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

[Tortoise]

I get the impression that she really doesn’t remember this baby. JMO.

Baby K do you mean?

 

[WaxLyrical]

Baby K do you mean?

Yes baby K

 

[Dotta]

I don't mind the delays.
That's reality of long and complex trials.

I trust the Truth and Justice will prevail.

I never trust appearances but always look at facts.

They are never biased and tell the true story.

JMO

 

[notsure]

I don't mind the delays.
That's reality of long and complex trials.

I trust the Truth and Justice will prevail.

I never trust appearances but always look at facts.

They are never biased and tell the true story.

JMO

Agreed - I hope truth and justice will prevail.

However, I think facts can sometimes be misleading (not speaking about this case specifically), and we have to bear in mind that somebody has chosen which facts out of millions of others somebody has chosen to present. We can never see all the facts, in other words. That's why we have trials, I suppose.

 

[katydid23]

I get the impression that she really doesn’t remember this baby. JMO.

Or she doesn't want to.

 

[katydid23]

Agreed - I hope truth and justice will prevail.

However, I think facts can sometimes be misleading (not speaking about this case specifically), and we have to bear in mind that somebody has chosen which facts out of millions of others somebody has chosen to present. We can never see all the facts, in other words. That's why we have trials, I suppose.

However, there are only a handful of very basic and relevant facts, in determining who or what killed a child. We don't need all of the extraneous factors clouding everything.
What was the ultimate cause of death and who was it that had the means and opportunity to do so? JMO

 

[Cardgame]

This is a random post in the position of the chat, apologies, but I've been trying to find a way to say this for a while.

Finding it hard to articulate exactly what I mean , but I'm still trying to understand the defence position and this is the kind of thing that is really bothering me - -

In the case of Baby J:

IMO one example of the defence 'diversion' or 'muddying the waters' feels to me LL complaining about the other nurses not being familiar with stoma care (Baby J's case) as though that would impact on the baby's life threatening collapse.

Stomas might be unusual but the care of a stoma in a baby in NICU only needs to be done every 48 hours or so unless the bag falls off or comes unstuck. And IMO this is not a 'high intensity' task that will result in a life threatening situation if it isn't 'done properly', it's a task akin to changing a nappy with a degree more complexity. Parents with zero medical training are expected to take on this care as soon as possible, even while the baby is in the NICU. They are trained to do so by the specialist stoma nurses which most hospitals have. [Baby J's parents had been at Alder Hey for 10 days prior to returning to the Countess of Chester, so had ample time to learn how to deal with stoma care.]

Lucy Letby: Mother shocked at baby's collapse, trial hears

A mother tells the trial of Lucy Letby how her baby was recovering before collapsing at the hospital.

www.bbc.co.uk

The suggestion for Baby J is that the baby was smothered.

It feels like the defence are just plucking examples of 'sub-standard care' out of the blue in the hopes that the jury will infer that there's some other reason (other than the prosecution's accusation) why that baby later collapsed. But a baby being wrapped in a towel until someone trained in stoma care was available to put a bag on it has no bearing or connection to a later incident in which a baby was deliberately smothered. Or am I missing something?

And LL complaining about the other nurses not being trained in stoma care feels disingenuous because smothering a baby and not changing their stoma bag properly are completely unconnected. She knows this, surely?!

Does anyone understand what I mean by this and why it feels troubling?

This is LL's big chance to talk about all these failings at the hospital directly led to the collapsing of all these babies, but there are no specific examples, no counter accusations, nothing but generalised complaints and veiled implications which - if you dig into them - don't seem that relevant.

Feels a bit gaslighty.

 

[notsure]

However, there are only a handful of very basic and relevant facts, in determining who or what killed a child. We don't need all of the extraneous factors clouding everything.
What was the ultimate cause of death and who was it that had the means and opportunity to do so? JMO

I think it might be a little more complicated than that, IMO.

 

[katydid23]

I get the impression that she really doesn’t remember this baby. JMO.

Let's look back and see what kind of a connection she had with Baby K, if any:
'
Feb 16th


Apparently there is a big buzz of excitement in the unit in preparation for the very premature delivery of a child, Baby K, who will be brought to the unit soon.


LL even messaged a colleague about it:

Letby messages a colleague about the unit being a "hive of activity" on February 16 in preparation for a visit from "the big bods", and there is a discussion on the possible of delivery of Child K:

Dr Ray Jayaram was in the delivery room for baby K and then works with transport unit as baby K is brought to Neo-natal unit-room one, w/Joanne Williams designated nurse.

Lucy co-signed for some of the medications with the designated nurse, for the much anticipated super-young preemie.

Lucy also made some of the nursing/observation notes for baby K. And she signed for a saline Bonus for K.

