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

[Marantz4250b]

My opinion is that, if guilty, it seems to be from boredom. I know this sounds too simple and not something a person would actively murder for but if we look at text messages, there have been a few times when it has been mentioned how quiet the unit is, or how boring just feedings are. This is just my own opinion but it is an opinion i have had for a while.

Entirely possible, I guess. The problem we have is that all these texts are selectively chosen by the prosecution to help convict her. A few "questionable" texts may not seem quite so questionable when read in the context of the thousands she undoubtedly sent.

 

[JosieJo]

3:50pm

The court is shown evidence that Letby searched for the mum and dad of Child E and Child F on Facebook nine times in the following months, the vast majority for the mother. The first of the searches was on August 6 at 7.58pm, and one of the searches is at 11.26pm on December 25.
The final two searches were made in January 2016, the last on January 10 at 11.03pm.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, November 14

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

There's a genuine interest then there's obsession !

In her police interviews she "accepted" that she had made the searches ...so why would anyone think by saying she didn't remember why would help her ? Unethical or not she "accepted" she did them not denied them

I feel the interesting searches are the ones where multiple potential victims in this case were searched for in quick succession...what grouped them together ?

It's noticible that the defence is not asking how many other searches were of parents of babies not in this case as a specific number.

 

[merrypason]

The text message sent from a colleague of Letby to Letby's phone at 8.58am on August 4 says: "You ok? Just heard about [Child E]. Did you have him? Sending hugs xx"

Letby responds: "News travels fast - who told you? Yeah I had them both, was horrible."

The colleague responded that she had been informed by someone at the handover 'told me just now'. 'Had he been getting poorly or was it sudden?'

Letby responds Child E had a 'massive gastrointestinal haemorrhage'.

Letby responds that Child E was 'IUGR [Intrauterine growth restriction] and REDF [Reversal of umbilical artery end-diastolic flow]' and believed Child E was 'high risk'.

This message exchange shows that even her colleague noticed the deaths were 'sudden'. I can't get over how she's the only one who doesn't seem concerned at the unusualness or suddenness of the deaths. And always always has a confident response to cause of death when even the doctors and other nurses have said they were confused or unsure.

I'll be curious to see if the doctors say they too believed death was because of the haemorrhage. Or like with the "overwhelming sepsis" and "meningitis", she'll once again have told the police she has no idea why she thought that or who told her. Because no one mentioned it.

Regarding the FB searches - I wonder why she searched the mum of E so often when she didn't search any of the other parents this much (not even the mum she sent a card to).

Why did she only care about child E on xmas day and not A, C, D?? Wonder if it was to see if they changed their mind about post mortem (MOO)?

 

[Marantz4250b]

The text message sent from a colleague of Letby to Letby's phone at 8.58am on August 4 says: "You ok? Just heard about [Child E]. Did you have him? Sending hugs xx"

Letby responds: "News travels fast - who told you? Yeah I had them both, was horrible."

The colleague responded that she had been informed by someone at the handover 'told me just now'. 'Had he been getting poorly or was it sudden?'

Letby responds Child E had a 'massive gastrointestinal haemorrhage'.

Letby responds that Child E was 'IUGR [Intrauterine growth restriction] and REDF [Reversal of umbilical artery end-diastolic flow]' and believed Child E was 'high risk'.

This message exchange shows that even her colleague noticed the deaths were 'sudden'. I can't get over how she's the only one who doesn't seem concerned at the unusualness or suddenness of the deaths. And always always has a confident response to cause of death when even the doctors and other nurses have said they were confused or unsure.

I'll be curious to see if the doctors say they too believed death was because of the haemorrhage. Or like with the "overwhelming sepsis" and "meningitis", she'll once again have told the police she has no idea why she thought that or who told her. Because no one mentioned it.

Regarding the FB searches - I wonder why she searched the mum of E so often when she didn't search any of the other parents this much (not even the mum she sent a card to).

Why did she only care about child E on xmas day and not A, C, D?? Wonder if it was to see if they changed their mind about post mortem (MOO)?

She obviously did not notice that as she specifically asked LL ...was it sudden

 

[Becci]

Entirely possible, I guess. The problem we have is that all these texts are selectively chosen by the prosecution to help convict her. A few "questionable" texts may not seem quite so questionable when read in the context of the thousands she undoubtedly sent.

& she doesn't initially start half of them from what I've read

 

[merrypason]

She obviously did not notice that as she specifically asked LL ...was it sudden

She did notice because she asked that very specific question. She made the distinction between "did he get poorly or was it sudden". Which is exactly the point of the prosecution's case - that these were all sudden collapses/deaths.

To make the distinction and specifically ask about it, it needs to be something you've noticed. Otherwise you'd just ask "how did he die".

