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

[MsBetsy]

I wonder what the nature of the dispute was regarding LL being relatively junior compared to other staff, and working in room one.

Was it that there was a sort of pecking order in that the most experienced nurses expected to be assigned to room one in preference to a more Junior nurse, regardless of how good the more junior college is at the job? Or was the dispute more about whether LL was experienced enough to be able to properly care for the babies in room one?

In some cases Letby was made the designated nurse after a stable patient suddenly collapsed as she was the more experienced nurse.

After those children continued to be unwell or died, maybe some of the staff began to question her abilities.

She made a comment in a text about some nurses not pulling their weight.

It's possible that she felt unappreciated since she had volunteered to do more extra shifts, was assigned to the more difficult babies, and did more work than anybody else.

At first, she received a lot of praise and support from her colleagues. But once they started to make a connection between Letby and the sudden deaths, it may have turned into concern. Letby might have been insulted that she was no longer getting the compliments she had received after the first few incidents.

At one point she texted a colleague asking if she needed to be worried about what the Doctor said so she must have known they were concerned.

 

[Anxala]

One whole tweet! I do hope the reporter didn’t over-exert themself in bringing this to us….

Without wanting to come across as disrespectful, I imagine a certain amount of fatique has set in, both with the jury and those tasked with the job of daily reporting on this case. I know every day and every detail matters (most specifically for the parents of the babies concerned) but the pace of this trial would test even the most saintly and dedicated of people.

I feel at times like I'm still waiting for the real trial to start as I feel no wiser or informed today about LL than I did back in Oct.

 

[marynnu]

In some cases Letby was made the designated nurse after a stable patient suddenly collapsed as she was the more experienced nurse.

After those children continued to be unwell or died, maybe some of the staff began to question her abilities.

She made a comment in a text about some nurses not pulling their weight.

It's possible that she felt unappreciated since she had volunteered to do more extra shifts, was assigned to the more difficult babies, and did more work than anybody else.

At first, she received a lot of praise and support from her colleagues. But once they started to make a connection between Letby and the sudden deaths, it may have turned into concern. Letby might have been insulted that she was no longer getting the compliments she had received after the first few incidents.

At one point she texted a colleague asking if she needed to be worried about what the Doctor said so she must have known they were concerned.

I found it interesting that in the message describing that conversation about people not pulling their weight, she also said she was told the doctors spoke very highly of her. It's all very tangled to me.

 

[Dotta]

And I wonder how it is possible to retrieve messages from many years ago.
I understand they were WhatsApp's and encrypted.
Do they stay forever (somewhere)?
Don't they get deleted after some time?
There must be millions of them.
I guess Police got a warrant to get them.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Report by expert witness described as ‘worthless' by judge, Letby trial told

.

www.irishnews.com

Well this is interesting

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Without wanting to come across as disrespectful, I imagine a certain amount of fatique has set in, both with the jury and those tasked with the job of daily reporting on this case. I know every day and every detail matters (most specifically for the parents of the babies concerned) but the pace of this trial would test even the most saintly and dedicated of people.

I feel at times like I'm still waiting for the real trial to start as I feel no wiser or informed today about LL than I did back in Oct.

I agree. I was going to post something about this later, as I’m interested in what everyone thinks

 

[Dotta]

Something more from today

"Astonishing amount of air injected..."


And...

"Dr Evans, who has been challenged previously by the defence about his impartiality, went on:

'This persistent fiction that I'm a prosecution person is pure fantasy. I was the first to identify the issues in this case and in the others, and I did so in 2017. I depended entirely on the clinical notes."

Letby 'injected ''astonishing'' amount of air into stomach of baby'

Lucy Letby, originally from Hereford, denies murdering seven babies and attempting to murder 10 others at the Countess of Chester's neonatal unit between June 2015 and June 2016

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Tortoise]

After baby I's death on 23 Oct, there are the following charges

27 Nov - J - attempted murder
17 Feb - K - attempted murder
9 Apr - L & M - attempted murder
3 Jun - N - attempted murder
15 Jun - N - 2 x attempted murder
23 Jun - O - murder
24 Jun - P - murder
25 Jun - Q - attempted murder

I'm intrigued about the gaps.

