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

[Sweeper2000]

In theory the attention could be in any form ....for example the amount of text conversations with a theme of "oh this happened" I feel so sad etc etc

I think in most cases munchausen is actually parental in nature “ in 96%” so considering LL is a nurse we can assume it’s not attention related to the being a parent. In cases of suspected munchausen in nurses or caregivers there is a strong correlation to be seen as the hero like BA. apparently she would rush in like she was wearing a cape. It’s this desire for positive attention that makes them seem centre stage in previous cases which isn’t present in this case seemingly at all and is certainly not present to any excessive degree looking at her texts and interactions with the parents, notably absent from the prosecutions case. Moo.

 

[Tortoise]

Yes I believe that was baby k. It’s strange that when Lucy was actually observed doing something unusual the baby in question wouldn’t be bought into the prosecutions case. That suggests it wasn’t an embolism that caused the deterioration and isn’t suspected foul play. In essence Baby k wouldn’t help the prosecution’s case. Does the omission of baby k suggest something? it wasn’t helpful for the prosecution? Would be interesting to see the medical notes for baby k and might provide insight as to why a collapse could happen without being nefariously caused.




I would still think some sort of verbal warning would precede an act like that. Why would you not say something but wait for her to potentially harm someone? Makes no sense. I also find it difficult to believe LL wouldn’t have been observed doing something if she was under that much suspicion. Enough suspicion to move her onto days but not enough to talk to her?

Of course baby K is one of the charges. All babies from A to Q are the alleged victims in the indictments.

LL is charged with the attempted murder of Baby K, who was then moved to a different hospital and later died.

 

[JosieJo]

Yeh was just thinking that if the only way someone could administer enough air would be through something obvious then it would have been noticed. If it doesn’t take much time or effort it’s obviously much easier to hide. Busy ward, staff always around and paying attention means it would have been seen. One plunge of a syringe though is not noticeable. Would be interesting to see if the syringe necessary for a AE is already attached to the equipment or if someone would have to introduce it separately which again might have been noticed.

Anyone know if the syringe is at the ready so to speak?

The unit would have hundreds of syringes ...all it would take is to pick one up unwrap it and preload the air then keep the syringe in your pocket for the best time to act.

Even if you didn't do that you could grab one and do it in seconds by the side of the cot. Especially if there is a very good excuse to have a syringe at the NGT ..as is the case of baby C

 

[Sweeper2000]

Of course baby K is one of the charges. All babies from A to Q are the alleged victims in the indictments.

LL is charged with the attempted murder of Baby K, who was then moved to a different hospital and later died.

Doctor interrupted nurse Lucy Letby’s attempt to kill newborn baby, court told

Consultant had started to link Letby to unexplained deaths and rushed to help infant, jury hears

www.theguardian.com

This article states baby k is not Amongst the charges assuming it is the same baby k?

 

[JosieJo]

I think in most cases munchausen is actually parental in nature “ in 96%” so considering LL is a nurse we can assume it’s not attention related to the being a parent. In cases of suspected munchausen in nurses or caregivers there is a strong correlation to be seen as the hero like BA. apparently she would rush in like she was wearing a cape. It’s this desire for positive attention that makes them seem centre stage in previous cases which isn’t present in this case seemingly at all and is certainly not present to any excessive degree looking at her texts and interactions with the parents, notably absent from the prosecutions case. Moo.

The second most common after parents/ guardians are healtchcare workers.
In reality this type of multiple charges is rare full stop so, for me anyway, how rare something is doesn't mean it didn't happen.
It could be one of so many reasons why someone may want the attention

 

[JosieJo]

Doctor interrupted nurse Lucy Letby’s attempt to kill newborn baby, court told

Consultant had started to link Letby to unexplained deaths and rushed to help infant, jury hears

www.theguardian.com

This article states baby k is not Amongst the charges assuming it is the same baby k?

It doesn't say that baby k is not one of the charges it says not a "murder" charge?

Is baby K not still one of the attempted murder charges?

 

[Tortoise]

Doctor interrupted nurse Lucy Letby’s attempt to kill newborn baby, court told

Consultant had started to link Letby to unexplained deaths and rushed to help infant, jury hears

www.theguardian.com

This article states baby k is not Amongst the charges assuming it is the same baby k?

Can you quote the exact line please because I've just had a quick read through and don't see it.

 

[Sweeper2000]

It doesn't say that baby k is not one of yhe charges it says not a "murder" charge?

