UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #5

[Imnothere]

10:17am

Child C was weaned off CPAP for two hours and placed on Optiflow at 1pm as, it was noted, the baby boy was "so unsettled on NCPAP".
The court hears Optiflow is a less invasive form of breathing support than CPAP.
Child C was "very settled this afternoon" with a "slight increase in respiratory rate".
A further blood gas reading was taken later in the afternoon with readings "not quite as good", which Mrs Williams was "something to be taken into consideration" and had followed Child C being placed on Optiflow.
The note adds: "Clinically remain stable but aware do not want to push [Child C]."

 

[Imnothere]

10:21am

Mrs Williams said fluids were increased, with 10% dextrose discontinued as it was day 4, and the dextrose would not have been needed with lipids [fats] increased to support nutrition.
The note adds: "Continues to have dark bile aspirates, frequently this morning".
Mrs Williams says it's "not reassuring" as it could be a sign of NEC [a gastro-intestinal disease].
Philip Astbury, prosecuting: "Was it of concern?"
Mrs Williams: "Yes."
It was escalated to an on-duty doctor that day.
Mrs Williams says Child C was on nil-by-mouth and a cautious feeding regime.

 

[Imnothere]

10:28am

The court hears Child C had pulled out two oral gastric tubes during the morning due to being "feisty" and unsettled.
A naso-gastric tube was "on free drainage" to drain air from Child C, reducing air build-up in the stomach, and check for any aspirates.
The notes adds: "Abdo[men] full but soft". The court hears that was "quite normal for a baby...for [Child C]."
The abdomen had a "slight shine but not veiny or distended".
The court hears a distended abdomen would be a symptom of NEC.

 

[Imnothere]

10:30am

The note adds: "If aspirates improve can start tropic feeds this evening".
Rantidine was administered via an IV to counteract the bile aspirates.
The weight of 717g was noted, which Mrs Williams says is not unusual as all babies lose weight in the first few days.
She said doctors were aware of the weight update.
A cranial ultrasound scan was carried out, with 'no abnormalities detected'.

10:39am

An intensive care unit chart for Child C is now presented to the court, which details the various readings and notes corresponding to Mrs Williams's nursing note.
The aspirates of dark bile are recorded at 9am and 1pm. 0.5ml dark bile is recorded at the latter, which was a "small" amount, but any dark bile was a "concern", Mrs Williams says.
A further 0.5ml of dark bile is aspirated at 4pm.

10:43am

A nursing note of 'family communications', from June 13, is shown to the court, written by Mrs Williams.
She records: "Mummy and daddy on the unit during the day, both have had skin-to-skin with [Child C]. Pleased to see him more settled this afternoon.
"Appear happy with plan of care."

 

[Imnothere]

10:45am

A further nursing note showed a blood gas reading at 6pm was "improvement from previous CBG", but lactate levels had increased.
Child C remained on Optiflow and was "stable".
The aspirates were "reduced this evening".
The note adds: "?? Commence entral feed tonight"
Mrs Williams clarifies: "Query query."

10:46am

Mrs Williams said you would "always be cautious of a baby that size", referring to Child C.
Mr Astubry: "How was the progress during that shift?"
"He had done well, weaned off to Optiflow, he had benefitted from time with mum and dad."

10:51am

Ben Myers KC, for Letby's defence, is now asking Mrs Williams questions.
She agrees that "you can never be complacent" with a child like Child C, and however stable he is, he would require close monitoring.
She said it was important to carry out observations, and look for "subtle signs".

 

[MsBetsy]

I don’t quite understand her logic in saying that. Maybe I’m missing something? If you’re not good enough to care for a baby, let’s say baby C, why don’t you just leave it to the nurse that was designated to look after it. Why allegedly kill the baby? Same with the others, why not quit being a nurse or ask to be assigned to the most healthy babies in room 3 instead of room 1. This thing she wrote really confuses me.

I don't think we've heard enough to understand what she meant. The note reads like a confession. Maybe she felt safe expressing her feelings on paper because she thought nobody would ever find it. She might have meant she's not good enough 'in general,' not necessarily that she was not good at nursing.

She's charged with murdering 7 babies with intent and attempting to murder 15 others. There is so much we haven't heard yet, it's bound to be confusing! They haven't even addressed the context of the note yet.

As you said, why didn't she just quit? Why did she want so much to care for child C when she wasn't her designated nurse, and why ignore the lead nurse's assignment? I haven't seen any indication that she did not want to stay there or did not like being a nurse.

Maybe requesting 'healthy' babies would raise even more suspicion from doctors, as they are not quite as vulnerable. However, all of the victims were expected to do well.

