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

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

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

This is what I was saying yesterday. The way she talks about it being boring and only doing feeds, IMO feels like she is trying to create some drama, like you say. or maybe she wants to be the hero? <modsnip - sub judice>

 

[Parker Knoll]

This case gets stranger by the day.
I struggle with the whole concept that she is put on admin duties and taken off the wards. What did her nursing colleagues say or do about this ?
Surely it would be an impossible situation for all as endless questions would of been asked and have to be answered why this Band 6 nurse was suddenly office bound.
It’s utterly mad.

 

[mummyshark]

Surely a premature baby a few days old could not possibly roll over?

My daughter (born at 33 weeks) could roll when she was in SCBU. Not fully over, but she could roll on to her side. As she got bigger she could no longer do it (at least not until she was developmentally supposed to). I suspect it's something to do with being physically underdeveloped but still curled up from the womb so they sort of roll on their spine, rather than with intent. With that said, she was healthier and likely more alert than Baby F was at that time.

It's also worth remembering that, although safe sleep guidelines tell you to always lay a baby on their back, in NICU they tend to change their position a couple of times a day so they're often laying on their side (only if they're on a monitor). Baby F could have been positioned on his side and flung his arm over the bear.

Or it could all be a load of crap!

Just my opinion.

 

[Dcflag]

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.

Reading it back tonight, the part “I haven’t done anything wrong and they have no evidence so why have I had to hide away?” Hits weird for me. Interpreting that really IS dependant on how an individual takes it.

Wouldn’t it be more natural to omit the “and they have no evidence” part? And just have “I’ve done nothing wrong so why have I had to hide away?” It also suggests that a) there’s a potential she feels genuinely that she hasn’t done anything wrong or b) she doesn’t feel the collapses are suspicious. I feel like if she did think all these deaths were suspicious it would be “it wasn’t me” opposed to “I didn’t do anything wrong”.

I can’t lie, I’d really love to know what her interpretation of the facts are. Does she suspect these babies were unlawfully killed while maintaining her own innocence? If she doesn’t testify herself, can she still submit a statement or have anything representing herself? If that makes sense at all!

 

[Dcflag]

This case gets stranger by the day.
I struggle with the whole concept that she is put on admin duties and taken off the wards. What did her nursing colleagues say or do about this ?
Surely it would be an impossible situation for all as endless questions would of been asked and have to be answered why this Band 6 nurse was suddenly office bound.
It’s utterly mad.

I do wish we had more clarity on this.

At a complete guess I would think she was potentially suspended from clinical duties pending investigation? Which I assume would mean her colleagues would be aware of the suspension, but no details given on the nature of it (except given a large number of colleagues are witnesses and involved in a capacity in the investigation that has happened, I imagine it was a badly kept secret!)

 

[Marantz4250b]

Right, let's try again:

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

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.

Sorry but I still don't agree with this. It is inconceivable to me that potential alternate, or additional, suspects would be used as prosecution witnesses. They could never be impartial as they would have a very strong vested interest in having the defendant convicted rather than themselves. It goes against every principle of a fair trial and no court would ever allow that.

Their names will be protected from publication either because it's something to do with the identification of the alleged victims or their families for which there is already an order in place preventing publication or because they still work there and it's felt that there is a legitimate human rights justification to protect their right to a private life in some way.

The other reason, and I think perhaps the most likely, is a sub-judice related one; they may be appearing as witnesses in other legal matters set to take place after the conclusion of this trial. We know that some (all) of the victims parents have retained legal advice and are likely planning on suing the hospital whether or not LL is convicted. In addition, there may well be other criminal proceedings in process against other people, and possibly the NHS Trust which runs the CoCH itself, in relation to the standard of care they provided - or didn't, as the case may be.

 

[ColourPurple]

I can’t lie, I’d really love to know what her interpretation of the facts are. Does she suspect these babies were unlawfully killed while maintaining her own innocence? If she doesn’t testify herself, can she still submit a statement or have anything representing herself? If that makes sense at all!

I hadn't thought of that. The defence seem to be trying to blame the hospital and staff shortages and are questioning the Drs and nurses about whether they made the right decisions, interpreted charts correctly etc. I wonder if that's what LL thinks too.

