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

[Imnothere]

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
2h

Replying to
@MrDanDonoghue
Mr Myers is putting it to Dr Brunton that there was nothing to support (in terms of Child D's condition) his decision to move her off CPAP. Dr Brunton rejects this, he says her clinical readings were moving in the right direction

He added that is was a 'natural process' on a neonatal unit to try and move a baby off CPAP. Court has now adjourned, back in an hour.

We're back. Dr Joanne Davies, who is a consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology at the Countess of Chester, is now giving evidence. She's discussing the health of Child D's mother. She says that it was a 'low risk' pregnancy.

Dr Davies tells the court that the mother's 'care followed the guidelines'. She said the guidance is to 'leave someone for 24 hours to see if they labour by themselves', they are then offered inducement - but it is 'not unusual' for this to take another 24 hours hours

When pressed by Ms Letby's defence barrister, Dr Davies does however acknowledge that there was a shortfall in the care of Child D's mother as an oral antibiotic was not initially provided after her waters broke

Dr Davies says she doubts whether the antibiotic 'would have had any effect in this case'. Mr Myers responds saying, 'you may doubt, but you don't know do you?' 'I don’t know', Dr Davies says


Dr Davies told the court that the mother did not present with any signs of infection prior to the birth, but accepted the findings of a pathologist's report into the death of Child D which deemed the cause of death was pneumonia. Mr Myers described this as a 'conundrum'

 

[Imnothere]

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
12m

Junior nurse Lisa Walker is now in the witness box. She is describing seeing Child D in the moments after her birth. 'She looked very blue in colour. I immediately shouted for help', she said

She said a doctor that was present 'looked shocked I shouted for help'. She said he 'wondered why I shouted for help...he didn’t know what was going on' Ms Walker said following the incident she filled out an internal form to express concern over his (lack of) action


______
interesting.........

I think this does help Lucy's case in regards to Baby D

 

[merrypason]

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
12m

Junior nurse Lisa Walker is now in the witness box. She is describing seeing Child D in the moments after her birth. 'She looked very blue in colour. I immediately shouted for help', she said

She said a doctor that was present 'looked shocked I shouted for help'. She said he 'wondered why I shouted for help...he didn’t know what was going on' Ms Walker said following the incident she filled out an internal form to express concern over his (lack of) action


______
interesting.........

I think this does help Lucy's case in regards to Baby D

The mother already testified for the prosecution how careless she found this particular doctor. The hospital admitted this was sub optimal.

Still doesn't explain why the baby died suddenly.

 

[Ruby12345]

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
12m

Junior nurse Lisa Walker is now in the witness box. She is describing seeing Child D in the moments after her birth. 'She looked very blue in colour. I immediately shouted for help', she said

She said a doctor that was present 'looked shocked I shouted for help'. She said he 'wondered why I shouted for help...he didn’t know what was going on' Ms Walker said following the incident she filled out an internal form to express concern over his (lack of) action


______
interesting.........

I think this does help Lucy's case in regards to Baby D

Is she a prosecution witness?

 

[merrypason]

Is she a prosecution witness?

Yes

 

[merrypason]

My takeaway from today's testimony is that a junior nurse managed to fill out an internal incident form to raise concerns over a doctor's lack of action. His lack of action was also talked about by the mother and condemned - so to me if one of the mother's negative accounts of staff was validated, I am likely to believe her account of LL.

If we see no similar form filled out by LL, who was a senior nurse, for any of these cases she was privy to - it makes me question whether at the time she really did think something was wrong in their medical treatment. Or is now throwing colleagues under the bus to protect herself.

It also makes me question even more the testimony to police for child A.

"In an interview in June 2019, Letby said she had asked for all fluids to be kept from the bag at the end to be checked, but the prosecution said there was was no record of her having made such a request."

Means there was no internal incident form LL filled out. Given the interest she took in the patient's families via FB, discussed these cases with various colleagues and family members - I am surprised someone described by the defence as dedicated and professional, would not have filled out any internal forms to raise concerns. When even a junior nurse did so.

