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

[Dcflag]

"He asks if it is correct Letby also searched for the names of parents who are not part of this case. The intelligence analyst agrees."

At least we've had a bit of clarity regarding this as I know it's something we've discussed. I wonder if she looks up almost everyone or if those other searches were also for children who passed but aren't part of this case.

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

In fairness does that mean much? It could mean their deaths were no suspicious. It could mean they couldn’t meet the burden of proof to charge.

 

[ShireChe]

Perhaps the parents refused. It can happen.

I think it was mentioned somewhere earlier that the parents were asked and they just wanted to take their baby home. Quite understandable at the time

 

[Dcflag]

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

So my son died suddenly. His death was recorded as being in a&e with a pediatrician but he wasn’t breathing when we called an ambulance (he was a newborn, but not just born)

They debated about a post-mortem. It wasn’t a case of if we wanted one, it was whether the coroner wanted one. In the end they discussed what they did have with addenbrookes and decided they had enough evidence that a post mortem wasn’t needed. So one wasn’t done.

He presented unwell and saw both a health visitor (gained weight so was happy) and a gp (diagnosed colic) within the 12 hours before he died so this was unexpected and sudden. They chose not to do one however.

I think it largely depends case by case and the specifics of the case. You don’t always get a choice, and in fairness thinking back, we weren’t actually offered one either.

Edit- they knew he had some kind of hemmoragic type bleed. I’m going to guess (because I’ve no idea) it could be a result of the issues he faced before birth? Perhaps it was considered most likely to be the cause and no pm needed?

 

[JosieJo]

Regarding the post mortem it was stated the coroner did not deem it necessary

 

[notsure]

Regarding the post mortem it was stated the coroner did not deem it necessary

No suspicions aroused at that point, then.

 

[notsure]

So my son died suddenly. His death was recorded as being in a&e with a pediatrician but he wasn’t breathing when we called an ambulance (he was a newborn, but not just born)

They debated about a post-mortem. It wasn’t a case of if we wanted one, it was whether the coroner wanted one. In the end they discussed what they did have with addenbrookes and decided they had enough evidence that a post mortem wasn’t needed. So one wasn’t done.

He presented unwell and saw both a health visitor (gained weight so was happy) and a gp (diagnosed colic) within the 12 hours before he died so this was unexpected and sudden. They chose not to do one however.

I think it largely depends case by case and the specifics of the case. You don’t always get a choice, and in fairness thinking back, we weren’t actually offered one either.

Edit- they knew he had some kind of hemmoragic type bleed. I’m going to guess (because I’ve no idea) it could be a result of the issues he faced before birth? Perhaps it was considered most likely to be the cause and no pm needed?

So sorry for your loss.

 

[squish]

Regarding the post mortem it was stated the coroner did not deem it necessary

The parents said they felt persuaded by the doctor, who said it wouldn’t tell them anything new and would delay taking their baby home.

I think that doctor knew the death was odd (not criminal but odd) and didn’t want to risk anything being discovered that showed wrongdoing on the part of the hospital.

 

[annpats]

I think it was mentioned somewhere earlier that the parents were asked and they just wanted to take their baby home. Quite understandable at the time

Exactly! I totally understand that. Their baby had been through enough. Having to imagine the baby undergoing a postmortem examination would be too much.

I'm glad they didn't consent. I do feel some hospitals make it seem compulsory, but the next of kin can refuse....not just for babies, but for adults who have passed on too.

 

[Tortoise]

I've been looking at the timeline and wondering why the blood transfusion wasn't set up for baby E until 12.50am, (resuscitation was discontinued at 1.23am).

I wonder if it's because the doctor just didn't know he'd had that large bleed that the mother saw just before 9pm, and thought it was just blood-flecked vomit or bile or something, as the barrister was trying to get the mother to agree it wasn't blood she saw.


"Mr Myers said: “You said what you saw was blood. Is it possible what you saw was some sort of dark liquid with flecks of material – aspirates?
Child E’s mother said: “It was blood.”
Mother ‘completely trusted’ nurse when she left ‘screaming’ son in her care

I suppose the whole response to treatment is complicated anyway by the alleged air embolus, the doctors just didn't know what they were (allegedly) dealing with on two fronts here. IMO.

 

[Dcflag]

I've been looking at the timeline and wondering why the blood transfusion wasn't set up for baby E until 12.50am, (resuscitation was discontinued at 1.23am).

I wonder if it's because the doctor just didn't know he'd had that large bleed that the mother saw just before 9pm, and thought it was just blood-flecked vomit or bile or something, as the barrister was trying to get the mother to agree it wasn't blood she saw.