 

[merrypason]

Entirely possible, I guess. The problem we have is that all these texts are selectively chosen by the prosecution to help convict her. A few "questionable" texts may not seem quite so questionable when read in the context of the thousands she undoubtedly sent.

Except the defence aren't questioning the texts or asking about other texts in the same way they've questioned the FB searches, are they?

 

[Marantz4250b]

& she doesn't initially start half of them from what I've read

Exactly, that struck me too. I'm not really sure what the prosecution's point is in bringing these texts up as I don't see them as remotely incriminating. I can't recall reading anything in them that would seem out of the ordinary if said by a person who was totally innocent. There certainly isn't any attention seeking element to them and they all seem entirely reasonable in the context of whomever she happens to be messaging.

 

[Marantz4250b]

She did notice because she asked that very specific question. She made the distinction between "did he get poorly or was it sudden". Which is exactly the point of the prosecution's case - that these were all sudden collapses/deaths.

To make the distinction and specifically ask about it, it needs to be something you've noticed. Otherwise you'd just ask "how did he die".

No, she asked "Had he been getting poorly or was it sudden?" That's a straightforward question and I don't know how you would read into that that she noticed a pattern to anything. It seems an entirely reasonable thing for a nursing colleague to ask, to be honest.

 

[merrypason]

Exactly, that struck me too. I'm not really sure what the prosecution's point is in bringing these texts up as I don't see them as remotely incriminating. I can't recall reading anything in them that would seem out of the ordinary if said by a person who was totally innocent. There certainly isn't any attention seeking element to them and they all seem entirely reasonable in the context of whomever she happens to be messaging.

There's been a lot of points made on the last few threads about inconsistencies in her messages to people about the facts of the case, and what's actually happened.

The texts showed very clearly that she was so upset by the death of D and the others, she needed to take time off work and couldn't stop crying.

Yet she told the police she couldn't remember D.

The texts showed her telling colleagues D was being investigated for sepsis and meningitis - yet none of the doctors and nurses said this and when the police asked LL, she couldn't remember who had told her.

Her texts for C showed she was in room 1 even though she denied it to the police and said she wasn't.

For A the texts showed she watched a porgramme on the dangers of air embolisms, yet told police she wasn't sure what an air emoblism was.

So I think the texts have contributed a fair bit to showing her whereabouts, and picking up inconsistencies and untruths that she hasn't then been able to explain.

 

[merrypason]

No, she asked "Had he been getting poorly or was it sudden?" That's a straightforward question and I don't know how you would read into that that she noticed a pattern to anything. It seems an entirely reasonable thing for a nursing colleague to ask, to be honest.

I don't think it is. A reasonable question is, "How did the patient die"

Which is the question LL answered by giving a cause of death rather than stating whether it was sudden or the baby had been getting poorly.

For someone to even be curious whether it was sudden - means they had noticed other babies die suddenly. Because sudden deaths are not common - that's the entire point of this case, what every doctor and nurse has said. And if something is not common, it is not usual to be enquiring about it.

 

[Marantz4250b]

There's been a lot of points made on the last few threads about inconsistencies in her messages to people about the facts of the case, and what's actually happened.

The texts showed very clearly that she was so upset by the death of D and the others, she needed to take time off work and couldn't stop crying.

Yet she told the police she couldn't remember D.

The texts showed her telling colleagues B was being investigated for sepsis and meningitis - yet none of the doctors and nurses said this and when the police asked LL, she couldn't remember who had told her.

Her texts for C showed she was in room 1 even though she denied it to the police and said she wasn't.

For A the texts showed she watched a porgramme on the dangers of air embolisms, yet told police she wasn't sure what an air emoblism was.

So I think the texts have contributed a fair bit to showing her whereabouts, and picking up inconsistencies and untruths that she hasn't then been able to explain.

They did not show that. They showed that she had been off (since Wednesday or whenever it was) but not that she had taken time off. Someone else has already pointed out that it could simply have been down to her shift patterns.

I don't think she actually mentioned those conditions in your para 3 were actually being tested for, just that she thought it ay have been them and that "everything would be checked for" or similar.

 

[Anxala]

Of course one is getting a good sense as you say of what the defence's case will be but, personally, I will not feel I am hearing both sides until I have heard what the defence's experts have to say.

Agree. Added to which we are just over one month into this 6mth trial so it's little more than passed its 'scene-setting' stage imo. Despite the somewhat damning elements against LL that have emerged, I still don't feel I'll have any real understanding of how credible the charges against her are until we're much further along and in possession of much more information than we've been presented with to date.

5 mths from now is when I expect I personally might be able to reach an opinion, one way or the other.

 

[merrypason]

They did not show that. They showed that she had been off (since Wednesday or whenever it was) but not that she had taken time off. Someone else has already pointed out that it could simply have been down to her shift patterns.

