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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #501
View attachment 399538
View attachment 399539
The sympathy card written by Lucy Letby for Child I. Picture recovered from Lucy Letby's phone. (Image: Crown Prosecution Service.)

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, February 2
Third time she's used the expression "There are no words".

1. in a text
2. in her post-it note
3. in the sympathy card

Just as a matter of interest. I think it being in her post-it note is where it makes least sense, as an opening line, but could show she feels something like the babies felt, especially when she wrote I can't breathe, like suffocated and the babies are obviously too young to talk. LL could have felt since an early age she had no words. Just trying to make sense of it, especially since it seems to be her first thought to write, it's uppermost. JMO
 
  • #502
  • #503
I'm going to be away for a few hours, if anyone wants to take over updates.
 
  • #504
"There are no words" could be:

1) just her turn of phrase, we all have them afterall

2) a disingenous show of empathy eg she thinks thats how people respond, when actually she doesnt really feel anything, but thats the line she trots out when trying to respond appropriately

Jmo
 
  • #505
2:04pm

The trial is now resuming, with intelligence analyst Claire Tyndall returning to court, to talk through the neonatal unit review schedule in late October 2015.

2:12pm

Nurse Ashleigh Hudson is now being recalled to give evidence in the case of Child I.

2:20pm

The nurse is asked to look at nursing notes she had compiled early on October 22, a summary of the care provided to Child I.
She says Child I's heart rate was normal, the respiration rate was slightly elevated on a one-off reading, while her temperature was stable.
She was in room 1 of the neonatal unit, but "not an intensive unit baby" at this time. She was placed there as "a precaution measure" due to her recent medical history.
She was in an incubator, again as a precautionary measure due to her recent history, the court hears.
The nurse said the oxygen saturation levels, recorded as "96% and above", were "optimal".

2:25pm

Child I was "pink and well perfused", with "minimal aspirates recorded, clear fluid. Abdomen soft and non-distended," according to nurse Hudson's notes.
"She was a very stable baby considering the weeks prior," the nurse tells the court

2:26pm

Child I would still have been classed as an 'HDU' baby [high dependency], as nurses would have had to check the long lines every hour, the court hears.
The nurse says she does not recall anything of note happening during that night shift on October 21-22.

 
  • #506
I hope not. Depleting an underfunded hospital of much-needed revenue is hardly the best idea, is it? We don't want to turn into a litigation culture like the US.

The NHS have a separate budget for legal issues. It won’t affect the hospital, or any hospital, at all.
 
  • #507
Ah it was actually Baby P, one of the triplets I was thinking of

"
In police interviews, Letby said the student nurse fed Child P at two-hourly intervals on June 23, and she had fed Child P alone at 6pm.

She said she had agreed to be Child P's designated nurse because the parents had asked for some continuity.


Thank you for the recap, I appreciate it (and also @Tortoise ). Next question; did she not state in her police report she didn’t know the family “that well” or something I’m sure was mentioned along those lines regarding baby I.. for someone allegedly not that involved in baby I’s care, if guilty, that certainly is quite a lot of personal writing on that card, moreover to also keep a picture of it IMO
 
  • #508
That is SO unprofessional. Nurses say all sorts to each other, as you can imagine, but to put this in a message??
I feel exactly the same. Just why, why not be more diplomatic and professional about it rather than treating like some school playground gossip. Extremely unprofessional.
 
  • #509
The NHS have a separate budget for legal issues. It won’t affect the hospital, or any hospital, at all.
That’s true, they probably have liability insurance . Although I hope they have a separate budget too, as their premiums will likely shoot up if they get sued and have to claim for all these cases under the insurance .
 
  • #510
So she’s not the designated nurse at times, allegedly not that close to the family, didn’t go to the funeral; then why write a card that detailed to someone your not (supposedly) that involved with, keep a photo of that card and then there’s the whole bath situation. My head is scrambled and if my colleague was sending me very detailed private things about patients families like that; not only would I be horrified, I’d also hope that conversation would have been reported. So unprofessional.
Moo
 
  • #511
If Guilty, I wonder if the card is to get people off the scent. She said it was the one and only time she has sent a card. Why now? Why so soon after LL noticed less than nice comments about her does she send a card to the family of Baby I?? Esp where the Mum reports they barely knew her... IMO
I would think that sending the card to throw suspicious colleagues off the scent would only work if she also made known it to her colleagues that she had in fact sent that card at the time (otherwise, sending a card and keeping a picture of it on her phone would not divert suspicions of no one else knew of its existence ). I can’t recall if we’ve seen any text messages sent by LL to colleagues at a time where she mentions that she has sent a card?
 
