UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #10

[Lincoln34]

Having to activate the buzzer at the desk by using a swipe card at the desk would eliminate the doubt on who is buzzing people in and when.

Granted I had my youngest in a London hospital, but there was genuinely a security guard on the doors of the maternity ward. The only way in and out for anyone was to be buzzed in by him. Compared to my Norfolk born babies, where people would hold the door open if you’re heading into the wards and you were encouraged to leave your baby at your bed if you needed the toilet or a shower!

 

[Lincoln34]

I had my first baby years ago at Liverpool Women’s Hospital . Elective c-section ( difficult breach position) . Got back from theatre. Husband went out to phone family and then a barrister friend of ours in a pin striped suit appeared in room. ‘ knew you were having him today and I’ve just settled a trial so thought I’d pop in’ (!!!)
I assume he looked so authoritative that he was just guided in!

 

[ColourPurple]

Court is now hearing about the case of twin baby brothers, babies L & M. Lucy Letby is charged with attempting to murder both boys.

Jury told that it is the prosecution case that Letby attacked baby L first (with insulin) and then, whilst that attack was underway also attacked baby M.


Pros say "By this time Letby was supposed only to be working day shifts because the consultants were concerned about the correlation between her presence and unexpected deaths / life-threatening episodes on the night-shifts"

https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz
Jury told that Lucy Letby added insulin to baby L's nutrient feed. Prosecution say "It was a deliberate act of sabotage done with the intention of killing (him). She had failed to kill baby F (in the same way) and she increased the dose"

Jury told that it is the prosecution case that Letby attacked baby L first (with insulin) and then, whilst that attack was underway also attacked baby M.


And IMO THAT is another reason why It's important to hear all of these cases together!

And as for allegedly targeting both twins at the same time. If guilty then it looks like she didn't just want the parents to lose both twins, she wanted it to happen on the same day too.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Having to activate the buzzer at the desk by using a swipe card at the desk would eliminate the doubt on who is buzzing people in and when.

Granted I had my youngest in a London hospital, but there was genuinely a security guard on the doors of the maternity ward. The only way in and out for anyone was to be buzzed in by him. Compared to my Norfolk born babies, where people would hold the door open if you’re heading into the wards and you were encouraged to leave your baby at your bed if you needed the toilet or a shower!

just a guess. Very busy London hospital, security guard is there as extra security for any volatile family. Probably more a usual thing in London compared to a quieter and more relaxed place in the country. People tend not to be polite in London, jmo though. Was it a central London hospital btw? I bet people say hello in Norfolk as well.

 

[mart321]

The SHO said he would not have told her to omit the feed without speaking to the ward doctor and he would have made a note. The ward doctor, Dr Harkness, has said he was on the neonatal ward from when he came on shift, so there would have been no reason for LL to contact the SHO on paediatric ward.

Having a bit of a back and forth elsewhere. They said this is regards to this incident.

There are ‘mucky’ aspirates recorded prior to 9pm - it’s possible what was visible is the aspirate. It’s also possible that the defense version of mum visiting the unit twice - before 9 and again around 10 (that’s what LL has recorded in the notes) is accurate. Yes mum made a call to dad just after 9 which lasted 4 minutes, but there was a 2nd call around 10.30 that the prosecution haven’t provided a length of call for - following this call, dad set off to the hospital as concerns had clearly been escalated. Mum and dad testified this took place after the unit the midwife to provide an update and suggest they go to the unit - but the midwife, & LL’s notes say this call didn’t take place until 11.30. How did mum & dad get an update if mum didn’t visit the ward around 10 as documented in the notes? Unfortunately, mums testimony isn’t 100% reliable and the prosecution using the 9pm call to back up the timeline is fairly weak, when they allowed the midwife an agreed evidence statement saying she got the call from neonatal at 11.30.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Having a bit of a back and forth elsewhere. They said this is regards to this incident.

There are ‘mucky’ aspirates recorded prior to 9pm - it’s possible what was visible is the aspirate. It’s also possible that the defense version of mum visiting the unit twice - before 9 and again around 10 (that’s what LL has recorded in the notes) is accurate. Yes mum made a call to dad just after 9 which lasted 4 minutes, but there was a 2nd call around 10.30 that the prosecution haven’t provided a length of call for - following this call, dad set off to the hospital as concerns had clearly been escalated. Mum and dad testified this took place after the unit the midwife to provide an update and suggest they go to the unit - but the midwife, & LL’s notes say this call didn’t take place until 11.30. How did mum & dad get an update if mum didn’t visit the ward around 10 as documented in the notes? Unfortunately, mums testimony isn’t 100% reliable and the prosecution using the 9pm call to back up the timeline is fairly weak, when they allowed the midwife an agreed evidence statement saying she got the call from neonatal at 11.30.

