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.
"Feeling uncomfortable with this because he was beginning to notice the coincidence between the unexplained deaths and serious collapses and the presence of Lucy Letby, Dr Jayaram decided to check on where Lucy Letby was and where Child K was."

There's just something about this that makes me feel really uncomfortable despite trying to keep an open mind on this case. I wonder if the doctor voiced his concerns to any senior management etc.
 
19m ago13:06

Letby was 'trying to kill' Child K when suspicious paediatric consultant walked in on her​

A different designated nurse took over the care of Child K at 7.30am, the court hears as the prosecution opening continues.
As the shift leader arrived at the unit: "Lucy Letby was again at Child K's cot calling for help."
It was found the baby's breathing tube had slipped too far into her throat.
At 9am she was transferred to Arrowe Park Hospital in Wirral where she remained unwell and died on 20 February 2016.
An independent medical expert took the view that "Lucy Letby’s failure to summon help as soon as possible was unusual", the prosecution says.
They go on: "That, together with Child K having been sedated and the alarm not sounding, made it very likely the dislodgement was a deliberate act".
They "did not believe an accidental or innocent dislodgment of the tube was a plausible explanation", it is claimed.
"We alleged she was trying to kill Child K when the paediatric consultant walked in on her," says Nick Johnson KC.
Letby is charged with the attempted murder of Child K.
She denies all the charges against her.

Lucy Letby trial - latest: Nurse 'smiled' to parents of premature baby girl after killing her at fourth attempt, court hears
 
I think this is very interesting, if she was only interested in killing them, then why bring attention to the fact the baby was approaching death. If she had said nothing the baby may have been dead within minutes.

Maybe a way to get the thrill of action, be a saviour, and the Facebook aspect is getting an "emotional high".
Yes this is what I was wondering too.

I find it especially twisted about her looking on Christmas Day, possibly to get a kick. A day that is meant to be a happy family day.
 
"Feeling uncomfortable with this because he was beginning to notice the coincidence between the unexplained deaths and serious collapses and the presence of Lucy Letby, Dr Jayaram decided to check on where Lucy Letby was and where Child K was."

There's just something about this that makes me feel really uncomfortable despite trying to keep an open mind on this case. I wonder if the doctor voiced his concerns to any senior management etc.
They clearly did because an external review was launched shortly, her shifts were changed from night to day, then moved to admin role. And the prosecution did say on Monday that Consultants had noticed this pattern.

The thing is you can't just accuse someone of negligence or suspend them easily - unions would get involved and you need to have evidence. It's difficult even in the private sector if people are suspected of theft or fraud - you need to be careful and follow procedure. Looks like they did flag it and bring in investigations by official means.
 
Not this again. I know it doesn't add to the proof of murder, but it's just not right.

Especially 2 years after the baby died!
You think you would have moved on with your nursing career and other patients and not even remembered the parents names by then.

But perhaps she had been logging them all down somewhere.

And then the usual 'she can't recall doing it' response. She's said that at least 3 times previously. Fine to say it for Facebook searches, but if you start saying it for more medical questions, it's going to look very strange. Either that or she has severe memory problems.

MOO.
To play Devil's Advocate - again; this was April 2018, three months before she was first arrested. It's highly likely that she may have been spoken to by the police in relation to these babies before being arrested, I'd guess the entire unit may have had some contact with the police as regards witness statements.

Under those circumstances it might be entirely reasonable to want to discover everything you can about the situation. Some people are very uncomfortable, psychologically, with a lack of information about serious events which they may have been involved with.
 
1:00pm

In police interview, when Dr Jayaram's account was put to her, she said no concerns had been raised at the time.
She said the alarm had not sounded. She said Child K was sedated and had not been moving around.
She also did not recall either any significant fall in saturations or there being no alarm. She accepted that in the circumstances described by Dr Jayaram she would have expected the alarm to have sounded.
she denied dislodging the tube and said she would have summoned help had Dr Jayaram not arrived, saying she was "possibly waiting to see if she self-corrected, we don’t normally intervene straight away if they weren’t dangerously low".
After the interviews - that suggestion made by Lucy Letby was referred to a nursing expert. Her view was that it was very unlikely that a nurse would leave the bedside of an intubated neonate unless they were very confident that the ET tube was correctly located and secure, the baby was inactive and then they would be away only briefly.
The nurse dismissed the idea that a competent nurse would have delayed intervention if there had been a desaturation.
Letby was found to have researched Child K's parents on Facebook in April 2018 - two years and two months after Child K had died. When asked about this, she said she did not recall doing so.

