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

[ColourPurple]

This is utterly bizarre that she found it so strange a nurse knew this that she had to ask how the nurse knew.

Which makes me realise that we don’t actually know much about LL as a nurse, her skill or confidence level or.. anything. All we have are assumptions made based on how quickly she became a band 6 nurse.

She could have known how to calculate them herself but been hoping that the other staff didn't know how to, and "setting them up to fail" by removing the records. That would be really cold and calculated though.

Also thinking, as we know records relating to babies were found in LL's home, how do we know if any of the records are accurate and aren't ones she had taken home and altered? We've had at least one nurse say that something attributed to them wasn't their handwriting. Don't know if it's the same nurse today who wasn't sure why she was recorded as co-signing for something with LL?

 

[Sundial]

Just a thought about the phone call error.
Often the on call consultant is at home overnight. Its "possible" someone went through to the switchboard and asked them to page the consultant.
The consultant then rings back after around a minute or so.
The ward phone may have rang and whoever picked it up may have assumed it was the consultant ringing in ...especially if in the middle of the night where less calls came from parents and with it being shortly after the consultant was paged.
The error may have been not checking who was ringing in ...easy done in an emergency situation..but I can understand why the Dr would be mortified

I’ve been trying to rationalise this in others ways too. Given the example of dialling a dedicated number (eg#4 before you can then dial for an outside/external line), something recent happened to me which has made me consider this too. I had a phone call from an office which I know is part of a larger organisation with their own direct lines/dials.

As my mobile phone rang, I answered it (knowing the person on the other end) and the person on the other end just randomly said “hello?” as though I had been the one who had called them which wasn’t the case. I hadn’t received a call from them for around a month either. When we discussed this, the person on the other end said their phone started ringing and oddly as they picked up, the call was redirected to my phone where they’d just heard me answering them. At my end, my phone was ringing, they were calling me.

We don’t know what this was in my situation, but internal direct lines in these types of places needs # or something in front of them to then be able to dial numbers outside of the building. Someone had misdirected the call to my mobile and it’s likely in the LL case, either a call has come in as you say and is misdirected by mistake, or someone (internally in that building) would have recently called A&B parents previously.. I wonder who was making those calls keeping the parents of A&B updated though? Did we have a quote from the parents of A&B about that call?

 

[Supernovae]

The only reason I feel the call may have been made by LL is because Myers didn't cross examine Dr Brunton or the other doctors and nurses attending, on this yesterday. And if it was their fault, I bet he would have done to prove how messed up and 'sub optimal' the care had been.

ETA - Mother's testimony she saw LL holding the phone to Dr Brunton's ear. He didn't even cross examine her on that memory.

MOO

Conversely if the prosecution thought there was something sinister in this then surely they would have made more of it? And if she was responsible for this dramatic and memorable screw up then surely Dr Brunton would have addressed that in his testimony? It would be more relevant and less generally prejudicial than the Facebook stuff IMO. It also occurs to me that if it were genuinely excluded from evidence they would have removed all reference to the incident from testimony rather than leaving breadcrumbs for the jury.

 

[ColourPurple]

I’ve been trying to rationalise this in others ways too. Given the example of dialling a dedicated number (eg#4 before you can then dial for an outside/external line), something recent happened to me which has made me consider this too. I had a phone call from an office which I know is part of a larger organisation with their own direct lines/dials.

As my mobile phone rang, I answered it (knowing the person on the other end) and the person on the other end just randomly said “hello?” as though I had been the one who had called them which wasn’t the case. I hadn’t received a call from them for around a month either. When we discussed this, the person on the other end said their phone started ringing and oddly as they picked up, the call was redirected to my phone where they’d just heard me answering them. At my end, my phone was ringing, they were calling me.

We don’t know what this was in my situation, but internal direct lines in these types of places needs # or something in front of them to then be able to dial numbers outside of the building. Someone had misdirected the call to my mobile and it’s likely in the LL case, either a call has come in as you say and is misdirected by mistake, or someone (internally in that building) would have recently called A&B parents previously.. I wonder who was making those calls keeping the parents of A&B updated though? Did we have a quote from the parents of A&B about that call?

I just assumed it was something like a call coming through from a parent asking for an update on their child, and the person answering the call (or being handed the phone) thinking it was a Dr asking for an update. Maybe the parent and the Dr had similar names or voices, or maybe the Dr was expecting the other Dr to call and so when the parents call came through assumed it was the Dr. The whole thing seems more likely to be a horrible mistake than somebody deliberately putting a parent through to a Dr while they were trying to save a baby's life.

