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

[annpats]

How do we know that she hasn't already in the police interviews? If she has then look where that's got her!

If she told what she believed was the truth in police interviews, medical evidence may have contradicted that.

 

[Marantz4250b]

If she told what she believed was the truth in police interviews, medical evidence may have contradicted that.

Agreed. I'm not aware that the prosecution has made any allegation of that though.

 

[annpats]

Agreed. I'm not aware that the prosecution has made any allegation of that though.

Well, they probably wouldn't.....at least, not yet. We have potentially 5 more months. Who knows what will come up!

 

[Honeybirdette]

Yes, Circumstantial 'no body' cases have an 86% rate of conviction in the US. I don't know about the UK, but in this case, they have autopsy reports on several babies, as well.

Usually it is the strongest circumstantial cases that are brought to trial because the prosecution needs to ensure a conviction.

Agree with this, I was on jury service where we unanimously found the accused guilty and the evidence was entirely circumstantial.

You’d be surprised how convincing it can be, especially when there’s a lot of it!

 

[LiverpoolUK2222]

Not sure, from her texts it seems to me she likes the drama afterwards the pity/admiration of how tough her job it. Woe-is-me type of attention seeking maybe? So yeah not the typical attention seeking but maybe something a bit different, pity seeking?

She’d also text her parents when babies were killed or collapsed, and her parents would say how proud they are of her, love her etc and she’s so strong. She seems like an attention seeker to me including her texts to other staff etc.

 

[annpats]

She’d also text her parents when babies were killed or collapsed, and her parents would say how proud they are of her, love her etc and she’s so strong. She seems like an attention seeker to me including her texts to other staff etc.

Certainly someone that craves a positive response from others. Almost as if she likes to be fussed over and warmly commented and commended on her thoughts and actions. Some people do constantly seek approval and reassurance that way.

 

[Legal]

Regarding the defendant taking the stand, this is a general comment and NOT directed at LL's trial, but in addition to what has been discussed, there are other reasons why defence Counsel may not place a defendant on the stand. A lot of legal argument takes place prior to the trial and one issue relates to 'bad character evidence' (previous convictions). If the defendant has previous convictions, it has to be decided whether or not this information should be presented to the jury. There is too much information to go into it all here, however, my point concerns what is known as 'gateway 7'. If previous convictions exist but it has been decided not to introduce them, if the defendant or his Counsel attack the character of another person in any way during the trial, the bad character evidence can be admitted. Therefore, they have to be very careful in what they say and the defence may be worried the defendant might slip up while on the stand.

I actually guessed that Vincent Tabak had at least one previous conviction because of this as I noticed how careful his barrister was to not malign Joanna Yeate's character, which I thought was strange as he could have put all the blame on her. Nobody else was there after all.

Just to reiterate, this is a general comment relating to the discussion above about the reasons a defendant may or may not take the stand and is not in any way directed at LL's trial.

 

[Jules2021]

She’d also text her parents when babies were killed or collapsed, and her parents would say how proud they are of her, love her etc and she’s so strong. She seems like an attention seeker to me including her texts to other staff etc.

So she had/has wonderfully supportive parents. I knew she went on holiday with them and they were supporting her so they must have a good relationship. It's especially evident from this though how loving and supportive they are, I mean that's textbook good parenting isn't it? Makes you wonder wth could've gone wrong (if guilty) doesn't it.

The world is full of attention seekers, especially these days, but very few people have been driven to these types of alleged horrific crimes. Not disagreeing with you though, I'm definitely seeing the attention seeker personality now, but there has gotta be something else too if she's guilty, must be a trigger or something. Or it could I guess be a combination of personality traits because we can also speculate she's pretty demanding, highly strung, obsessive, and seems to need A LOT of validation and praise etc.