Why?
2 yrs afterwards?
I have never seen anything so strange.
Wondering whether she engaged in any spiritual practice.
What did she read?
Eat?
6 months to go...
 
I have only read a bit about this case, its hard for me to read about what someone can and will do to innocent babies.
At 66 and finally becoming a grandmother after daughter had to resort to IVF at 36.

<modsnip; sub judice>

Jmo

Those poor innocent babies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They clearly did because an external review was launched shortly, her shifts were changed from night to day, then moved to admin role. And the prosecution did say on Monday that Consultants had noticed this pattern.

The thing is you can't just accuse someone of negligence or suspend them easily - unions would get involved and you need to have evidence. It's difficult even in the private sector if people are suspected of theft or fraud - you need to be careful and follow procedure. Looks like they did flag it and bring in investigations by official means.
I know how it all works :). I was just curious if the doctor was the initial person who had taken notice of this emerging pattern and reported it or maybe it was starting to be talked about within colleagues.
 
"Feeling uncomfortable with this because he was beginning to notice the coincidence between the unexplained deaths and serious collapses and the presence of Lucy Letby, Dr Jayaram decided to check on where Lucy Letby was and where Child K was."

Charge 14 relating to child K was dated Feb 2016.
Charges 1 - 13 are dated June to November 2015.


I wonder how long this doctor had felt uncomfortable and noticed coincidences for?
 
Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, told the jury that Letby’s attempts to kill Baby I were “persistent, calculated and cold-blooded” and “extreme ... even by the standards of this overall case”.

The infant rapidly deteriorated 30 minutes after Letby had fed her, the jury was told, and a subsequent X-ray found a “massive” amount of gas in her stomach that had “squashed” her lungs and bowels.


Shortly before this Letby had allegedly expressed concern to Baby I’s mother about her daughter’s condition – but Letby recorded in the medical notes that it was the mother who had raised these worries.

Johnson said Letby had “reversed the concern” – a ruse, he suggested, “to cover what she planned to do”.

 
Johnson said Letby was on duty when both were poisoned. He added that prosecutors believed the collapses and deaths of all 17 babies were the work of Letby, whom he described as a "constant malevolent presence" at the hospital's neonatal unit when the children collapsed or died.

 
Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, told the jury that Letby’s attempts to kill Baby I were “persistent, calculated and cold-blooded” and “extreme ... even by the standards of this overall case”.

The infant rapidly deteriorated 30 minutes after Letby had fed her, the jury was told, and a subsequent X-ray found a “massive” amount of gas in her stomach that had “squashed” her lungs and bowels.


Shortly before this Letby had allegedly expressed concern to Baby I’s mother about her daughter’s condition – but Letby recorded in the medical notes that it was the mother who had raised these worries.

Johnson said Letby had “reversed the concern” – a ruse, he suggested, “to cover what she planned to do”.

What other explanation can there be for lying on the paperwork saying it was the mum who raised concern?
I believe the mum.
 
I'll do Sky's Updates

18m ago14:18

Court has resumed for the afternoon session​


https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-let...-attack-12716378?postid=4643405#liveblog-body
7m ago14:29

Consultants moved Letby off night shifts after being concerned about her presence​

The prosecution has now moved onto Children L and M, twin boys who would both survive being attacked.
Prosecuting, Nick Johnson KC alleges that Letby attacked Child L first with insulin and "whilst that attack was under way she also attacked Child M".
Child L - who was born premature - was described as improved by the morning of 9 April 2016.
"By this time Letby was supposed only to be working day shifts because the consultants were concerned about the correlation between her presence and unexpected deaths/life-threatening episodes on the night-shifts," the prosecution tells the court.
In the hours that followed Letby's arrival, Child L's glucose levels fell to "abnormally low levels".
He was given an additional dose of glucose in an attempt to correct the hypoglycaemia - which proved ineffective.
Later test results revealed "very high levels of insulin" in his blood.
"Somebody poisoned Child L with insulin," says Mr Johnson, "A drug that is readily available" on the unit.