Then another message sent by Lucy, mentioning Baby K: Letby messages her colleague at 5.48pm: '25wkr delivered so fairly busy...

While at Countess, Baby K had a few collapses had to be intubated and was eventually transferred out, and died 3 days later at Arrowe Park.
At one point, during the trial, Dr J testified that he walked into baby K's nursery and saw LL standing cot side, doing nothing, while the baby had desaturated and no alarms were going off. he called for a crash cart.

A couple of years later, years after baby K’s death, Lucy did a Facebook search [April 20, 2018] for the surname of baby K.

SOURCE--prosecution evidence, February 27th 2023, Day 62 - live updates Chester Standard LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, February27


I am surprised that she wouldn't remember the most premature baby she had looked after. Especially as she had been standing at the baby's cot when the attending Doctor walked in and saw the baby had deteriorated, and called for help.

 

[esther43]

Yes baby K

I think she would remember a 25 weeker. It would be quite rare that they would be admitted and we already know that LL liked to keep abreast of all changes on the unit, it's evident in her excessive texting. Personally, I think she'd have been 'interested' in an extremely low birth weight infant as it would be relatively uncommon given that they are most commonly transferred in utero.

 

[DianaWW]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1666178175439720448

Apparently court is sitting tomorrow.

 

[Tortoise]

This is a random post in the position of the chat, apologies, but I've been trying to find a way to say this for a while.

Finding it hard to articulate exactly what I mean , but I'm still trying to understand the defence position and this is the kind of thing that is really bothering me - -

In the case of Baby J:

IMO one example of the defence 'diversion' or 'muddying the waters' feels to me LL complaining about the other nurses not being familiar with stoma care (Baby J's case) as though that would impact on the baby's life threatening collapse.

Stomas might be unusual but the care of a stoma in a baby in NICU only needs to be done every 48 hours or so unless the bag falls off or comes unstuck. And IMO this is not a 'high intensity' task that will result in a life threatening situation if it isn't 'done properly', it's a task akin to changing a nappy with a degree more complexity. Parents with zero medical training are expected to take on this care as soon as possible, even while the baby is in the NICU. They are trained to do so by the specialist stoma nurses which most hospitals have. [Baby J's parents had been at Alder Hey for 10 days prior to returning to the Countess of Chester, so had ample time to learn how to deal with stoma care.]

Lucy Letby: Mother shocked at baby's collapse, trial hears

A mother tells the trial of Lucy Letby how her baby was recovering before collapsing at the hospital.

www.bbc.co.uk

The suggestion for Baby J is that the baby was smothered.

It feels like the defence are just plucking examples of 'sub-standard care' out of the blue in the hopes that the jury will infer that there's some other reason (other than the prosecution's accusation) why that baby later collapsed. But a baby being wrapped in a towel until someone trained in stoma care was available to put a bag on it has no bearing or connection to a later incident in which a baby was deliberately smothered. Or am I missing something?

And LL complaining about the other nurses not being trained in stoma care feels disingenuous because smothering a baby and not changing their stoma bag properly are completely unconnected. She knows this, surely?!

Does anyone understand what I mean by this and why it feels troubling?

This is LL's big chance to talk about all these failings at the hospital directly led to the collapsing of all these babies, but there are no specific examples, no counter accusations, nothing but generalised complaints and veiled implications which - if you dig into them - don't seem that relevant.

Feels a bit gaslighty.

I 100% get where you're coming from. Baby J would have gone home in the next few days, which was why she was in nursery 4. In that respect it makes no sense for the defence to be that she should have had high dependency trained nurses and not band 4 nursery nurses, and that there was any associated danger with that, when she was due to be discharged into the care of her parents. And as you say, there is no connection between oxygen deprivation and stoma care. If LL's defence regarding standard of care being to blame was correct, she should have been safer with higher level of monitoring after she was moved from nursery 4 to nursery 2, but that was when she had her most serious collapses.

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1666178175439720448

Apparently court is sitting tomorrow.

Probably down to 11 jurors then, unless by some miracle the 12th juror had a false alarm.

 

[Dotta]

Probably down to 11 jurors then, unless by some miracle the 12th juror had a false alarm.

So
If there are 11 Jurors, how does the voting look like?

 

[Tortoise]

So
If there are 11 Jurors, how does the voting look like?

10-1 is the only acceptable majority verdict.

 

[katydid23]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1666178175439720448

Apparently court is sitting tomorrow.

Amazing news, thank you!

