UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #6

[JTS101]

Regarding secure access, it is usual to require a swipe in for everyone entering the unit. Letting a friend (or even senior management) in (e.g. who has forgotten their swipe-in card) is a very big no-no.

 

[Sweeper2000]

There is a pattern looking at LL words and statements in the past. On no less than three occasions she has stated that in similar words “getting it out” is a coping mechanism for her. This in real terms is called a cathartic process, a well known phenomenon. I’m just mentioning this as three examples in a few months (child a to d) is evidence of a consistent pattern. One of the few discernible patterns amongst what is presented about LL atm. I think if you look at the strongest supposedly incriminating evidence offered by the prosecution atm being the post it note it makes the likelihood of that note being things that LL just did not want to think about more likely. It’s sequence, context, content and it being written on a discardable post it note all point to it simply being unwanted and thus expelled thoughts. I believe the official cbt approach to this exact coping mechanism is to write down thoughts you don’t want to think about, feelings etc so that you might better identify them and deal with them when you have developed a specific approach. I also mention the post it note as it’s not in her diary, suggesting it wasn’t deemed as normal by LL. why on a post it note rather than in diary if it is truthful? It does suggest that that writing is not seen as serious by LL. if a cathartic approach is LL method and she has mentioned things like it more than once it makes that note look insignificant.


She has also stated that she has other methods for dealing with the trauma of the incidents like “getting straight back into it”. None of that speaks of someone who isn’t traumatised by the things under question. I will also mention the time LL talked about fate. The phrase “get to” is innocuous if one understands that she is talking about the final conclusion of individuals lives (ie talking about “fate”). To rephrase the words “why do some get to live and others get to die” she’s talking about it from a non earthly perspective so the statement isn’t strange. I would agree with someone saying “get to” is more often positively inclined but in this context it’s not unusual. She’s talking about how unfair it is or life in general not that “getting to” is a positive. IMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

Here’s the original post by @dotr on thread 1

“Interesting that the move to administrative duties happened back in 2016, wondering if LL was particularly upset about the introduction of cctv cameras, or the tracking wristband, perhaps drawing some suspicion, but not quite enough..?
imo, speculation.

Rbbm.
Chester hospital baby deaths: Nurse Lucy Letby arrested on suspicion of murdering eight babies
"The same report notes that "mention of installing CCTV on the unit without explanation had unsettled the nursing team further".

In December, the hospital went further issuing patients and staff with electronic tracking wristbands in a bid to monitor free beds.”

This states the tracking bands were definitely installed, but no one has mentioned it recently so I’m not sure if it’s fact?

 

[ShineOn]

Regarding staff swiping their id cards to enter the unit, this is a quote from the Chester Standard live reporting on 14th October...

"Swipe cards would be used by staff to gain access to the neonatal unit, and their dates and times would be recorded.

Times when this would not record someone would be:

a) when person A swipes to open the door, and person B also enters at the same time

b) from inside the hospital via a push-button to open the door

c) via the buzz system of gaining entry - pressing a buzzer and a member of staff would provide entry for individuals

The system of entry is 'commonplace', the court hears."

source: Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, October 14

 

[Marantz4250b]

Here’s the original post by @dotr on thread 1

“Interesting that the move to administrative duties happened back in 2016, wondering if LL was particularly upset about the introduction of cctv cameras, or the tracking wristband, perhaps drawing some suspicion, but not quite enough..?
imo, speculation.

Rbbm.
Chester hospital baby deaths: Nurse Lucy Letby arrested on suspicion of murdering eight babies
"The same report notes that "mention of installing CCTV on the unit without explanation had unsettled the nursing team further".

In December, the hospital went further issuing patients and staff with electronic tracking wristbands in a bid to monitor free beds.”

This states the tracking bands were definitely installed, but no one has mentioned it recently so I’m not sure if it’s fact?

This is interesting because it's the prosecution's case that the deaths and collapses stopped in 2016 after LL was taken off direct nursing duties. Hence, she must be guilty because she couldn't have done anything from her then position.

It is, however, evident that LL being moved was not the the sole thing which changed as CCTV and tracking bands were introduced around the same time. If someone else were doing things then the introduction of these systems may have caused them to stop for fear of being caught.