Could explain why no staff remember buzzing her in or holding the door open at 9. Think the lack of any door swipe data at 9 indicates she was buzzed in.

 

[katydid23]

Expect more info on Monday I reckon.

Monday? I was thinking by this Wednesday?

 

[Sweeper2000]

Monday? I was thinking by this Wednesday?

we can hope. Might take a while for the legal discussion to reach a conclusion.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Having a bit of a back and forth elsewhere. They said this is regards to this incident.

There are ‘mucky’ aspirates recorded prior to 9pm - it’s possible what was visible is the aspirate. It’s also possible that the defense version of mum visiting the unit twice - before 9 and again around 10 (that’s what LL has recorded in the notes) is accurate. Yes mum made a call to dad just after 9 which lasted 4 minutes, but there was a 2nd call around 10.30 that the prosecution haven’t provided a length of call for - following this call, dad set off to the hospital as concerns had clearly been escalated. Mum and dad testified this took place after the unit the midwife to provide an update and suggest they go to the unit - but the midwife, & LL’s notes say this call didn’t take place until 11.30. How did mum & dad get an update if mum didn’t visit the ward around 10 as documented in the notes? Unfortunately, mums testimony isn’t 100% reliable and the prosecution using the 9pm call to back up the timeline is fairly weak, when they allowed the midwife an agreed evidence statement saying she got the call from neonatal at 11.30.

There is testimony regarding exactly what The mom saw. She is emphatic that it was blood but if she has never seen bile before or a newborns bile she might not be able to determine the difference. Think she said it ws dark and not bright red. Think LL notes recorded a dark bile aspirate was obtained.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Dan O'Donoghue

11m

I'm back at Manchester Crown Court for the murder trial of nurse Lucy Letby - jury won't be in court today as lawyers are discussing a legal matter

There seem to be lots of "legal matters" being discussed during the course of this trial. Although it's huge and complicated so it's maybe not surprising.

 

[JosieJo]

There is testimony regarding exactly what The mom saw. She is emphatic that it was blood but if she has never seen bile before or a newborns bile she might not be able to determine the difference. Think she said it ws dark and not bright red. Think LL notes recorded a dark bile aspirate was obtained.

Yet LL accepted it was blood and gave the mum a reason for it

 

[Tortoise]

Having a bit of a back and forth elsewhere. They said this is regards to this incident.

There are ‘mucky’ aspirates recorded prior to 9pm - it’s possible what was visible is the aspirate.

I've refreshed myself with the facts for baby E's case.

So they agree the mum visited at 9pm, because that nursing note was recorded for the 9pm feed. In fact mum says she got there a touch before 9pm and saw the bleed which must have happened just prior, given the screaming of the baby.

Feeding chart: For the 9pm milk feed LL recorded 'omitted' and ‘discarded’ is recorded in a non-specific line. For aspirates the note ‘16ml mucky’ is made. (electronic evidence)

There are no witnesses (barring a nursing note written by the accused) to a mucky aspirate that night. Not one. There are however many witnesses to blood and bleeding.

It’s also possible that the defense version of mum visiting the unit twice - before 9 and again around 10 (that’s what LL has recorded in the notes) is accurate. Yes mum made a call to dad just after 9 which lasted 4 minutes

I wonder why they say defense version is mum visiting before 9, and not what LL actually wrote: "at start of shift". Mr Myers says this means 8pm.

Maybe something to do with acknowledging the absurdity of mum attending to cares at 7pm, leaving and coming back in the middle of her dinner, to do it for a second time in an hour, at a time when no need for another nappy change, or should I say output, is recorded in LL's nursing notes.

Yes mum did make a call at 9.11pm, and Dad says that was when Mum was upset and worried about the baby bleeding.

but there was a 2nd call around 10.30 that the prosecution haven’t provided a length of call for - following this call, dad set off to the hospital as concerns had clearly been escalated.

Yes, the mum's phone made a second call to the dad's phone at 10.52pm. Testimony is the mum doesn't remember the call because it was the midwife speaking to the dad. Dad says the call was split between his wife and the midwife and the midwife said 'don't panic but get over here now'.