 

[Marantz4250b]

This case gets stranger by the day.
I struggle with the whole concept that she is put on admin duties and taken off the wards. What did her nursing colleagues say or do about this ?
Surely it would be an impossible situation for all as endless questions would of been asked and have to be answered why this Band 6 nurse was suddenly office bound.
It’s utterly mad.

Exactly my thoughts. If she was thought to have been harming patients intentionally then you'd have her off the premises whilst you investigated. If you thought she was causing harm through negligence or incompetence (both of which seem unlikely given her qualifications) you'd investigate and retrain, surely?

Also, this thing which was stated right at the start that she was moved from nightshift to dayshift in order to see if the trail of destruction followed her just seems utterly irrational in my view. It definitely happened though as the prosecution mentioned it, specifically.

No organisation or business which involves potentially dangerous items or where its staff are in a position to do great harm to people operates like this. It's utter madness.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I do wish we had more clarity on this.

At a complete guess I would think she was potentially suspended from clinical duties pending investigation? Which I assume would mean her colleagues would be aware of the suspension, but no details given on the nature of it (except given a large number of colleagues are witnesses and involved in a capacity in the investigation that has happened, I imagine it was a badly kept secret!)

I see your point but if they put her on admin duties because they thought she may have been intentionally harming patients then that is particularly irresponsible. You'd have her off the premises. She's still a nurse in uniform in a hospital so would have had ample opportunity to carry on trying to murder people.

If she was suspected of harming patients and was being investigated then is there a requirement for her governing body to be informed and, if there is, would this be noted on her publically available entry on the register? We know that there was nothing negative recorded against her up the point her registration was suspended when she was charged.

 

[Supernovae]

Sorry but I still don't agree with this. It is inconceivable to me that potential alternate, or additional, suspects would be used as prosecution witnesses. They could never be impartial as they would have a very strong vested interest in having the defendant convicted rather than themselves. It goes against every principle of a fair trial and no court would ever allow that.

This is the nature of the beast with this prosecution, though. Obviously the police and prosecution don't think they did it but the defence of the insulin cases in particular will inevitably involve an exploration of other potential suspects, and this is what I suspect the court orders are protecting the staff from going into the public domain that would be operative for some nurses but not others. We know that the prosecution has tabulated who was on duty for each death.

Even beyond the insulin cases, once Dr Evans etc had staked out a definitive case for foul play it must lurk somewhere in the back of the minds of the nurses who were around for the deaths where else the finger of suspicion might start pointing if Lucy Letby couldn't be placed at the scene. This is all stuff that would be explored in cross-examination.

Their names will be protected from publication either because it's something to do with the identification of the alleged victims or their families for which there is already an order in place preventing publication or because they still work there and it's felt that there is a legitimate human rights justification to protect their right to a private life in some way.

The other reason, and I think perhaps the most likely, is a sub-judice related one; they may be appearing as witnesses in other legal matters set to take place after the conclusion of this trial. We know that some (all) of the victims parents have retained legal advice and are likely planning on suing the hospital whether or not LL is convicted. In addition, there may well be other criminal proceedings in process against other people, and possibly the NHS Trust which runs the CoCH itself, in relation to the standard of care they provided - or didn't, as the case may be.

I would have thought this would also be true of the other nurses who have been named, though.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I see your point but if they put her on admin duties because they thought she may have been intentionally harming patients then that is particularly irresponsible. You'd have her off the premises. She's still a nurse in uniform in a hospital so would have had ample opportunity to carry on trying to murder people.

If she was suspected of harming patients and was being investigated then is there a requirement for her governing body to be informed and, if there is, would this be noted on her publically available entry on the register? We know that there was nothing negative recorded against her up the point her registration was suspended when she was charged.

100% agree. IMO it's an outrageous and utterly nonsense concept to suspect someone of harming tiny babies and simply move them to a day shift or put them on admin duties. If one thought the harm was due to incompetence or poor performance then they would need to be formally retrained and supervised or demoted surely? <modsnip>

 

[Eloise]

I really don't understand this message she's sent. Why does she believe they are thinking of her, when they've lost him??? I'm getting the impression the attention and gratitude she craved was from the parents (standard saviour complex), not her colleagues or family. I did wonder why she searched E's mum more than anyone else - and wonder if she was looking for a tribute to herself (LL) on the FB page.

