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

[ColourPurple]

I agree with this being over zealous and I can't really believe the baby rolled over towards the bear it feels staged.
It is often the case though that there is an instant camera on the unit to produce photos

I agree with this being over zealous and I can't really believe the baby rolled over towards the bear it feels staged.
It is often the case though that there is an instant camera on the unit to produce photos

“She presented me with a picture. She said: ‘I got this picture. He rolled over and hugged [his] bear. I thought it was so amazing so I took a picture for you.’

It doesn't really specify whether it was from her phone or from an instant camera but does look like it was an actual picture printed out photo that she gave them.

The thought that IF LL is guilty she took this pic, gave it to the parents and then went on to try to kill the other baby is so hard to get your head around.

 

[Sweeper2000]

On their own the facebook searches don't mean an awful lot. Can you make sense of why LL had medical notes from the hospital at her home? That's one thing I'm really struggling to understand.

I think they have at least some relevance, you could determine just how interested someone is. If it’s a thorough examination of the profiles prior posts, photos, friends etc or if it’s literally looking at the most recent post And then looking at a different profile. Ones obviously implicative in this context the other suggests a fleeting interest.

Think we need more details as they weren’t the only ones found apparently but certainly the only ones useful to the prosecution. would like to know how many babies names were on the handover sheet and the other notes found, how specific this paperwork is to the alleged victim, how rigorously paperwork rules on the unit is expected and enforced, if that note or any of them come as a bundle from the same time, exactly how many notes were found, the size of the paperwork itself and last but not least the seriousness of the paperwork and the likelihood of it happening by mistake. Easy to put things in your uniform pocket.

@Tortoise just wanted to say a big thank you for the hard work you have done on this case. the timelines and gathering of information relevant to particular times is really good.

 

[ColourPurple]

JMO and of course this could change as the trial goes on .. but ..this could all be about wanting to involve themselves in others grief ..I feel its possible it's more about the parents than the children

The details in the text :

Dad was crying on the floor when we took the baby

The parents hugged me

The parents thinking about her not their loss

Involving themselves in other nurses bereaved relatives

Telling a mother repeatedly that she gave her baby their first bath

Sending sympathy cards to a parent

Keeping a photo on their phone of said bereavement card

Searching repeatedly for parents on Facebook

Potentially posing a baby with their brothers teddy to give to mum

Again, IF guilty , there seems to be two aspects to it though, there's the grief aspect after the event and the parent's gratitude to everyone who tried their best etc.

But then there's also LL's comments about being bored when its quiet on the ward and when there's not much to do and a sense of wanting to be where the "action" or "drama" is. Which makes me think that if she is guilty, maybe it as a case of creating the drama herself when there was none.

And maybe the talk of fate is her way of trying to justify and minimise her own involvement and distance herself from the eventual outcome. Maybe by telling herself that she didn't actually kill the babies, she just created a set of circumstances that could have gone either way, depending on fate. Sometimes the baby survived, sometimes the baby died. IMO

 

[Dotta]

Again, IF guilty , there seems to be two aspects to it though, there's the grief aspect after the event and the parent's gratitude to everyone who tried their best etc.

But then there's also LL's comments about being bored when its quiet on the ward and when there's not much to do and a sense of wanting to be where the "action" or "drama" is. Which makes me think that if she is guilty, maybe it as a case of creating the drama herself when there was none.

And maybe the talk of fate is her way of trying to justify and minimise her own involvement and distance herself from the eventual outcome. Maybe by telling herself that she didn't actually kill the babies, she just created a set of circumstances that could have gone either way, depending on fate. Sometimes the baby survived, sometimes the baby died. IMO

But she allegedly attacked some babies several times.
"Helping" the Fate, no doubt.

Moo

 

[merrypason]

3. I've never heard of a full term baby rolling over or moving over to hug a teddy, let alone a premature one. It just doesn't ring true

This is a really really good point.

"The mother said Letby later gave her a picture she had taken showing Baby F hugging a teddy bear that had belonged to his dead brother: “She presented me with a picture. She said: ‘I got this picture. He rolled over and hugged [his] bear. I thought it was so amazing so I took a picture for you.’”