This accords with LL's nursing note which says further blood had been obtained "by 11pm" and baby was starting to desaturate and was given oxygen and he was "beginning to decline".

Doctor Harkness's notes for that review say baby was crying, making good respiratory effort but baby was deteriorating and oxygen requirement had gone up. At 11.28-11.30pm Dr Harkness wrote prescriptions for the planned intubation.

This also accords with the midwife's notes which the media reported as "mum was post-natal well" and one of the twins had "deteriorated slightly". (which we see was in the clinical notes before 11pm). The next line in the midwife's statement says midwife received a call from the neonatal unit at 11.30pm asking mum to go down in 30 minutes as E had a bleed and required intubating "very poorly".

Mum and dad testified this took place after the unit the midwife to provide an update and suggest they go to the unit - but the midwife, & LL’s notes say this call didn’t take place until 11.30. How did mum & dad get an update if mum didn’t visit the ward around 10 as documented in the notes?

Neonatal unit must have provided an update a first time, before the 11.30pm call, because midwife had recorded in her notes "deteriorated slightly" and nothing about the "very poorly" that she noted after the 11.30pm call.

The midwife's statement said there were two midwives on the post natal ward. It's possible the other midwife took the first call, or that the mum called down to the unit for an update and spoke to a nurse.

If mum visited the neonatal unit at 10pm, she would have been reassured because the doctor was not overly worried at 10pm, and she would have been told the plan of action was to administer antibiotics, and baby was alert and pink at that time, and not crying, so why would she have been panicked and told her husband he was bleeding from the mouth. It also doesn't accord with waiting nearly an hour until 10.52pm to call her husband.

Unfortunately, mums testimony isn’t 100% reliable and the prosecution using the 9pm call to back up the timeline is fairly weak, when they allowed the midwife an agreed evidence statement saying she got the call from neonatal at 11.30.

Unfortunately someone is making 100% crass comments (IMO) and the prosecution using the mum's 9.11pm call to back up the timeline, and the midwife receiving a call from the neonatal unit at 11.30pm, is right on the nose, and a very good indication of who the reliable witnesses to the events are. (IMO).

 

[JosieJo]

I've refreshed myself with the facts for baby E's case.

So they agree the mum visited at 9pm, because that nursing note was recorded for the 9pm feed. In fact mum says she got there a touch before 9pm and saw the bleed which must have happened just prior, given the screaming of the baby.

Feeding chart: For the 9pm milk feed LL recorded 'omitted' and ‘discarded’ is recorded in a non-specific line. For aspirates the note ‘16ml mucky’ is made. (electronic evidence)

There are no witnesses (barring a nursing note written by the accused) to a mucky aspirate that night. Not one. There are however many witnesses to blood and bleeding.


I wonder why they say defense version is mum visiting before 9, and not what LL actually wrote: "at start of shift". Mr Myers says this means 8pm.

Maybe something to do with acknowledging the absurdity of mum attending to cares at 7pm, leaving and coming back in the middle of her dinner, to do it for a second time in an hour, at a time when no need for another nappy change, or should I say output, is recorded in LL's nursing notes.

Yes mum did make a call at 9.11pm, and Dad says that was when Mum was upset and worried about the baby bleeding.


Yes, the mum's phone made a second call to the dad's phone at 10.52pm. Testimony is the mum doesn't remember the call because it was the midwife speaking to the dad. Dad says the call was split between his wife and the midwife and the midwife said 'don't panic but get over here now'.

This accords with LL's nursing note which says further blood had been obtained "by 11pm" and baby was starting to desaturate and was given oxygen and he was "beginning to decline".

Doctor Harkness's notes for that review say baby was crying, making good respiratory effort but baby was deteriorating and oxygen requirement had gone up. At 11.28-11.30pm Dr Harkness wrote prescriptions for the planned intubation.

This also accords with the midwife's notes which the media reported as "mum was post-natal well" and one of the twins had "deteriorated slightly". (which we see was in the clinical notes before 11pm). The next line in the midwife's statement says midwife received a call from the neonatal unit at 11.30pm asking mum to go down in 30 minutes as E had a bleed and required intubating "very poorly".


Neonatal unit must have provided an update a first time, before the 11.30pm call, because midwife had recorded in her notes "deteriorated slightly" and nothing about the "very poorly" that she noted after the 11.30pm call.

