UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #11

[Tortoise]

RSBM and guilty/not guilty aside:

^ It's interesting that we, myself included, seem to have collectively concluded that her emotional response was one of overwhelming sorrow/pain generated by eg. memories of lost friendship/love, better times etc etc. It could equally have come from a place of overwhelming anger/rage at someone who she felt betrayed her and that she might see as key to her ending up in the dock.

Just a thought. One could be just as triggering as the other.

I think if I was either of the barristers in court, prosecuting her or defending her, I would not want to have the jury guessing.

If they were dating, or living together at any point, I think police would have elicited something about it in his interviews and he would have been asked to confirm it in court. I wonder if he is being re-interviewed now even, unless they know already and agreed not to present anything. As a juror I think I would want to know if she dated, during what period and how long for, because so far she's been presented as single.

Perhaps the jury isn't guessing and it's just us, because they will know the details of her texting and he's only anonymous to the public.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

Just a thought as I have no idea about the logistics of these things but would there be a need to knock on the door? Wouldn't there be a way of communicating by telephone or mobile phone? I can't remember the context of why LL knocked on the door but I'm just wondering if this was normal. Surely the goal of these rooms is to allow the parents some privacy and alone time to sleep/ cry/ console each other.

I would have thought the need to communicate the upcMing transfer would be good precedent for ensuring the message was received. A call might not be received. Presumably staff wouldn’t expect people to not be in a position to communicate unless asleep. If it was urgent you make sure people are aware If not it could probably wait until the morning.

 

[DianaWW]

Not really about private relations I wouldn’t be thinking of that. But if I knocked on the door and was greeted by the sight of a barely covered woman my ears would be red and my eyes firmly locked on the ceiling. Jmo

I understand that, but she could have been discreet about it. I really don’t think it was necessary to text colleagues and gossip about it the way that she did. IMO.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I understand that, but she could have been discreet about it. I really don’t think it was necessary to text colleagues and gossip about it the way that she did. IMO.

I do kind of get what people are saying. She was quite young and just a guess but probably has little experience with such things and maybe people in general. I think was private coms between friends as well. Didn’t spread it around the ward to all and sundry.

 

[katydid23]

Not really about private relations I wouldn’t be thinking of that. But if I knocked on the door and was greeted by the sight of a barely covered woman my ears would be red and my eyes firmly locked on the ceiling. Jmo

I don't think nurses are that embarrassed about seeing barely covered people. Those hospital gowns always make me feel half naked.

 

[marynnu]

I don't think nurses are that embarrassed about seeing barely covered people. Those hospital gowns always make me feel half naked.

I must admit that as a nurse I'd be a bit embarassed by this. Mind you, it could have been worse. Unlike one of my colleagues, I sadly missed the sight of 2 parents having what you might call an intimate moment in the parents' sitting room. But that's another story.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I’m not sure embarrassed would be the word I used, something like it though. a Little bit under the spotlight maybe Especially if taken by surprise By someone in revealing lingerie rather than something less suggestive imo. Wouldn’t quite know how to react. I really don’t like hospital gowns either

 

[Dotta]

I must admit that as a nurse I'd be a bit embarassed by this. Mind you, it could have been worse. Unlike one of my colleagues, I sadly missed the sight of 2 parents having what you might call an intimate moment in the parents' sitting room. But that's another story.

I guess for medical staff
"nothing what is human is alien" to them

 

[WaxLyrical]

Hats off to the lingerie woman. I feel like if LL had knocked on my door the shuffling would have been me trying to detach myself from the hospital grade breast pump, and then flopping over to the door like a beached whale in an oversized and stained t shirt with little hairy legs poking out the bottom. Ah, the joys of post partum.

 

[Tortoise]

There's something a bit odd about that night of the text about the lacey dress.

This was the night shift (22/23 Oct) when baby I died, in nursery 1, at 2.30am.

The evidence we've heard is that -


12/13 Oct - night shift - (2nd alleged attempted murder of baby I) - LL was in nursery 1. Baby I was in nursery 2 with her designated nurse Ashleigh Hudson.

3am - AH went to assist a colleague with a procedure in nursery 1 and asked LL to watch baby I.

3.20am - AH returned to nursery 2 with milk for baby I and LL remarked from the doorway that baby I was looking pale. She had collapsed. The category of nursing care was raised a level and she was moved to nursery 1. LL was made the designated nurse. Testimony was "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. Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, February 2

14 Oct - LL asked if baby I was staying on the unit and asked to keep her. The colleague told her she'd had to re-allocate so that no-one had her for more than one night or shift at a time.

15-17 Oct - Baby I was transferred to Arrowe on 15th, returning on 17th.

17-21 Oct - LL off work

21/22 Oct - night shift - LL off work - AH was baby I's designated nurse in nursery 1. Baby I was nil by mouth at this stage awaiting bowel investigation.

22/23 Oct - night shift - (alleged murder of baby I) - LL returned to work and was designated one baby in nursery 2 and one baby in nursery 3. One of these babies was transferred out to Stoke that evening (lacey dress text) leaving LL with one baby in either nursery 2 or 3. AH was in nursery 1 with two designated babies, one of them being baby I.

Just before midnight baby I collapsed (the night of the atypical crying) and she collapsed again just after 1am and died at 2.30am.

