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

[ColourPurple]

"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

if guilty, I'm betting it'll be a title of a book about her at some point.

 

[Sundial]

The nursing colleagues mention of that same “cry” as with the statement from baby Es mother is making me feel quite uneasy
Moo

 

[ColourPurple]

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

Just catching up so not sure if anybody's answered yet but no , she said the opposite .That it wasn't often you get to know a family as well as she did with Baby I's. It was Baby I's mother who mentioned something about LL not really engaging as much with the parents as other nurses did.

 

[marynnu]

How long qualified was LL?

LL qualified as a paediatric nurse in 2011, then went to work on Chester NNU. She would have been a Band 5 nurse. At some point she did the specialist neonatal course. I have a feeling she completed this in 2013, as it was mentioned in an article about the fundraising. At some point after this she obtained a Band 6 post.

 

[ColourPurple]

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

If guilty, I'm wondering if the relationship between either her and the parents, or her and Baby I had been built up into something significant in her head. Possibly because of how long she had allegedly been trying to kill Baby I before she succeeded. And if that's why she marked the occasion with a card and kept a photograph of it on her phone as a "souvenir" .

If guilty of all the alleged crimes then she had been trying to kill babies since June 2015 but hadn''t "succeeded" since Baby E on August 5th. She had also allegedly made more than one attempt to kill babies G and H . Babies F,G,and H all survived her attempts at the time , so Baby I on 23rd October was her first "successful" murder in a while. And maybe that's why she sent the card.

 

[MsBetsy]

Just catching up so not sure if anybody's answered yet but no , she said the opposite .That it wasn't often you get to know a family as well as she did with Baby I's. It was Baby I's mother who mentioned something about LL not really engaging as much with the parents as other nurses did.

Yes, the mother said she didn't have much to do with Letby and described her as "reserved."

 

[katydid23]

Although I feel the sending of the card is "unusual" ...what I find more concerning is taking a photo of the words you wrote

I totally agree. I can't think of a logical or innocent reason for keeping a photo on your cell of the bereavement card you just sent. ...supposedly to people you barely knew.

 

[katydid23]

If guilty, I'm wondering if the relationship between either her and the parents, or her and Baby I had been built up into something significant in her head. Possibly because of how long she had allegedly been trying to kill Baby I before she succeeded. And if that's why she marked the occasion with a card and kept a photograph of it on her phone as a "souvenir" .

If guilty of all the alleged crimes then she had been trying to kill babies since June 2015 but hadn''t "succeeded" since Baby E on August 5th. She had also allegedly made more than one attempt to kill babies G and H . Babies F,G,and H all survived her attempts at the time , so Baby I on 23rd October was her first "successful" murder in a while. And maybe that's why she sent the card.

Sometimes I wonder if she wasn't necessarily planning for them to die on the first alleged attempts. It seems like maybe, allegedly, it could be more like how a cat messes with a trapped mouse---batting it around a bit and then returning later and starting it up again.

 

[ColourPurple]

So sad to hear now about how Baby I was being described as pink and rooting for milk and sucking her dummy . It must be heartbreaking for her parents to hear these descriptions now knowing what happened next.

 

[Dotta]

I totally agree. I can't think of a logical or innocent reason for keeping a photo on your cell of the bereavement card you just sent. ...supposedly to people you barely knew.

Besides, why wasn't it signed officially: Nurse Lucy Letby?

Why this informal style: Lucy x ?

Very strange and inappropriate.
<modsnip - sub judice>

JMO

 

[esther43]

Now THIS seems interesting! Do nurses often request who they’re allocated to in this way? Not just requesting an allocation but actively seeking out if the child will be there to be able to be allocated to her.

Equally.. her subsequently being reallocated with the reason given the same person doesn’t have her on concurrent shifts. I wonder if this is a direct consequence of suspicion?

Obviously this is not the main concern, but my goodness, if LL is found guilty of even a fraction of these charges, that hospital is going to get sued into oblivion for negligence for allowing her to continuing working with access to babies for so long after suspicions arose.

No

11:39am

Nurse Caroline Oakley recorded, for 8am on October 22, Child I's observations were satisfactory.
Further observations by a colleague said Child I was 'pink, alert, active handling well'.
At the end of the day, Child I was noted to be very hungry.
Hourly observations, the prosecution say, were carried through the day and were "unremarkable".
Letby begins her night shift that evening. A slide is shown to the court showing Child I was in room 1 with one other baby. Ashleigh Hudson was the designated nurse for both babies.
Letby was the designated nurse for a baby in room 2 and one in room 3. Another baby in room 3 was Child G. Two babies were in transitional care, and there was another baby whom the prosecution have been unable to confirm their location for that night.

11:40am

Asheligh Hudson records Child I, at the start of her shift at 7.45pm on October 22, was 'unsettled and rooting at start of shift, settled with dummy and containment holding'.

11:45am

Letby messages a colleague to say that night had 'only 8 babies' in the unit, and there is a discussion over transporting a baby to Stoke.
She adds: "I think I need to see greys anatomy !!!"
Later in the conversation, Letby messages to say Child I "had abdo scan that was fine".

11:47am

Letby messages colleague Jennifer Jones-Key, who had enquired "How's work". Letby replies that one of the babies she is looking after that night is being transported out that night.
The prosecution say that would then leave her with one designated baby that night.