  • #512
I am thinking more generally. So in this situation, to hope to alleviate any doubts about her nursing ability in the parents eyes. If they think shes kind, care etc... then she must have done her best etc.. etc... jmo

Imo, she likes to control the narrative, eg with the many texts with colleagues about what she diagnoses is wrong and about what she thinks happened. So this could be an extention of this
 
  • #513
Although I feel the sending of the card is "unusual" ...what I find more concerning is taking a photo of the words you wrote
 
  • #514
2:31pm

Nurse Hudson recalls she was aware Child I was facing a medical procedure at another hospital which was 'urgent, but not an emergency'.
She said she took over care of Child I at 7.45pm on October 22. The prosecution ask why it would be 7.45pm rather than, say, 8pm. The nurse replies the handover was likely briefer than usual, as there was not a lot of information to pass on for Child I from the day shift at this point.
Child I's observations for heart rate and respiratory rate were satisfactory, while the temperature and oxygen saturation readings were "optimal".
Child I was not receiving ventilator support at this time.

2:36pm

Child I was "unsettled and rooting at start of shift" and the longline was removed due to constant occlusions. Lucy Letby was "unable to flush," so paediatric registrar Rachel Chang was informed.
Nurse Hudson's note continues: 'Dressing stripped and line pulled back, still not flushing, so removed.'
'No Oedema or duskyness'
The nurse recalls Child I reacted to the procedure "very well". Sucrose was offered, but Child I was happy with dummy. The baby girl was "pink and well perfused at this time, awake and alert".
The sucrose was sugar water which would be offered as pain relief, but if the child was happy enough to stay with the dummy, the sucrose would not be "pushed further".

2:38pm

The nurse said Child I was "generally quite easy to settle" and would settle "quite quickly", and would be "quite happy" when put into a cot or incubator.

2:40pm

The nurse recalls the events leading up to midnight.
She says, just prior to midnight, Child I was very unsettled, and tried the usual methods of containment holding, sucrose and dummy, which did not work.
She tried repositioning Child I so she was on her stomach, which sometimes settled her, but Child I continued to be very unsettled and cry.
She says sucrose would be administered for a child as a comfort measure to a child who was otherwise nil by mouth.
Child I would be placed on her stomach with her head to one side.
She said the measures to settle her "would generally work" with Child I and with other babies in general.

2:43pm

The nurse says she was familiar with Child I's crying, and this was an "atypical" episode.

She said it was a "type of cry I hadn't experienced her make before - loud, relentless, almost constant.

"Just a constant, very loud [cry] - something I had not heard from her before."

The repositioning was the last of the calming measure attempts.

Within seconds of that, Child I "became very quiet" and had "pauses in her breathing".

The nurse said she turned the child back on to her back and shouted for help.

"Was there a problem at this stage?" the prosecution ask.

Nurse Hudson: "Yes."

She said Child I's oxygen levels started to decrease, along with her heart rate. Ventilation breaths were given by nurse Hudson, with Lucy Letby providing assistance.

 
  • #515
Hooray for the Chester Standard! And hooray for your new job! congrats!

Boo! that you won't be able to do the updates anymore. :D
thanks very much :D I know, i’m going to miss them! I’ll still be on here following and discussing when I can
 
  • #516
2:49pm

The nurse said after less than a minute, after realising it was an "acute episode", a crash call would be made to alert doctors.
The nurse recalls, from her notes, Child I was apnoeic, and dusky in appearance."
A Neopuff device was used to provide breathing support with 30% oxygen. 'Neopuff applied due to colour and apnoea.
'Colour didn't improve and [oxygen saturation and heart rate] began to drop rapidly until [oxygen saturation] 47% and [heart rate] 50. Neopuff increased to 50% then 100% with no effect."
Cardiac compressions began, and Child I was placed on a ventilator. Child I had become 'more alert and crying. Abdomen soft and non-distended prior to resuscitation, no change from handover."
Child I was recorded to be fighting the ventilator. The nurse says that was a sign Child I had recovered quite quickly, but keeping the child on the ventilator in that condition could cause lung damage, so a decision was taken to remove her from the ventilator.
Child I was "seemingly displaying normal behaviour despite what had happened" as she was also 'still rooting'.