 

[Supernovae]

Just a thought about the phone call error.
Often the on call consultant is at home overnight. Its "possible" someone went through to the switchboard and asked them to page the consultant.
The consultant then rings back after around a minute or so.
The ward phone may have rang and whoever picked it up may have assumed it was the consultant ringing in ...especially if in the middle of the night where less calls came from parents and with it being shortly after the consultant was paged.
The error may have been not checking who was ringing in ...easy done in an emergency situation..but I can understand why the Dr would be mortified

This from the Chester Standard supports that version of events:

1:24pm

The court also heard, from Dr Thomas's statement, there was a communication mix-up when Dr Brunton was on the telephone to what he thought was an on-call consultant, but was actually one of the parents of Child A and B.
By this time, Child A had died and Child B was being treated in the neonatal unit following a non-fatal collapse.
Previously, the court heard the parents of Child A and B would be in very regular contact with the hospital throughout the nights for an update on Child B's condition.
Dr Brunton was "mortified" when he realised the communications error had been made.

BBM

 

[annpats]

I hope the jury isn't as confused as we all are...

It must be overwhelming for them ....

 

[JosieJo]

This from the Chester Standard supports that version of events:



BBM

Thanks yes that seems to fit

 

[May72031]

I think irrespective of the Letby verdict, this hospital could face legal action after the trial. I think I read that lots of the parents have instructed lawyers. Either Letby is guilty in which case how did they continue to allow her to practice for so long after they began suspecting her, or she is found not guilty in which case the hospital is seen as causing the deaths through negligence.

And as we have heard already, there was talk of "an investigation" into two of the deaths in June 2015. Will be interesting to hear what this "investigation" entailed.

 

[merrypason]

Conversely if the prosecution thought there was something sinister in this then surely they would have made more of it? And if she was responsible for this dramatic and memorable screw up then surely Dr Brunton would have addressed that in his testimony? It would be more relevant and less generally prejudicial than the Facebook stuff IMO. It also occurs to me that if it were genuinely excluded from evidence they would have removed all reference to the incident from testimony rather than leaving breadcrumbs for the jury.

They had the mother testifying to it being LL on the phone, and then discussing how mortified Dr Brunton was.

But because no medical staff can remember conclusively who it was, they can't make more of it. As it doesn't directly impact baby D's outcome.

Unless the DM is right and it was actually another nurse on the call (haven't seen any other outlet mention this) - all the jury know is the mother saw LL on the phone and Dr Brunton was mortified that it was the wrong call to the parents of A & B. Which is damaging as an insinuation for LL. And one for the defence to tackle on damage control.

 

[Tortoise]

I’m surprised both dr evans and dr bohin didn’t agree the care of baby d was sup optimal. If the baby shouldve had antibiotics after birth and they were delayed then surely it isn’t the optimal way to look after the baby.

We haven't heard their opinions on baby D yet.

 

[squish]

Wonder why she said 'second'? Because so far A had died, B had collapsed, C had died. She was at the resuscitation efforts of all of them.

She was only designated nurse for A. So if by 'MY' babies she meant her designated patients - D wasn't one of them. So only 1 baby (A)

And if she meant babies who died when she was resuscitating them, that was 3 babies (A, C, D).

And if she meant babies having a sudden collapse during her shift, that was 4 babies (A, B, C, D).

I actually think this could be tricksy deceit.

Like if she admits *two* babies, she’s acknowledging with feigned shock and horror, the amount of babies unexpectedly collapsing on her shifts. So she looks like she’s displaying the appropriate emotional reaction of an innocent and trustworthy person.

While making sure she looks innocent, at the same time she’s minimising the number of incidents and separating whichever two babies she’s talking about from the other two babies, to attempt to stop her colleagues from seeing the pattern. It’s also another way of making herself look innocent; she’s making out like she’s not aware of the connection between the four babies.

IMO, if found guilty, etc.

 

[bbsaz]

I’m surprised both dr evans and dr bohin didn’t agree the care of baby d was sup optimal. If the baby shouldve had antibiotics after birth and they were delayed then surely it isn’t the optimal way to look after the baby.

I'm not sure they've testified for Baby D yet.. (could of course be wrong, its hard to keep up!)

 

[Music2022]

I'm not sure they've testified for Baby D yet.. (could of course be wrong, its hard to keep up!)

I could be wrong to be honest, I just thought they did.

 

[MissMarbles]

I wonder if the "my second" statement could relate to the second baby being allegedly killed using exactly the same method and items as with one other baby previously? Or something about the death or circumstances seeming superficially similar to LL?

Alternatively "my second" could be just a number picked at random.

Wonder why she said 'second'? Because so far A had died, B had collapsed, C had died. She was at the resuscitation efforts of all of them.

She was only designated nurse for A. So if by 'MY' babies she meant her designated patients - D wasn't one of them. So only 1 baby (A)

And if she meant babies who died when she was resuscitating them, that was 3 babies (A, C, D).