With the text messaging having changed quite radically from June to October, IMO, latterly showing evidence of a lot of tensions in working relationships, and also knowing that at some point Dr Jayaram was concerned enough to go and check on what LL was doing with baby K, even though there had been 3 or 4 months between babies I & J and baby K, it makes me think we're approaching a time in the evidence (Nov onward) when staff were being more vigilant as to what might be happening. We've heard of an instance of LL crying that it was always her babies, she texted that it always happens at night, and according to LL a manager told her she didn't need to prove herself, so I wonder if, during the gaps, we'll hear more evidence of what was happening in the workplace than we've heard during the earlier days.

Also the Facebook checking of E&F's parents really ramped up during this time of no charges against LL - 5 Nov, 7 Dec, 25 Dec and twice in Jan 2016.

 

[Dotta]

After baby I's death on 23 Oct, there are the following charges

27 Nov - J - attempted murder
17 Feb - K - attempted murder
9 Apr - L & M - attempted murder
3 Jun - N - attempted murder
15 Jun - N - 2 x attempted murder
23 Jun - O - murder
24 Jun - P - murder
25 Jun - Q - attempted murder

I'm intrigued about the gaps.

With the text messaging having changed quite radically from June to October, IMO, latterly showing evidence of a lot of tensions in working relationships, and also knowing that at some point Dr Jayaram was concerned enough to go and check on what LL was doing with baby K, even though there had been 3 or 4 months between babies I & J and baby K, it makes me think we're approaching a time in the evidence (Nov onward) when staff were being more vigilant as to what might be happening. We've heard of an instance of LL crying that it was always her babies, she texted that it always happens at night, and according to LL a manager told her she didn't need to prove herself, so I wonder if, during the gaps, we'll hear more evidence of what was happening in the workplace than we've heard during the earlier days.

Also the Facebook checking of E&F's parents really ramped up during this time of no charges against LL - 5 Nov, 7 Dec, 25 Dec and twice in Jan 2016.

Re the gaps

I agree she was being closely observed.

But, nevertheless, (allegedly) still managed to play havoc.

But then, who can overcome compulsions without medical/therapeutical help?

As they say:

"Life is beautiful.
Provided the meds are correct".

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

Report by expert witness described as ‘worthless' by judge, Letby trial told

.

www.irishnews.com

Well this is interesting

What the defence isn't doing is coming up with alternative natural causes for these collapses and deaths.

Attacking an experts credibility is all well and good if you can demonstrate through the evidence that they haven't considered credible alternatives. Another independent expert agrees with Dr Evans, as did a third independent expert who died before trial.

This looks like a diversion, although I'm not saying it shouldn't have been brought up by the defence, but another plausible explanation which accounts for the alarming similarities, patterns and timings of deaths and near deaths is lacking. IMO

 

[JosieJo]

Report by expert witness described as ‘worthless' by judge, Letby trial told

.

www.irishnews.com

Well this is interesting

I think think this is exactly why Dr Bohin is also reviewing everything.
He claims that he is constantly being reminded of his "one bad" report in 30 years

I think with Dr Bohin agreeing with almost all of his findings it shouldn't make to much difference to the prosecution

It will also be interesting to see if the defence have experts who categorically show his reports are innacurate..I doubt this but who knows?

 

[Tortoise]

I agree. I was going to post something about this later, as I’m interested in what everyone thinks

Well I think that justice is best served by looking at each case purely from a medical standpoint.

I think it's as it should be. What happened, and if what happened was intentional, who did it. Not based on character evidence because if crimes were committed, they would naturally be a closely guarded secret. JMO

 

[marynnu]

What the defence isn't doing is coming up with alternative natural causes for these collapses and deaths.