The prosecution has suggested motive, but they don't need to prove any particular reason for the crimes.

 

[Imnothere]

10:54am

Mr Myers says the observations for Child C need to be taken into context for a baby the size of Child C.
Mrs Williams says that could "potentially" be the case.
She adds she was aware of pre-existing concerns raised at Child C's birth.

10:57am

Mr Myers asks if Child C still needed breathing support with Optiflow, and would not have been switched if he had been settled on NCPAP.
Mrs Williams says he had good blood gases so was able to "step down" respiratory support to Optiflow.

Mr Myers: "You are documenting all the little changes made [on the nursing notes], because he is such a little baby?"

Mrs Williams: "It is important to be thorough."

 

[Imnothere]

11:03am

The note of 'aware do not want to push [Child C]' is raised.
Mrs Williams: "It's making sure we are doing individual care and very aware of what's happening with [Child C] and what he needs."
Not wanting to push Child C was not to tire him, and/or administer procedures such as a lumbar puncture.
Mrs Williams said not wanting to push Child C, in this context, was in relation to breathing.
Mr Myers: "Could that apply to feeding as well?"
Mrs Williams: "Yes."

11:03am

The matter of dark bile aspirates is mentioned.
Mr Myers: "We have seen from the chart, that aspirates have been taken throughout the day, and they have been there the day before?"
Mrs Williams: "Yes."

11:05am

A distended abdomen could be a symptom of other conditions, Mrs Williams adds, but NEC would be one which would be of concern.

11:07am

The 'tropic feeds', as mentioned on the nursing note, would be via expressed breast milk if the aspirates improved, along with the "overall clinical picture", Mrs Williams tells the court.

11:09am

The weight of 717g is "a significant reduction, isn't it?" Mr Myers asks.
Mrs Williams says it would need to be taken into context, and it was important to administer feeds safely.
The plan to do so would be, following a discussion, to commence entral feeds that night.

 

[Imnothere]

11:12am

Mr Astbury rises to ask one more question on CPAP: "Would you ever take a baby off CPAP just if they were unsettled?"
Mrs Williams: "No."
The court hears the step down to Optiflow would be done in consideration with other factors.
Mrs Williams has now finished giving evidence for Child C.
There will now be a short break in court before the trial resumes.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I don't think we've heard enough to understand what she meant. The note reads like a confession. Maybe she felt safe expressing her feelings on paper because she thought nobody would ever find it. She might have meant she's not good enough 'in general,' not necessarily that she was not good at nursing.

She's charged with murdering 7 babies with intent and attempting to murder 15 others. There is so much we haven't heard yet, it's bound to be confusing! They haven't even addressed the context of the note yet.

As you said, why didn't she just quit? Why did she want so much to care for child C when she wasn't her designated nurse, and why ignore the lead nurse's assignment? I haven't seen any indication that she did not want to stay there or did not like being a nurse.

Maybe requesting 'healthy' babies would raise even more suspicion from doctors, as they are not quite as vulnerable. However, all of the victims were expected to do well.

The prosecution has suggested a motive, but they don't need to prove any particular reason for the crimes.

I’m going to wait for more on the note, seems to be allot of doubt about its potential meaning and no real conclusion.

What was the prosecution’s suggested motive? It’s obviously not for material gain, or status related, or for any other potential material benefit. Your left with personal reasons, envy of others success? An inability to acknowledge her own inadequacy at being a nurse which would be denial and thus a projection of this denial onto the Babies ie “if I kill them I don’t have to be honest with myself and admit my failings”, plain hatred of babies which is not a documented phenomenon, or a desire to inflict suffering on others ? Your left with she did it because she likes hurting people to the utmost and total extent possible, or perhaps even it might be the thrill of killing babies and getting away with it. All the latter would suggest the feeling she gets from such acts is the motive. It really would be the worst of the worst if she did and would need some serious psychological mess to be a reality. We have nothing to point that way as far as I can tell.<modsnip - medical opinion stated as fact> In terms of her character I would sooner trust people she has been around for a long time to give an accurate reflection of who she is rather than patient’s family etc who couldn’t say anything other than what is learned in such a short space of time.

 

[arrogantcat]

the question of a (prospective) motive is an interesting one.

Before this came to trial I thought an ‘Angel of mercy’ type motive was the most likely, given her age and prior good record. I honestly expected more of the infants to be in a similar condition to Baby C, and thought perhaps LL might have falsely believed she was sparing them suffering or lifelong disability. We’ve seen nothing at all to support this from either side, though, so it now looks v unlikely.