Surely a premature baby a few days old could not possibly roll over? Thought this normally happened at a few months at least. I wonder if the prosecution will show this being interrogated in the police interview (like they did with the "overwhelming sepsis" messages).

Also, I notice this inconsistency in her messages about the parents of E&F and the police interview for F.

Messages a few months after child E's death and child F's collapse:

"Just over three months later, Letby was told that the parents of Baby E and Baby F had come into the neonatal unit with a 'gorgeous huge hamper' for the staff. She was also told their surviving son looks 'fab'.

Letby said: 'Oh gosh, did they? I wish I could have seen them. That will stay with me forever'."

Police interview for child F at first arrest asking about his collapse

Letby was interviewed by police in July 2018 about that night shift.

She remembered Child F, but had no recollection of the incident and "had not been involved in his care". [which was an untruth as she later admitted administering the TPN bag]

I cannot believe at all, that she had no recollection of F's incident. She's commented on how memorable the mum and dad's actions were, yet forgot their child's almost fatal collapse after she administered a TPN bag? And if she really, genuinely did forget it makes me think she was focused only on the parents and their reactions, and the babies were just incidental to proceedings.

 

[ShireChe]

I think they have at least some relevance, you could determine just how interested someone is. If it’s a thorough examination of the profiles prior posts, photos, friends etc or if it’s literally looking at the most recent post And then looking at a different profile. Ones obviously implicative in this context the other suggests a fleeting interest.

Think we need more details as they weren’t the only ones found apparently but certainly the only ones useful to the prosecution. would like to know how many babies names were on the handover sheet and the other notes found, how specific this paperwork is to the alleged victim, how rigorously paperwork rules on the unit is expected and enforced, if that note or any of them come as a bundle from the same time, exactly how many notes were found, the size of the paperwork itself and last but not least the seriousness of the paperwork and the likelihood of it happening by mistake. Easy to put things in your uniform pocket.

@Tortoise just wanted to say a big thank you for the hard work you have done on this case. the timelines and gathering of information relevant to particular times is really good.

This is a really really good point.

"The mother said Letby later gave her a picture she had taken showing Baby F hugging a teddy bear that had belonged to his dead brother: “She presented me with a picture. She said: ‘I got this picture. He rolled over and hugged [his] bear. I thought it was so amazing so I took a picture for you.’”

Surely a premature baby a few days old could not possibly roll over? Thought this normally happened at a few months at least. I wonder if the prosecution will show this being interrogated in the police interview (like they did with the "overwhelming sepsis" messages).

Also, I notice this inconsistency in her messages about the parents of E&F and the police interview for F.

Messages a few months after child E's death and child F's collapse:

"Just over three months later, Letby was told that the parents of Baby E and Baby F had come into the neonatal unit with a 'gorgeous huge hamper' for the staff. She was also told their surviving son looks 'fab'.

Letby said: 'Oh gosh, did they? I wish I could have seen them. That will stay with me forever'."

Police interview for child F at first arrest asking about his collapse

Letby was interviewed by police in July 2018 about that night shift.

She remembered Child F, but had no recollection of the incident and "had not been involved in his care". [which was an untruth as she later admitted administering the TPN bag]

I cannot believe at all, that she had no recollection of F's incident. She's commented on how memorable the mum and dad's actions were, yet forgot their child's almost fatal collapse after she administered a TPN bag? And if she really, genuinely did forget it makes me think she was focused only on the parents and their reactions, and the babies were just incidental to proceedings.

There are certain inconsistencies that have come out that I find very strange, but saying something will stay with you forever and then not remembering it 3 years later under the stress of a police interview is not the most glaring one.

By their very nature, police interviews are hugely stressful and it's very easy to push ideas/words on people.

Obviously a complete change of story is a huge red flag. But a minor inconsistency three years later, may mean something..or may not

 

[ColourPurple]

I think they have at least some relevance, you could determine just how interested someone is. If it’s a thorough examination of the profiles prior posts, photos, friends etc or if it’s literally looking at the most recent post And then looking at a different profile. Ones obviously implicative in this context the other suggests a fleeting interest.

