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

[Officer Dibble]

I was quite struck by something in the timeline, and that is that it was Father's Day when LL came on shift, on the evening of 21st June 2015.

LL is a daughter. I wonder if she spent that Father's Day celebrating her own father.

Baby D was a daughter. Baby D's dad spent most of that Father's Day in the neonatal unit, with his new baby daughter.

LL seemed to particularly notice D's father. She texted "...Parents absolutely devastated, dad screaming. Andrew Brunton and Liz Newby said it will probably be investigated. Dad is beside himself. ...sometimes I think how is it such sick babies get through and others die so suddenly and unexpectedly. Guess it’s how it’s meant to be. ...there’s a reason for everything."

LL searched for D's father on Facebook 4 months later, in Oct 2015.

It seems particularly cruel for a father to be celebrating the gift of his new daughter on Father's Day, and to be woken in shock in the night and have that joy stripped away from him in under 30 minutes.

This was LL's text after baby A's death - "I just don't know how I'm going to feel seeing parents. Dad was on the floor crying saying ''please don't take our baby away'' when we took him to the mortuary."


Is it significant I wonder.

BBM Yes my thoughts too that I personally think its significant. That is so upsetting to read. JMO

 

[Officer Dibble]

Does anyone know of any mental conditions which involve not only killing and a desire to inflict pain/suffering on people, but also recklessness?

This is very interesting. Just answering your question with an opinion from me and a link. I'm not attributing this to anyone in particular. Just a general interest and reply to your general question. JMO.

From psychopaths to ‘everyday sadists’: why do humans harm the harmless?

Especially this part: "Someone who gets pleasure from hurting or humiliating others is a sadist. Sadists feel other people’s pain more than is normal. And they enjoy it. At least, they do until it is over, when they may feel bad."

Edited to add the article does also describe psychopaths. JMO>

 

[squish]

I seem to recall that the doctor, who was already suspicious of LL, found this incident so disturbing that he reported it (of course, I may be misremembering, as there is such a huge amount of evidence and testimony already). But I hadn't realised or remembered that his report was immediately acted upon, with Lucy straight away being removed from night shifts.

This doctor insinuates that he wanted to raise his concerns, but was dissuaded by management.

 

[Tortoise]

(Bolded and snipped for focus) Wait a sec... if the MSM quoting that one didn't muddle it with another date/baby, a colleague is saying "You're not having a good run at the moment" after only Baby A's death? Sheesh, makes you wonder what else was happening there which didn't meet the evidence standard for charging then, I'd assumed all the "bad run" comments began around baby D, not A.

(Ok, it's after B's collapse too, but I wouldn't personally phrase it as a bad "run" if the only crises related to twins, as being related, it's perhaps not unexpected for both to have problems if one does... the phrasing suggests more incidents than just those two to me)

Yes it's accurate, not MSM mixing up the dates. On the date this text was reported (trial date 18 Oct 2022) they hadn't introduced the text evidence for babies beyond A and B.

I do think we are only getting partial messages though, and perhaps she had discussed baby B's collapse as well before the nurse replied "You're not having a good run at the moment".

Someone else mentioned it could be the hospital that was having a bad run, but it was reported that the nurse said "you're".

I think it could be in reference to A and B in the same week, because nowhere in the later texts referencing babies A to E does LL herself mention any babies before A, or any that aren't included in the charges.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

This doctor insinuates that he wanted to raise his concerns, but was dissuaded by management.

Then wouldn't one go to the police? Surely medical doctors would know better than being dissuaded by management if the most serious crime of all - that of murder - is suspected?

 

[Tortoise]

I seem to recall that the doctor, who was already suspicious of LL, found this incident so disturbing that he reported it (of course, I may be misremembering, as there is such a huge amount of evidence and testimony already). But I hadn't realised or remembered that his report was immediately acted upon, with Lucy straight away being removed from night shifts.

The reporting doesn't tell us the date she was moved to day shifts but I just noted it in the timeline as being after the date of baby K's collapses. Sorry if that's misleading.

"Child L's condition improved and he was stable by the day-time shift of April 9.
Letby came on duty that day at 7.30am.
By this time, the prosecution say, Letby was supposed only to be working day shifts because the consultants were concerned about the correlation between her presence and unexpected deaths and life-threatening episodes on the night-shifts."

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

 

[Tortoise]

Then wouldn't one go to the police? Surely medical doctors would know better than being dissuaded by management if the most serious crime of all - that of murder - is suspected?

None of the babies post-mortems that we've had in evidence at this stage, A, C and D, (baby B didn't die and E didn't have one which the consultant regrets) revealed suspicions.

The doctor has said he had no evidence, just suspicions. The evidence was uncovered by painstaking review of all medical notes over a period of 17 months, the doctor would not have had personal knowledge of all of these cases.

 

[Ruby12345]

Police investigating baby deaths at Countess of Chester Hospital

Cheshire Constabulary confirmed the probe will focus on the deaths of eight babies but will also review seven further deaths, as well as six non-fatal collapses.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Interesting article suggesting incompetence and negligence.

"The RCPCH report found nurses had expressed concerns about the capabilities of one locum doctor and, despite seeking reassurances that he would not be re-employed, he was allowed to return."

It's weird how it doesn't say staff had expressed concern about a nurse as well.

 

[Officer Dibble]

Baby G is severely disabled?! This is just awful.

I know I was already broken hearted before I read that and then it was beyond terrible. Edited for poor grammar correction

 

[Officer Dibble]

Then wouldn't one go to the police? Surely medical doctors would know better than being dissuaded by management if the most serious crime of all - that of murder - is suspected?