Do you have a link for the texts to her parents, I hadn't come across that yet. I guess when you think about it, she's not gonna get as much praise for saving any babies or just generally looking after them, because that's her actual job. But when something goes wrong? And everyone's like "aw it's so rough for you right now" (not an actual quote!) she gets the sympathy. PLUS maybe the staff are more likely to be nice to her and give her what she wants, after what they think she just went through. Was it after she got told she couldn't go where she wanted she was like "just feel like there's no team spirit today" Yeh I'm seeing possible emotional manipulation here (not an expert at all just imo) Do we think LL was trying to manipulate her colleague into asking the supervisor to let her go to the room she wanted in those whatsapps. Or am I reading too much into it? In some job situations I could see myself being like "I'll ask X if they'll let you do this" to help out a friend, but obviously the nursing role is completely different and her colleague knew what was likely for the best (and agreed with the supervisor) so LL went into a huff and said there was no "team spirit". Maybe I am overanalysing it's just quite a clever way to try and get something you want.

 

[Tortoise]

no, it was same nurse on 11th and 12th nights, I just checked notes.. but could have been more than 1.nurse.
It's a mess now.
@Tortoise can you help, PLEASE?
Anybody have it straight?
Are we dealing with 2 attacks?
Just the 1 on the night of the 13th?
The investigations concerned the 13th, right?

You might have sorted this out by now, but I'll tell you what I have so far in my incomplete timeline - I have many other articles to wade through before I put it up.

LL was working - (June 2015)

Night-shift Monday 8th/Tuesday 9th - that is when Baby A died at 8.58pm on the 8th.

Night-shift Tuesday 9th/Wednesday 10th - that is when Baby B collapsed at 12.30am (half past midnight)

(Wednesday 10th - Baby C was born in the afternoon)

Wednesday 10th 10.08pm - LL texted a colleague asking how Baby B was doing, so presumably not in work. Also searched the mum of twins A and B on Facebook at 11.31pm.

Before Saturday 13th, LL texted a colleague - this is the report we got which doesn't give a date -
"Text messages exchanged following the death of Child A and the collapse of Child B show LL asking if there were spare shifts going, adding: "Think I need to throw myself back in on Saturday." The response: "Hopefully it might settle down by then." LL: "I think from a confidence point of view I need to take an ITU [intensive treatment unit] baby soon." The response: "It does knock you a bit when things like that happen, but it's ok to have time out as well. Enjoy the sun"

Night-shift Saturday 13th/Sunday 14th - that is when Baby C collapsed at 11.15pm and died after midnight.

 

[MissMarbles]

What do you think of this published in the RSS report then on Harold Shipman?

https://rss.org.uk/RSS/media/File-library/News/2022/Report_Healthcare_serial_killer_or_coincidence_statistical_issues_in_investigation_of_suspected_medical_misconduct_Sept_2022_FINAL.pdf

In light of this grim episode, there were calls for improved monitoring of adverse medical outcomes, to allow dangerous medical misconduct to be detected earlier. For example, statistician David Spiegelhalter and colleagues suggested that statistical monitoring of patient death rates would have raised red flags about Shipman’s misconduct years earlier, thereby saving lives (see Spiegelhalter, D. et al., 2003)

Out of curiosity, do you then think that in any industry where a person is internally investigated for having a larger than normal set of adverse outcomes, it is severely affected by bias and shouldn't be done? How do you suggest managers and organisations conduct performance management then to ensure cases like Beverley Ailitt and Harold Shipman never carry on as long as they do? How many patients do you think Beverley would have killed if they hadn't picked up on her adverse outcomes and decided to investigate?

As an example - retail theft and fraud. So are we saying that if one cashier is seen to have an underbalanced till more often than everyone else, we shouldn't be investigating why that is? And if it is found that he's been stealing from the tills, he shouldn't be charged? Because there's severe bias?

Well said.

 

[Tortoise]

I've realised that the earlier report in the Chester Standard was incorrect as regards LL's messages on 30 June. They reported that "that night" referred to the night Baby A died, but it wasn't, it was the night Baby B collapsed, and only now does it makes sense. I had been wondering if there was another baby that died that we hadn't heard about, but not so.

"On 30 June, LL and a colleague exchanged messages about the condition of Child B.

Colleague: "There's something odd about that night and the other three that went so suddenly."

LL: "What do you mean? Odd that we lost three and in different circumstances?'

Colleague: "I don't know, were they that different?" The colleague added: "Ignore me, I'm speculating."