Think we need more details as they weren’t the only ones found apparently but certainly the only ones useful to the prosecution. would like to know how many babies names were on the handover sheet and the other notes found, how specific this paperwork is to the alleged victim, how rigorously paperwork rules on the unit is expected and enforced, if that note or any of them come as a bundle from the same time, exactly how many notes were found, the size of the paperwork itself and last but not least the seriousness of the paperwork and the likelihood of it happening by mistake. Easy to put things in your uniform pocket.

@Tortoise just wanted to say a big thank you for the hard work you have done on this case. the timelines and gathering of information relevant to particular times is really good.

I think the defence have got to tread such a fine line with the info about how many other families she searched on Facebook, and how many other babies notes she took home and whether the other babies were babies who were alive and well or not. Because on one hand the jurors might think "Ah well a certain percentage of those babies were alive and well and therefore there's nothing sinister about her searching for any families or taking home any baby's medical notes". Then on the other hand the jurors might think "Maybe those other babies were victims that survived despite attempts to harm them and it's just that nobody is aware of that."

 

[merrypason]

By their very nature, police interviews are hugely stressful and it's very easy to push ideas/words on people.

Obviously a complete change of story is a huge red flag. But a minor inconsistency three years later, may mean something..or may not

True that police interviews are stressful. But LL was on clerical duties for almost 2 years at this point and knew what she was being suspected of by the time she was arrested. That's a lot of time to go over the details of the sudden deaths/collapses - even if not expecting a police interview, I'm sure she was getting ready to challenge the hospital/NHS to re-instate her. The police house search (as below) indicated that she spent time analysing what had happened/allegations etc which would have required her to replay the incidents - she did have 2 years to think about them.

This is what the police found at her house (at her first arrest):

"On some of the notes were phrases such as “Why/how has this happened – what process has led to this current situation. What allegations have been made and by who? Do they have written evidence to support their comments?"

"In her writings, she expressed frustration at the fact that she was not being allowed back on the neonatal unit and wrote 'I haven’t done anything wrong and they have no evidence so why have I had to hide away?

Which to me suggests, she did remember details of what happened, and chose to deny it/lie in police interviews. And unfortunately for her, this is showing up in front of a jury as inconsistent with other evidence of what she said/did.

 

[bbsaz]

JMO and of course this could change as the trial goes on .. but ..this could all be about wanting to involve themselves in others grief ..I feel its possible it's more about the parents than the children

The details in the text :

Dad was crying on the floor when we took the baby

The parents hugged me

The parents thinking about her not their loss

Involving themselves in other nurses bereaved relatives

Telling a mother repeatedly that she gave her baby their first bath

Sending sympathy cards to a parent

Keeping a photo on their phone of said bereavement card

Searching repeatedly for parents on Facebook

Potentially posing a baby with their brothers teddy to give to mum

100% agree- IMOO she is a grief vampire

 

[Sweeper2000]

Again, IF guilty , there seems to be two aspects to it though, there's the grief aspect after the event and the parent's gratitude to everyone who tried their best etc.

But then there's also LL's comments about being bored when its quiet on the ward and when there's not much to do and a sense of wanting to be where the "action" or "drama" is. Which makes me think that if she is guilty, maybe it as a case of creating the drama herself when there was none.

And maybe the talk of fate is her way of trying to justify and minimise her own involvement and distance herself from the eventual outcome. Maybe by telling herself that she didn't actually kill the babies, she just created a set of circumstances that could have gone either way, depending on fate. Sometimes the baby survived, sometimes the baby died. IMO

to be honest, if one had certain proclivities it might make sense to put some subtle emphasis on your achievements, like being only one of few people trusted to deal with icu babies resuscitation and that presumably would often if not always involve a parent. I could see someone feeling very responsible in a situation like that.

if she’s guilty that line about fate is probably a joke told to herself, could be thinking “if only she knew”. IMO

 

[notsure]

One thing I've found is, the more the trial goes on,<modsnip>, even though I started with a completely open mind. I think it's just the accumulation of evidence that has this effect. Because, in reality, I don't know how many babies die, or for what reasons, in an average neonatal unit.