Is baby K not still one of the attempted murder charges?

Sorry it says not a murder charge but is a attempted murder. It says that baby “isn’t amongst the murder charges” which I assumed would be followed by some other charge which is there but I didn’t read after.

I must have read something about a baby who had a collapse but isn’t amongst the charges somewhere, I’ll try and find it.

As I stated my figures were a guess ...all I know is the stomach is years size of a pea ????

Would be interesting to find out for sure how much gas would have to be injected to cause compression of the lungs. If injected into a vein I think it’s much more lethal?

 

[JosieJo]

Sorry it says not a murder charge but is a attempted murder. It says that baby “isn’t amongst the murder charges” which I assumed would be followed by some other charge which is there but I didn’t read after.

I must have read something about a baby who had a collapse but isn’t amongst the charges somewhere, I’ll try and find it.




Would be interesting to find out for sure how much gas would have to be injected to cause compression of the lungs. If injected into a vein I think it’s much more lethal?

I'm sure this info will come

 

[Tortoise]

Sorry it says not a murder charge but is a attempted murder. It says that baby “isn’t amongst the murder charges” which I assumed would be followed by some other charge which is there but I didn’t read after.

The article doesn't even say what you have written in quotes.

It says
"The baby, who can be named only as Baby K, died three days later but Letby is not charged with her murder.

She was one of 10 babies that Letby allegedly attempted to murder on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester hospital between June 2015 and June 2016."

" This article was amended on 13 October 2022. Letby is charged with the attempted murder of Baby K, not her murder as an earlier version said."

Doctor interrupted nurse Lucy Letby’s attempt to kill newborn baby, court told

 

[Sweeper2000]

The article doesn't even say what you have written in quotes.

It says
"The baby, who can be named only as Baby K, died three days later but Letby is not charged with her murder.

She was one of 10 babies that Letby allegedly attempted to murder on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester hospital between June 2015 and June 2016."

" This article was amended on 13 October 2022. Letby is charged with the attempted murder of Baby K, not her murder as an earlier version said."

Doctor interrupted nurse Lucy Letby’s attempt to kill newborn baby, court told

Excuse that post, think I was thinking of another article and didn’t quote verbatim.

Here’s a list of the individual cases that’s easy to read and refer to. This is also what I have been using to ascertain whether or not LL behaviour is consistently and undoubtedly strange or remarkable. It’s drawn from the prosecution’s opening of charges and as I said earlier there is very very little to suggest her behaviour was at odds with what is reasonable to expect. It is also notable to say the prosecution is without a motive. I really am paying attention to the highly questionable fact that there is nothing offered by the prosecution that would give an indication to LL being someone capable and motivated to do this. If that note is the best they have to offer they don’t have much on that front at all.

Full list: the deaths and collapses Hereford nurse Lucy Letby is accused of causing

THE METHODS Hereford nurse Lucy Letby is alleged to have used to harm babies in her care have been revealed in her trial.

www.herefordtimes.com

 

[MsBetsy]

Yes I believe that was baby k. It’s strange that when Lucy was actually observed doing something unusual the baby in question wouldn’t be bought into the prosecutions case. That suggests it wasn’t an embolism that caused the deterioration and isn’t suspected foul play. In essence Baby k wouldn’t help the prosecution’s case. Does the omission of baby k suggest something? it wasn’t helpful for the prosecution? Would be interesting to see the medical notes for baby k and might provide insight as to why a collapse could happen without being nefariously caused.




I would still think some sort of verbal warning would precede an act like that. Why would you not say something but wait for her to potentially harm someone? Makes no sense. I also find it difficult to believe LL wouldn’t have been observed doing something if she was under that much suspicion. Enough suspicion to move her onto days but not enough to talk to her?

Maybe it is useful to the prosecution in that what happened to Baby K helps them develop a pattern. Letby was standing by the cot, as she was in other cases, and the baby's tube was dislodged, when other staff entered the room. The alarm did not go off, as it had before with other collapses, which might indicate a person putting the machine on pause themselves. But I don't know how often the alarms 'didn't work,' or if it had ever happened before.

One thing all the deaths and collapses have in common is the presence of LL. Additionally, when the babies were removed from her 'orbit,' they recovered quickly. But Baby K remained unwell and died days later.

 

[MsBetsy]

The article doesn't even say what you have written in quotes.

It says
"The baby, who can be named only as Baby K, died three days later but Letby is not charged with her murder.

