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

[MsBetsy]

Think it would be reliable. I might have thought it would be considered by the defence already. Any other notes will presumably be of a less clear nature than that note offered by the prosecution and the defence has stated it’s one amongst many statements of innocence. Will be interesting to read them and gain a comparison.




That’s not a first step when it comes to killing babies. Wouldn’t any reason have been offered for the move to day shifts? I might have thought something would have been said by this point. I would also assume if your willing to move someone onto day shifts due to concerns about murder you wouldn’t do it as a way of testing the water and seeing if it follows her?



Yes that’s right as reported, it’s one of the instances of stronger implication but strangely enough Baby k is not amongst the charges.

I thought the prosecution alleged LL was trying to kill child K when Dr. Jayaram walked in on her? He saw her standing over the incubator as the child's oxygen levels were falling. The alarm had not gone off (possibly put on pause) and Letby was making no effort to help. The Dr. also found the breathing tube dislodged.

Later, Dr Evans viewed LL's failure to help as "unusual."

She researched the parent's FB in April, 2018, but again told investigators she did not remember doing so.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Yeah it seems completely obvious they would have major concerns about accusing a nurse of such a thing and raising the subject. As he himself says they didn't have clear evidence.

If they are wrong, its sued for bullying, leaked the public. Lawsuit could cost them thousands.

The trust was put in an extremely difficult situation in my opinion.

I don't accept that. It's perfectly reasonable for a doctor - or anyone in any superior role - to raise concerns about the performance of anyone under them, or anyone above them for that matter. Let alone a group of them. They need not have any suspicion that the person in question is doing anything illegal or intentionally dangerous, it may be as simple as being not trained properly or unskilled at a particular practice. That is what the people with the greater training and superiority are supposed to do.

Bringing to the fore someone's inability to do their job, especially when it is a safety critical matter, in no way amounts to bullying or anything close to it. You cannot sue your employer for preventing you from doing something dangerous or investigating whether you are doing something dangerous.

 

[Tortoise]

This is all a bit non-committal, though, isn't it?

Who were these other clinicians? How precisely did they "raise concerns"? With whom where they raised? Who, specifically, told them that they shouldn't be saying such things and not to make a fuss? From the statement these were not concerns expressed to the coroner. Why not if so many doctors were so concerned?

Doctors, and it's been said on here, are particularly precise and demanding people. They make notes on these sorts of things. The fact that "a group of clinicians" apparently raised these concerns makes me even more skeptical than I was before. One doctor could be ignored, fobbed off or even intimidated into keeping quiet. I find it very difficult to believe that a group of them could be. Also, "a group" tends to suggest that this involved a good number of doctors in that quite small unit.

He talks about not having any "hard evidence". He isn't providing any "hard evidence" for these claims either.

I'm not saying he's lying. Statements of "fact" made years after an event, and made in the context of a murder enquiry, need to be treated with great scepticism, though.

Surely the evidence is that she was removed from nursing duties before any enquiry was completed. That didn't just happen without complaint.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I know we are trying desperately to get away from that note, but I can see the importance of it. Either it is literally a confession note or it means absolutely nothing in amongst the other ramblings of self loathing and desperation.

It is that one sentence which is confusing, as “on purpose” is with intent and “not good enough to care for them” to me is without intent. Both just totally contradict one another.

But it is the “on purpose“ that is the most baffling. Why would you need to add that in if you were already being accused of murder anyway, like stating the obvious...My theory is that this note was written when she was not under suspicion for murder, but rather suspected of negligence. She was put on admin duties for a while, so I very much doubt she was aware that foul play was suspected of her then (if indeed it was), just lack of competence - obviously with extremely serious consequences. So for me that note would make more sense to have been written at that point in time and read like this “I killed them, but I actually did it on purpose”.

All just my opinion and to me can still be taken either way, as a confession or as a stressed out rant.

I really don’t think it is a confession. The language isn’t directed at anyone aside from one reference to the police. It would change the way I read the note if it was directed communication obviously or even indirectly at someone other than herself. It’s much much more like she is talking to herself and that just adds more of a question to the words “on purpose” within that sentence if we are to go on with it, personally I’m waiting to see other examples of her writing so we can compare. It’s eligibility as a confession isn’t good though I’m sure most wouldn’t contest that.

 

[Marantz4250b]

ETA: what happened to good old terms, such as "murder suspect"? You can't call anyone "a killer" in press until it has been proven.

Unfortunately, they can. As long as it's in quote marks it's treated as a verbatim report of something said in court and they can't be sued as court proceedings are privileged. So, if the prosecution calls her a baby killer then the press are justified (legally, speaking) in running the headline "Baby Killer" nurse Lucy Letby faces trial - or similar. It's horribly seedy and morally repugnant, to my mind, as they know precisely how their mostly knuckle-dragging readers will take it.