 

[MadMcGoo]

ADMIN NOTE:

This is a trial thread to discuss the trial only. It is not a general discussion thread.

Although WS is based in the USA, we do try to manage the various discussions according to laws of other countries.

As this trial is in the UK, the case is under sub judice so please stick to discussing the trial content without posting anything that violates the following principles:

Basically anything that may prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial
Any suggestion, opinion, or direct accusation that the accused is either guilty OR innocent
(i.e. the accused cannot be called "the killer"; use "the accused", "the alleged killer", or "the defendant")
A defendant’s previous history of any offences is off limits
Scandalizing the court (disparaging judges, lawyers, any officer of the Court) is off limits
Broadcasting anything about proceedings which happen in the jury's absence is off limits
Any non compliance with an Order of the court is off limits

Note in the event of an Appeal subsequent to verdict:

Appeals are usually heard by senior judges who are not likely to be influenced by the media, therefore responsible comment is usually considered acceptable once a trial has concluded, regardless of if there is going to be an appeal.


Reference: UK Contempt of Court Act 1981

MOD REMINDER:

It seems many of you need to read this Admin Note again.

This is a trial thread to discuss the trial only.

 

[Sweeper2000]

My takeaway from today's testimony is that a junior nurse managed to fill out an internal incident form to raise concerns over a doctor's lack of action. His lack of action was also talked about by the mother and condemned - so to me if one of the mother's negative accounts of staff was validated, I am likely to believe her account of LL.

If we see no similar form filled out by LL, who was a senior nurse, for any of these cases she was privy to - it makes me question whether at the time she really did think something was wrong in their medical treatment. Or is now throwing colleagues under the bus to protect herself.

It also makes me question even more the testimony to police for child A.

"In an interview in June 2019, Letby said she had asked for all fluids to be kept from the bag at the end to be checked, but the prosecution said there was was no record of her having made such a request."

Means there was no internal incident form LL filled out. Given the interest she took in the patient's families via FB, discussed these cases with various colleagues and family members - I am surprised someone described by the defence as dedicated and professional, would not have filled out any internal forms to raise concerns. When even a junior nurse did so.

You have some valid points for sure. In terms of how applicable or truthful or balanced the statements from parents are I would weigh them against what other staff said. If the parents thought something negative but staff didn’t one might assume that the staff have a better idea of what can be reasonably expected. The lack of any characterisation of those instances as being out of the ordinary by fellow staff would presumably mean it is normal and certainly not so noticeable as to give any of them reason to raise an internal complaint like the nurse and the dr. It’s also true that none of the professional nurses on here have stated that any of those instances would give enough reason for a disciplinary or any other form of action which I would presume means they are innocuous. None seem to fly in the face of protocol.

There is potential about your info that’s new to me though. She said she requested the bag to be kept for evidence or investigation but this note wasn’t recorded? That’s interesting but not necessarily nefarious in nature. I would assume there is an official route for this to be done and if that is so then why wasn’t it? However it strengthens the idea that LL did notice it wasn’t right by her mentioning at the time that “this bag wasn’t what we thought it was” she didn’t try to hide it.

 

[merrypason]

Lucy Letby: Baby given adrenaline in bid to save her, jury told

Nurse Lucy Letby, 32, allegedly killed the baby girl after injecting air into her bloodstream.

www.bbc.co.uk

First recap of today.

This unusual rash now seems to be documented by Dr Bruton and tallies with the nurse's testimony on Friday. Will be interested to see how the defence explain how pneumonia caused the rash.

"His note added: "Nurses noted she became extremely mottled, also noted to have tracking lesions dark brown/black across trunk."
He told the court he had called a consultant for advice as the rash was "completely unusual", adding: "I hadn't seen this before, the changes in the skin, I couldn't explain it."
An hour after treatment, his notes outlined how Child D's condition had "improved" and the rash had "completely disappeared".
But Dr Brunton was called to treat Child D a further two times that morning after the rash reappeared, jurors were told."

