UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
It's clearly not though as, if guilty, it took her four attempts in one case and several attempts in others.
NJ KC says that prosecution medical experts consider that baby D didn't have pneumonia. Tells jury "The injection of 3- 5ml/kg of air is sufficient to kill. It doesn’t take much"
 
11:51am

On the night of October 22, Letby was on a night shift, with a different nurse being the designated nurse for Child I.

Between 8pm and Child I's collapse, the only entry Letby made in any child's records was those in her charge in room 3.

The prosecution say it was, from her records, a slow night for her.


11:53am

Just before midnight, Child I became unsettled. Letby and another nurse attended to her but Child I collapsed and required CPR.

The on-call registrar noted Child I had a mottled blue appearance of the trunk and peripheries.

After 5 minutes of CPR, Child I's saturation rate returned to 100% and she recovered to the point of 'rooting' - ie a sign of hunger, and was 'fighting the ventilator' - ie trying to breathe independently.

The ET tube was removed at 12.45am.



11:54am

At 1.06am a nurse, having left the nursery temporarily, responded to Child I's alarm and saw Lucy Letby at the incubator.

Child I was very distressed and (inserted by me: the designated nurse ?) wanted to intervene, but Letby assured her that they would be able to settle the baby.*

"Don't worry - we will sort it out," Mr Johnson tells the jury.(said by Letby?)

Child I then collapsed.

11:57am

The on-call doctor arrived and resuscitation attempts were made. Purple and white mottling were noted on Child I's skin.

All resuscitative efforts were unsuccessful and treatment was withdrawn at 2.10am, and Child I was pronounced dead at 2.30am.

In the immediate aftermath, Child I's parents were taken to a private room.

As the mum bathed her recently deceased child, Lucy Letby came into the room and, in the words of the mum, "was smiling and kept going on about how she was present at [Child I']s first bath and how much [Child I] had loved it.”


11:58am

The cause of death was given by the coroner as
Hypoxic ischaemic damage of brain and chronic lung due to prematurity and 1b. Extreme prematurity.

All loops of bowel showed significantly dilated lumen due to increased air content – in layman’s terms they were expanded like a partially inflated balloon. There was no sign of NEC (bowel necrosis) or any other bowel problem.

The prosecution say there were signs of "earlier hypoxic ischaemic damage – in other words, the earlier attempts to kill her had caused brain damage resulting from a shortage of oxygen."


12:03pm

Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans said he believed the apnoea monitor might have been switched off on October 13 for child I, and the deliberate administering of a large bolus of air into Child I's stomach via her NG tube on October 22/23.

In police interview, Letby said she could not remember the circumstances of September 30, and had taken over the care of Child I after the child had an "episode".

She said she had no recollection of the events surroudning Child I's death, and said the child had been returned from Arrowe Park Hospital too quickly.

In June 2019, she was asked about a sympathy card she had sent to the child's parents. She said it was not normal to do so - and this was the only time she had done so.

She accepted having an image of that card on her phone.

She was asked about the October 13 incident and challenged the nurse's account, adding: "Maybe I spotted something that [the nurse] wasn't able to spot", as she was "more experienced".

She was asked why she had searched for the parents' details on Facebook. She said she did not recall doing it.


12:04pm

The prosecution say Child I "was doing well by the time Lucy Letby got her hands on her.

"What happened...followed the pattern of what happened to others before and what has yet to happen to others.

"All of a sudden out of nowhere came vomiting, breathing problems and critical desaturations.

"It was persistent, it was calculated, and it was cold-blooded."


 






Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
11m

Pros: What happened to baby I followed the pattern of what had happened to others before and what was yet to happen to others. All of a sudden out of nowhere came vomiting, breathing problems and critical desaturations
 
"In June 2019, she was asked about a sympathy card she had sent to the child's parents. She said it was not normal to do so - and this was the only time she had done so."

How would she have their address? Is it on the baby's record she'd have access to? Do new born babies have their address details listed already on the medical docs she'd have access to?
 
this
She accepted that she had kept an image of the sympathy card on her phone. She denied giving baby I air via the nasogastric tube.

After her arrest Lucy Letby was asked about a sympathy card she had sent to baby I's parents. She said that to send a card was not normal – indeed this was the only time she had done it; but that it was not often the nurses got to know a family as well as they had known baby I's.

 
Although it doesn't serve to prove that she did any of this, the repeated statements of "I don't recall doing it" when asked why she searched patients family members is starting to have a very weird feel to it. If she'd replied "I don't know why I did it" I think that would sound slightly better if we take into account any potential autistic or similar conditions she may have. Repeatedly claiming not remembering doing it over multiple occasions and in relation to such serious cases sounds deeply strange though.

As I said, it proves nothing in the great scheme of things.
 
this
She accepted that she had kept an image of the sympathy card on her phone. She denied giving baby I air via the nasogastric tube.

After her arrest Lucy Letby was asked about a sympathy card she had sent to baby I's parents. She said that to send a card was not normal – indeed this was the only time she had done it; but that it was not often the nurses got to know a family as well as they had known baby I's.