--

So AH couldn't look after baby I after she was moved to nursery 1 on 13 Oct. LL was told no-one could look after baby I for more than one night or shift in a row. AH then had baby I on two consecutive night-shifts in nursery 1, and was in nursery 1 looking after baby I and another baby on the second of those shifts, the night baby I died, while LL was allocated to nursery 2 and 3, and sending personal texts until about half an hour before baby I collapsed.

 

[Sweeper2000]

It would be very interesting to hear more on the management moving her to day shifts. Doesn’t fit with her being offered more work but does fit AH having her for two nights. Maybe that was just an excuse by management, something they made up or used in an ad hoc way to not give LL any negative impressions. Still doesn’t fit with the first response being yes then no but maybe at this point it was the level of management above whoever was allocating babies that was in the know about the suspicions? Makes sense to me, doctors and consultants go to top tier management, expressing concerns about LL need not involve floor staff maybe.

 

[Tortoise]

I missed out of that timeline the 3rd alleged attempted murder of baby I on the night shift of 13/14 Oct, when LL was the designated nurse. So she'd had her two nights in a row and then sent the text asking for baby I again on the night of 14/15 Oct.

LL wasn't moved to day shifts until a good 4 or 5 months after that.

 

[MsBetsy]

Not really about private relations I wouldn’t be thinking of that. But if I knocked on the door and was greeted by the sight of a barely covered woman my ears would be red and my eyes firmly locked on the ceiling. Jmo

She didn't say she "saw" her barely covered. She said it "sounded" like she was wearing a lacy dress barely covering anything up. The rustling sound heard was probably the mother putting something on so she could answer the door.

Letby must have amazing vision and hearing if she could see Baby I's face in the dark and could hear the sound of lace and conclude that her mother was barely covered.

In her texts she's talking about Grey's Anatomy, gossiping about the parents, and searching them on FB, in the midst of three serious collapses and the final fatal collapse of Baby I.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Original quote

“Messages now being shown to court from that night to a colleague, who wasn't on shift. Ms Letby messaged: 'Just went to tell baby's parents that transport coming...bedroom door answered after lots of what sounded like scrambling in tiny lacey dress hardly covering anything'”

 

[Supernovae]

Personally I would be surprised if a trial was re-scheduled to avoid anniversaries. But we will see. I think taking the events out of sequence, specifically interrupting the flow of contextual background information such as Dr Jayaram suspecting LL and her being moved to day shifts will have been a decision taken to aid both sides in presenting their cases. If the defence has evidence to lead which is to do with baby K, as Mr Myers said he did, the prosecution presenting baby K's evidence now and then the defence presenting its evidence a month later might put one of the sides at a disadvantage, or be confusing for the jury. JMO

I'd be genuinely surprised if the defence have no evidence at all to present, other than for baby K.

 

[Supernovae]

I'd be genuinely surprised if the defence have no evidence at all to present, other than for baby K.

The stakes are so high that I'd be surprised if they don't attempt to present some counter expert witnesses, even if they're really out there or tangentially qualified.

 

[Tortoise]

I'd be genuinely surprised if the defence have no evidence at all to present, other than for baby K.

And I will be surprised if they do have any.

I don't think their cross-examination is being guided by expert opinion. JMO

 

[Dotta]

And I'm really interested how they will tackle the (alleged) admission of guilt - the note.

Granted, the note itself means nothing.
I could write anything on paper, e.g.
"I shot the sheriff"
but... with ALL evidence presented in trial - it is a proverbial "dot" above "i".

Note to myself - don't you dare to miss it!

JMO

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

And I will be surprised if they do have any.

I don't think their cross-examination is being guided by expert opinion. JMO

I’m of the opposite opinion. I can’t see how the cross-examination isn’t being guided by expert opinion.

Given this case is all about the medical evidence, it goes without saying that the defence will have obtained their own expert evidence to see if there are any holes in the prosecution’s case. Otherwise, Ben Myers would be negligent in his duties to his client, and he is far too experienced and well regarded to make such a fundamental error.

So assuming therefore that expert opinions were obtained, the question is how the defence is using them.

Looking at the suggestions being made by the defence through its cross-examination, it is disputing the conclusions of dr evans and dr Bohin on many counts so far.

All barristers have an overriding duty to the court, which means that they cannot lie to the court and they cannot recklessly mislead the court.

If the defence’s experts had said that they agree with the prosecution and that there was no possibility of an alternate cause, then Myers couldn’t have made some of the suggestions he has because he would be lying to the court IMO.
And even if, for some unknown reason , the defence didn’t get its own expert evidence, then by making some of the suggestions that he has, Myers would again be recklessly misleading the court by presenting as credible alternative causes things which he hasn’t actually asked an expert about. JMO

 

[marynnu]

I missed out of that timeline the 3rd alleged attempted murder of baby I on the night shift of 13/14 Oct, when LL was the designated nurse. So she'd had her two nights in a row and then sent the text asking for baby I again on the night of 14/15 Oct.

LL wasn't moved to day shifts until a good 4 or 5 months after that.

All the following reflects my personal opinon only.
Do you think the reporting that she was moved to day shifts is accurate at all? I ask because I thought it was prior to the case of Baby L April 2016, but evidently that can't be right as during this event she is asked to work an extra night, and in her response agrees to be on call for days or nights. One summary (a different site) has her working a night on June 2nd. And as lots of us have observed, it seems a strange decision on the part of management.
I do ask myself if somehow this has got confused with her being moved to clerical duties.