Attacking an experts credibility is all well and good if you can demonstrate through the evidence that they haven't considered credible alternatives. Another independent expert agrees with Dr Evans, as did a third independent expert who died before trial.

This looks like a diversion, although I'm not saying it shouldn't have been brought up by the defence, but another plausible explanation which accounts for the alarming similarities, patterns and timings of deaths and near deaths is lacking. IMO

I agree with that. There are several mentions of "extreme prematurity" almost as an explanation in itself. I feel this is is not helpful, as in my view babies may die of something which is a result of being preterm rather than prematurity itself - e.g. NEC, infection, immature lungs which make oxygenation impossible. But you know why it's happened. JMO.

 

[marynnu]

After baby I's death on 23 Oct, there are the following charges

27 Nov - J - attempted murder
17 Feb - K - attempted murder
9 Apr - L & M - attempted murder
3 Jun - N - attempted murder
15 Jun - N - 2 x attempted murder
23 Jun - O - murder
24 Jun - P - murder
25 Jun - Q - attempted murder

I'm intrigued about the gaps.

With the text messaging having changed quite radically from June to October, IMO, latterly showing evidence of a lot of tensions in working relationships, and also knowing that at some point Dr Jayaram was concerned enough to go and check on what LL was doing with baby K, even though there had been 3 or 4 months between babies I & J and baby K, it makes me think we're approaching a time in the evidence (Nov onward) when staff were being more vigilant as to what might be happening. We've heard of an instance of LL crying that it was always her babies, she texted that it always happens at night, and according to LL a manager told her she didn't need to prove herself, so I wonder if, during the gaps, we'll hear more evidence of what was happening in the workplace than we've heard during the earlier days.

Also the Facebook checking of E&F's parents really ramped up during this time of no charges against LL - 5 Nov, 7 Dec, 25 Dec and twice in Jan 2016.

That's very interesting. I do wonder where the other cases fell into that timeline? We obviously have no idea if there were any suspicious events which have not been included as too weak.

 

[Tortoise]

That's very interesting. I do wonder where the other cases fell into that timeline? We obviously have no idea if there were any suspicious events which have not been included as too weak.

earlier charges

2015
8 Jun - A - murder
10 Jun - B - attempted murder
14 Jun - C - murder
22 Jun - D - murder
4 Aug - E - murder
5 Aug - F - attempted murder
7 Sep - G - attempted murder
21 Sep - G - 2 x attempted murder
26 Sep - H - attempted murder
27 Sep - H - attempted murder
30 Sep - I - attempted murder
13 Oct - I - attempted murder
14 Oct - I - attempted murder
23 Oct - I murder

 

[Dcflag]

I’d really love to see some independent opinions from non nhs doctors. I know it’s hard to avoid the case details now it’s in session and with the media etc but you’d get a chance at a much more independent view from a doctor/pediatrician/neonatologist that isn’ta uk practising professional, who perhaps doesn’t know the ins and outs of the case so well, who absolutely doesn’t have a horse in any nhs/suing/personal responsibility.

Just some far away experts who can be sent the files and present their findings.

Id also be interested in a) whether the gaps between attacked are indeed gaps, or if the gaps are actually other incidents they’ve not pursued a charge on with other babies and b) if they are in fact gaps, what the prosecution’s explanation will be, and whether we’re reaching a point in time where colleagues were aware of issues/investigated/inquiries etc

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

What the defence isn't doing is coming up with alternative natural causes for these collapses and deaths.

Attacking an experts credibility is all well and good if you can demonstrate through the evidence that they haven't considered credible alternatives. Another independent expert agrees with Dr Evans, as did a third independent expert who died before trial.