ETA - A bit like you search an ex's page to see if they make any mention of you or subtle references to you.

Also this message -
"She told Ms Jones-Key that both parents had cried and hugged her, 'saying they'd never be able to thank me enough for the love and carer I gave them'."

How traumatic for the mum to know that this nurse who she felt so grateful to is now denying her version of events re: the 9pm feed.

MOO

The following is all JMO and speculative:

If she's guilty, I definitely think her motive was driven by seeing parental grief - the babies she allegedly harmed were collateral damage IMO and she doesn't really seem to want attention from friends or family as you say. I don't know that she really craved the parents thanks and concern though, as much as she enjoyed that it meant they suspected nothing of her.

As someone much earlier called her, a 'grief vampire'. I think she feeds off their pain and it would be why she wanted to see their FB profiles, to see any grief related posts. I believe that may be true even if she is not guilty. However if they ever finally iterate on the info they've given about the FB searches, and she searches for healthy happy families too, my thoughts on that might change.
It would be really fascinating to understand the psychology behind that, what kind of traumas she had experienced in her own life, etc.

Likely the court has agreed to protect their identity and privacy given the nature of the case. That's what I would imagine anyway, I could be wrong.

I know I would hate to have my identity published internationally just because I happened to be a witness to an alleged crime and had to give evidence in court. It's not like you're doing it by choice. My obligation would be to the court - not to the curious public.

 

[Kemug]

Yikes, this is all getting too much! And as someone said previously, whatever the verdict, the hospital will come out of this looking bad.

 

[katydid23]

that’s not what I’m saying in the case of Baby e and f. It also seems those searches stand out compared to the others. Im looking at the other searches and I’m not seeing any nefarious reasons for it, if you are sure there is then I would like to know why?

it’s factual to state that algorithms suggest things you are either interested in or relevant to like the countess hospital So if you work there the algorithm suggests people who search for it. If you are really specific like typing in ”neonatal unit, countess of Chester“ then you further increase the chance of fb suggesting someone who works in that specific place. Those are things patients are likely to do.

How to Rise Above Social Media Algorithms

Social media algorithms have resulted in a big drop in organic reach, but it doesn't mean game over. Use these tips to rise above social media algorithms.

sproutsocial.com

How Do Social Media Algorithms Work? | Digital Marketing Institute

How Do Social Media Algorithms Work? page on the Digital Marketing Institute Blog, all about keeping you ahead in the digital marketing game.

digitalmarketinginstitute.com

I’m more trying to make sense of why LL would supposedly lie. I can’t see any reason for it and it’s something to further explore. If you can make sense of it, please enlighten me? I think my suggestion is a viable way of doing that. It makes sense to me if you consider the fb searches to be maybe part of a coping mechanism that involves moving on from traumatic events Eventually forgetting them.

" It makes sense to me if you consider the fb searches to be maybe part of a coping mechanism that involves moving on from traumatic events Eventually forgetting them."

That would make sense, but only if LL did consider these events traumatic, and did want to forget them. Another possibility for the FB searches could be that someone wanted to remember the events and wasn't really traumatised, but was fascinated and intrigued by the situations. JMO

 

[katydid23]

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

"A nurse accused of murdering seven babies in a hospital neonatal unit wrote: “I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them,” a court has heard.

The trial of Lucy Letby was told on Thursday that police had recovered several handwritten documents from her home after her arrest in July 2018. On one note shown to the jury, headlined “Not good enough,” she wrote:

“I will never have children or marry. I will never know what it’s like to have a family” and “I can’t breathe.”




<modsnip>

 

[mart321]

After yesterdays evidence i am struggling to see how LL, if not guilty of murder, at the least was incompetent and also falsifying information to take any flak away from her.

I just don't see why the mother would lie. She was sure of what she saw, regardless of whatever anyone says about the screaming and the father has backed that up with his evidence.

LL saying about the equipment coming lose and that being the reason for the bleed is not something you would get wrong or misremember. Its's a completely different account to what LL is saying.

