UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #12

[WaxLyrical]

Just to say, we can't assume LL wasn't there - or was, for that matter!

Yes I worded that poorly, the assumption I’m making is that those deaths were explainable. I do hope the jury are made aware if there are any other unexplained deaths which absolutely cannot be attributed to Letby.

 

[marynnu]

It

Yes I worded that poorly, the assumption I’m making is that those deaths were explainable. I do hope the jury are made aware if there are any other unexplained deaths which absolutely cannot be attributed to Letby.

It's impossible to say, I think. It could range from natural causes or inexplicable but LL not there, right through to suspicious but not enough evidence to bring to court!

 

[Marantz4250b]

The internet. The solution to, and cause of, all problems .

To reproduce the full quote (from none less than the foremost philosopher of our times, one Homer J Simpson, esq); "To alcohol, the cause of....and solution to....all of life's problems!"

 

[WaxLyrical]

It
It's impossible to say, I think. It could range from natural causes or inexplicable but LL not there, right through to suspicious but not enough evidence to bring to court!

Exactly, and this is why the context is so important. If there turned out to be 7 other unexplained deaths in the same period which could not have involved LL, what would that do for the LL case? It changes the pattern completely. She was no longer the “constant malevolent presence” she was simply just someone who was working overtime.

Similarly, if there were 7 other deaths, not suspicious and all attributed to suboptimal care, how might that affect things, and the defence’s case?

If there were 7 other deaths that were completely explainable, and every instance of unexplained death also has an LL presence, then that strengthens the pattern of the LL “orbit”.

In my opinion it’s just so important to know, and my mind cannot rest until it gets some answers! JMO.

 

[Tortoise]

I guess as "Chester" media they have certain duties to the citizens of this place, no?
Local media should be the first to report matters important to their local readers.

This is the point of their very existence, isn't it?


JMO

Yes but the trial was moved to Manchester which is about an hour away from where they are based, so we are quite lucky when they do attend.

 

[Dotta]

Yes but the trial was moved to Manchester which is about an hour away from where they are based, so we are quite lucky when they do attend.

Oh, I see.
Well, lucky us and residents of Chester to read their reports then

 

[29 Acacia Road]

If LL is found guilty, in a weird way I kind of hope something comes out regarding her personal life that even slightly shows a reason why she may have started to commit these crimes. If for example, she found out she could not have children of her own and it maybe cost her a relationship with someone she deeply loved (I'm not saying there is any evidence of this), then I could sort of see how working with babies everyday may drive that insane compulsion to take out her sorrow on other people's babies. It would never lessen her actions or mitigate what she had done, but there would be some sort of explanation at least.

If she is found guilty and there is nothing revealed in her history at all in terms of serious life triggers, then the thought that she carried these crimes out because of something much more trivial, like not getting the attention, respect or recognition at work she felt she was due, or something like that, then that would be even harder to stomach. It would almost be easy to think of her as some complete psychopath who was not negatively triggered by something trivial than it would for her to have some trivial motivation.

 

[Dotta]

"The infant girl's mother told the Lucy Letby trial today how she later watched her three-day-old baby girl die in her husband's arms.

The parents could see that Baby K's body 'had swollen up so much we didn't want her to be suffering any more…We decided to let her go. This was by far the most difficult decision of my life'.

The infant was wrapped in a blanket and placed in her father's arms. After some time 'she took her last breath and silently passed away'.
She was pronounced dead at 05:20 hrs."

Lucy Letby trial: Doctor interrupted nurse 'as she attempted murder'

Dr Ravi Jayaram described the moment he encountered nurse Lucy Letby 'making no effort to help' as a baby's oxygen level began to plunge.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[ColourPurple]

I think, if guilty, Baby K's case highlights two things.

1:How quickly LL is allegedly able to take advantage of an opportunity to harm a baby or is possibly already waiting for one.
2: How little time is needed to allegedly achieve the result.