She was one of 10 babies that Letby allegedly attempted to murder on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester hospital between June 2015 and June 2016."

" This article was amended on 13 October 2022. Letby is charged with the attempted murder of Baby K, not her murder as an earlier version said."

Doctor interrupted nurse Lucy Letby’s attempt to kill newborn baby, court told

Wait. So she IS charged with the attempted murder of Baby K? I'm getting confused.

 

[squish]

No the form of attention gained in munchausen is more than being present, you would portray yourself as a hero and it would be much more palpable. Nothing to suggest LL was making herself centre stage in these events which would mean something and would be IMO an instance of unusual behaviour.

In my opinion, a person with these behaviours who does this sort of (alleged) crime would be seeking the thrill of playing God. They experience a rush of transcendence from having the power to end a life. They experience further thrills from the ongoing deception and ability to get away with it - duper's delight. They escalate as they need more and more stimulation to get the same level of thrill, and to achieve this, they increase their frequency of attacks and/or their risk-taking behaviours.

If LL is guilty and this is her motive, then her apparent sympathy/attention seeking from her friends and family after the deaths of babies could just be a cover to make herself look like she cares and has normal emotions.

I agree there is nothing to suggest that LL could be attracted to any sort of heroics, which would discount Munchausens by proxy for me.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, told the jury that three months after the death of Baby K, in April 2016, Letby had been moved to day shifts “because the consultants were concerned about the correlation between her presence and unexpected deaths and life-threatening episodes on the night shifts”.

Doctor interrupted nurse Lucy Letby’s attempt to kill newborn baby, court told

Consultant had started to link Letby to unexplained deaths and rushed to help infant, jury hears

www.theguardian.com

Then that is the most despicably unethical thing I have ever heard of occuring in the NHS - or pretty much anywhere, to be honest! It' absolutely horrific, in fact.

It's so beyond any ethical standard that I'm still not sure I believe it, even though I've read it.

Any business or organisation owes a duty of care to its customers or to those under its protection and to it's staff. Also a moral duty to society at large. Organisations are supposed to have clear procedures in order to deal with situations like this.

Harm to patients, especially the most vulnerable, is a very foreseeable risk whether it's done intentionally or not. I simply do not believe that the NHS does not have a policy for dealing with a staff member who is suspected of harming patients. I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that that policy will not amount to simply changing the working situation of the individual in question to see if the trail of death and destruction follows them.

 

[JosieJo]

Then that is the most despicably unethical thing I have ever heard of occuring in the NHS - or pretty much anywhere, to be honest! It' absolutely horrific, in fact.

It's so beyond any ethical standard that I'm still not sure I believe it, even though I've read it.

Any business or organisation owes a duty of care to its customers or to those under its protection and to it's staff. Also a moral duty to society at large. Organisations are supposed to have clear procedures in order to deal with situations like this.

Harm to patients, especially the most vulnerable, is a very foreseeable risk whether it's done intentionally or not. I simply do not believe that the NHS does not have a policy for dealing with a staff member who is suspected of harming patients. I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that that policy will not amount to simply changing the working situation of the individual in question to see if the trail of death and destruction follows them.

Was it day shift admin duties?

 

[Marantz4250b]

With such suspicions, it seems bizarre, even negligent, to allow her to work without being closely supervised.

I agree. To be honest, if you suspect a healthcare practitioner under your employ to be harming patients it is incumbent upon you to initiate an official investigation which will either involve their suspension for a time or them having to undertake additional monitoring and maybe additional training if you suspect negligence or malpractice or similar. Any other organisation where someone who they employed may be causing a serious health and safety issue would do this and companies around the world do it every day of the week.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Maybe it is useful to the prosecution in that what happened to Baby K helps them develop a pattern. Letby was standing by the cot, as she was in other cases, and the baby's tube was dislodged, when other staff entered the room. The alarm did not go off, as it had before with other collapses, which might indicate a person putting the machine on pause themselves. But I don't know how often the alarms 'didn't work,' or if it had ever happened before.

One thing all the deaths and collapses have in common is the presence of LL. Additionally, when the babies were removed from her 'orbit,' they recovered quickly. But Baby K remained unwell and died days later.