2:56pm

The nurse says this episode, at about midnight, was a "very quick resuscitation" from her recollection, and no medication needed to be administered.

The court hears Ashleigh Hudson "managed to get through to [Child I's] parents after many attempts" regarding the first resuscitation. She said it was to be expected as it was the middle of the night.

Afterwards, Child I was "seemingly back to normal" with "nothing to cause concern" during that time after the first resuscitation.

Just after 1am, she was near, but not inside, nursery room 1.

3:03pm

The nurse says she was first alerted to Child I desaturating either from an alarm sounding on the monitor or from Child I crying.

Nurse Hudson recalls: "Lucy was already with her [at the incubator], trying to settle her. At that time [Child I's] observations were normal."

She says child I was crying "the same cry I had heard her display the first time [that night].

"Loud and relentless and unlike any other cry I had heard make prior to this night shift."

"My initial concern was she was obviously breathing...my concern was the cry was that she was going to have another episode of collapse."

She recalls articulating that concern to Lucy Letby within 60 seconds of being there.

The nurse says she said words along the lines of: "She's going to do it again, it's the same cry."

Letby responded with words of "reassaurance": "She just needs to settle," Ashleigh Hudson recalls Letby saying.

Child I became quiet, with pauses in breathing, and she became bradycardiac and her saturations "started to drift".

Oxygen delivery began again, along with ventilation breaths. They shouted for help from colleagues.

3:09pm

Nurse Hudson says she does not recall direct further communication with the parents, as the staff were "all in the thick of it" trying to resuscitate Child I.
The court is shown the October 23, 6.25am note by Ashleigh Hudson: "*NGT on free drainage, produced 2mls. Minimal aspirations of clear mucus and air++ during both resuscitations. Green stool and urine present post resus."
The nurse said, given previous abdominal issues for Child I, she had wanted to "make clear" what was observed during those resuscitations.


3:22pm

Ben Myers KC, for Letby's defence, is now asking nurse Ashleigh Hudson questions.


3:25pm

He says the questions he is to ask, while technical, are not for lack of sympathy.

He says that in between the shifts she was looking after Child I, she was aware there had been further arrests and desaturations. Nurse Hudson agrees, and agrees that Child I was "very ill" when she had gone to Arrowe Park Hospital.

He asks if Child I needed to be looked at closely, and "there is always the potential for deterioration".

Nurse Hudson: "Yes."

"She is never completely out of the woods?"

"Yes."

"You can never become complacent."

"That was my view at the time."

3:27pm

Mr Myers says nurse Ashleigh Hudson was in the first 8-9 months of trained care at the time in October 2015, and would not have been intensive trained at this stage.
Ms Hudson says there were certain medical procedures which she would not be trained for at this stage, and it meant when those needed to take place, other staff, such as Lucy Letby, would do them for her.

 
  • #517
I would think that sending the card to throw suspicious colleagues off the scent would only work if she also made known it to her colleagues that she had in fact sent that card at the time (otherwise, sending a card and keeping a picture of it on her phone would not divert suspicions of no one else knew of its existence ). I can’t recall if we’ve seen any text messages sent by LL to colleagues at a time where she mentions that she has sent a card?
I think the prosecution is alleging LL took a picture of the card to keep as a trophy, like the medical notes she brought home that were found in her home.
 
  • #518
3:29pm

Mr Myers asks if Child I looked unsettled at times because she was getting hungry.

"Yes."

"And at times can they be quite shouty and angry [when hungry]?"

"Yes."

Mr Myers refers to the night shift of October 21-22, to the nurse's note 'unsettled at start of shift and rooting, settled with dummy'. He asks if that was the behaviour exhibited because Child I was hungry. Ms Hudson agrees.