The Prosecution seem to be painting a rough picture of someone motivated by sympathy/attention. This is certainly a possibility, but so odd that she would switch from being a caring nurse to seeing these same infants as so disposable.

Or perhaps the first death was an accident - a medical mishap that wasn’t picked up on in the chaotic, underperforming hospital setting - and she got some sort of rush from getting away with it? That she then felt compelled to repeat?


Everything sounds so unlikely. I know the prosecution are under no obligation to provide a motive but I do hope they choose to put one forward as the case develops, as I’m currently really struggling to imagine what would drive someone to this.

All entirely speculative and MOO - I am by no means convinced of guilt yet.

 

[Sweeper2000]

This can be said about anyone. Why do some people do murder-suicide? Why kill innocent people if you alone want to die?

Cases of murder suicide normally have possessiveness as a motive. Normally very personal very intimate. Is normally male perpetrators who after having a relationship end think to themselves “if I can’t have you no one can and if I can’t have you I don’t want to live”. I think in most other cases there is an element of considered benevolence “the world is so cruel I won’t allow you to suffer it” and there are also people who will use murder to hurt someone else like the case of Paris Bennett who is a bonafide psychopath. That case is an example of the worst of the worst. He used his sisters murder as a tool to hurt his mother because it’s only very rarely that a psychopath will kill for the feeling, most of their violence is utilitarian in nature, done in order to get something else like money. In the case of a murder suicide done in order to hurt others presumably the individual kills in order to inflict suffering on others but doesn’t want to face the consequences or is so overcome by the guilt they commit suicide. A psychopath wouldn’t commit suicide because they wouldn’t feel guilty but might use the suicide as a way of removing from others the capacity to control them, ie they commit suicide as a way of saying “ you won’t ever get me”. Refusal to have others in control.

 

[notsure]

the question of a (prospective) motive is an interesting one.

Before this came to trial I thought an ‘Angel of mercy’ type motive was the most likely, given her age and prior good record. I honestly expected more of the infants to be in a similar condition to Baby C, and thought perhaps LL might have falsely believed she was sparing them suffering or lifelong disability. We’ve seen nothing at all to support this from either side, though, so it now looks v unlikely.

The Prosecution seem to be painting a rough picture of someone motivated by sympathy/attention. This is certainly a possibility, but so odd that she would switch from being a caring nurse to seeing these same infants as so disposable.

Or perhaps the first death was an accident - a medical mishap that wasn’t picked up on in the chaotic, underperforming hospital setting - and she got some sort of rush from getting away with it? That she then felt compelled to repeat?


Everything sounds so unlikely. I know the prosecution are under no obligation to provide a motive but I do hope they choose to put one forward as the case develops, as I’m currently really struggling to imagine what would drive someone to this.

All entirely speculative and MOO - I am by no means convinced of guilt yet.

The jury will surely need to hear much more about LL's personality and life prior to these sad events. I'm struggling to imagine that a young person could go through life and reach this age without any indication of any mental abnormality and diligently pursue a caring career to a high level, involving so much hard work and study, and then turn evil. It's almost beyond belief.

 

[Powermjp]

the question of a (prospective) motive is an interesting one.

Before this came to trial I thought an ‘Angel of mercy’ type motive was the most likely, given her age and prior good record. I honestly expected more of the infants to be in a similar condition to Baby C, and thought perhaps LL might have falsely believed she was sparing them suffering or lifelong disability. We’ve seen nothing at all to support this from either side, though, so it now looks v unlikely.

The Prosecution seem to be painting a rough picture of someone motivated by sympathy/attention. This is certainly a possibility, but so odd that she would switch from being a caring nurse to seeing these same infants as so disposable.

Or perhaps the first death was an accident - a medical mishap that wasn’t picked up on in the chaotic, underperforming hospital setting - and she got some sort of rush from getting away with it? That she then felt compelled to repeat?


Everything sounds so unlikely. I know the prosecution are under no obligation to provide a motive but I do hope they choose to put one forward as the case develops, as I’m currently really struggling to imagine what would drive someone to this.

All entirely speculative and MOO - I am by no means convinced of guilt yet.

Yes i think the motive is an interesting one, i do remember one quote of her saying it would be “cathartic” for her “to see a living baby in the space previously occupied by a dead baby”. That as a stand alone comment isn't hugely worrying, could even be religious, but with the evidence and context of this case, her behaviour is building a picture (with the parents, the note etc). That comment could be seen differently.

If she is guilty, Is it possible she got some sort of high from that, one baby going and a new one coming in. There is something known as the psychopaths high, which they get from killing, or other extreme activities.

But who knows.