 

[Marantz4250b]

But that's what eventually happened, they switched her to day time.

Then took her off the ward.

And then the police started investigating.

And maybe more things i don't know about

It just took time.

As he said they had 0 clear evidence at the time.

They couldn't go all guns blazing, they were afraid like i said of being wrong. And if they were wrong the potential for a lawsuit, bullying etc would be huge.

Hindsight is 20/20. Perhaps they should have moved faster, that is true.

But this potential crime is clearly extremely hard to detect, and i hope going forward these babies are better protected. It really shows how vulnerable they are. I hope cctv or something could be implemented

I 100% do not believe that. If the hospital thought that she was intentionally harming patients, or even if she had some competency issues that was resulting in unintentional or negligent harm they wouldn't do that. It effectively amounts to experimenting with patients lives to prove a point. It would never happen.

Most likely she just went on to day shifts as a natural progression of her rota.

 

[sleuthin4fun]

I hope you won't find it breaching of boundaries, @sleuthin4fun, if I say "thank you for your work"? I can only imagine how hard it could sometimes be.

Thank you very much! Yes nursing can be very hard.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I thought the prosecution alleged LL was trying to kill child K when Dr. Jayaram walked in on her? He saw her standing over the incubator as the child's oxygen levels were falling. The alarm had not gone off (possibly put on pause) and Letby was making no effort to help. The Dr. also found the breathing tube dislodged.

Later, Dr Evans viewed LL's failure to help as "unusual."

She researched the parent's FB in April, 2018, but again told investigators she did not remember doing so.

Baby k is actually not amongst the charges I think . She was transferred to a different hospital and unfortunately passed away two months later. You are right though this was alleged in court. It is one instance of observed and undeniably unusual behaviour. Where did you find the quote by dr evans?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Surely the evidence is that she was removed from nursing duties before any enquiry was completed. That didn't just happen without complaint.

We don't know why, specifically, she was removed from nursing duties, though. It's all a bit up in their air right now. Perhaps it was just her turn to do it? I really don't know.

However, I find it extremely difficult to believe that any move like this was in any way related to suspicions that she was intentionally harming patients. If you are concerned enough to move someone to "desk duties" because you suspect that they've been trying to kill their patients then you'd exclude them from the premises. if not then she'd still be a nurse on site, presumably in uniform, would still have access to patients and dangerous drugs in some capacity so the risk would be massive. It would probably even greater than not moving her as if she's messed up enough to be a serial baby murderer then she's probably messed up enough to go on one last massive killing spree before she's finally brought down, surely?

Even if you thought that she was incompetent or negligent, the proper course of action would be additional training or perhaps counselling, not just shoving her off to an office somewhere.

 

[MsBetsy]

I really don’t think it is a confession. The language isn’t directed at anyone aside from one reference to the police. It would change the way I read the note if it was directed communication obviously or even indirectly at someone other than herself. It’s much much more like she is talking to herself and that just adds more of a question to the words “on purpose” within that sentence if we are to go on with it, personally I’m waiting to see other examples of her writing so we can compare. It’s eligibility as a confession isn’t good though I’m sure most wouldn’t contest that.

If investigators believed the note was a confession or proof of a crime, it wouldn't have been necessary to spend so much time analyzing and piecing all the evidence together, interviewing witnesses, medical experts, etc.
The letter may be incriminating but on it's own, proves nothing. JMO

It's a circumstantial case, after all.

 

[MsBetsy]

Baby k is actually not amongst the charges I think . She was transferred to a different hospital and unfortunately passed away two months later. You are right though this was alleged in court. It is one instance of observed and undeniably unusual behaviour. Where did you find the quote by dr evans?

The quote from Dr Evans, as well as the nurses testimony concerning baby K, is in the media thread.

I know the prosecution did not have enough evidence to convict for one of the attempted murders, but I don't recall if it was Baby K or not.

 

[Noseyposy76]

I know we are trying desperately to get away from that note, but I can see the importance of it. Either it is literally a confession note or it means absolutely nothing in amongst the other ramblings of self loathing and desperation.

It is that one sentence which is confusing, as “on purpose” is with intent and “not good enough to care for them” to me is without intent. Both just totally contradict one another.

But it is the “on purpose“ that is the most baffling. Why would you need to add that in if you were already being accused of murder anyway, like stating the obvious...My theory is that this note was written when she was not under suspicion for murder, but rather suspected of negligence. She was put on admin duties for a while, so I very much doubt she was aware that foul play was suspected of her then (if indeed it was), just lack of competence - obviously with extremely serious consequences. So for me that note would make more sense to have been written at that point in time and read like this “I killed them, but I actually did it on purpose”.

