugars plummeted.

The jury have heard that blood samples showed an "extremely high" insulin level and a very low C-peptide level in Child F, which a medical expert said had "only one explanation", that being that the child "received insulin from some outside source".

Ms Letby tells Mr Johnson that she accepts the insulin and c-peptide levels detected in the blood of Child F

Mr Johnson asks if Ms Letby agrees that someone targeted Child F and injected insulin into his feed bag - she says she 'can't answer that'. But says 'I accept that he was given insulin at some point yes'

 

[katydid23]

BBM - interesting that she is not saying that she wasn’t with baby K, she’s not disputing that she was asked to look after her while JW went on a break, nor is she disputing that Dr J saw her standing over baby K just saying she has no memory. Hasn’t she basically said before that Dr J was lying about this incident? I’m sure she refused to accept this happened at one point, now she just can’t remember….

Mr Johnson is turning to Dr Jayaram's account of an incident at 03:50 on 17 February 2016. Dr Jayaram has told the court he found Ms Letby alone with Child K in nursery one while the infant was desaturating, with no alarm sounding

Ms Letby has said she has 'no memory' of this incident and cannot 'confirm or deny' Dr Jayaram's recollection.

 

[ColourPurple]

I don’t think we’ve heard much about her being upset at work when these incidents happened? Except for one baby’s parents saying she was almost as upset as them. This is quite telling IMO, if she lacked empathy then it’s possible she’d attempt to show it by copying/mirroring the behaviour of others around her who genuinely felt these emotions. If guilty, IMO she mirrored the parents demeanor but didn’t consider how odd it would seem for a nurse to be almost as upset as the parents of the baby who’d died.

The lack of empathy IMO is something she’s shown on the stand by not crying over the incidents yet managing to shed tears for herself when discussing how it has affected her.

All MOO

Other than her "why is it always my babies" cry, the crying seemed to happen after Doc Choc's messages about the importance of having a good cry, and happened when he was present . So maybe she took his advice, or maybe, if guilty, it was for his benefit.

JMO