This looks like a diversion, although I'm not saying it shouldn't have been brought up by the defence, but another plausible explanation which accounts for the alarming similarities, patterns and timings of deaths and near deaths is lacking. IMO

I think they are coming up with alternative natural causes but in most cases, the defence isn’t picking one alternative cause and saying “that’s the reason” the baby collapsed. They seem to be saying (eg) baby A could have collapsed from lack of fluids or improperly positioned lines. But they aren’t in most cases nailing their colours to a particular mast . I think that explains why
Myers went on at length about doctors and experts not always having the answers to something .

What remains to be seen as how this plays with the jury. TV shows and movies have in my opinion created a general belief that there is always a clear scientific explanation for why something happened, when that is not always the case. If the jury expects a clear answer as to why each baby collapsed, then they may be entirely unmoved by the defence suggesting other possible explanations, but not picking one.

Your last paragraph is the million dollar question, in my opinion. What I want to know about is all the other cases which were initially identified as suspicious or concerning enough to refer to the police/medical experts for further investigation, but in respect of which LL has not been charged. I want to know whether those cases share certain features with the cases being discussed in this trial, and whether the only real difference is that LL was not on shift when the collapses happened.

 

[Tortoise]

I agree with that. There are several mentions of "extreme prematurity" almost as an explanation in itself. I feel this is is not helpful, as in my view babies may die of something which is a result of being preterm rather than prematurity itself - e.g. NEC, infection, immature lungs which make oxygenation impossible. But you know why it's happened. JMO.

I agree. Extreme prematurity wouldn't account for the months of survival and overcoming the hardest time, that we see in many of these cases. JMO

 

[marynnu]

In some cases Letby was made the designated nurse after a stable patient suddenly collapsed as she was the more experienced nurse.

After those children continued to be unwell or died, maybe some of the staff began to question her abilities.

She made a comment in a text about some nurses not pulling their weight.

It's possible that she felt unappreciated since she had volunteered to do more extra shifts, was assigned to the more difficult babies, and did more work than anybody else.

At first, she received a lot of praise and support from her colleagues. But once they started to make a connection between Letby and the sudden deaths, it may have turned into concern. Letby might have been insulted that she was no longer getting the compliments she had received after the first few incidents.

At one point she texted a colleague asking if she needed to be worried about what the Doctor said so she must have known they were concerned.

For me, a big red flag re. how the senior staff might be feeling was when the shift lead told LL she couldn't look after Baby I for a second night, as it had been decided nobody could have her for more than one shift at a time. IMO that is very strange as usually the aim is continuity of care whenever possible.

 

[Tortoise]

I think they are coming up with alternative natural causes but in most cases, the defence isn’t picking one alternative cause and saying “that’s the reason” the baby collapsed. They seem to be saying (eg) baby A could have collapsed from lack of fluids or improperly positioned lines. But they aren’t in most cases nailing their colours to a particular mast . I think that explains why
Myers went on at length about doctors and experts not always having the answers to something .

What remains to be seen as how this plays with the jury. TV shows and movies have in my opinion created a general belief that there is always a clear scientific explanation for why something happened, when that is not always the case. If the jury expects a clear answer as to why each baby collapsed, then they may be entirely unmoved by the defence suggesting other possible explanations, but not picking one.

Your last paragraph is the million dollar question, in my opinion. What I want to know about is all the other cases which were initially identified as suspicious or concerning enough to refer to the police/medical experts for further investigation, but in respect of which LL has not been charged. I want to know whether those cases share certain features with the cases being discussed in this trial, and whether the only real difference is that LL was not on shift when the collapses happened.

I haven't seen it stated anywhere that all the cases sent for review were suspicious. I think that's a faulty assumption. The defence would have picked up on the similar expert's reports that didn't result in charges, with the prosecution's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence, ie evidence that does not help their case, and they would be making a meal of it. JMO

I don't agree that a scientific explanation for a death is only for TV. Obviously there can be more than one medical event which starts a chain of other medical events, but the prosecution experts have answered these theories and ruled them out by pointing to clinical data showing periods of improvement, self-correction and stability. The thing that links all of these cases is the unexpected nature of them, which stumped doctors at the time and which LL talked about in many of her texts. JMO