One other thing that is annoying me. When LL was questioned by police, the amount of times she has said she can't remember things. That just doesn't ring true. Whether that's because she was scared or guilty I don't know. But i don't think it's fair that she can just say " i don't remember" and that's all we get to hear from her about it.

Correct me If I'm wrong but she wasn't just suddenly arrested and put on the spot. She had 2 years to think about this. What did she know in regards to the investigation? She was placed on admin duties. She knew exactly what babies had died because it was so many more than normal and she had direct involvement with them all, more than she should have in a lot of cases.

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

I would love to hear more about the time spent on admin duty because I agree with you guys it is really bonkers. A band 6 nurse being placed on admin duties for what, two years? Whilst they investigate her potentially being a serial killer? What did she know at this point or what was she even told during this time, the rumour mill at work had to be crazy. I feel like it would have made anybody quit.

Plus as you guys have all said, just swapping her shift pattern or moving her to admin duty still allows her into the hospital to access patients that she was allegedly targeting. The fact the hospital seemed to just run their own experiment by moving her? But I'm no expert on employment law I know it does seem hard to be sacked by the NHS.

 

[Honeybirdette]

Exactly my thoughts. If she was thought to have been harming patients intentionally then you'd have her off the premises whilst you investigated. If you thought she was causing harm through negligence or incompetence (both of which seem unlikely given her qualifications) you'd investigate and retrain, surely?

Also, this thing which was stated right at the start that she was moved from nightshift to dayshift in order to see if the trail of destruction followed her just seems utterly irrational in my view. It definitely happened though as the prosecution mentioned it, specifically.

No organisation or business which involves potentially dangerous items or where its staff are in a position to do great harm to people operates like this. It's utter madness.

Forgive me if I’m being ignorant but I don’t think it’s as easy nor as simple as just being able to suspend someone because a couple colleagues suspected foul play.

I mean firstly, there was no proof of it. Lucy letby was never caught red handed murdering any of these children. Quite the opposite, her colleagues had nothing but good things to say about her.
Remember at this point the cause of deaths according to the coroner was ‘natural’ albeit sometimes unexplained.
It’s extremely sensitive and you can’t just throw allegations like that about, in any profession to be honest, particularly in this certain scenario.

Secondly, let’s not forget these are the strongest allegations a nurse could be accused of and if they get it wrong LL would take them to the cleaners.

Hindsight is 20:20, obviously the correct thing to do was to suspend her indefinitely from the first moment someone expressed any incling of suspicions about her, but in reality it’s not that easy and there is a lot of red tape that goes on behind the scenes.

 

[Noseyposy76]

"A nurse accused of murdering seven babies in a hospital neonatal unit wrote: “I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough to care for them,” a court has heard.

The trial of Lucy Letby was told on Thursday that police had recovered several handwritten documents from her home after her arrest in July 2018. On one note shown to the jury, headlined “Not good enough,” she wrote:

“I will never have children or marry. I will never know what it’s like to have a family” and “I can’t breathe.”





The bolded sentence ^^^ above ANSWERS our questions about potential motive, Imo. I think that says it all. That was a handwritten note, to herself.

If you read the rest of that note in it’s entirety, you will see it was written whilst she was under investigation…so the not having children or marrying would be a result of that, basically implying she would have no future if convicted.

 

[Tortoise]

Right, let's try again:

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

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.

Interesting thought Supernovae.

I'm not sure if it's just one unnamed nurse or a few, because I don't think the reporting specifies whether it's the same nurse back to give evidence or a different one. I think there's also a doctor who is unnamed, I'll have to check back.

Same with her texts, sometimes they say she's texting with a colleague who can't be named and I'm not sure if it's always the same one.

I agree it sounds like that's all the defence is left with. They said in opening - "A professor had given "three possible explanations", none of which identified Letby as a culprit."

(The three possibilities are : that the same bag was transferred over the line, that the replacement stock bag was contaminated, or that some part of the 'giving set' was contaminated by insulin fron the first TPN bag which had bound to the plastic, and therefore continued to flow through the hardware even after a non-contaminated bag was attached.)

I'd argue with the professor, I think there's a fourth possibility - that the first AND second bags could have been contaminated, unless that's what he means and the word also is missing - ie "stock bag was also contaminated"

BTW how can someone contaminate a bag without the hole being obvious and the bag leaking?