All just my opinion and to me can still be taken either way, as a confession or as a stressed out rant.

Can’t seem to edit…when I refer to this as the possibility of being a confession note, I actually mean an admission of guilt to oneself.

 

[Charlot123]

Exactly.
Wasn't Ted B a psychologist?
He even worked night shifts taking the calls from desperate people wanting to commit suicide.
Helping them to overcome the crisis.

Moo

Ted B was a very educated man; after all, he was a student at law school, although I always wonder if his looks and smarts were exaggerated for the scoop news. However, according to one theory, Ted's choice of suicide hotline was prompted by potential chance of finding vulnerable women, future victims, among the callers. (Either this, or he was merely collecting points for his law school admission, like he did when he volunteered for well-known politicians' campaigns. His resume and recommendations were impressive, his admission scores, not at all).

 

[Dotta]

Ted B was a very educated man; after all, he was a student at law school, although I always wonder if his looks and smarts were exaggerated for the scoop news. However, according to one theory, Ted's choice of suicide hotline was prompted by potential chance of finding vulnerable women, future victims, among the callers. (Either this, or he was merely collecting points for his law school admission, like he did when he volunteered for well-known politicians' campaigns. His resume and recommendations were impressive, his admission scores, not at all).

"Potential chance of finding vulnerable victims".

How true for serial killers.

Moo

 

[Charlot123]

While a lot of people are putting forward possible explanations for her motives, "if guilty", including attempted profiles of her as a potential psychopath, I see few posts putting forward the possible scenario that the hospital staff and experts have a vested interest in pointing the finger at her to avoid accusations of widespread sub-optimal performance within the unit.

I don’t know where England stands in regards to its health care system. Is NHS as strong and universally embraced as ever, or is private sector getting stronger and competing, and ultimately, where is everything moving. While searching for Dr. Jay’s videos, I came across scandals in certain funds. If so, predictably, few want major investigation into one more hospital, COCH. In this regard, finding one “bad apple” will more likely close this path, while “not guilty” verdict could prompt for more in-depth investigation of COC fund itself.

This being said, I don’t believe for a second that LL’s accusation was the result of someone’s conspiracy. It could be so that the correlation between Lucy’s care and someone’s death seemed too obvious for quite a few people, or it was a chain of unrelated unhappy happenstances, or something in between, triggered by Dr. Jay’s sharp intuition.

And here is where I want to know more, while understanding that it is not realistically possible. I feel that what Dr. Jay has noticed and felt, lack of reaction from LL to a critical situation, was real. But was it because, she, indeed, planned on harming a child, and he walked in, or was it merely her unusual reaction to Dr. Jay being a local celebrity?

 

[Eloise]

I 100% do not believe that. If the hospital thought that she was intentionally harming patients, or even if she had some competency issues that was resulting in unintentional or negligent harm they wouldn't do that. It effectively amounts to experimenting with patients lives to prove a point. It would never happen.

Most likely she just went on to day shifts as a natural progression of her rota.

the prosecution have said that that was why she was moved.

 

[Marantz4250b]

the prosecution have said that that was why she was moved.

I'll take your word for it but if that was the case then it is grossly irresponsible. It amounts to testing out a theory by risking patients lives.

Edit: I don't think they have. They have said -

When Letby was moved to the day shifts, the rate of collapses "shifted to the day shift pattern".

That is simply a statement of fact. They have not claimed that she was moved in order to test out the theory that was killing people.

Lucy Letby: Hereford nurse was "constant malevolent presence", court told

The prosecution is set to open today in the trial of Hereford nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder 10…

www.herefordtimes.com

 

[Eloise]

I'll take your word for it but if that was the case then it is grossly irresponsible. It amounts to testing out a theory by risking patients lives.

Edit: I don't think they have. They have said -

When Letby was moved to the day shifts, the rate of collapses "shifted to the day shift pattern".

That is simply a statement of fact. They have not claimed that she was moved in order to test out the theory that was killing people.

Lucy Letby: Hereford nurse was "constant malevolent presence", court told

The prosecution is set to open today in the trial of Hereford nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder 10…

www.herefordtimes.com

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

 

[notsure]

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

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

 

[Sweeper2000]

The quote from Dr Evans, as well as the nurses testimony concerning baby K, is in the media thread.

I know the prosecution did not have enough evidence to convict for one of the attempted murders, but I don't recall if it was Baby K or not.

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.

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

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?