 

[merrypason]

I remember a poster asking about the court drawings of LL now and why they looked so different to the other photos we see. This is a photo shared in trial coverage that's more recent (I imagine) and probably more representative of how she looks in the court drawings.

Mum of tot 'murdered by Lucy Letby saw her daughter die'

THE mum of a tot allegedly murdered by Lucy Letby told a jury she saw her daughter die after being rushed into a neonatal unit full of medics. She and her husband were woken by a nurse and told the…

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[ShireChe]

True that police interviews are stressful. But LL was on clerical duties for almost 2 years at this point and knew what she was being suspected of by the time she was arrested. That's a lot of time to go over the details of the sudden deaths/collapses - even if not expecting a police interview, I'm sure she was getting ready to challenge the hospital/NHS to re-instate her. The police house search (as below) indicated that she spent time analysing what had happened/allegations etc which would have required her to replay the incidents - she did have 2 years to think about them.

This is what the police found at her house (at her first arrest):

"On some of the notes were phrases such as “Why/how has this happened – what process has led to this current situation. What allegations have been made and by who? Do they have written evidence to support their comments?"

"In her writings, she expressed frustration at the fact that she was not being allowed back on the neonatal unit and wrote 'I haven’t done anything wrong and they have no evidence so why have I had to hide away?

Which to me suggests, she did remember details of what happened, and chose to deny it/lie in police interviews. And unfortunately for her, this is showing up in front of a jury as inconsistent with other evidence of what she said/did.

Certainly. I think there is a lot of stuff that doesn't sit right, but I'm also wary of reading too much in to everything. I think it's the medical evidence that the defence just had to come up with something more plausible

 

[ColourPurple]

This is what the police found at her house (at her first arrest):

"On some of the notes were phrases such as “Why/how has this happened – what process has led to this current situation. What allegations have been made and by who? Do they have written evidence to support their comments?"

"In her writings, she expressed frustration at the fact that she was not being allowed back on the neonatal unit and wrote 'I haven’t done anything wrong and they have no evidence so why have I had to hide away?

Which to me suggests, she did remember details of what happened, and chose to deny it/lie in police interviews. And unfortunately for her, this is showing up in front of a jury as inconsistent with other evidence of what she said/did.

See, those particular notes could just be reminder notes of things she wanted to say to her employers in a disciplinary meeting or similar. I don't find them strange.

I'm late to this s case and hadn't realised till now that there was an actual picture of this other note. This one's a lot harder to explain away IMO:

Lucy Letby: police found note saying ‘I killed them on purpose’, court hears

Nurse accused of murdering seven babies on neonatal ward also wrote ‘I am a horrible evil person’, jury told

www.theguardian.com

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/79d750c475c478eee25a616f3ca2cd8f8ac1449a/0_0_774_760/master/774.jpg?width=620&quality=85&dpr=1&s=none

 

[Marantz4250b]

I remember a poster asking about the court drawings of LL now and why they looked so different to the other photos we see. This is a photo shared in trial coverage that's more recent (I imagine) and probably more representative of how she looks in the court drawings.

Mum of tot 'murdered by Lucy Letby saw her daughter die'

THE mum of a tot allegedly murdered by Lucy Letby told a jury she saw her daughter die after being rushed into a neonatal unit full of medics. She and her husband were woken by a nurse and told the…

www.thesun.co.uk

That, I think, was taken as she was attending a police station to answer bail or after being released on bail after having been held for questioning. There are a few similar ones, I believe.

I still think that the ones by the court artist are done in such a way so as to make her look more "murdery" than she presents in reality.

 

[Supernovae]

Question

Why are some of the names of the nurses not disclosed?

Right, let's try again:

From Dan O'Donoghue's Twitter account.





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

The timing is interesting.