I am still struggling to understand why LL felt the rash was "overwhelming sepsis" when she finished her shift because so far both the designated nurse and doctor have said it was unusual and never seen before. Surely one of them would have said suspected sepsis in the notes and treated accordingly?

Also would a septic rash just vanish like this on improvement and than re-occur and vanish every time there was a collapse in the span of a few hours?

"Letby refers to Child D being "messed about a couple of times" and refers to a rash that "looked like overwhelming sepsis"

 

[Sweeper2000]

Lucy Letby: Baby given adrenaline in bid to save her, jury told

Nurse Lucy Letby, 32, allegedly killed the baby girl after injecting air into her bloodstream.

www.bbc.co.uk

First recap of today.

This unusual rash now seems to be documented by Dr Bruton and tallies with the nurse's testimony on Friday. Will be interested to see how the defence explain how pneumonia caused the rash.

"His note added: "Nurses noted she became extremely mottled, also noted to have tracking lesions dark brown/black across trunk."
He told the court he had called a consultant for advice as the rash was "completely unusual", adding: "I hadn't seen this before, the changes in the skin, I couldn't explain it."
An hour after treatment, his notes outlined how Child D's condition had "improved" and the rash had "completely disappeared".
But Dr Brunton was called to treat Child D a further two times that morning after the rash reappeared, jurors were told."

I am still struggling to understand why LL felt the rash was "overwhelming sepsis" when she finished her shift because so far both the designated nurse and doctor have said it was unusual and never seen before. Surely one of them would have said suspected sepsis in the notes and treated accordingly?

Also would a septic rash just vanish like this on improvement and than re-occur and vanish every time there was a collapse in the span of a few hours?

"Letby refers to Child D being "messed about a couple of times" and refers to a rash that "looked like overwhelming sepsis"

That’s something I noticed as well but senior consultants had to look at the one study on embolisms to notice that a rash of a very particular pattern was reported in I think every case of embolism within the study. They only suspected embolism after reading that study that mentions the rash and another form of rash is present in sepsis. Lucy knew a rash was expected in sepsis but not in embolism as did none of the senior consultants until they read that study. Lucy as far as she knew supposedly thought the rash was indicative of sepsis but the very particular pattern of the rashes noted in the alleged cases was found to Fit the pattern in rashes within the study.

I might suppose the lack of studies on embolisms would prevent anyone identifying this particular rash as being indicative of embolism. I am also waiting to hear how the medical experts think this rash is indicative of embolism or how a baby would endure multiple collapses after an embolism or how the symptoms seems to come and go as you noted.

 

[merrypason]

Also from her messages that day

Letby replies: "Just overall looking into the case.

"And reviewing what antibiotics she was on if sepsis.

If no one else testifies that sepsis was being considered, and it's not in any of her notes - it looks like LL made this bit up when she told her colleague what they were looking into?

I guess we need to see if they bring the Consultant to testify and he says they were considering sepsis. Because if not I don't know why she didn't just say they had no idea what had happened. That's two colleagues she told about the baby being septic, when no one else so far has said it.

 

[merrypason]

That’s something I noticed as well but senior consultants had to look at the one study on embolisms to notice that a rash of a very particular pattern was reported in I think every case of embolism within the study. They only suspected embolism after reading that study that mentions the rash and another form of rash is present in sepsis. Lucy knew a rash was expected in sepsis but not in embolism as did none of the senior consultants until they read that study. Lucy as far as she knew supposedly thought the rash was indicative of sepsis but the very particular pattern of the rashes noted in the alleged cases was found to Fit the pattern in rashes within the study.

I might suppose the lack of studies on embolisms would prevent anyone identifying this particular rash as being indicative of embolism. I am also waiting to hear how the medical experts think this rash is indicative of embolism or how a baby would endure multiple collapses after an embolism or how the symptoms seems to come and go as you noted.