 

[Sweeper2000]

It’s also interesting that if my facts are right, only three cases actually involve a baby to whom LL was designated to care for again it increases the likelihood that if she had of done anything suspect the actual designated nurse would have noticed. “Damn my babies having a collapse, it was LL who last gave that injection” or similar. What are the odds that she could do this to other nurses babies and not be suspected or witnessed to have done anything unusual? ANYTHING

 

[MissMarbles]

Dan O'Donoghue is giving live updates on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1589561405740810241

Thank you

 

[Sweeper2000]

This is interesting because it's the prosecution's case that the deaths and collapses stopped in 2016 after LL was taken off direct nursing duties. Hence, she must be guilty because she couldn't have done anything from her then position.

It is, however, evident that LL being moved was not the the sole thing which changed as CCTV and tracking bands were introduced around the same time. If someone else were doing things then the introduction of these systems may have caused them to stop for fear of being caught.

Yeh I think that might be one of the compounding issues of the case. The prosecution’s point is more that LL is suspect coz she was around these highly unusual cases. Is it too weaker possibility that a small number of these cases were caused either by negligence or other less culpable thing by someone and then it was not noted. Then the presence of these cases when reviewed by the seniors together with other “normal” cases created the suspicion? Say for instance if one or two of them were thrown out does that then drastically change just how supposedly unusual all the other cases are? So if three of 22 charges were dropped does that then reduce the likelihood that 19 cases are suspect from a statistical POV? The tipping point so to speak then you have to factor in the lack of anything concrete. It seems a weak case so far by the prosecution but I don’t know for sure, but if it’s the case that the entire set of allegations becomes much less suspicious if only a few are thrown out then it is definitely a weak case. It is also true that the hospital stopped taking high risk babies after LL was moved onto clerical duties so there isn’t a before and after available. I’m looking at those high risk babies and thinking they may explain the statistical abnormalities.

 

[Marantz4250b]

It’s also interesting that if my facts are right, only three cases actually involve a baby to whom LL was designated to care for again it increases the likelihood that if she had of done anything suspect the actual designated nurse would have noticed. “Damn my babies having a collapse, it was LL who last gave that injection” or similar. What are the odds that she could do this to other nurses babies and not be suspected or witnessed to have done anything unusual? ANYTHING

I hadn't thought of it that way but you make good points.

The thing that struck me ages ago was the sheer number of alleged offences and the rapidity which they they are alleged to have happened. There were periods of time when they allege that she was committing offences almost daily - indeed, isn't she supposed to have attacked more than one child multiple times in the space of a few hours? It paints a picture of someone on some wild killing rampage who must have been taking huge risks as to being caught yet she never was and no one even thought to investigate these events until months or years after they happened. I think it's a pretty fair bet that the police also suspect her of more attacks but can't make the evidence fit. It seems barely possible that one person could cause so much total carnage and go completely unnoticed by anyone for years.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Would be great if anyone can give clarity on the tracking bands, neither the defence nor prosecution has mentioned them so I’m not sure if it’s a guarantee. It’s also the case that if they existed they would be assigned when entering the unit which creates a precedent for immediate registration of attendance when entering the ward, presumably done in that first half hour before the shift starts and not leaving any space at all for being on the unit without reason or registration or not being noticed.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Would be great if anyone can give clarity on the tracking bands, neither the defence nor prosecution has mentioned them so I’m not sure if it’s a guarantee. It’s also the case that if they existed they would be assigned when entering the unit which creates a precedent for immediate registration of attendance when entering the ward, presumably done in that first half hour before the shift starts and not leaving any space at all for being on the unit without reason or registration or not being noticed.

I'm not entirely sure what relevance the bands would have as regards LL as they were introduced in December 2016 and I'm sure she was on admin duties by that point or possibly suspended. It is still the case though that if someone else were up to no good then the combination of the bands and especially the CCTV would likely be a big disincentive for contemplating murder.