3:37pm

Mr Myers refers to a note by colleague Caroline Oakley, which notes 'unsettled at times; obviously very hungry but settles with dummy'.
Another note, by Ms Hudson, for the start of the night shift on October 22, records '[Child I] was unsettled and rooting at start of shift [7.45pm], settled with dummy and containment holding.'
Mr Myers says the issue of the long line had to be resolved during the night, which was resolved between 10.15-11pm.
Ms Hudson replies Child I was "very sensitive". Mr Myers said due to the cannula insertion and long line removal, Child I was not receiving fluid via the long line at this point.
He asks if the handling of the lines can have a distrubing effect on the baby, would there be an increase of the monitoring?
Ms Hudson says the monitoring did continue, it was just not recorded on the observation chart at 11pm, and was still visible on the electronic monitor.

3:39pm

Mr Myers says "All the things you would normally do to settle [Child I] didn't work?" [just before midnight]

Ms Hudson replies she called for help once she noticed Child I was "seemingly in distress, clinically", after noticing gaps in breathing after repositioning Child I. Letby arrived in response to the call for help.

3:42pm

Ms Hudson explains the note '[Child I] was very unsettled - ? due to hunger as rooting." She says the '?' means she was not sure of the cause.

Mr Myers asks if Neopuff was used up to the point of ventilation. Ms Hudson replies she was not sure, she would give Neopuff assistance in response to what could be seen at the time.

Child I 'attempted to cry' before being ventilated.

3:45pm

Mr Myers said Ashleigh Hudson was aware of Child I's history of abdominal distentions.

Ms Hudson replies she paid "specific attention" to the abdomen with this knowledge, and noted it was 'soft, non-distended' at this time.

Mr Myers said Child I recovered and 'looked better than before the incident took place?'

Ms Hudson: "Yes."


3:47pm

At 1.06am, Child I deteriorated once more.
Ms Hudson said she was alerted either via an alarm or Child I crying.
Mr Myers said once she entered, Lucy Letby was trying to settle Child I with a dummy. "Was this, in effect a repeat of what had gone on earlier?"
"Yes."
"You said you were concerned there was going to be a repeat...and Lucy Letby was trying to reassure you...she was going to be all right?"
"Yes."


3:50pm

Mr Myers refers to the family communication note, in which it was discussed with parents for Child I to be bathed, to make hand and foot prints, have photographs and gave consent for hair to be cut, and kept in the memory box.
Ms Hudson said this was the first time she had been involved with this bereavement procedure, and Lucy Letby assisted, before colleague Caroline Oakley later took over and completed the procedure.

3:52pm

The prosecution rise to clarify the noise made by Child I.

"It was loud, almost like a repetitive noise, relentless. In my interpretation, it would indicate distress, and was markedly different from before when she would express hunger, for instance."

The judge asks Ms Hudson for this 'rooting gesture' to be explained.

Ms Hudson says it's a classic gesture by babies, usually done before they cry. It can be a very specific behaviour where they rock their heads and stick their tongue out, smacking their lips

3:53pm

That concludes the evidence from nurse Ashleigh Hudson.

5:30pm

The trial will resume tomorrow (Friday, February 3), with further evidence being delivered in the case of Child I.

 
  • #519
Re the case of Baby "I"

If LL is guilty...

Makes one wonder what exactly made this child and family preys of a predator.

There were:
- 4 attempts

- insistence on looking after this particular infant

- taking photos and intruding on parents' last bath of a dead child

- a "sympathy card" with very personal "Lots of love...Lucy x"

"Are there words to make" all of this understandable?

Very troubling as it gives a glimpse of an alleged killer's compulsion and obsession.
As if she was in a grip of some force and powerless to resist.

JMO
 
  • #520
The thing is the jury haven't just got the reconstructed pic to go on, they've got an eye witness account from the nurse who was actually there, saying that the room was too dark for anybody to be able to make out that the baby was pale. So though the pic may or may not be helpful, I think it'll come down to whether the jury believe the nurse or whether they believe LL's explanation to the police that she may have been able to spot something the other nurse wasn't able to, because she was more experienced.
How long qualified was LL?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
60
Guests online
2,715
Total visitors
2,775

Forum statistics

Threads
632,753
Messages
18,631,210
Members
243,278
Latest member
En0Ka
Back
Top