It's more that the doctor did not note sepsis, he brought on the Consultant to review the case as the rash was so unusual. The designated nurse made no mention of sepsis. Why would LL think the senior nurse and doctor would not have considered something as obvious as sepsis if that were the case? She isn't medical so would defer to the doctor's diagnosis, and if she thought he was wrong could have told the designated nurse. She didn't.

The notes from both the nurse and doctor say it was unusual. A consultant was brought on to review as it was so unusual.

Yet LL told her colleagues it was "overwhelming" sepsis. Right after she finished her shift, a few hours after the baby's death so no new information from a post mortem etc would have come to light.

Unless the Consultant testifies that he thought it was sepsis.

If he too had no idea, why wouldn't she just say the truth to her colleague. Which is, no one knew what it was and that's why it was being investigated further?

 

[Sweeper2000]

It's more that the doctor did not note sepsis, he brought on the Consultant to review the case as the rash was so unusual. The designated nurse made no mention of sepsis. Why would LL think the senior nurse and doctor would not have considered something as obvious as sepsis if that were the case? She isn't medical so would defer to the doctor's diagnosis, and if she thought he was wrong could have told the designated nurse. She didn't.

The notes from both the nurse and doctor say it was unusual. A consultant was brought on to review as it was so unusual.

Yet LL told her colleagues it was "overwhelming" sepsis. Right after she finished her shift, a few hours after the baby's death so no new information from a post mortem etc would have come to light.

Unless the Consultant testifies that he thought it was sepsis.

If he too had no idea, why wouldn't she just say the truth to her colleague. Which is, no one knew what it was and that's why it was being investigated further?

I wouldn’t have thought that a nurse would have to refrain from giving her opinion on a diagnosis to other colleagues if not stated as fact. It may be that she was simple suggesting her opinion on the likely cause of the problems and to the best of her knowledge, a rash indicates sepsis in her mind “most likely sepsis”. She may have stated “overwhelming sepsis” due to the severity of the rash itself.


Yeh that’s a different conversation but the same circumstances.

“Looked like sepsis” not “definitely sepsis”. Is a suggestion rather than a statement, it leaves room for other potentials.

 

[merrypason]

I wouldn’t have thought that a nurse would have to refrain from giving her opinion on a diagnosis to other colleagues if not stated as fact. It may be that she was simple suggesting her opinion on the likely cause of the problems and to the best of her knowledge, a rash indicates sepsis in her mind “most likely sepsis”. She may have stated “overwhelming sepsis” due to the severity of the rash itself.

But why would she diagnose something when everyone around her is saying it is unusual and needs investigation? Sepsis is very very very common and anyone medical would have considered it as a first.

Even when a week later her colleague did say the deaths were unusual - she repeated that baby D wasn't because it was septic.

If absolutely no one is considering sepsis, it is very odd for someone not medical to be telling colleague it is and this is what is being investigated. Because it's a lie and misinformation.

She adds that two members of staff said the circumstances "would be investigated".

The colelague replies: "Dad was very anxious all day." and adds, in relation to the investigation, "What the delay in treatment?"

Letby replies: "Just overall looking into the case.

"And reviewing what antibiotics she was on if sepsis.

Who told her they were reviewing what antibiotics she was on if sepsis? I haven't seen any evidence so far that the people responsible for diagnosing it have mentioned sepsis or that's what was being investigated.

 

[MsBetsy]

Lucy Letby: Baby given adrenaline in bid to save her, jury told

Nurse Lucy Letby, 32, allegedly killed the baby girl after injecting air into her bloodstream.

www.bbc.co.uk

First recap of today.

This unusual rash now seems to be documented by Dr Bruton and tallies with the nurse's testimony on Friday. Will be interested to see how the defence explain how pneumonia caused the rash.

"His note added: "Nurses noted she became extremely mottled, also noted to have tracking lesions dark brown/black across trunk."
He told the court he had called a consultant for advice as the rash was "completely unusual", adding: "I hadn't seen this before, the changes in the skin, I couldn't explain it."
An hour after treatment, his notes outlined how Child D's condition had "improved" and the rash had "completely disappeared".
But Dr Brunton was called to treat Child D a further two times that morning after the rash reappeared, jurors were told."