I don't think she actually mentioned those conditions in your para 3 were actually being tested for, just that she thought it ay have been them and that "everything would be checked for" or similar.

Letby: "No, been off since Wednesday morning and now it has all hit me."

The colleague asks if Letby tries "talking to a proper counsellor".

You're right we don't know if it was just her shift pattern or she had taken the time off. We don't know LL, but clearly her own colleague thought she sounded unlike herself enough to suggest she speak to a counsellor. Even if she hadn't taken time off, it was clearly a notable, memorable and significant event in her life. And not one she'd be likely to forget.

Regarding the conditions she mentioned, the police thought it suspicious enough to question her as below. I'm merely repeating what the prosecution has presented as agreed facts, and why the messages are important (as you questioned their relevance) - because this line of questioning was triggered BECAUSE of her messages.

"Asked about messages exchanged between Letby and a nursing colleague, she was asked why she had said Child D had 'overwhelming sepsis'. Letby says she could not recall, but thought from the context of the text, she thought Child D had been rescreened for infection.

She was asked why, later that day, someone had said it could have been meningitis. She said she could not remember that being said to her."

 

[Officer Dibble]

The text message sent from a colleague of Letby to Letby's phone at 8.58am on August 4 says: "You ok? Just heard about [Child E]. Did you have him? Sending hugs xx"

Letby responds: "News travels fast - who told you? Yeah I had them both, was horrible."

The colleague responded that she had been informed by someone at the handover 'told me just now'. 'Had he been getting poorly or was it sudden?'

Letby responds Child E had a 'massive gastrointestinal haemorrhage'.

Letby responds that Child E was 'IUGR [Intrauterine growth restriction] and REDF [Reversal of umbilical artery end-diastolic flow]' and believed Child E was 'high risk'.

This message exchange shows that even her colleague noticed the deaths were 'sudden'. I can't get over how she's the only one who doesn't seem concerned at the unusualness or suddenness of the deaths. And always always has a confident response to cause of death when even the doctors and other nurses have said they were confused or unsure.

I'll be curious to see if the doctors say they too believed death was because of the haemorrhage. Or like with the "overwhelming sepsis" and "meningitis", she'll once again have told the police she has no idea why she thought that or who told her. Because no one mentioned it.

Regarding the FB searches - I wonder why she searched the mum of E so often when she didn't search any of the other parents this much (not even the mum she sent a card to).

Why did she only care about child E on xmas day and not A, C, D?? Wonder if it was to see if they changed their mind about post mortem (MOO)?

Well that is interesting re the IUGR. Poor Child E. I too had a baby with IUGR but although staff said they might have to put the baby in special care the baby, despite being premature and tiny from not growing properly in the womb, didn't need any special care and was just fine. Tiny, but fine. No help needed. Just pointing out that some medical conditions in newborns don't always need special care and shouldn't be assumed they do need it. The same baby of mine also had Oligohydramnios situation going on in the womb. I appreciate Child E had something else wrong though. Edited to mention: Just my own opinion

 

[Becci]

I don't understand why the doctor wouldn't want a postmortem.
I would like to know exactly what went wrong.

 

[notsure]

I don't understand why the doctor wouldn't want a postmortem.
I would like to know exactly what went wrong.

Surely if the death was unexpected and sudden, a postmortem would be a requirement, not an option.

 

[ShireChe]

This is the kind of thing that makes me so puzzled about this case and, if guilty, what her motives were. If it's attention seeking and "me, me, me" type motivations then the text from the colleague is a wide open goal for her to make it all about her and bathe in the pity of others. She does the exact opposite though.

All very strange.

Same here. It's so very confusing. I notice that LL recorded the strange skin patterns herself in the latest case.. which just seems utterly bizarre if she were to be the cause. Why would you draw attention to that? But I am genuinely beginning to wonder if the defence actually has anything up their sleeves at all. If their only tactic is to query the recollections of the parents they are not in a strong position at all

 

[merrypason]

Same here. It's so very confusing. I notice that LL recorded the strange skin patterns herself in the latest case.. which just seems utterly bizarre if she were to be the cause. Why would you draw attention to that? But I am genuinely beginning to wonder if the defence actually has anything up their sleeves at all. If their only tactic is to query the recollections of the parents they are not in a strong position at all

I think by this point everyone was talking about the rashes, and the doctors would have noticed it on the baby themselves, even if she didn't write it down. Wouldn't be possible to cover up the rash happening. The last baby went through a review and post mortem and was cleared of anything suspicious. So she may have thought she was in the clear as to the rashes being seen as a result of administered air and therefore harmless to note down.

MOO.

 

[annpats]

Surely if the death was unexpected and sudden, a postmortem would be a requirement, not an option.

Perhaps the parents refused. It can happen.