5m ago14:32

Letby increased the dose to kill Child L 'after failing to kill Child F'​

The prosecution tells the court the attack on Child L mimics that of Child F - who they say was also poisoned with insulin.
Nick Johnson KC says Letby "deliberately" set out to kill Child L.
"She had failed to kill Child F and so she increased the dose," the prosecutor tells the jury.
"She saw the opportunity to complete what she had attempted with Child F."
Independent experts say this was a case of "insulin poisoning" and was administered intravenously via Child L's liquid feed, jurors are told.
"The level of insulin was greater than the range the machine could measure," Mr Johnson says.
In a police interview, Letby said she was aware of Child L's low blood sugar levels.
She said she knew prolonged hypoglycaemia could cause severe brain damage - or even death.
"She denied being responsible, her only explanation was it must have already been in one of the bags that Child L was receiving," Mr Johnson says.
"For reasons that we will explore in evidence, we say that is not a credible possibility."
 
1m ago14:44

As one twin's blood sugar was 'dangerously low', another came 'close to death'​

At the time his brother's blood sugar was "dangerously low", Child M came "close to death", prosecutor Nick Johnson KC tells the jury.
Without warning, his heart rate and breathing dropped significantly and he required a full resuscitation by medical staff.
Yet "four hours later, having been resucitated, he was breathing unsupported".
At 3.30pm, a fluid bag was attached to Child M. Just 15 minutes before his collapse, Child M received intravenous antibiotics - administered either by Letby, or another nurse.
"So it was that Lucy Letby had the opportunity to interfere with Child M's wellbeing, under the cover of legitimate care," Mr Johnson says.
When Child M's monitor went off, Letby was first to the cot, the court is told.
Another nurse on shift says Letby was standing with her at a computer when the alarm activated - but agreed Letby was first to the cot.
The consultant noticed unusual patches of discolouration on Child M's skin. What he saw he thought "similar" to what had been seen during the resucitations of Children A and B, the prosecutor says.
Child M "did not respond well" and treatment was about to be withdrawn after six doses of adrenaline when "all of a sudden, he improved".
The consultant "could not find a cause for this sudden collapse".
"But the discolouration he saw caused him to suspect air embolism - an injection of air," Mr Johnson tells the court.
Letby then became Child M's designated nurse.

Lucy Letby trial - latest: Nurse 'smiled' to parents of premature baby girl after killing her at fourth attempt, court hears
 
Chester Standard (new link):

2:01pm

The trial is due to hear the prosecution's version of events surrounding the circumstances of Child L this afternoon.

2:15pm

The next case concerns twin brothers.
Mr Johnson refers to Child L first.
Child L - attempted murder (by insulin)

2:16pm

Child L was born in April 2016. It is the prosecution case Letby poisoned Child L, while also attacking Child M - the twin.

2:19pm

Child L's blood glucose level was noted to be low and he was treated with a dextrose infusion. His condition improved and he was stable by the day-time shift of April 9.
Letby came on duty that day at 7.30am.
By this time, the prosecution say, Letby was supposed only to be working day shifts because the consultants were concerned about the correlation between her presence and unexpected deaths and life-threatening episodes on the night-shifts.

2:21pm

In the hours that followed, Child L's glucose levels fell abnormally low. He was given additional doses of glucose, but they proved ineffective.
The answers to these levels were found after a lab sample sent to the Royal Liverpool Teaching Hospital laboratory came back with results some time later.
The results of the test were "grossly abnormal", but nothing was done about it as Child L had, by the time the results came back, returned to normal.

2:22pm

The reading was "at the very top of the scale" the equipment could measure, the court hears.
There was no correspondingly high level of C-peptide: it was within the normal range. The only explanation for this anomaly is that what was being measured was synthetic insulin, which had not been prescribed to Child L but was stored and readily available in the neonatal unit.

2:25pm

The court is shown an 'infusion therapy prescription sheet', a written record of the dextrose bag fed to Child L.
The bag was running from noon on April 8, when it had been set up an hour earlier by Letby and another nurse.
Prosecutor Nicholas Johnson KC: "We say Lucy Letby added insulin to that bag of dextrose. She did it deliberately to kill [Child L].
"She had failed to kill [Child F] so gave an increased dose."