LL: [Child C] "was tiny, obviously compromised in utero. [Child D] septic. It's [Child A] I can't get my head around."

Source (reformatted by me): Lucy Letby: Nurse said baby's death was 'all a bit much', trial told

So this colleague, 3 weeks later, had also noticed and remembered that Baby B was somehow linked, even though she had survived, it wasn't just the three deaths. I think that is quite remarkable, given that Baby B improved and presumably all the neonates in their unit have precarious moments.

LL just skips right over the colleague's link with Baby B, as if to bury it (IMO).

I'm getting a much clearer picture (even though we're still only on Baby C and have a long way to go) that babies who are in stable and improving condition don't (according to the experts) just collapse and die suddenly, and not respond to CPR, what's missing in these cases is a gradual deterioration.

 

[arrogantcat]

She’d also text her parents when babies were killed or collapsed, and her parents would say how proud they are of her, love her etc and she’s so strong. She seems like an attention seeker to me including her texts to other staff etc.

Didn’t this just happen once, as far as we know? It was one short mention. This post makes it sound like some sort of ongoing pattern…

 

[JosieJo]

You might have sorted this out by now, but I'll tell you what I have so far in my incomplete timeline - I have many other articles to wade through before I put it up.

LL was working - (June 2015)

Night-shift Monday 8th/Tuesday 9th - that is when Baby A died at 8.58pm on the 8th.

Night-shift Tuesday 9th/Wednesday 10th - that is when Baby B collapsed at 12.30am (half past midnight)

(Wednesday 10th - Baby C was born in the afternoon)

Wednesday 10th 10.08pm - LL texted a colleague asking how Baby B was doing, so presumably not in work. Also searched the mum of twins A and B on Facebook at 11.31pm.

Before Saturday 13th, LL texted a colleague - this is the report we got which doesn't give a date -
"Text messages exchanged following the death of Child A and the collapse of Child B show LL asking if there were spare shifts going, adding: "Think I need to throw myself back in on Saturday." The response: "Hopefully it might settle down by then." LL: "I think from a confidence point of view I need to take an ITU [intensive treatment unit] baby soon." The response: "It does knock you a bit when things like that happen, but it's ok to have time out as well. Enjoy the sun"

Night-shift Saturday 13th/Sunday 14th - that is when Baby C collapsed at 11.15pm and died after midnight.

Thanks for that
It is difficult to figure dates when working night shifts as obviously it encompasses two dates.

I cant figure out whether she was due back in sat night (where she wanted to throw herself back into room 1) and asked if any extra shifts ...therefore ended up working the 11th or 12th night?

Or whether she was asking to fo an extra shift on the Saturday 13th

 

[MsBetsy]

Not if equipment is faulty or it was done unintentionally

What equipment would be faulty that would allow air through the line?

 

[Sweeper2000]

I've realised that the earlier report in the Chester Standard was incorrect as regards LL's messages on 30 June. They reported that "that night" referred to the night Baby A died, but it wasn't, it was the night Baby B collapsed, and only now does it makes sense. I had been wondering if there was another baby that died that we hadn't heard about, but not so.

"On 30 June, LL and a colleague exchanged messages about the condition of Child B.

Colleague: "There's something odd about that night and the other three that went so suddenly."

LL: "What do you mean? Odd that we lost three and in different circumstances?'

Colleague: "I don't know, were they that different?" The colleague added: "Ignore me, I'm speculating."

LL: [Child C] "was tiny, obviously compromised in utero. [Child D] septic. It's [Child A] I can't get my head around."

Source (reformatted by me): Lucy Letby: Nurse said baby's death was 'all a bit much', trial told

So this colleague, 3 weeks later, had also noticed and remembered that Baby B was somehow linked, even though she had survived, it wasn't just the three deaths. I think that is quite remarkable, given that Baby B improved and presumably all the neonates in their unit have precarious moments.

LL just skips right over the colleague's link with Baby B, as if to bury it (IMO).

I'm getting a much clearer picture (even though we're still only on Baby C and have a long way to go) that babies who are in stable and improving condition don't (according to the experts) just collapse and die suddenly, and not respond to CPR, what's missing in these cases is a gradual deterioration.