I think they will be looking at Baby M tomorrow, hopefully. Here are some old trial notes from baby M:


Twin - Child M
Mary Griffith, designated nurse 9th Apr 2016

Mary Griffith, who was Child M's designated nurse in April 2016, is first in the witness box. She is taking the court through her nursing notes from that period

Court is being shown Child M's heart rate/respiration/temperature charts from April 8 in April 9. At around 16:00 on April 9 Child M suffered a 'dramatic' and unexpected collapse, that would require 25mins of CPR and six doses of adrenaline

Her notes from that afternoon state Child M was 'settled'. But at 16:00, her notes state: 'Baby went apnoeic and had a profound bradycardia and desaturation. Full resus commenced at 16:02'

Asked about the crash, she recalls: '(Child M's)alarm went off, I looked over my shoulder, the lights were flashing. Lucy went over to see and said yes it's an event, it needs to be sorted. At that point I stuck my head out round the door and asked for a resus call to be put out'

Court is being shown a photograph of a paper towel which was used by Ms Griffith and other medics on the afternoon of April 9 to note the medicines given to Child M between 16:02 and 16:31. The nurse says 'everything on it would have had to have been recorded' afterwards

The towel is now being passed around the court for the jury to look at

Jury have just been shown a photograph of a blood gas report for Child M - this document was recovered from Lucy Letby's house in Chester when she was arrested in 2018.

Court has previously been told that, when questioned, Ms Letby denied the notes were taken as a souvenir and denied deliberately trying to harm Child M

"Simon Driver, prosecuting, told the court the paper towel – along with a blood gas measurement report for Child M – was discovered in a Morrisons shopping bag beneath a bed in a bedroom at the defendant's former address in Westbourne Road, Chester, on July 4 2018.

Mr Driver asked Mrs Griffith: “Have you ever taken a blood gas record home with you?”

Mrs Griffith said: “No.”

[...]

Ben Myers KC, defending, suggested to Mrs Griffith that some of the notes on the paper towel were also written by Letby."


Note detailing baby's medication found in Letby's home, court told



Dr Anthony Ukoh 9th April 2016

Dr Anthony Ukoh is now in the witness box, Dr Ukoh was working a day shift at the Countess of Chester on 9 April 2016

Dr Ukoh is reading over his notes from the morning of 9 April. He says Child M 'looked well, he was settled. There wasn't any major concerns, no red flags. There wasn't any signs he was in any pain'

Dr Ukoh is recalling the 'frantic' resus call he and other medics received shortly after 16:00. He says it took just under 30mins to stabilise the boy

Dr Ukoh tells the court that when he arrived on the neonatal unit Child M 'appeared lifeless'

 

[katydid23]

More on baby M:
Prosecution evidence, February 22nd 2023, Day 59

tweets - https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue


Twin - Child M

Consultant Dr Ravi Jayaram 9th April 2016

Paediatric consultant Dr Ravi Jayaram is now in the witness box. Dr Jayaram was the on call consultant on 9 April

Asked if any concerns about Child M had been brought to his attention at the start of his shift that day, he said 'no, not at all'

Dr Jayaram recalls receiving a crash call - as it was a Saturday he doesn't remember whether he was on site or at home at the time. When he arrived on the unit, Child M was receiving CPR

Dr Jayaram is taking the court through his notes from 9 April. They show he arrived at 16:15. Child M had already received three doses of adrenaline and had been intubated

Dr Jayaram recalls having a conversation with Child M's family after 20mins of resus about whether they should stop. 'Generally the longer it goes on for, the less likely it is to have a good outcome. These decisions are very, very difficult', he tells the court.

He said after 25mins, Child M 'suddenly recovered' - he said it wasn't due to a 'any specific intervention' by medics

'I couldn’t really explain what had caused it and why he suddenly got better', he added.

Dr Jayaram tells the court that during CPR he noticed 'bright pink blotches' on Child M's torso - these blotches 'would appear and disappear'

He said once circulation was restored and Child M was stable 'they vanished'. Dr Jayaram tells the court that he observed similar blotches in another baby in this case - they later prompted him to begin researching air embolis (the injection of air) as a potential cause

He told the court: 'In June 2016, after a number of further unusual, unexpected and inexplicable events on the neonatal unit, the whole consultant body sat down and thought we have to work out what's going on here.

'One of the things that came up in discussion was could this be air embolis, I can’t remember who suggested it.

'It prompted me to do a literature search. I remember sitting on my sofa at home with my ipad, researching. I remember the physical chill that went down my spine when I read that because it fitted with what we were seeing'

Cross-Examination

Ben Myers KC, defending, is now questioning Dr Jayaram. He points out that his notes from the time of Child M did not make any reference to 'pink blotches' - he says surely this would be an important detail that should have been recorded

Mr Myers suggests it is 'incompetent' not to have noted the blotches - Dr Jayaram explains at the time many other things were happening and full relevance of blotches wasn't realised

Mr Myers said: 'Details of decolourisation doesn’t appear in notes or statements because it is not what you saw, is it?' Dr Jayaram again rejected the assertion.