<modsnip - not an approved MSM site>

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

THE trial of former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of multiple baby murders, is due to finalise its jury and hear…

www.leaderlive.co.uk

2:28pm

Early on August 4, Child E had died. Later that day, the pharmacy received a prescription for a TPN bag for Child F, the twin brother.
A confirmation document was printed, at 12.32pm, for Child F. The pharmacist produced a handwritten correction to say it was to be used within 48 hours of 11.30pm that day.

2:30pm

The TPN bag was delivered up to the ward at 4pm that day.
On that nght shift, the designated nurse for Child F, in room 2, was not Letby.
Letby had a single baby to look after that night, also in room 2.
There were seven babies in the unit that night, with five nurses working.

If the anonymous nurse from my original post came on duty just before 9AM on the 4th she would likely still have been on duty when the suspect bag arrived on the ward.

Now unless there's something I'm missing, the only real strategy open to the defence to counter the insulin cases is that someone else did it. In practice "someone else" in this context is probably quite a small pool of potential suspects who had the opportunity in both cases. My suspicion is the the reason some of the nurses are having their identities legally protected is that they form that pool of alternate suspects.

 

[mummyshark]

9.10pm – Large v.slightly bile-stained aspirate is reported as happening at 9.10pm, to Dr Harkness at 9.40pm.

9.11pm – Child E’s mother phoned her husband in a call lasting 4 mins 25 secs. She says she knew there was something very wrong. Father confirms that the mother was upset and very worried about bleeding from Child E’s mouth in this call. He said he was sure the medical staff knew what they were doing and she was panicking over nothing.

Sorry if I'm a bit slow with picking up on this, but the Mum said that it took her 5-10 minutes to get between the NNU and the Post Natal ward. So, if she called her husband when she was back on Post Natal, that means she would have left NNU BEFORE LL apparently aspirated and saw the "mucky bile". IMO, that points even more to LL thinking she needed to report "something" because the Mum had witnessed the blood on Baby E's face. If the Mum hadn't been there at 9pm, I wonder what would (or wouldn't) have been reported instead.

Also, why did it take 30 minutes to report it to a Dr if a decision needed to be made about giving the feed? I'm not sure if I've missed it but was Baby E receiving IV nutrients as well as milk? If not, then stopping the feed while he was being giving insulin presumably would have put him at risk of hypoglycaemia?

Just my opinion.

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

I know I’in nicu there’s these octopus thing you can get the idea being the baby will fiddle with it opposed to any wires. Probably not the same thing though. I actually assumed she posed the photo tbh.

It’s hard, I feel like if I were leaving my baby’s care to nicu for the majority of the day, I’d appreciate the photo. I think it seems weird after the fact but it I were the parent and it was my baby I think I’d be happy to have that particular photo.

I was given one photo of my child about 4 hours after she was born and that was because I hadn't been allowed to see her as they had been stablizing her for all that time plus i was in bad shape myself (Pre-eclampsia), it was a photo that had been printed off a computer and it just made me cry, it was my first look at her and she had blood on her wrists from needles and tubes and had a huge mask over her face and wires everywhere. I always felt so sad and scared when I looked at it.
The nurses never took any other photos after that and i never saw them taking photos of any other babies.
It feels to me, that LL overstepped the line a little and was pushing herself into being involved. JMO

 

[Supernovae]

Now unless there's something I'm missing, the only real strategy open to the defence to counter the insulin cases is that someone else did it. In practice "someone else" in this context is probably quite a small pool of potential suspects who had the opportunity in both cases. My suspicion is the the reason some of the nurses are having their identities legally protected is that they form that pool of alternate suspects.

Just to add that there's an element of circularity in the prosecution case in that they're relying on the insulin cases to seal the deal for the more ambiguous case and also relying on the larger pool of cases to narrow (to one person) the pool of suspects.

 

[ColourPurple]

That, I think, was taken as she was attending a police station to answer bail or after being released on bail after having been held for questioning. There are a few similar ones, I believe.

I still think that the ones by the court artist are done in such a way so as to make her look more "murdery" than she presents in reality.

Apparently the court artists aren't allowed to draw whilst in the court anyway so even their pics of famous people in court ,never seem particularly accurate.