The midwife's statement said there were two midwives on the post natal ward. It's possible the other midwife took the first call, or that the mum called down to the unit for an update and spoke to a nurse.

If mum visited the neonatal unit at 10pm, she would have been reassured because the doctor was not overly worried at 10pm, and she would have been told the plan of action was to administer antibiotics, and baby was alert and pink at that time, and not crying, so why would she have been panicked and told her husband he was bleeding from the mouth. It also doesn't accord with waiting nearly an hour until 10.52pm to call her husband.


Unfortunately someone is making 100% crass comments (IMO) and the prosecution using the mum's 9.11pm call to back up the timeline, and the midwife receiving a call from the neonatal unit at 11.30pm, is right on the nose, and a very good indication of who the reliable witnesses to the events are. (IMO).

I totally agree there is imo more than enough evidence to "be sure" of the mums version as it stands at the moment

 

[marynnu]

Yet LL accepted it was blood and gave the mum a reason for

Yet LL accepted it was blood and gave the mum a reason for it

In addition, dried blood looks brown. It's true to say that this might resemble bile, but as JosieJo says, LL herself went along with blood.

 

[esther43]

In relation to the number of deaths that are not included in this trial, can you confirm whether the mortality data includes babies who were born at the hospital and/or babies who died at the hospital? Obviously due to how services are set up this information would be vital in determining if it had any relevance to the case and/or indeed whether CoC would even be the accountable Trust.

 

[marynnu]

The prosecution is not saying that the other deaths were not due to foul play. They could be suspicious but not enough evidence to bring a prosecution. We just don't know. I seem to remember that Dewi Evans was originally asked to look at 32 cases of unexpected/unexplained

In relation to the number of deaths that are not included in this trial, can you confirm whether the mortality data includes babies who were born at the hospital and/or babies who died at the hospital? Obviously due to how services are set up this information would be vital in determining if it had any relevance to the case and/or indeed whether CoC would even be the accountable Trust.

deaths/collapses?

 

[Becky53]

In addition, dried blood looks brown. It's true to say that this might resemble bile, but as JosieJo says, LL herself went along with blood.

And LL gave the reason of the feeding tube rubbing on the back of the throat as the cause of the blood.

Mother tells Lucy Letby murder trial she heard baby’s ‘horrendous’ screams

Nurse was allegedly in process of killing newborn by injecting him with air before his mother walked in, jury told

www.theguardian.com

The woman described how she had gone to the neonatal unit to feed them at about 9pm on 3 August 2015 when she heard Baby E’s “horrendous” screams from the corridor.

Letby was the only nurse in the room at that time and was standing by a work station near Baby E’s incubator, the jury was told.

She asked Letby what was wrong with her son and Letby replied that the bleeding had been caused by a feeding tube rubbing his throat, the court heard. The mother said she accepted the explanation but was still concerned.

She was told by Letby to go back to the postnatal ward, which she did because, the witness said, “she was in authority and she knew better than me and I trusted her completely”.

 

[esther43]

The prosecution is not saying that the other deaths were not due to foul play. They could be suspicious but not enough evidence to bring a prosecution. We just don't know. I seem to remember that Dewi Evans was originally asked to look at 32 cases of unexpected/unexplained


deaths/collapses?

Absolutely, there is quite a lot that is not being said about these other deaths. We just know nothing currently about the who, what, where and when of them or even whether they will be elaborated on as part of the defence.

 

[marynnu]

The prosecution is not saying that the other deaths were not due to foul play. They could be suspicious but not enough evidence to bring a prosecution. We just don't know. I seem to remember that Dewi Evans was originally asked to look at 32 cases of unexpected/unexplained


deaths/collapses?

Absolutely no idea. I don't think it's possible to find out.

The prosecution is not saying that the other deaths were not due to foul play. They could be suspicious but not enough evidence to bring a prosecution. We just don't know. I seem to remember that Dewi Evans was originally asked to look at 32 cases of unexpected/unexplained


deaths/collapses?

 

[katydid23]

I totally agree there is imo more than enough evidence to "be sure" of the mums version as it stands at the moment

I am going to be partial to the parent's version of events because they only experienced the medical collapse of one, and sometimes two, babies in their experience. LL experienced dozens and dozens and admits she is vague about many of the details because of that.

For the parents, every detail is seared into their memory banks, IMO.