 

[Imnothere]

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
2h

Replying to
@MrDanDonoghue
Dr Andrew Brunton, who is now a consultant neonatologist but was a trainee doctor in 2015, is in the witness box. He is running the jury through is notes from June 20. He notes at the start of his shift that Child D was in 'respiratory distress'

His notes from around 21:45 that evening state: 'Explained (to father) that safest option at present would be to intubate and ventilate her now with the hope of weaning her off the ventilator quickly'

Child D was deemed 'clinically stable' at around 23:15 after being placed on a ventilator. At that time, parents were told 'if prolonged ventilation is required or a deterioration, we may have to think of transferring to Arrowe Park Hospital or Liverpool Women's Hospital'

Another note from 01:50 on 21 June, 2015 shows an improvement in Child D's condition. Dr Brunton took the decision around this time to wean her off the ventilator.

 

[Imnothere]

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
1h

Later that day, Child D was taken off a ventilator and placed back on a less invasive form of respiratory support (continuous positive airway pressure or CPAP therapy). Dr Brunton's notes from that night state that she was 'clinically improving' and 'well enough' to take milk

Four hours later at around 01:40 on June 22, Dr Brunton was called 'urgently' to attend to Child D. His note from that morning states:'Called urgently to review baby. Nurses noted that became extremely mottled also noted to have tracking lesions dark brown/black across trunk'

Dr Brunton tells the court that a consultant was called as 'this was a completely unusual situation that I hadn’t seen before', he said he 'couldn’t explain' the discolouration of Child D's skin

 

[Imnothere]

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
1h

After treatment, an hour later notes show Child D's condition had 'improved' and areas of discolouration had 'completely disappeared'

Dr Brunton was 'urgently' called back to attend Child D again at 03:15. His notes from that morning show that the rash had reappeared. It is the Crown's case that the rash was a result of Ms Letby injecting air into the bloodstream

At around 03:55, emergency treatment commenced. Dr Brunton recalls running from another area of the hospital after receiving a crash call. He along with other medics began chest compressions after Child D stopped breathing. Adrenaline was administered shortly after 04:00

Dr Brunton's notes show that five adrenaline doses were administered over the next 10minutes. 'This was necessary because (Child D) was in effect dying in front of us', he told the court.

After a conversation with Child D's parents, CPR was stopped after 28 minutes. Asked to summarise the events of that evening, he said: 'From when I came in on my night shift there weren't any particular worries or concerns regarding (Child D).

He added: 'By 01:40 to her death (Child D) had dramatic deteriorations at different points. It was completely unclear to me why that was occurring 'I've never seen a baby behave in that matter prior to this or after this'

Ben Myers KC, defending Ms Letby, is now taking jurors back through Dr Brunton's notes. Mr Myers has said it is important to look at the 'whole clinical picture' when assessing Child D's health

He has previously told the jury there was more evidence that infection played a part in Child D's death and the hospital failed to provide adequate care

 

[Sweeper2000]

I'm not entirely sure what relevance the bands would have as regards LL as they were introduced in December 2016 and I'm sure she was on admin duties by that point or possibly suspended. It is still the case though that if someone else were up to no good then the combination of the bands and especially the CCTV would likely be a big disincentive for contemplating murder.

Ahhh yes I didn’t notice when they were introduced but you are correct. I imagine all staff would become more focused and follow the rules more if they knew somebody was under suspicion. I imagine the entire hospital knew and would take it as reason to not slack off or anything. If you knew the unit was under investigation you would try five times as hard to not make mistakes.

 

[JosieJo]

Regarding tracking bands unless that information is brought into the trial its not something the Jury can use to make a decision so I'm really not sure of the relevance until that happens which is unlikely imo

There are also a few posts claiming for various reasons it would be difficult for someone to inject babies without being seen.
Imo it would be extremely easy even for babies you weren't caring for.
All you would need is a small syringe open and preloaded with air ..the babies already had access (lines, NG tubes ) it would take seconds...just a case of choosing the right moment...very easy especially on nights with much less people around.

All murders have an element of risk that doesn't stop them occurring.

In a scenario like this it's so much easier than grabbing someone off the street

 

[Sweeper2000]

Regarding tracking bands unless that information is brought into the trial its not something the Jury can use to make a decision so I'm really not sure of the relevance until that happens which is unlikely imo

There are also a few posts claiming for various reasons it would be difficult for someone to inject babies without being seen.
Imo it would be extremely easy even for babies you weren't caring for.
All you would need is a small syringe open and preloaded with air ..the babies already had access (lines, NG tubes ) it would take seconds...just a case of choosing the right moment...very easy especially on nights with much less people around.