If you have a slight element of doubt you don't wish to feel a fool and you don't wish to slight a colleague then risk a bad name for yourself. JMO

 

[Kemug]

The reporting doesn't tell us the date she was moved to day shifts but I just noted it in the timeline as being after the date of baby K's collapses. Sorry if that's misleading.

Sorry, yes, I did misunderstand.

 

[Kemug]

You know, in a way we are also a jury in this trial. We also hear/see the evidence, mull it over, discuss it, and finally come to a conclusion. And I must say that at the moment we seem to be heading closer and closer towards a unanimous conclusion. JMO.

 

[squish]

Then wouldn't one go to the police? Surely medical doctors would know better than being dissuaded by management if the most serious crime of all - that of murder - is suspected?

I don’t think he thought it was an outright murder attempt - it’s the last thing you would think, even being an eyewitness.

He probably thought she was just incompetent and reckless, and made him uncomfortable but didn’t know why.

I have to say though, this doctor comes across as a huge attention seeker. He fancies himself as a zeleb. He’s a TV doctor and I get the feeling that with his dramatic way of speaking, he’s gearing up to being a talking head on all the inevitable future documentaries about the case. Not to mention pre-emptively salvaging his reputation, for witnessing an alleged murder attempt and doing nothing about it.

 

[Kemug]

BTW, does the jury's decision have to be unanimous, does anyone know? Or might it be, for example, if there is a stalemate, that the judge might say he will accept 11 - 1, or 10 - 2, or whatever. I've seen that happen sometimes, but I don't know about England.

 

[Tortoise]

Interesting article suggesting incompetence and negligence.

"The RCPCH report found nurses had expressed concerns about the capabilities of one locum doctor and, despite seeking reassurances that he would not be re-employed, he was allowed to return."

It's weird how it doesn't say staff had expressed concern about a nurse as well.

The article is dated 19 May 2017.

Police were brought in in May 2017 and medical experts were tasked with examining the cases.

8 deaths in 2015, and 5 deaths as at June 2016 were being examined.

LL has been charged with 5 deaths in 2015 and 2 deaths in 2016.

The outcome of the investigation was therefore that 3 deaths in 2015 and 3 by June 2016 were deemed not due to foul play.

I don't find it weird that staff would not have expressed suspicions of foul play to the Royal College, without evidence. They were seeking independent review.

 

[Tortoise]

BTW, does the jury's decision have to be unanimous, does anyone know? Or might it be, for example, if there is a stalemate, that the judge might say he will accept 11 - 1, or 10 - 2, or whatever. I've seen that happen sometimes, but I don't know about England.

17Majority verdicts.​

(1)Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, the verdict of a jury in proceedings in the Crown Court or the High Court need not be unanimous if—

(a)in a case where there are not less than eleven jurors, ten of them agree on the verdict; and

(b)in a case where there are ten jurors, nine of them agree on the verdict.

(2)Subject to subsection (4) below, the verdict of a jury (that is to say a complete jury of eight) in proceedings in [F1the county] court need not be unanimous if seven of them agree on the verdict.

(3)The Crown Court shall not accept a verdict of guilty by virtue of subsection (1) above unless the foreman of the jury has stated in open court the number of jurors who respectively agreed to and dissented from the verdict.

(4)No court shall accept a verdict by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) above unless it appears to the court that the jury have had such period of time for deliberation as the court thinks reasonable having regard to the nature and complexity of the case; and the Crown Court shall in any event not accept such a verdict unless it appears to the court that the jury have had at least two hours for deliberation.

(5)This section is without prejudice to any practice in civil proceedings by which a court may accept a majority verdict with the consent of the parties, or by which the parties may agree to proceed in any case with an incomplete jury.

Juries Act 1974

The jury is always instructed to reach a unanimous verdict when they first go out, and it's up to the judge to decide how long he leaves them, on a case by case basis, before he instructs them that he will accept a majority verdict.

 

[Tortoise]

"Dr Evans said he was tasked with investigating a "clinical condition", not a "crime", when he became aware of the Countess of Chester Hospital case, when tasked by the National Crime Agency.
He said the scenarios added up to a "constellation of worries" on what went on between June 2015 and June 2016.
He adds that in past cases, he has been brought in by police and the conclusion was accidental, so the case was closed with no further police involvement."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 25

It isn't a doctor's job to be a detective and it isn't a detective's job to be a medical expert.

MOO

 

[WaxLyrical]

I think this case is exposing cultural issues within the NHS. It’s not up to staff to gather evidence if they suspect foul play but they absolutely should have robust whistleblowing procedures in place to allow them to express concerns anonymously and know that those concerns will be taken seriously. In fact, they should be encouraged to do so given the nature of their job and lives being at stake. Assuming there was foul play here (which, at the very least, the insulin case is pointing towards, imo), then if staff felt safer expressing concern, who knows how many staff on those units would have blown the whistle at an earlier stage, and potentially helped prevent some of these tragic deaths. There was already talk of deaths being “odd” by the time we got to Baby C.

All my opinion of course.

 

[Anxala]

her own journey with it maybe in some way. IF that is part of her own past.

By the mod trouble, I didn’t mean my own thoughts on it. I meant apparently IVF has been quoted before and posts removed so I took that to mean it wasn’t to be discussed as it’s not been mentioned at the trial itself.

She was only 25 though. And as far as we know, there's no evidence of her having a partner, let alone a long-term one that she might have undergone IVF treatment with. It just seems so unlikely to me. But JMO.

 

[ShireChe]

Then wouldn't one go to the police? Surely medical doctors would know better than being dissuaded by management if the most serious crime of all - that of murder - is suspected?

I think at that point it's hugely unlikely the police would actually do anything at all without any kind of evidence. They would most likely tell him to report it to appropriate people at the hospital first