"Mr Myers said: “You said what you saw was blood. Is it possible what you saw was some sort of dark liquid with flecks of material – aspirates?
Child E’s mother said: “It was blood.”
Mother ‘completely trusted’ nurse when she left ‘screaming’ son in her care

I suppose the whole response to treatment is complicated anyway by the alleged air embolus, the doctors just didn't know what they were (allegedly) dealing with on two fronts here. IMO.

It does feel a little to me like he was basically bringing up blood for a few hours before they did anything at all. I did find it bizarre they weren’t more urgent about it?

 

[Supernovae]

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

"Sudden" and "unexpected" exist on a spectrum. Within the context of this case the prosecution has to present it as very cut and dried but many/most of these babies were in general terms at non-trivial risk of death and the deaths were certified as natural at the time. For example in Child D's case the pneumonia theory isn't just some maverick Hail Mary theory developed by the defence team its what the death was certified as by a pathologist and coroner for many months.

 

[Supernovae]

From Dan O'Donoghue's Twitter account.

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue


Jury now being shown text messages sent between Ms Letby and colleagues on the morning after Child E's death. Ms Letby to a former colleague, who cannot be named for legal reasons, says she felt 'numb'

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
9h

Replying to
@MrDanDonoghue
When her former colleague says 'you seem to be having some very bad luck' Ms Letby replies: 'Not a lot I can do really he had a massive haemorrhage, could have happened to any baby x'

From the Chester Standard regarding the same exchange:

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

3:31pm

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'.
The colleague said Child E 'had always struggled feeding'.
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'.
She added: "I feel numb".

The timing is interesting.

<modsnip - not an approved MSM site>

 

[Kemug]

There needs to be a sensitivity advisor to prevent victims from being treated like this. It's possible to question without being needlessly cruel.

Yes indeed. Here on Websleuths our moderators hold us to high standards, and would not permit any of us to treat a bereaved mother so insensitively and yes, even cruelly.

 

[katydid23]

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.

I don't get the feeling it is about 'Me Me ME' attention seeking. Her many FB searches to see about the bereaved parents makes me think she wants to impact others. I feel she has anger and resentment towards happy parents and she wants to ruin their happiness and then she wants to watch them afterwards, to measure the effects. JMO

 

[katydid23]

Yes, he was the (allegedly) insulin poisoned twin that survived.

Unbelievable that she allegedly attempted to take BOTH babies from these grieving parents.

 

[katydid23]

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.

How could she NOT know what an air embolism was? Wouldn't that be taught to someone that routinely set up IV's for their patients?

 

[Kemug]

The neonatal fluid chart for the 9pm column records, under milk feeds, 'omitted', and the word 'discarded' is in a non-specific line. For aspirates, the note '16ml mucky' is made.
To the right of that, at the 10pm column, is '15ml fresh blood' on aspirates.
The two columns for that chart are signed by Lucy Letby's initials.

Isn't 15ml the equivalent of 3 teaspoonsful? That seems a lot for such a tiny baby to lose - I don't understand why it apparently wasn't considered urgent then?

 

[Kemug]

"He asks if it is correct Letby also searched for the names of parents who are not part of this case. The intelligence analyst agrees."

At least we've had a bit of clarity regarding this as I know it's something we've discussed. I wonder if she looks up almost everyone or if those other searches were also for children who passed but aren't part of this case.

It sounds to me as if she didn't have much of a life outside of her career. Even on Christmas Night she apparently didn't have much else to do or think about.

 

[Kemug]

At least we've had a bit of clarity regarding this as I know it's something we've discussed. I wonder if she looks up almost everyone or if those other searches were also for children who passed but aren't part of this case.

If she looked up children who hadn't passed, or nearly passed, is it possible that these may be children whom she had tried to harm, but failed. And she is checking to see if there have maybe been any long-term effects from what she did?

 

[Eloise]

"He asks if it is correct Letby also searched for the names of parents who are not part of this case. The intelligence analyst agrees."

At least we've had a bit of clarity regarding this as I know it's something we've discussed. I wonder if she looks up almost everyone or if those other searches were also for children who passed but aren't part of this case.

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

This! It's still not enough to just know she searched other parents. If they're parents only of babies who died or were very touch and go then we know there's something inherently ghoulish about the searches. Or maybe they're all parents she ever met, even parents of babies who went through the unit completely fine. Or maybe there's something else in common about them. It's weird to me that that's not being clarified. As it stands it seems like vaguely useless information.

Exactly, it's not criminal, so why not just admit it? It's weirder to pretend you don't remember ever doing it, then just fess up to something which is unethical but not illegal. It looks worse to pretend you've never done it.

I agree, all the 'I don't remember's start to sound a bit convenient after a while. If it's not illegal, and it's not, then why not just admit to it and explain why you do it? It's a bit embarrassing, at worst, if it's not connected to the accusations.