Yip the sudden and unexpected collapses and in some cases difficult to resuscitate babies all point to embolism I believe, that’s why it took so long for LL to be arrested. It was noticed she was on shift for the events but it took allot of investigation plus the embolism theory to actually get her on trial. Think it points to a paper trail tbh.

I’m interested in how the prosecution are going to try and argue that in the cases that are without a embolism accompanying the charge that it was something that LL did that caused the collapse. I don’t see a link or how they will suggest she did it. I also don’t understand how it is seemingly any collapse that has drawn suspicions. Seven out of seven fatalities are suggested to be embolism, nine out of 17 babies are said to involve embolism so how in eight cases have they reached a conclusion of foul play with an absence of embolism. The insulin case I believe might be obvious they can do tests but as far as I know there isn’t a suggested method with some, just suspicious collapses.

I’m still confused about how in the cases where it is suspected that LL inflated the stomachs or over fed the poor wee things that treatment didn’t resolve the problem. One might assume its obvious and deflation of the stomach is routine in resuscitation, so why didn’t that fix it?

 

[Tortoise]

Thanks for that
It is difficult to figure dates when working night shifts as obviously it encompasses two dates.

I cant figure out whether she was due back in sat night (where she wanted to throw herself back into room 1) and asked if any extra shifts ...therefore ended up working the 11th or 12th night?

Or whether she was asking to fo an extra shift on the Saturday 13th

I'm inclined to think she was off after Baby B's collapse, until the Saturday, because of the 'throw myself back in' comment.

 

[JosieJo]

Yip the sudden and unexpected collapses and in some cases difficult to resuscitate babies all point to embolism I believe, that’s why it took so long for LL to be arrested. It was noticed she was on shift for the events but it took allot of investigation plus the embolism theory to actually get her on trial. Think it points to a paper trail tbh.

I’m interested in how the prosecution are going to try and argue that in the cases that are without a embolism accompanying the charge that it was something that LL did that caused the collapse. I don’t see a link or how they will suggest she did it. I also don’t understand how it is seemingly any collapse that has drawn suspicions. Seven out of seven fatalities are suggested to be embolism, nine out of 17 babies are said to involve embolism so how in eight cases have they reached a conclusion of foul play with an absence of embolism. The insulin case I believe might be obvious they can do tests but as far as I know there isn’t a suggested method with some, just suspicious collapses.

I’m still confused about how in the cases where it is suspected that LL inflated the stomachs or over fed the poor wee things that treatment didn’t resolve the problem. One might assume its obvious and deflation of the stomach is routine in resuscitation, so why didn’t that fix it?

Imo with the non air embolism cases they would just need to make the jury sure it was definitely foul play ..whatever the method...the likelihood of having 2 "murderers" is virtually nil.
That plus if the perpetrator continued with exactly the same method then likely would raise even more suspicions

 

[Dotta]

What really surprises me -
with all this talk about hospital being understaffed -
and yet, a nurse had time to look after a not designated baby.

If there was a shortage of nurses I bet she had her arms full with babies designated to her.

Who looked after them when she was running to and fro around the ward?

Moo

 

[JosieJo]

I'm inclined to think she was off after Baby B's collapse, until the Saturday, because of the 'throw myself back in' comment.

That was my initial thought now I'm not sure if at the time of the text her first shift back was Saturday and she was going to throw herself back in ...but asked at that point if there were any extra shifts

Either way in the scheme of thing it doesn't matter.

If she had have been off all.hours of the 12th ...would the defence have gone further with Dr Evans and said " you changed your mind because LL was not on duty" rather than just pointing out "you thought air had been administered on the 12th" but changed your mind to fit the charge

If that makes sense

 

[Ruby12345]

What really surprises me -
with all this talk about hospital being understaffed -
and yet, a nurse had time to look after not a designated baby.

If there was a shortage of nurses I bet she had her arms full with babies designated to her.

Who looked after them when she was running to and fro around the ward?

Moo

The nursing supervisor said there was one nurse assigned to one baby.