2:26pm

Letby had been present for the birth of Child L. She cared for him on his first day and the prosecution say would have been aware of his mild hypoglycaemia.
Child L's blood sugar level remained "dangerously low" through the day.
At 4.30pm, a new infusion bag was required and this was being applied when Child L, the twin brother, was being taken ill.

2:29pm

The prosecution says medical expert evidence is this was a case of insulin poisoning, administered intravenously via Child L's liquid feed.
In police interview, Letby said she was aware of Child L's low blood sugar levels and knew the insulin was kept in a locked fridge, with a variety of other drugs. Keys were passed around nursing staff and there was no record of who held the keys at any time.
She agreed the insulin could not have been administered accidentally, but denied being responsible.
Her explanation was it must have been in one of the bags already being received.
The prosecution say that is not a credible possibility.

2:32pm

Child M was born in good condition and was assessed as requiring 'special care'.
He had an unexpected life-threatening event at about 4pm on April 9, at the same time his twin's blood sugar was gangerously low.
The prosecution say "he came close to death", but "within four hours he was able to breathe unsupported in air."

2:37pm

At 3.30pm, a fluid bag was attached to Child M. At 3.45pm, he received intravenous antibiotics.
The notes showed Letby was one of two to administer the medicine. Digital records show Letby's colleague was using the computer at 3.45pm.
At 4pm, Child M's monitor alarmed and Letby was first to the cot.
The emergency was such that doctors were called urgently.
The consultant, Dr Ravi Jayaram attended and noticed unusual patches of discolouration on Child M’s skin which he thought particularly noticeable because of Child M’s skin tone. He thought the patches unusual because normally, if a baby arrests and there is not enough oxygen moving round the body, the baby is uniformly pale, grey or blue. What he saw he thought similar to what he had seen during the resuscitations of Children A and B.

2:38pm

Child M did not respond well to resuscitation. Six doses of adrenaline followed in 25 minutes and treatment was "about to be withdrawn", when Child M "suddenly improved".
Dr Jayaram could not find any cause for the sudden collapse, but the discolouration he saw caused him to suspect an air embolism.

2:39pm

At 9.14pm, Letby noted Child M was tensing his limbs, curling fingers and toes and rotating hands and feet inwards - signs of brain damage.
On the following night-shift, Child M had what the prosecution called a 'speedy recovery', although he did suffer further desaturations.

2:41pm

Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans said the rapid recovery would not have meant infection or a lung problem was ikely. His conclusion was airway obstruction or air embolus.
A paediatric neuroradiologist reviewed a brain scan on May 2016 and found brain damage for Child M, likely caused by the cardio-respiratory collapse on April 9.

2:44pm

Mr Johnson says when Letby's home was searched in 2018, a handwriten log of drugs administered during Child M's collapse was found, and she had made a note of the collapse in her diary.
'LD [Long day] - twin resus'.
In police interview, Letby agreed she had connected a fluid bag to Child M and had co-signed for medication at 3.45pm but could not be sure if she had administered it.
She thought she must have taken the notes home 'by accident', and had simply noted what had happened in her diary.
She denied that the notes were a "souvenir" and denied deliberately trying to harm Child M. She could think of no reason how he would have suffered an air embolism.

2:45pm

The prosecution says the cases of Child E-F and Child L-M are similar, in that one suffered an insulin overdose and the other an IV air embolism.
Mr Johnson: "We suggest that coincidences like that simply do not happen innocently. Someone was responsible and the only credible candidate is Lucy Letby."


2:46pm

Child N - attempted murder (three allegations)
Child N, a boy, was born in June 2016. He was a couple of weeks premature and he was admitted to the neonatal unit. His clinical condition was "excellent".
The prosecution say there are three separate occasions on which Lucy Letby tried to kill him.

 
2:48pm

Child N had haemophilia. Subseuqent investigation found him to have a mild version of the disease, and children of his age do not bleed for no reason, particularly in the throat, the prosecution say.
The prosecution said Lucy Letby used Child N's haemophilia as a "cover" to attack him.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
1,635
Total visitors
1,776

Forum statistics

Threads
600,160
Messages
18,104,860
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top