I am still struggling to understand why LL felt the rash was "overwhelming sepsis" when she finished her shift because so far both the designated nurse and doctor have said it was unusual and never seen before. Surely one of them would have said suspected sepsis in the notes and treated accordingly?

Also would a septic rash just vanish like this on improvement and than re-occur and vanish every time there was a collapse in the span of a few hours?

"Letby refers to Child D being "messed about a couple of times" and refers to a rash that "looked like overwhelming sepsis"

She also texted to her colleague that Baby C was 'obviously compromised in utero,' which did not seem obvious to doctors since the cause of death was not yet known.

Didn't she suggest "overwhelming sepsis" very soon after her colleague told her about another baby who had died of sepsis? That might be where she got the idea.

 

[merrypason]

Nurse Lucy Letby ‘told off’ colleague over shout for help, murder trial hears

Neonatal assistant Lisa Walker told jurors at Manchester Crown Court she was ‘shocked’ and ‘taken aback’.

www.gazetteandherald.co.uk

This recap goes into more detail of the junior nurse's testimony - being taken aback and shocked by something LL did.

Apparently at one incident (unclear if it was definitely for baby D), LL told the junior nurse off for shouting for help when a baby LL was attending to was not responding to oxygen.

 

[Sweeper2000]

But why would she diagnose something when everyone around her is saying it is unusual and needs investigation? Sepsis is very very very common and anyone medical would have considered it as a first.

Even when a week later her colleague did say the deaths were unusual - she repeated that baby D wasn't because it was septic.

If absolutely no one is considering sepsis, it is very odd for someone not medical to be telling colleague it is and this is what is being investigated. Because it's a lie and misinformation.

She adds that two members of staff said the circumstances "would be investigated".

The colelague replies: "Dad was very anxious all day." and adds, in relation to the investigation, "What the delay in treatment?"

Letby replies: "Just overall looking into the case.

"And reviewing what antibiotics she was on if sepsis.

Who told her they were reviewing what antibiotics she was on if sepsis? I haven't seen any evidence so far that the people responsible for diagnosing it have mentioned sepsis or that's what was being investigated.

She didn’t diagnose, the phrasing is suggestive. Nurses are obviously trained to spot these symptoms so are medical and Lucy thinks a rash is indicative of sepsis to the best of her knowledge. Again I think LL is drawing on her experience as a senior nurse and presumably has an understanding what the investigation would entail. A consultant has probably mentioned to her those cases being investigated by word of mouth. There is nothing in the wording or context to suggest deliberate dishonesty on the part of LL especially as she suggests but does not state that sepsis is the cause.

 

[JosieJo]

Nurse Lucy Letby ‘told off’ colleague over shout for help, murder trial hears

Neonatal assistant Lisa Walker told jurors at Manchester Crown Court she was ‘shocked’ and ‘taken aback’.

www.gazetteandherald.co.uk

This recap goes into more detail of the junior nurse's testimony - being taken aback and shocked by something LL did.

Apparently at one incident (unclear if it was definitely for baby D), LL told the junior nurse off for shouting for help when a baby LL was attending to was not responding to oxygen.

It's this pattern with all the babies that is so damning I feel ...yes the babies had problems they would not be in neonatal if they didn't..but this pattern of sudden collapse and skin discolouration that comes and goes

 

[Sweeper2000]

Nurse Lucy Letby ‘told off’ colleague over shout for help, murder trial hears

Neonatal assistant Lisa Walker told jurors at Manchester Crown Court she was ‘shocked’ and ‘taken aback’.

www.gazetteandherald.co.uk

This recap goes into more detail of the junior nurse's testimony - being taken aback and shocked by something LL did.

Apparently at one incident (unclear if it was definitely for baby D), LL told the junior nurse off for shouting for help when a baby LL was attending to was not responding to oxygen.

Was LL confident in what she was doing was the correct response to that situation? And thus wouldn’t contrary to the junior nurses opinion need any help?