Baby K's designated nurse had only left room 1 at 3.47am and by 3.50am LL was found standing over Baby K whose breathing tube (that had been secured down with tape) had been dislodged),whose chest wasn't moving, and whose oxygen levels were plummeting with no alarm sounding.

If LL IS guilty, and WAS trying to kill Baby K, and HAD paused the monitor, then if Dr Jayaram hadn't been suspicious and gone to check, LL could have been in and out within minutes, or even stayed there till the latest one minute pause ran out, and the alarm went off and claimed to just be there responding to the alarm. We are talking literally minutes. IF guilty of course. IMO

---------
"The jury has previously been told how Dr Jayaram realised at 03:50am on February 17 that Lucy Letby was alone in Nursery 1 with Baby K, who had been born at 25 weeks.

Mr Johnson said in his opening address: 'Feeling uncomfortable with this because he was beginning to notice the coincidence between the unexplained deaths/serious collapses and the presence of Lucy Letby, Dr Jayaram decided to check on her and (Baby) K.

'As he walked into Room 1, he saw Letby standing over K's incubator. She did not have her hands inside the incubator, but he could see from the monitor that K's oxygen saturation level was falling dangerously to somewhere in the 80s.

'However, the alarm was not sounding as it should have been. Lucy Letby had not called for help and was making no effort to help K.

'Dr Jayaram went straight to treat K and found her chest was not moving. He asked Letby if anything had happened, to which she replied: "She's just started deteriorating now".

The paediatrician found that the infant's breathing tube had been dislodged. 'Whilst it is possible for a baby to cause this if sufficiently active, K was not only very premature but she was sedated and inactive.

'The tube was secured by tape and attached to K's headgear. Its dislodging can happen accidentally on handling, but any member of staff responsible for such an accident would realise straight away.

'Dr Jayaram was troubled as Nurse Letby had been the only person in the room'.

Mr Johnson said that the monitors in Nursery 1 were set to activate automatically if readings fell outside neonatal values.

He added: 'Given the values witnessed by Dr Jayaram, the alarm should have sounded. There is an alarm pause button on the screen of the monitor, and by pushing this the operator can pause the alarm for one minute. It will then reactivate unless paused again.

'Bearing in mind the rate displayed on the monitor, Dr Jayaram estimates the tube would have been dislodged between 30-60 seconds before he entered the room. This would be on the assumption that the alarm had been cancelled/suspended once only'."

Lucy Letby trial: Doctor interrupted nurse 'as she attempted murder'

Dr Ravi Jayaram described the moment he encountered nurse Lucy Letby 'making no effort to help' as a baby's oxygen level began to plunge.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[esther43]

She seems to have remembered both the mother’s name and the father’s name in other cases where she is charged , so I don’t know why baby k would be different.

Child K wasn't there long, so perhaps not enough opportunity to get the families name.

This was the only one we've been told she researched at that time though. I think she might have used that explanation to police if there was a valid reason. IMO

"Letby was found to have researched Child K's parents on Facebook in April 2018 - two years and two months after Child K had died. When asked about this, she said she did not recall doing so."
Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

In that situation, under arrest, after being put on admin duties and if innocent,why wouldn't you just tell the police that you looked up child K because there were concerns being raised about your practice?

 

[marynnu]

I think, if guilty, Baby K's case highlights two things.

1:How quickly LL is allegedly able to take advantage of an opportunity to harm a baby or is possibly already waiting for one.
2: How little time is needed to allegedly achieve the result.

Baby K's designated nurse had only left room 1 at 3.47am and by 3.50am LL was found standing over Baby K whose breathing tube (that had been secured down with tape) had been dislodged),whose chest wasn't moving, and whose oxygen levels were plummeting with no alarm sounding.