In which case, sending a card doesn't seem that unreasonable.
 
On the fourth occasion, baby I's designated nurse left the nursery. She came back to respond to baby I’s alarm and Lucy Letby was standing by the incubator. Baby I was very distressed. The desig nurse wanted to intervene but Letby said “we will settle her”.

Baby I then 'collapsed'. Doctors tried to resuscitate her but were unsuccessful.


In the immediate aftermath of baby I's death her parents were taken to a private room. Lucy Letby and another nurse asked if the baby's mum wanted to bathe her daughter... (1/2)

...As the mother bathed her recently departed child, Lucy Letby came into the room and in the words of the mother, she “was smiling and kept going on about how she was present at the baby's first bath and how much the baby had loved it”.
 
12:24pm

Child J - attempted murder charge

Child J, a girl, was initially stable but it was discovered she had a necrotic and perforated bowel. The prosecution say she really did have NEC.

She was transferred to Alder Hey for surgery to fit her with a stoma bag.


12:27pm

Child J 'recovered well' and was taken to the Countess of Chester Hospital on November 10, 2015.

She had a relatively rare type of intravenous line fitted, a 'Broviac line'.

On November 16, medical notes referred to her as being well.

But on November 27, she suffered an unexplained collapse in the early hours. Letby was on duty.


12:28pm

Before she went to work for that shift, Lucy Letby exchanged text messages with one of her colleagues.

The prosecution say It seemed that she was not happy with working conditions and she referred to the difficulties of looking after the babies who just needed feeding support.

Child J was one of those.

The prosecution add that it appeared working in such nurseries was "not sufficiently stimulating for Lucy Letby".



 
But this isn't really validated by the mother, in fact she has a very negative opinion about their interaction with Lucy post baby's death. Reasonable will depend on the mother's testimony of how close they were.
Unsure. The mother presumably has only lost one baby, whereas nurses experience patient deaths all the time. I think reasonable depends more on nurses testimony on what was the "norm" for them, and whether others do it.
 
12:33pm

Letby was in a different room to Child J, and was not the designated nurse, but 'got involved', by co-signing for medication at 12.02am.

Letby's colleague was a band 4 nurse and not sufficiently qualified to give intravenous medication.
After 4.40am, that nurse thought Child J became pale and mottled.

She left the room for a short time, and upon her return another nurse was assisting Child J with breathing.

The last thing Letby had recorded on notes was at 3am.

There is data from the door system showing Letby coming in at 3.47am. The prosecution suggest Letby had been on a break during that time.

Just after 5am, Child J suffered another desaturation and she was moved to the hugh dependency unit in room 2.

The registrar was called and Child J was working hard to breathe, but had otherwise recovered well.

At 6.56am, Child J's alarm sounded and Letby was among those responding.

A doctor attended and took control. He noted oxygen levels were 'unrecordable' and circulation 'poor'. There were symptoms of a seizure.


12:35pm

At 7.20am, Letby co-signed a chart for a 10% glucose infusion.

At 7.24am, Child J collapsed again. The doctor assisted in resuscitating her.

Child J recovered and the doctor could not explain what happened from the results of various tests taken.
He considered the events unexplained.


12:37pm

Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans described the collapse at 7.11am as unexpected without any straightforward explanation.

He said that it was “of concern and consistent with some form of obstruction of her airways, such as smothering”.
The symptoms of a seizure suggested oxygen deprived to the brain.

Child J has not suffered a seizure since.

Dr Evans added: "Whilst I have concerns...one cannot rule out the presence of infection, despite the normal inflammatory markers… at the time of the two collapse episodes…I note also the presence of the stoma which could be the source of the organism(s) that caused her systemic infections.”

Dr Evans, in a follow-up statement, maintained 'airway obstruction' was the most likely cause of Child J's collapse.

Dr Sandie Bohin concluded that the issue was not infection because there were no “soft signs” and the gradual deterioration which might be expected, but the collapse was "sudden" and had caused seizures.

12:39pm

In interview, Letby said she had little recollection of Child J, but remembered the Broviac line.

She confirmed contact with Child J, but denied doing anything to cause her harm.

In 2020, she was asked why she had searched Facebook for Child J's parents. She replied: "I don't remember doing that."


12:40pm

The prosecution said:

"It is remarkable that on many occasions, when children who had suffered unexpected spectacular and life-threatening collapses were removed from her [Lucy Letby's] orbit, they had exceptional recoveries."


 
Unsure. The mother presumably has only lost one baby, whereas nurses experience patient deaths all the time. I think reasonable depends more on nurses testimony on what was the "norm" for them, and whether others do it.
But there was no norm as LL said because it was the only time she'd ever done it. She said it wasn't usual.

Also, there's a difference in sending a card if you get on well with the family and they like you vs if they are unhappy or not that close to you. A nurse doesn't get to decide she can send a sympathy card to a family - she needs to respect THEIR boundaries of what is acceptable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
115
Guests online
1,676
Total visitors
1,791

Forum statistics

Threads
600,157
Messages
18,104,744
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top