VERDICT WATCH UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #29

[Dotta]

The problem with that, for me, is that this whole case BEGINS with a death, that of Child A. If this was an attention seeking gesture without intent to kill, if guilty, I would expect an escalation of injuries and illnesses culminating in a death, one that scared an attention seeking individual into laying low for a while, or to curtail the actions entirely.

This case starts with a death and just escalates, with brief intermissions when suspicions were raised and when LL was on holiday.

Death was always in the mix.

MOOo

"He is not leaving here alive, is he?"

A nurse about a patient.

Doctor ‘shocked’ as Lucy Letby asked if baby was ‘leaving here alive’

A DOCTOR was “shocked” when Lucy Letby asked whether a baby was “leaving here alive”, the nurse’s murder trial heard.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[CS2C]

Does anyone know what hours Letby worked on her night and day shifts please? IE 7pm - 7am etc etc

 

[Dotta]

Does anyone know what hours Letby worked on her night and day shifts please? IE 7pm - 7am etc etc

Night shifts started at 8 pm according to this report

"Johnson KC said Letby had been “texting non-stop” after starting her night shift at 8pm – five hours before she allegedly attempted to murder a newborn boy, Child N, by injecting him with air."

Lucy Letby texted about doctor ‘crush’ hours before attempt on baby boy’s life, court told | Lucy Letby | The Guardian

amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[ColourPurple]

Does anyone know what hours Letby worked on her night and day shifts please? IE 7pm - 7am etc etc

• Nurses worked on the children's ward as well as the neonatal unit, but "it was the general rule" they did not mix on a shift.
• A day shift would begin at 7.30am and the night shift would end at 8am, leaving a 30-minute handover period.
• A general briefing would occur during that time, before patient-specific handovers.
• There were two types of day shift - a short day and a long day. A short day would end in the afternoon, the long day shift would end at 8pm.
• When babies are handed over from one shift to the next, the system was that a sheet was produced, listing all the babies in the unit at the time and their corresponding designated nurses.

• The hospital has - and had - band 6 nurses, band 5 nurses - ones who had done special training and ones who had not - and band 4 nurses (nursery nurses).
• Letby had done her special training, caring for intensive care unit babies, which permitted her to work in the neonatal unit.

• On a specific shift, a senior nurse would be designated as a shift leader, responsible for assigning specific nurses to specific babies.
• They would be responsible for the administration of medicine.
• The neonatal unit had four rooms, split into the ICU (intensive care unit), the HDU (high dependency unit) and special care babies rooms.
• "With one or two exceptions", the cases in this trial, Mr Johnson explains, were dealt with in the ICU or HDU

• Doctors at the hospital would work different shifts from the nurses, and a shift would cover the children's ward and the neonatal unit.
• Paediatric consultants would be on duty from 9am-5pm, while at night there would be a paediatric consultant on call within 10 minutes of the department.
• Registrars would provide senior medical cover overnight.

source: -

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

THE trial of former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of multiple baby murders, is due to finalise its jury and hear…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[d0lphin]

does anyone know exactly how many days have been lost to juror absences in this trial?
I was arguing with someone on twitter saying it wasn’t normal how many absences there’s been and they were saying it was a very long trial and was completely normal.
Okay 9 months… I haven’t took one sick day in the past 9 month. Neither has any of my close colleagues. It really isn’t “normal” in my opinion. Anyone else ??

I think it can depend on someone's age.
I could count on one hand how many days I had off sick over a 15 year period in a previous job when I was in my 30s and 40s but in my 50s I'm usually off work for about 3 times a year for about 10 days altogether.

 

[katydid23]

This is something we've been over before and a "reasonable chance" of death doesn't cut it as far as attempted murder goes. The defandant has to specifically intend death occur to be convicted.

Running a risk of death, even a very likely one, is not good enough to show intent on its own.

I'm still surprised that they didn't charge simple assault in a lot, or all, of the AM allegations. It can still carry a life sentence, I think.

The things she allegedly did, purposely caused the babies to stop breathing and to be unresponsive, to be flatlining and considered dead, before intervention.

That^^^^ seems to cover the 'attempted murder' criteria, in my opinion. Those babies were dead, but were brought back to life by emergency workers. So attempted murder is the correct charge, in my opinion. JMO IMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

The things she allegedly did, purposely caused the babies to stop breathing and to be unresponsive, to be flatlining and considered dead, before intervention.

That^^^^ seems to cover the 'attempted murder' criteria, in my opinion. Those babies were dead, but were brought back to life by emergency workers. So attempted murder is the correct charge, in my opinion. JMO IMO

They weren't legally dead. Legal death is irreversible. It may be the way you suggest on your side of the pond but it isn't here.

And we've done this before; if your argument is correct then it could logically result in someone being convicted for murdering the same person twice!

 

[Dotta]

"It’s Monday but keep smiling"

"Due to lack of interest
Monday has been canceled."

 

[esther43]

They weren't legally dead. Legal death is irreversible. It may be the way you suggest on your side of the pond but it isn't here.

And we've done this before; if your argument is correct then it could logically result in someone being convicted for murdering the same person twice!

I suppose this is where it gets really controversial. I mean, where is the line?
Many years ago I was a foster carer and we used to have regular meetings with other carers.
There was one family who had an MBP victim on placement. He was 6 years old, arrived in a wheelchair and had to have CPap overnight. He was also allergic to everything so he came equipped with a long list of dietary requirements and suppliments. Upshot of it was, he didn't need any of the interventions, it was all made up for attention. Was the Mother attempting to murder him? No. Did she abuse him repeatedly, yes.
But when you apply that to a tiny premature baby, the stakes are soooo much higher and also the 'opportunist element' of striking whilst the iron is hot, basically waiting until the very vulnerable baby became ill and capitalising on the moment. It runs perhaps a more serious risk than 'exaggerating symptoms'. Suspect many MBP sufferers only give their kids some of the drugs prescribed as part of their 'risk management plan' but the infant themselves becomes the source of their satisfaction.
LL had an ongoing supply of babies.
The fact she allegedly went 'too far' more than once and potentially still kept repeat offending has to be a consideration too I'd have thought.