11:50am

Ashleigh Hudson records at 10.57pm, 'long line removed due to constant occlusions. Neonal nurse Lucy Letby unable to flush...'
The long line was removed and the TPN [nutrition bag] was moved to a peripheral line.
Child I was observed to 'tolerate this very well'. 'Sucrose offered, but happy with dummy'. Child I was 'pink and well perfused'.

12:06pm

The jury is returning after a 10-minute break, and the trial is now resuming.
Claire Hocknell is continuing to talk through the sequence of events, from 11pm on October 22, 2015. An observation chart shows three-hourly observations are made for Child I through the day (eg 11am, 2pm, 5pm, 8pm), but no record is made at 11pm.

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, February 2

Okay, so going by today's report I'm confused as to why baby I is on another pause in feeds at this point when it's been suggested that he had made a recovery since returning to CoC and had even since progressed on to bottles. To me this reads that the bowel problem hadn't gone away but had flared up again IMO.
Also, on arrival at the level 3, it is claimed in last week's evidence that the unit declared that child I did not have NEC but it's noteworthy that he was on significant breathing support (ventilation) and was treated for NEC imo. (A pause in feeds and two strains of antibiotics) after which child I progressed on to CPAP.
The results of the contrast study (dye in the bowels) was referenced today but not interpreted.

 

[sapphireminds]

Any time positive pressure is given, lots of air goes into the bowel. That is not unusual.

Did they get a gas between intubation and extubation I wonder? It is very unusual to extubate a baby like that, IMO.

I don't see clear information given on how they are alleging she harmed baby I. Is it spelled out and I've missed it?

I struggle with people assigning motivation to out of context texts and messages. While they can be interpreted in the worst possible light if she is guilty, if she is innocent (which should be the assumption) none of them are concerning at all, IMO.

 

[esther43]

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.

Equally unprofessional are all the texts updating about the babies to off duty colleagues. If I was the parent I'd be fuming, it's not her baby to discuss. Not sure if all nurses do this or if LL was particularly needy.

 

[esther43]

if guilty, I'm betting it'll be a title of a book about her at some point.

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

 

[esther43]

There are no words!

 

[bbsaz]

Equally unprofessional are all the texts updating about the babies to off duty colleagues. If I was the parent I'd be fuming, it's not her baby to discuss. Not sure if all nurses do this or if LL was particularly needy.

Im not a nurse, so it would be interesting to gain the insight of one about the issue of discussing babies stats, condition, activities when off duty.

As a non nurse, I cant help think I would find it annoying. Im off duty, I dont want to hear a run down of my patients when Im not at work. I would want to mentally clock off

 

[bbsaz]

Regarding keeping a photo of a card...

In the say 15yrs its been common to have a camera phone, Ive only photographed the message I had written on a card once.

I was sending someone a deeply personal thank you and goodbye. I was very attached to that person, probably too much, and I wanted to be able to re-read what my last communication was with them as I wouldnt see them again. This wasnt a romantic relationship, it was a professional relationship where I almost saw them like a surrogate Mum.

I kept a record of the message because they meant alot to me, as did the relationship. I thought about them alot, for many years afterwards. If they were on social media, I probably would have looked them up, years down the line.

I know LL might have completely different reasons for keeping a photo of the message to me, but I cant help but think that the relationship she felt they had must have meant alot to her to do that. IMO

 

[WaxLyrical]

If the card was sent innocently, I don’t think taking a photo of it is that strange. It’s been agreed that it was highly unusual for a nurse to send a sympathy card, and so keeping a snapshot of what was sent for record-keeping purposes, in case she ever found herself having to answer for it, could be perfectly reasonable.

Of course, if sent from a place of guilt, it’s stomach churning to think she went out of her way to send this to grieving parents.

JMO.

 

[marynnu]

<modsnip - quoted post snipped>
Nobody would sign a card like that. Nurses are known to parents by their first names.

 

[Dcflag]

“
At 1.50am, Dr John Gibbs records: 'HR to 70, sats 70-80 and no pulse palpable. Cardiac compressions restarted at 1.50am'.
Another dose of adrenaline, the seventh, is made at 1.56am, followed by an eighth at 2am.
Dr John Gibbs records Child I was 'not responding to prolonged resuscitation and although her heart was beating there was no effective circulation.
'2.10am hr 40/min on monitor - no pulse (but heartbeat audible without cardiac compression)'.
Ashleigh Hudson records she and Lucy Letby had spoken to the parents about what had happened, and a decision was made to bathe Child I.
Child I's time of death was recorded as 2.30am on October 23, 2015.”

I think we’re all missing a HUGE part of Baby I’s case here. LL didn’t intrude on the parents bathing their deceased child, what she actually did was intrude on the parents with their dying child.

It seems clear to me today that when they decided to stop resus and give baby I to the parents to bathe, there was an audible heartbeat. Subsequently the time of death was recorded as 2.30am. Around 20 minutes after they decided to hand baby over to the parents for bathing. “The decision was made to bathe child I” ie; child I was alive, but resus attempts were stopped to allow the parents to spend their final moments.

She quite literally inserted herself into that precious moment to watch Baby I die (in my opinion of course!)