If LL IS guilty, and WAS trying to kill Baby K, and HAD paused the monitor, then if Dr Jayaram hadn't been suspicious and gone to check, LL could have been in and out within minutes, or even stayed there till the latest one minute pause ran out, and the alarm went off and claimed to just be there responding to the alarm. We are talking literally minutes. IF guilty of course. IMO

---------
"The jury has previously been told how Dr Jayaram realised at 03:50am on February 17 that Lucy Letby was alone in Nursery 1 with Baby K, who had been born at 25 weeks.

Mr Johnson said in his opening address: 'Feeling uncomfortable with this because he was beginning to notice the coincidence between the unexplained deaths/serious collapses and the presence of Lucy Letby, Dr Jayaram decided to check on her and (Baby) K.

'As he walked into Room 1, he saw Letby standing over K's incubator. She did not have her hands inside the incubator, but he could see from the monitor that K's oxygen saturation level was falling dangerously to somewhere in the 80s.

'However, the alarm was not sounding as it should have been. Lucy Letby had not called for help and was making no effort to help K.

'Dr Jayaram went straight to treat K and found her chest was not moving. He asked Letby if anything had happened, to which she replied: "She's just started deteriorating now".

The paediatrician found that the infant's breathing tube had been dislodged. 'Whilst it is possible for a baby to cause this if sufficiently active, K was not only very premature but she was sedated and inactive.

'The tube was secured by tape and attached to K's headgear. Its dislodging can happen accidentally on handling, but any member of staff responsible for such an accident would realise straight away.

'Dr Jayaram was troubled as Nurse Letby had been the only person in the room'.

Mr Johnson said that the monitors in Nursery 1 were set to activate automatically if readings fell outside neonatal values.

He added: 'Given the values witnessed by Dr Jayaram, the alarm should have sounded. There is an alarm pause button on the screen of the monitor, and by pushing this the operator can pause the alarm for one minute. It will then reactivate unless paused again.

'Bearing in mind the rate displayed on the monitor, Dr Jayaram estimates the tube would have been dislodged between 30-60 seconds before he entered the room. This would be on the assumption that the alarm had been cancelled/suspended once only'."

Lucy Letby trial: Doctor interrupted nurse 'as she attempted murder'

Dr Ravi Jayaram described the moment he encountered nurse Lucy Letby 'making no effort to help' as a baby's oxygen level began to plunge.

www.dailymail.co.uk

My guess is she was keeping an eye on Baby K as the designated nurse had left the unit, so her presence there was totally valid. As she was the only nurse in the room IMO that has to be the case.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

The main difference with Baby K is that she died a couple of days after leaving the Countess. Which is apparently why they always had an alternative charge of attempted murder as well as murder for her. I won't link to the articles that say this as they all name the babies too. Though I will say I live in one of the areas where you said the surname is a common one and I'd never even heard of it before let alone know anybody with it. So IMO it's not the same as her having searched something common like Smith, Jones, Singh, Khan etc, like you'd suggested previously.

They weren’t alternative charges . You can’t charge someone for murder and AM for the same offence.

They originally charged LL for two separate alleged incidents on baby k: the first was AM because it didn’t kill her; the second was a murder charge because the alleged “attack” caused baby k’s ultimate death.

But then last year, a few months before trial, the prosecution offered no evidence in relation to the murder charge , so the judge recorded LL as not guilty. Presumably because the prosecution got revised medical opinions which concluded that the second alleged “incident” was not actually an assault. LL is no longer charged with anything in relation to the “incident” on which the murder charge was originally founded.

The whole situation regarding the abandoned murder charge for baby k is one of the biggest problems I have in this case.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

To reproduce the full quote (from none less than the foremost philosopher of our times, one Homer J Simpson, esq); "To alcohol, the cause of....and solution to....all of life's problems!"

I’m glad someone got the reference !

 

[ColourPurple]

My guess is she was keeping an eye on Baby K as the designated nurse had left the unit, so her presence there was totally valid. As she was the only nurse in the room IMO that has to be the case.