 

[Parker Knoll]

How awful Esther.

 

[marynnu]

I suppose this is where it gets really controversial. I mean, where is the line?
Many years ago I was a foster carer and we used to have regular meetings with other carers.
There was one family who had an MBP victim on placement. He was 6 years old, arrived in a wheelchair and had to have CPap overnight. He was also allergic to everything so he came equipped with a long list of dietary requirements and suppliments. Upshot of it was, he didn't need any of the interventions, it was all made up for attention. Was the Mother attempting to murder him? No. Did she abuse him repeatedly, yes.
But when you apply that to a tiny premature baby, the stakes are soooo much higher and also the 'opportunist element' of striking whilst the iron is hot, basically waiting until the very vulnerable baby became ill and capitalising on the moment. It runs perhaps a more serious risk than 'exaggerating symptoms'. Suspect many MBP sufferers only give their kids some of the drugs prescribed as part of their 'risk management plan' but the infant themselves becomes the source of their satisfaction.
LL had an ongoing supply of babies.
The fact she allegedly went 'too far' more than once and potentially still kept repeat offending has to be a consideration too I'd have thought.

That's just awful to contemplate. (Though I think Marantz is just saying that if someone is revived, they were never dead in the first place).

 

[Dotta]

Dbm

 

[notsure]

I've always had a problem with motive. But looking at a lot of true crime things lately, I've come to realise there isn't always an understandable motive. Real life is not like an Agatha Christie novel or a Columbo episode.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I feel she is a deeply DEEPLY troubled individual.
JMO

 

[katydid23]

That's just awful to contemplate. (Though I think Marantz is just saying that if someone is revived, they were never dead in the first place).

But I think it is a grey area---a riddle. Because if a baby has been pumped with air, and they are unresponsive, not breathing, turning blue---if nothing was done they would certainly die.

Just because the emergency team saved them from certain death, should that be credited to the defendant, clearing her of attempted murder charges? I don't think so. I think it should be taken into account that the child was on the verge of certain death because of the defendant's actions.

I just cannot square it logically, that a nurse could do very destructive, malicious and LETHAL things to many newborns, over and over,
putting them on the brink of death repeatedly---and the legal system could ignore it because they cannot prove intent.

It makes no sense there was no intent, when there were so many serious attacks on so many babies, some left with severe deficits.

 

[Phoenix Lazarus]

Maybe it'll be today.

 

[katydid23]

Maybe it'll be today.

Hope Springs Eternal....

 

[marynnu]

But I think it is a grey area---a riddle. Because if a baby has been pumped with air, and they are unresponsive, not breathing, turning blue---if nothing was done they would certainly die.

Just because the emergency team saved them from certain death, should that be credited to the defendant, clearing her of attempted murder charges? I don't think so. I think it should be taken into account that the child was on the verge of certain death because of the defendant's actions.

I just cannot square it logically, that a nurse could do very destructive, malicious and LETHAL things to many newborns, over and over,
putting them on the brink of death repeatedly---and the legal system could ignore it because they cannot prove intent.

It makes no sense there was no intent, when there were so many serious attacks on so many babies, some left with severe deficits.

I agree with everything you say! It was only the meaning of 'dead' that was in question, that's all.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

I feel she is a deeply DEEPLY troubled individual.
JMO

Yes.

Instead of saying to parents, take all of the time you need to cuddle your baby. Stay as long as you wish and need. Here are blankets, pillows, tea...
Instead she says to the parents, Okay, you've said your good-byes. Would you like to put him into this basket?

The absolute ice coldness...

 

[katydid23]

I think child C stands out as for me it's triple whammy on three levels.

1.LL's lies about where she was at the time AE was alleged to have been submitted.
First she told police she was in ICU, then she took it back saying she wasn't, she was going off Sophie's statement, then we saw a text from LL herself admitting she was in ICU.

2.Then there was the weird behaviour around the parents, wanting to check in on them when she'd been asked twice not to get involved.

3.Then, there was child C's heartbeat stopping and restarting. I've never heard of that before but good old common sense says that would only happen if there was an air bubble intruding in the cardio respiratory system.
So I feel the witness evidence is quite strong here. And I don't know whether a heart restarting itself is called 'circumstantial evidence' but the situation does not seem medically appropriate at all.

Here is something else that is very suspicious about Baby C's case:

June 8th, Baby A died 90 minutes after being handed over to Nurse Letby. He was born in good condition and was not on oxygen and he did not die of a natural disease process, according to medical experts.

The first attempted murder of child A's twin brother, child B, took place the next night:
Just 28 hours later, Just after midnight, Letby started a bag of liquid feed with Child B, with the nurse, through an IV line.
At 12.16am Letby - while not Child B's designated nurse - took her blood gases.
About 28 hours after her twin brother had died, at about 12.30am, Child B's alarm sounded and Letby had called the nurse to the child's incubator. Child B was not breathing.
After efforts to resuscitate Child B, Child B "recovered very quickly".

About 3 days later, June 11th, another attack on child B:
A doctor subsequently found "loops of gas filled bowel".but he recovered.
The prosecution say this was a finding replicated many times in the upcoming cases.


So three days later, on June 14th, we have the 3rd child that was attacked---Child C.

Letby was the only nurse who'd been on duty for all three collapse incidents for Child A, B and C.

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders