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

[BuzzC]

I agree here. She knew that the police had the note - I don't know when they told her they had it but she will certainly have been questioned on it or it wouldn't be in evidence. We know it was found when they searched her home at the time of the first arrest in July 2018. If she did do this and they have this "confession" by her then it's a fair bet that they'd have confronted her with it early on. I find it extremely unlikely that she would keep denying it - over years of police interviews, no less - if she'd already confessed in writing. If she has confessed to herself once then it's probably not a big stretch, mentally speaking, to do so to the police and she's likely have fessed up as to how she did it rather than continuing to deny something which was obvious.

One possible reason for her to continue denying the allegations is that she would be receiving counsel from her legal representatives and that may have been their advice to her?

 

[Sweeper2000]

It is never a nurse's job to make an official pronouncement of death. Only the person accountable and responsible for the patient's medical treatment can do that. And LL would absolutely have know that given the number of years she worked on that unit and the fact the defence said she was always professional.

The ICU has 1-2 beds in it max. She clearly wasn't that overworked or they weren't that understaffed because she'd spent time 20mins before, whatsapping colleagues to discuss lack of team spirit and what used to happen in her previous hospital. They said the message conversation lasted from 9.48 to 11pm while she was on duty. Where does someone get this kind of time to have text convos if it was so understaffed?

She wasn't even supposed to be in that room - argued with her supervisor to go into the room, and then complained about lack of team spirit when she was told no. The defence argued she was dedicated to her job - I'm not sure she was actually dedicated to her patients, more just the job itself.

The parents also talked about how supporting another nurse Joanne Williams was - so clearly other nurses did make them feel at ease.

I think it’s pretty standard for nurses to use phones on the ward. Might not be allowed for personal reasons ie friends but family and colleagues will be allowed. The convo that lasted from ten to eleven doesn’t mean she wasn’t doing anything else during the convo just means she was texting in between tasks. Being overworked also doesn’t mean “I had one day of non stop work” which most people wouldn’t notice it means on a consistent basis that doesn’t allow for sufficient recovery. I think you are drawing conclusions of guilt or inadequate character using very scant or conclusive evidence.

 

[merrypason]

But all the experts, professors, and doctors for child A and B have said it was deliberate administration of air? Defence put forward other alternatives and papers that the experts managed to explain as not being viable. So it was evidenced to be unlawful.

Which leaves the question, was it LL - well for child B we know she was the only one doing the blood gases and feed just before they collapsed. For child A she did the long line and defence have not suggested anyone else may have been responsible for the collapse of either A nor B.

Their defence was that it was a complication of the long line or CPAP prongs moving or post mortem and the experts batted it away by saying it wasn't possible with modern tech flagging it up etc.

 

[Marantz4250b]

The parents have used the words 'shocked'. And explained that the nurse back tracked to defuse the situation. They also believe it was likely Letby, according to the father's statement.

Quite frankly, I think there's is the only opinion that matters. It's one thing to question medical testimony, quite another to question parents' statement about what transpired and how they felt at their baby's death.

They are the victims.

I take your points but firstly, it's the DM and, secondly, eye-witness testimony is literally the least reliable evidence you'll ever see. I'm not saying for one minute that they were lying, they clearly weren't, but recalling a specific extremely traumatic event in intimate detail years afterwards is fraught with danger if used in evidence.

 

[Dcflag]

I have always got the impression that parents usually held their babies whilst they died ..obviously unless they didn't want to for some reason

To reply "yes I think so" when asked if the baby was going to die I feel most nurses might say something like "we are trying everything we can but it is a very serious situation" until the Dr's or Practitioner came to speak to the family

Another thing I suppose I can share insight into. When my son was in a&e and there’s a whole team round him doing whatever it is they need to do. We had called the ambulance initially because he wasn’t breathing, my husband started cpr which was then taken over by ambulance and then the hospital staff. This nurse sat with me watching the medical team and I was looking at countdown clock on the crash trolley thinking, it had been such a long time (we’re talking maybe 40 minutes?) and I asked her “is it normal for it to take this long?” Assuming they had still be assisting breathing/cpr etc. The nurse was VERY non commital in her answer, despite in hindsight it must’ve been very obvious to a medically trained person what was happening. Not once in that time we sat together did she give any indication on him medically, and to be honest, I’d be very surprised if in these situations it was correct for a nurse to say anything about the potential passing of a baby to the parents in that manner.

 

[merrypason]

I think it’s pretty standard for nurses to use phones on the ward. Might not be allowed for personal reasons ie friends but family and colleagues will be allowed. The convo that lasted from ten to eleven doesn’t mean she wasn’t doing anything else during the convo just means she was texting in between tasks. Being overworked also doesn’t mean “I had one day of non stop work” which most people wouldn’t notice it means on a consistent basis that doesn’t allow for sufficient recovery. I think you are drawing conclusions of guilt or inadequate character using very scant or conclusive evidence.

I'm not making assumptions of guilt but I am 100% making assumptions of her 'professionalism' that the defence have alluded to more than once.

It is absolutely not acceptable to be on your phone messaging for such long periods while you are at work in any setting. As someone who has run clinical investigations and develops performance management systems and processes for the NHS and other organisations - this would absolutely be a reprimand. While she was messaging she was supposed to be looking after a poorly baby (the one she was assigned to that the supervisor told her specifically needed regular monitoring as they weren't in good shape).

If that baby had died and there was a review and they realised the designated nurse was on her phone texting for over an hour while caring for the baby - how do you think that would look for the nurse, her supervisor and the hospital? Would you really want to explain that as 'professionalism' to the grieving parents?

Protocols exist for a reason and anyone dedicated to their jobs of patient welfare would take it seriously. Was that conversation important to have for that long and in that very moment? No, it was not. This is a workplace, with lives at stake.

 

[merrypason]

I take your points but firstly, it's the DM and, secondly, eye-witness testimony is literally the least reliable evidence you'll ever see. I'm not saying for one minute that they were lying, they clearly weren't, but recalling a specific extremely traumatic event in intimate detail years afterwards is fraught with danger if used in evidence.

This is on the BBC and ITV as well. And the Chester Standard write up.

Also the defence haven't questioned it. They've let it stay on the jury's minds with the heavy insinuation and indication that the parents believed it was likely LL.

The jury have to look at what evidence the prosecution have put forward, and if the defence don't challenge it or put anything else as an alternative.... We might think their memory is wrong, but obviously the defence don't.

 

[Tortoise]

11:36am

Upon arrival to the neonatal unit, Dr Ogden noted symptoms Child C was starting to struggle breathing, including grunting and subcostal recessions.
The note added: "Decision to intubate", which Dr Ogden said would have been her decision.
The respiratory signs "can change quite quickly after birth", Dr Ogden says, so such support for babies of Child C's pre-term "would not be unusual".

11:39am

Ventilator support was set up for Child C, with "standard settings...for the context" set up on the machine.

11:46am

A note of medical communication with the parents is shown to the court.
Dr Ogden's colleague recorded observations taken by her, relaying to the parents that Child C was born in a good condition with good breathing.
Another clinical note showed a 10% dextrose solution would be administered via a TPN bag, through a UVC.
A note on a discussion between the hospital and the Liverpool Women's Hospital was made - due to Child C's weight. The discussion would have raised the possibility of Child C being transferred to Liverpool.

12:00pm

The trial is now resuming following a short break.
Dr Ogden will continue to give evidence.

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, October 27

 

[Tortoise]

12:04pm

The clinical note, regarding a possible transfer for Child C, concludes: "Happy for patient to remain @ CoCH [Countess of Chester Hospital] at present. If clinical concern overnight for rediscussion with [Liverpool Women's Hospital]."

12:10pm

A clinical note, dated June 11, 2015 at 11am, is made by Dr Ogden, with a number of medical observations.
They include details of the respiratory support and feeds.
Dr Ogden says Child C was on CPAP support by this time, on 41% oxygen - a "moderate" amount for a pre-term baby, with other readings being normal.
There was an increased breathing rate noted.
A high lactate reading was noted, "which needed to be noted in context" with other readings. It was a "sign of multiple different conditions" and, Dr Ogden says, was a sign to look out for such conditions.

12:20pm

Child C's blood sugar levels were stable.
Child C was screened for sepsis, and placed on antibiotics "as a precautionary measure".
There were "no concerns" on the cardiovascular system.
Child C was observed to be "active, pink, well perfused", with "chest clear, slight increase in work of breathing".
Other observations were recorded as normal.
The overall picture was Child C was "responding as to be expected".
The prosecution say a 'generic plan' of next steps was put forward for Child C, to which Dr Ogden agrees.

12:28pm

Another note by Dr Ogden at June 13, 9.30am is made for Child C.
The list of 'problems' is noted, including 'RDS' and 'suspected sepsis'.
Dr Ogden says the oxygen levels had gone down on CPAP to 26%, as had the lactate reading.
Child C's breathing was "stable and possibly improved".
"Very dark bilious aspirates" are noted from the feeding section.
This was "not normal" and "suggested a problem with his abdomen", or a sign of how Child C's bowels were responding to being pre-term.
"That would have been a concern," Dr Ogden said.

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, October 27

 

[Sweeper2000]

It’s also the case that the phrase used “you have said your goodbyes” need not be construed as a negative. If it was posed as a question then it would be much more in line with a professional standard. The delivery of that statement would determine the level of emotional indifference. Also the parents are going to be in that extremely emotional and traumatised state, the likelihood that a insensitive statement be met with shock or anger is highly likely. It really doesn’t suggest by itself any level of indifference from Lucy consistently. Remember that this is a situation in which Lucy has been before and so she may well have just been trying to remain detached and professional.

An “embolism is the most likely cause” it is yet to be proven conclusively to be an embolism. It’s not yet set in stone that embolisms were the cause of baby A and Baby B deteriorations.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I have been thinking about LL's notes and why she might have written such words if she were innocent of the crimes of which she is accused. An innocent person accused of serious crimes will sometimes be offered a "way out" under intensive police interrogation. "Admit to what you did, we know you did it, if you confess it will be much better for you". It is well documented that numerous miscarriages of justice have been caused by a suspect, convinced that they were going to be found guilty anyway, deciding to admit guilt. They will then try to say what they believe the interrogators want them to say. Sometimes, the interrogator's ideas of details of what actually happened later turn out to have been definitely wrong.

Anyway, if you are considering admitting guilt, you could experiment with the words you would say. A reliable confession to a murder includes information which only the actual murderer could have known, and which was not previously known by investigators.

I'm not so sure that she'd be under that sort of pressure in the UK, to be honest. Not these days at any rate. I'd entirely accept that if it were the US, perhaps.

If she hasn't done any of this then I think the note is simply the product of a messed up mind; she was suspended for a couple of years; would likely have been talked to by the police as a witness rather than a suspect before she was arrested; will likely not have seen many of her friends for ages, and very likely none of her colleagues, and would have spent days on end thinking that everyone thought she was a murderer. If innocent then that's what I think caused her to write the note(s). It doesn't really read like the musings of a guilty person, to my mind. I think that any "confession" would be far less ambiguous and why would you then deny it for years to the police and courts?

 

[MachinaCollecta]

It’s also the case that the phrase used “you have said your goodbyes” need not be construed as a negative. If it was posed as a question then it would be much more in line with a professional standard. The delivery of that statement would determine the level of emotional indifference. Also the parents are going to be in that extremely emotional and traumatised state, the likelihood that a insensitive statement be met with shock or anger is highly likely. It really doesn’t suggest by itself any level of indifference from Lucy consistently. Remember that this is a situation in which Lucy has been before and so she may well have just been trying to remain detached and professional.

An “embolism is the most likely cause” it is yet to be proven conclusively to be an embolism. It’s not yet set in stone that embolisms were the cause of baby A and Baby B deteriorations.

Whether it’s considered in line with professional standard or not, telling grieving parents that they’ve “said their goodbyes” to imply that they need to move on now so the next phase can begin is incredibly insensitive as far as I’m concerned. I was given all the time I needed when my parents passed and I was by their bedside in each event, and if someone had said that to me I’d have been offended.

 

[Honeybirdette]

Can we move on from trying to decipher the meaning of “on purpose” please? It’s getting tedious.

 

[Tortoise]

12:40pm

Child C had a long line put in place by this time.
Other observations made included that chest was clear with no increased work of breath.
The abdomen was "soft, not distended", which Dr Ogden said was a "reassuring sign", amid a concern from Child C's aspirates that the gastro-intestinal disease NEC was a possibility.