You'd think the defence and the designated nurse would say that though, if it were the case but we haven't heard that. Not saying it isn't possible (as the designated nurse would not have been aware of Dr Jayaram's suspicions so may well have asked LL to watch BABy K), just that it hasn't been reported.

 

[JosieJo]

They weren’t alternative charges . You can’t charge someone for murder and AM for the same offence.

They originally charged LL for two separate alleged incidents on baby k: the first was AM because it didn’t kill her; the second was a murder charge because the alleged “attack” caused baby k’s ultimate death.

But then last year, a few months before trial, the prosecution offered no evidence in relation to the murder charge , so the judge recorded LL as not guilty. Presumably because the prosecution got revised medical opinions which concluded that the second alleged “incident” was not actually an assault. LL is no longer charged with anything in relation to the “incident” on which the murder charge was originally founded.

The whole situation regarding the abandoned murder charge for baby k is one of the biggest problems I have in this case.

Was it a second incident? Or was the murder charge in relation to the same incident?

 

[ColourPurple]

They weren’t alternative charges . You can’t charge someone for murder and AM for the same offence.

They originally charged LL for two separate alleged incidents on baby k: the first was AM because it didn’t kill her; the second was a murder charge because the alleged “attack” caused baby k’s ultimate death.

But then last year, a few months before trial, the prosecution offered no evidence in relation to the murder charge , so the judge recorded LL as not guilty. Presumably because the prosecution got revised medical opinions which concluded that the second alleged “incident” was not actually an assault. LL is no longer charged with anything in relation to the “incident” on which the murder charge was originally founded.

The whole situation regarding the abandoned murder charge for baby k is one of the biggest problems I have in this case.

I was just referencing how it was referred to in the articles, which was as an alternative charge. It wasn't really the main point of my post. I can send you the links but assume you've already seen them.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Was it a second incident? Or was the murder charge in relation to the same incident?

Yes, separate incidents. As I said , under UK law, you cannot charge someone with murder and AM in relation to a single act “to be on the safe side”. It’s called the merger doctrine .

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I was just referencing how it was referred to in the articles, which was as an alternative charge. It wasn't really the main point of my post. I can send you the links but assume you've already seen them.

I wasn’t trying to be confrontational, and apologies if it came across that way.

I agree that some articles talk about it as an alternative charge. I wanted to make the point that they were separate incidents , one of which the prosecution is now not bringing any charges against LL. I think this fact gets lost in the reporting and, to me, it is a potentially really important point which hasn’t been explained yet by the prosecution or defence .

 

[ColourPurple]

I wasn’t trying to be confrontational, and apologies if it came across that way.

I agree that some articles talk about it as an alternative charge. I wanted to make the point that they were separate incidents , one of which the prosecution is now not bringing any charges against LL. I think this fact gets lost in the reporting and, to me, it is a potentially really important point which hasn’t been explained yet by the prosecution or defence .

No worries. No apology needed

 

[Tortoise]

​

Trial of offences.​

(1)Where a person is arraigned on an indictment—

(a)he shall in all cases be entitled to make a plea of not guilty in addition to any demurrer or special plea;

(b)he may plead not guilty of the offence specifically charged in the indictment but guilty of another offence of which he might be found guilty on that indictment;

(c)if he stands mute of malice or will not answer directly to the indictment, the court may order a plea of not guilty to be entered on his behalf, and he shall then be treated as having pleaded not guilty.

(2)On an indictment for murder a person found not guilty of murder may be found guilty—

(a)of manslaughter, or of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so; or

(b)of any offence of which he may be found guilty under an enactment specifically so providing, or under section 4(2) of this Act; or

(c)of an attempt to commit murder, or of an attempt to commit any other offence of which he might be found guilty;

but may not be found guilty of any offence not included above.

Criminal Law Act 1967


It looks to me as if you can have alternative counts of attempted murder and murder.

That's how the charges were reported originally and I don't see why the press would have made up that detail.

JMO