Yeh that’s something else I noticed, the instances that do suggest something other than what would be expected ie Lucy’s direct presence consistently in close proximity before during and after any unexplained event or at a time preceding an event that is in line with the amount of time it takes for the wrong act to take effect, or going by the prosecutions words “by the cot” too much. There only seems to be a few instances of this going by this papers account of the prosecutions evidence

Full list: the deaths and collapses Hereford nurse Lucy Letby is accused of causing

THE METHODS Hereford nurse Lucy Letby is alleged to have used to harm babies in her care have been revealed in her trial.

www.herefordtimes.com

If there is only a few instances of this presence then it’s not consistent enough across all of them IMO

Also LL behaving in any way that would give an indication as to something being “off”, again there is only one or two instances of anyone saying she was behaving oddly at all and the things mentioned aren’t particularly odd or far from what is reasonable to expect.

Also LL directly looking for some kind of positive attention from the events which is non existent. Example would be to say something like “I really was so emotionally invested in helping your child” or something like it. you can determine the self centredness in the first part of the sentence which you wouldn’t expect if you understood the sense of loss and trauma your listeners were experiencing, attention should be on them with respect.

Also malingering around parents or the babies, if she just hung around for no obvious reason or didn’t keep a distance if asked too or when others did I might say something is off. Again it’s not the case.

In terms of evidence I would look for consistency in at least some aspects with observable pattern. I would specifically look for a pattern in terms of how these babies died something discernible conclusively. We again apparently don’t see much if anything. It was suggested she attacked twins mostly but again the evidence suggests often one of them surviving. if they both had the same method presumably you would get a similar effect? also changed method frequently from air injected into veins, to insulin poisoning, stomach inflating, to removal of oxygen tubes, to feeding too much. I haven’t seen enough of a consistency across these or any supposed pattern to assume there is one. Only that AE is suspected but if that’s nearly always fatal with the majority surviving then it goes against it surely? This was also not thought as a likely cause by two independent panels of experts.

If the only pattern offered by the prosecution is the presence, near or far apparently, of Lucy as suggested by the defence then it’s still very much reasonable doubt for me.

All my own opinion.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Then that is the most despicably unethical thing I have ever heard of occuring in the NHS - or pretty much anywhere, to be honest! It' absolutely horrific, in fact.

It's so beyond any ethical standard that I'm still not sure I believe it, even though I've read it.

Any business or organisation owes a duty of care to its customers or to those under its protection and to it's staff. Also a moral duty to society at large. Organisations are supposed to have clear procedures in order to deal with situations like this.

Harm to patients, especially the most vulnerable, is a very foreseeable risk whether it's done intentionally or not. I simply do not believe that the NHS does not have a policy for dealing with a staff member who is suspected of harming patients. I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that that policy will not amount to simply changing the working situation of the individual in question to see if the trail of death and destruction follows them.

100% agree. The NHS is already coming out of this situation looking bad no matter what the judgement on LL turns out to be.

 

[Marantz4250b]

It wasn't about just about normal poor performance, like being late.

They were saying she was leading to many babies deaths, which is career ending.

You can sue, for bullying and being the scape goateed. Where did I say you can sue for being stopped harming people? If they have evidence you caused harm after an investigation, of course you cannot sue. But the issue at this exact point in time they had 0. Where did i say you can sue mid investigation?

If you were kicked off the wards and blamed for the deaths, investigated and they still had 0 evidence and dropped it that would indeed be a case for bullying (or scape goating the poor performance of the ward on one person). The damage to a reputation in the ward and career would be huge. And this is a risk, which they would take into consideration.

So of course they needed to act slower, I'm saying I understand why things happened like they did, its in no way the perfect way. But it doesn't mean we can discount the doctors testimony from this at all, there is no reason to.

Its completely understandable that they be cautious and wait, actually for all we know they started the investigation soon afterwards on this issue. Because we know steps were taken out as more babies kept dying when she was alone with them.

The trust acted the best they could with a very hard situation, and the doctors testimony should be 100% believed, it has not been countered in any way.

Just because they didn't move quicker doesn't mean he is not telling the truth which is what you seem to be getting at. There's no credible link there at all.

This is completely incorrect. An employer is perfectly entitled to launch an investigation, including suspension during the investigation, if they have reasonable grounds to show that an investigation may be warranted. The same person being in the vicinity of a large number of unexpected deaths and collapses, especially if in some cases they weren't supposed to be there, looks like a perfectly legitimate reason to me.

It's a balancing act; investigating someone who may be causing harm to patients by far outweighs that person's right to keep working as long as you have reasonable evidence. If you have sufficient evidence/suspicion to move someone's shift pattern (which they could also claim as bullying) then you have sufficient evidence to investigate them officially and to tell them why they are being investigated.