All murders have an element of risk that doesn't stop them occurring.

In a scenario like this it's so much easier than grabbing someone off the street

I’m not sure it would be easily hidden especially with so many instances alleged. Every feeding time is noted so if you stick a syringe in one of those lines when it’s not expected by the allotted nurse who would be aware of feeding times it’s pretty obviously blatant. All those notes by staff are meant for one reason so you know and can keep to the timetable of scheduled care, anything out of that schedule would presumably likely be noticed. The care is supposed to be like clockwork otherwise it’s Sub optimal, however I would go to a professional and see if they agree with my non experienced opinion.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I’m not sure it would be easily hidden especially with so many instances alleged. Every feeding time is noted so if you stick a syringe in one of those lines when it’s not expected by the allotted nurse who would be aware of feeding times it’s pretty obviously blatant. All those notes by staff are meant for one reason so you know and can keep to the timetable of scheduled care, anything out of that schedule would presumably likely be noticed. The care is supposed to be like clockwork otherwise it’s Sub optimal, however I would go to a professional and see if they agree with my non experienced opinion.

I tend to agree with this but I think that the answer might be somewhere between the two opinions, to be honest. Yes, it's probably pretty easy, in theory, not to be noticed and I'm sure you could get away with it occasionally. She is alleged to have been doing this dozens of times though over a fairly short period of time and sometimes multiple times in the space of a few hours. That makes it much harder to get away with, in my opinion.

The famous warning that the IRA gave to the British Government (specifically to Margaret Thatcher, I think) was "You need to be lucky every time, we only need to by lucky once!". They eventually managed to blow up the Grand Hotel in Brighton killing several people. It's exactly the same here in that if she were doing this, and as brazenly as they are alleging, then she would only need to be seen doing it one single time and she'd be on an attempted murder charge. That's massive risk taking and it's also something you'd be increasingly likely to be caught doing the more you did it.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I tend to agree with this but I think that the answer might be somewhere between the two opinions, to be honest. Yes, it's probably pretty easy, in theory, not to be noticed and I'm sure you could get away with it occasionally. She is alleged to have been doing this dozens of times though over a fairly short period of time and sometimes multiple times in the space of a few hours. That makes it much harder to get away with, in my opinion.

The famous warning that the IRA gave to the British Government (specifically to Margaret Thatcher, I think) was "You need to be lucky every time, we only need to by lucky once!". They eventually managed to blow up the Grand Hotel in Brighton killing several people. It's exactly the same here in that if she were doing this, and as brazenly as they are alleging, then she would only need to be seen doing it one single time and she'd be on an attempted murder charge. That's massive risk taking and it's also something you'd be increasingly likely to be caught doing the more you did it.

That’s exactly my point really. Even one instance where she was witnessed to have done something would probably make the case beyond a reasonable doubt but not even once over so many cases and some being so close together is highly unlikely IMO, is that more or less likely than these cases being to do with medical anomaly? Not a single instance of another nurse noticing anything out of place and it would have been presented by the prosecutions opening. What’s the chances?

 

[merrypason]

The Trial of Lucy Letby, Episode 5: Baby C, ‘The smallest baby I had ever seen’

www.mailplus.co.uk

This a podcast on the DM summarising what the jury hears. Has more details on the Chester Standard's reporting.

I did note from here that baby C's mum is a GP. This makes me give her opinion of the event more credence because as a doctor, she would know what was an odd and what wasn't in a medical setting.

She's the one who said LL shocked her by telling her the baby was expected to die, and she thought that was surprising coming from a doctor rather than the nurse. Also the one who said they were shocked at LL's comment about the basket.

It seems LL has challenged Melanie Taylor and Sophie Ellis' recollection that she was in the room attending to baby C before resuscitation - hence why Myers kept challenging it in court.

So atm it seems her messages saying she was doing meds in room 1, and both MT and Sophie Ellis' recollection of events v LL's version of events that no one else has backed up.