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, October 27

 

[arrogantcat]

That conversation was started as a question to when Lucy is next working not purely for the purpose of discussing Baby c. I might assume it is normal to seek support and reassurance after something like that especially when working with “such a supportive team”. It’s certainly not excessive either in language or in volume of requests.

It’s interesting to try and read these messages with a neutral mind. The Prosecution presumably want to paint a picture of her being overly-concerned or fishing for attention, and they certainly can lend themselves to that sort of interpretation.

But I wonder, if we were seeing these messages out of this context - not knowing that they were sent by a nurse accused of murdering children - if people would still see them as sinister. Or whether it might seem quite normal for somebody to be reaching out to her friends when struggling with a really hard week at work, and quite appropriate that she kept remembering that the parents’ pain was far more than her own.

To me personally, this is a bit of a problem with a lot of the LL-specific evidence so far in this case. The note, the FB searches, the slightly off comments to parents - all of these things could be entirely innocent acts.

If any members of the Jury have done similar things - repeat searched clients on Facebook, documented their panicked thoughts, said the wrong thing in a hard moment at work - they’re likely to take the more sympathetic interpretation.

FWIW I still have no strong opinion as to the guilt of the accused. It really does feel far too early to say.

 

[Noseyposy76]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed> If guilty, yes they are indeed a monster and need imprisonment. I am sure we are all on the same page with that!! But what is the point of ever having a trial, if we are just to assume guilt of all who are accused, without hearing all of the evidence first. This is why everything presented needs to be looked at objectively, to ensure justice is served correctly. It’s the very least that can be done for those dear little ones and their poor families, whose lives we know will never be the same again.

 

[Dcflag]

Her text messages give off a strange vibe to me. I’d like to see if it were usual for the nurses to text between each other between shifts about particular patients, or if any of the other staff on shift during the deaths of baby a or c texted people or discussed it outside of work in the way Lucy has.

The particular message about Lucy being told she was not being off but was unhappy is interesting for me.

I can’t help it. I know that people are only people, and that being involved in the care of dying babies must be incredibly difficult to deal with, especially when it isn’t happening so often as the stats show prior to 2015. But something feels wrong for me. It’s probably the first unexplainable feeling I’ve had in this case so far.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Out of curiosity - why wouldn’t an adult use the term?

If you go to the news tab on a popular search engine and search for the phrase “on purpose”, you’ll find lots of, presumably, adult journalists using that very phrase in articles discussing all kinds of different subjects.

Difference being the person using it is a journalist referring to events outside of themselves and is it’s inclusion in those statements ever not included in a situation where it is possible that the individual being talked about might have done it accidentally? It’s only present when there is an element of doubt as to the deliberate nature of the act. I think most people are thinking it would be used as a kind of insult. Like for instance person 1 says “did you kick my dog”? Person 2 responds “yes” and then adds after “on purpose”, it’s gloating ie said additionally to provoke an emotional response which is childish maybe? For an adult to say it in response to a question of guilt or of wrongdoing it would only be used in the context of a mistake or to add insult to injury.

 

[Tortoise]

Letby added, in the message to her mum: "He only weighted 800g...new girl was looking after him, she is devastated."

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, October 27

"new girl was looking after him"

opening speech:

"11:22am

In police interview, Letby denied she had anything to do with Child C, other than with the resuscitation.
She could not remember why she had ended up in nursery 1.
In a second interview, asked about texts which had been found on her phone placing her in that room, Letby said that she might have been sending them from the nurses’ station and then gone into room 1 “to do something else”.
She then agreed that she had been the only person in the room when Child C had collapsed.

UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

 

[Marantz4250b]

I cant help but feel.she is overly invested in these cases ..initiating conversations with multiple different people.

What if she'd not though - or was just brushing people off with curt replies? That could easily be seen in a bad light.

I'm pleased we've seen these messages because, in my view, it paints her as being totally normal. I'd imagine that conversations like these happen between nurses every day of the week. They also tend to overturn the suggestion that she's uncaring, especially towards the parents. She seems very caring towards them in those messages and I do see why she had a look for them on FB. It seems perfectly reasonable to me regardless of whether it was ethical or not.