And if she meant babies having a sudden collapse during her shift, that was 4 babies (A

Wonder why she said 'second'? Because so far A had died, B had collapsed, C had died. She was at the resuscitation efforts of all of them.

She was only designated nurse for A. So if by 'MY' babies she meant her designated patients - D wasn't one of them. So only 1 baby (A)

And if she meant babies who died when she was resuscitating them, that was 3 babies (A, C, D).

And if she meant babies having a sudden collapse during her shift, that was 4 babies (A, B, C, D).

 

[Parker Knoll]

I have literally never known a case quite like this one.

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

Good spot!

Because surely whoever held the phone up to the doctor's ear is the one who took/made the call and checked it was indeed the on-call consultant?

If it was indeed her, that is really really really suspicious. No way can anyone mistake an external number to parents for an extension to the on call consultant. Surely.

Maybe LL was trying to distract the Doctor? MOO

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

I wonder who dialled. Maybe a more junior nurse dialled and passed the phone over?
If it is indeed all on purpose by LL then this has to be the most sinister evil behaviour ever.

I just commented on this fact. Maybe LL did do it on purpose? or maybe someone pressed redial, thinking the last person THEY called was the consultant but the parents had called for an update?

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

A few thoughts so far..

Firstly this,
12:52pm

The nurse recalls the efforts made to resuscitate Child D, which were made in established guidelines, and ultimately efforts were not successful.
She recalls the parents were there at the time.
After Child D had died, she recalls having a conversation with Lucy Letby on the resuscitation drugs used.
A chart advising dose levels for the drugs would usually be kept by the child, but this A4 chart, a laminated piece of paper, was missing.
The nurse said that chart was missing, and the resuscitation drugs were administered by calculating the doses with Child D's weight, and using her years of experience.
The chart "eventually turned up", the court hears, as "it must have gone missing in the stress of everything".
Lucy Letby asked the nurse how she knew what dose levels to give, and the nurse explained how she had done so.

I’ve mentioned part of nurse training is half theory and half hands in practice. Whether an emergency or not; nurses are actually trained in their first year alone about drug calculations. This training also makes reference to drug calculations based on weight (whether neonatal or not), it is generally common knowledge in this area that it is part of training. As a “specialised nurse who took additional training” and whether this is an emergency or not, I fail to see how any nurse would not know this basic fact in drug calculation..It makes no sense at all. MOO

Secondly, I can’t believe the mix up and chaos which seems to be relayed in todays hearing, it’s quite sad, that poor baby and of course her parents and in hindsight delay of her treatment could have prevented how poorly she was in the first instance. My thoughts are very much with all those affected by this.

In terms of the external and internal phone lines with hospitals, health care providers and doctors offices for example; many of them you need to press a dedicated number (for example #4 or something) to be able to dial an outside line. Now IF this was indeed the parents of baby A&B who were on the other end of that phone call.. “someone” would need to actively dial the dedicated number in order to be able to dial an outside (external) phone number.

All my own thoughts of todays hearing of course, the laminated drug card missing is also quite bizarre,. Was LL not hovering around with a clipboard previously, did she remove it? I really don’t know what to think today- but with baby D, right from the start things are delayed, mistakes, things missing and then there’s that odd phone call in the middle of that chaos.

Maybe the drug chart disappeared so the resuscitation attempts would be stalled. Maybe LL thought the nurse (the one she asked how she did the drug calcs) could not do it without the chart, thus asking her "how did you do it?"

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

I just assumed it was something like a call coming through from a parent asking for an update on their child, and the person answering the call (or being handed the phone) thinking it was a Dr asking for an update. Maybe the parent and the Dr had similar names or voices, or maybe the Dr was expecting the other Dr to call and so when the parents call came through assumed it was the Dr. The whole thing seems more likely to be a horrible mistake than somebody deliberately putting a parent through to a Dr while they were trying to save a baby's life.

This is what I think, or maybe a redial? Maybe LL freaked out when she saw who the callers were, parents of babies that LL has been accused of murdering/attempting to murder previously, But this happens when another Baby is being resuscitated. This would complicate things for anyone who did not want the resuscitation to be successful and spontaneous actions could of occurred from that.

 

[Kemug]

Re the question of when the mother (D's? E's?) saw LL by her baby's crib - the mother said 7pm, but LL was recording as swiping in at 7.26 - I just want to add my 2c. In my own experience of giving birth, all we mums were always very aware of what time it was, from being woken at 5am for a "nice cup of tea" (grrr!), feeding times, meal times, visiting times, trying to fit in a shower somewhere during the day, etc. Not quite the same as this particular situation, I know, but I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the mother's evidence re the time.