 

[Tortoise]

Just a little list I made today from what we've heard so far in the trial about LL's Facebook searches, and items found in LL's home/phone. Might be more info. to add at a later date -

8 Jun 2015 - Twin Baby A - murder charge
9 Jun 2015 – 9.58am - Facebook mother of A&B
10 Jun 2015 - Twin Baby B - attempted murder charge
10 Jun 2015 – 11.31pm - Facebook mother of A&B
Handover sheet relating to Baby B found at LL’s home during police search, showing she was not his designated nurse
14 Jun 2015 - Baby C - murder charge
14 Jun 2015 – 3.32pm - Facebook parents Baby C
22 Jun 2015 - Baby D - murder charge
25 Jun 2015 – 9.50pm – Facebook mum of A&B
25 Jun 2015 – 9.51pm – Facebook parents of Baby D
4 Aug 2015 - Twin Baby E - murder charge
5 Aug 2015 - Twin Baby F - attempted murder charge
6 Aug 2015 – Facebook parents of E&F
23 Aug 2015 – Facebook parents of E&F
2 Sep 2015 – Facebook mum of A&B
7 Sep 2015 - Baby G - attempted murder charge
14 Sep 2015 – Facebook parents of E&F
21 Sep 2015 - Baby G - 2 x attempted murder charges
21 Sep 2015 – Facebook parents of Baby G
21 Sep 2015 – minutes later Facebook mother of E&F
21 Sep 2015 – minutes later Facebook mother of one of the other babies listed in the charges
26 Sep 2015 - Baby H - attempted murder charge
27 Sep 2015 - Baby H - attempted murder charge
30 Sep 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder)
Oct 2015 – (either 3rd, 10th, 17th, 24th or 31st) Facebook father of Baby D
5 Oct 2015 – early hours – Facebook mother of Baby I
5 Oct 2015 – early hours – Facebook father of E&F
5 Oct 2015 – early hours – Facebook mother of H
13 Oct 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder)
14 Oct 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder)
22 Oct 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder)
23 Oct 2015 - Baby I - murder charge
After Baby I’s death LL sent a sympathy card to Baby I’s parents and kept a photo of it on her phone
5 Nov 2015 – Facebook – parents of E&F
27 Nov 2015 - Baby J - attempted murder charge
Nov 2015 – Facebook – parents of Baby J
7 Dec 2015 – Facebook - parents of E&F
25 Dec 2015 – Facebook – parents of E&F
Jan 2016 – Facebook searches (multiple) – parents of E&F
17 Feb 2016 - Baby K - attempted murder charge
9 Apr 2016 - Twin Baby L - attempted murder charge
9 Apr 2016 - Twin Baby M - attempted murder charge
Handwritten log of drugs administered to Baby M during his collapse was found at LL’s house and she had noted his collapse in her diary.
3 Jun 2016 - Baby N - attempted murder charge
15 Jun 2016 - Baby N - 2 x attempted murder charges
23 Jun 2016 - Triplet Baby O - murder charge
24 Jun 2016 - Triplet Baby P - murder charge
25 Jun 2016 - Baby Q - attempted murder charge
Handover sheet for morning of 25 Jun 2016 for Baby Q was found at LL’s home
2016 – LL transferred to an admin role
23 Jun 2017 – anniversary of Baby O’s death – Facebook – Surname of Baby O (and P)
Apr 2018 – Facebook – parents of Baby K
Other unreported dates – Facebook – parents of Baby G
3 Jul 2018 – LL’s first arrest.

No Facebook searches (that I'm aware of yet) for Babies L, M, N, (O & P at the time, although she did do one a year later) or Q. All of these babies came after LL was moved to day-shifts.

What I find particularly interesting are the multiple searches of some of these babies happening within minutes of each other, searches of parents of babies with attempted murder charges G and H, the parents of baby K in 2018, and on the anniversary of Baby O's death, suggesting she might have had a reminder somewhere of the date.

Links in the media thread on various trial dates.