Mr Myers went on to claim that Ms Letby had been “a focus of interest” for Dr Jayaram since the death of another child in this case, Child D, in June 2015.

He told the court another senior medic, Dr Stephen Breary, had “flagged” to Dr Jayaram that Ms Letby had been working when a number of infants had collapsed or died in that month.

“All eyes were on Ms Letby then”, Mr Myers said.

“Clearly yes”, Dr Jayaram said.

Mr Myers said in that case, there is “absolutely no way” he would have failed to record the blotches on Child M. Dr Jayaram again explained: “I recorded what I felt was relevant.”

 

[katydid23]

Twin - Child M


Consultant Paediatrician Dr John Gibbs - 9th and 10th April 2016

I'm back at Manchester Crown Court where the murder trial of nurse Lucy Letby is continuing. We'll be hearing from Dr John Gibbs this morning, who has since retired but was previously a consultant paediatrician at the Countess of Chester Hospital

Dr Gibbs is taking the court over his notes for the collapse of Child M on 9 April 2016. The prosecution say Ms Letby injected air into the infant's bloodstream causing a near fatal collapse. She denies all charges

Dr Gibbs examined Child M on the morning of 10 April. He said he queried whether infection/sepsis was the cause of the boy's cardio/respiratory collapse the previous day - 'it transpired he didn’t have either of those, so there was no proper explanation', Dr Gibbs said

Dr Gibbs said subsequent X-rays and heart scans offered no explanation for the child's collapse

Dr Gibbs said Child M 'still wasn’t behaving normally' on April 10, he was 'quiet and breathing slow' but he said that was 'explicable for a child that had very nearly died the previous afternoon'. The baby did eventually stabilise and was later discharged

 

[WaxLyrical]

Let's look back and see what kind of a connection she had with Baby K, if any:
'
Feb 16th


Apparently there is a big buzz of excitement in the unit in preparation for the very premature delivery of a child, Baby K, who will be brought to the unit soon.


LL even messaged a colleague about it:

Letby messages a colleague about the unit being a "hive of activity" on February 16 in preparation for a visit from "the big bods", and there is a discussion on the possible of delivery of Child K:

Dr Ray Jayaram was in the delivery room for baby K and then works with transport unit as baby K is brought to Neo-natal unit-room one, w/Joanne Williams designated nurse.

Lucy co-signed for some of the medications with the designated nurse, for the much anticipated super-young preemie.

Lucy also made some of the nursing/observation notes for baby K. And she signed for a saline Bonus for K.

Then another message sent by Lucy, mentioning Baby K: Letby messages her colleague at 5.48pm: '25wkr delivered so fairly busy...

While at Countess, Baby K had a few collapses had to be intubated and was eventually transferred out, and died 3 days later at Arrowe Park.
At one point, during the trial, Dr J testified that he walked into baby K's nursery and saw LL standing cot side, doing nothing, while the baby had desaturated and no alarms were going off. he called for a crash cart.

A couple of years later, years after baby K’s death, Lucy did a Facebook search [April 20, 2018] for the surname of baby K.

SOURCE--prosecution evidence, February 27th 2023, Day 62 - live updates Chester Standard LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, February27


I am surprised that she wouldn't remember the most premature baby she had looked after. Especially as she had been standing at the baby's cot when the attending Doctor walked in and saw the baby had deteriorated, and called for help.

On the other hand we have a style of attack entirely inconsistent with anything else that’s alleged. No air, no poisoning, no internal trauma. No paper towel keepsake, or any other notes. No sympathy card. No memory box. No initials in her diary. No post it note ramblings. No Facebook searching until a matter of weeks before her arrest, <modsnip: sub judice>

We’ve got her acting seemingly normal when “caught” by Dr J, and not like the rabbit in headlights you’d expect if someone was caught red handed trying to murder a baby. We’ve got inconsistencies in recollections between Dr J and the designated nurse. We’ve got a breathing tube that was so insecure it was able to dislodged multiple times.

Baby K is just not the open and shut case for me as it seems to be for everyone else. JMO.

 

[WaxLyrical]

I think she would remember a 25 weeker. It would be quite rare that they would be admitted and we already know that LL liked to keep abreast of all changes on the unit, it's evident in her excessive texting. Personally, I think she'd have been 'interested' in an extremely low birth weight infant as it would be relatively uncommon given that they are most commonly transferred in utero.

Would she be that interested considering she previously worked in a higher level unit where it presumably wasn’t that uncommon?