 

[Sweeper2000]

the question of a (prospective) motive is an interesting one.

Before this came to trial I thought an ‘Angel of mercy’ type motive was the most likely, given her age and prior good record. I honestly expected more of the infants to be in a similar condition to Baby C, and thought perhaps LL might have falsely believed she was sparing them suffering or lifelong disability. We’ve seen nothing at all to support this from either side, though, so it now looks v unlikely.

The Prosecution seem to be painting a rough picture of someone motivated by sympathy/attention. This is certainly a possibility, but so odd that she would switch from being a caring nurse to seeing these same infants as so disposable.

Or perhaps the first death was an accident - a medical mishap that wasn’t picked up on in the chaotic, underperforming hospital setting - and she got some sort of rush from getting away with it? That she then felt compelled to repeat?


Everything sounds so unlikely. I know the prosecution are under no obligation to provide a motive but I do hope they choose to put one forward as the case develops, as I’m currently really struggling to imagine what would drive someone to this.

All entirely speculative and MOO - I am by no means convinced of guilt yet.

That’s it. Absolutely nothing to be gained from doing something like that other than that related to feelings. There is no other option. “Thrill killing” a documented phenomenon and nothing even remotely suggesting it as of yet. Indeed the opposite is evident with the words “it’s not about me, it’s about those poor parents”. There isn’t anything to suggest this wasn’t genuine either or that Lucy isn’t a genuine person. I would argue that we haven’t heard enough to say with any real conclusiveness that Lucy can be said to be a genuine person as of yet but also the opposite is equally as true. At current time we have enough to suggest but not state certainly that she is genuine We will have to wait for more character description.

 

[notsure]

Yes i think the motive is an interesting one, i do remember one quote of her saying it would be “cathartic” for her “to see a living baby in the space previously occupied by a dead baby”. In my opinion this is an odd thing to say, i know some people will probably come up with a reason that its fine, but i think its odd. And it add with the other things with her behaviour around the parents which is a little concerning

If she is guilty, Is it possible she got some sort of high from that, one baby going and a new one coming in. There is something known as the psychopaths high, which they get from killing, or other extreme activities.

Can a person turn into a psychopath after being "normal" beforehand?

 

[arrogantcat]

Can a person turn into a psychopath after being "normal" beforehand?

From my understanding, no - unless they suffer an acquired brain injury or similar that changes the structure of the brain.

Psychopathy is usually a condition someone is born with, and signs will usually display even in childhood.

 

[notsure]

It's problematic that some of these witnesses seem to have quite a vague recollection of who was present in the rooms at any given time.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Can a person turn into a psychopath after being "normal" beforehand?

Nope. It’s a mix of factors that make a psychopath develop. Genetic disposition and early environmental conditions that together make them that way. There is nearly always signs noticed early on, torturing animals = lack of empathy which is key, theft = a disregard of right and wrong or social rules, often a proclivity for extreme violence = lack of control which is key and associated with narcissism, deceit is key which is Machiavellian, and highly unusual attitudes to relationships which suggests callousness also normally a high degree of manipulative traits.

 

[squish]

Yes, especially since child A, B and C died unexpectedly, within days of each other, it's hard to believe she didn't remember searching the parent's FB, among other things.

She denied having anything to do with child C other than being involved in resuscitation. She allegedly ignored the lead nurse's enforcement to care only for patients she was assigned to. Why?

Her reasoning for wanting to care for child C, according to the text to a colleague, was that it would help her 'well being' to see a living baby in the space previously occupied by a dead baby. Yet baby C died days later, from "deliberate introduction of air via the nasal tube," and had the same mottling and skin discoloration as the other babies.

All of the care providers seemed perplexed and concerned by the sudden collapses, yet LL stated to investigators that it was "fate" that killed three babies within days of each other?

I wouldn't think a nurse, or anyone in the medical field, would think 'fate' was the reason, when the victims had such unique symptoms and unexpected, sudden collapses.

But Letby texted that the deaths occurred under 'different circumstances.' I would like to hear more about what she felt was different about the deaths.

I also hope we hear from the mother who walked in as LL was 'attacking' her child. Her recollection differs from LL’s nurse notes and her account of events.

Another thing gleaned from her messages is while apparently seeking sympathy/attention from her mum and colleagues about the death of Baby C, she didn’t mention to any of them that she was the only person in the room when this baby collapsed, which is a pretty important detail to omit. So that’s another reason why her personal messages provide important context. It’s not about judging people who don’t fit social norms.

(Although aside from her odd behaviour surrounding the babies, I’ve seen no evidence that Letby is anything other than a very typical, functioning, sociable young woman with a decent number of friends).