UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #16

[notsure]

I think that email was worded really well tbf. Along with the folllow on email. I know that LL wasn't happy that it made it sound like she'd wanted or requested the secondment, but I think they did a good job of making it all sound non-suspicious and like she'd been given an "opportunity" rather than been forced:

Hi All, There are currently opportunities for staff to apply for secondment throughout the Trust. It is therefore come at an opportune time for us and we were able to facilitate this for Lucy.

'Lucy is currently seconded to the Risk & Patient Safety office for a period of 3 months.

'Laura is currently seconded to the Haemodialysis unit and will be returning in November 2016.

'Should anyone have an interest in other areas please discuss this further during your appraisal – or come to me directly.

They had to not scare her too much while they conducted their inquiries.

 

[Legal]

It does say Lucy's is a 3 month secondment though. But yes could be clever wording again, to avoid giving a definite return date!

That's what I thought! Who knew where Lucy could be in 3 months!!

 

[Dotta]

What exactly is this "Risk@Safety Office"?

I think she mentioned dealing with emails.
Patients' emails?

Oh well...

 

[marynnu]

The manager follows this up with a second email on August 9. This reads:

'Hi All, There are currently opportunities for staff to apply for secondment throughout the Trust. It is therefore come at an opportune time for us and we were able to facilitate this for Lucy.

'Lucy is currently seconded to the Risk & Patient Safety office for a period of 3 months.

'Laura is currently seconded to the Haemodialysis unit and will be returning in November 2016.

'Should anyone have an interest in other areas please discuss this further during your appraisal – or come to me directly.

Kindest regards,

Eirian'.

Lucy Letby was transferred from unit over doctors' fears, trial hears

Hospital managers transferred neonatal nurse Lucy Letby to a patient 'risk and safety' unit after consultants insisted on having her removed from frontline work with babies, a trial heard today.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I wonder if staff get to choose their secondment?

I would think they could certainly express a preference. For me personally, I would be interested in finding out more about other departments, as NNU is quite isolated. Not to mention getting away from the stress of all the terrible events for a while. I don't think I'd be fuming like LL! JMO

 

[marynnu]

What exactly is this "Risk@Safety Office"?

I think she mentioned dealing with emails.
Patients' emails?

Oh well...

I doubt it would be patient emails. It would revolve around assessing risks to ensure patients are safe, I suppose.

 

[Tortoise]

Given that six of the seven babies had post mortems, and baby E didn't but had been ascribed a cause of death, there's only one baby whose cause of death was unascertained at post mortem and that was baby A. I'm gonna guess that she was referring to baby A

At one stage in the WhatsApp and Facebook messages Letby mentions the possibility of an air embolism being the cause of a baby's death.

His collapse happened soon after shift handover and he'd died before 9pm.

In police interview she said (amongst other things) -

"She said Child A went pale after a colleague had connected the fluids. She said Child A had "gone pale" 'about five minutes' after the fluids were administered.

She said she could not recall who attached the fluids line, but believed it was her nursing colleague Melanie Taylor who had connected the fluids.

She agreed she had been taught to prime lines so air could not get in them.
She denied having done so via Child A's long line or UVC.
She said she didn't know exactly what an air embolism was."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, October 26

The actual timing of events was -

8pm – Child A was said to be stable and care handed over by MT to LL at 8pm. Emergency equipment checks made.

8.05pm – Child A’s administration of fluids via the long line; '10% glucose commenced at 8.05pm', signed by Lucy Letby, as a 'major event' on the chart for the 8pm timeslot. LL’s barrister asserts that MT was in sterile clothing and administered these fluids with LL assisting. MT doesn’t recall. MT does not recall Child A being jittery (see LL’s retrospective nursing notes next morning for context) – says she would have made a note of it if she saw that.

MT’s retrospective nursing note (written at 9:28pm): "Observations stable, pink, well perfused. UVC still in situ, but in wrong position, to be used if no other access available. "Long line inserted by reg Dr Harkness, secured, x-rayed. 10% dextrose run through and connected to long line."

8.14 - 8.15pm & 8.18pm – MT is using the computer, referring to the family of A & B being updated on the condition of child B.

MT is unable to say how long she had been away from Child A’s incubator but thinks it was after the dextrose was administered. At some point Child A’s monitor sounded and she went over to help LL, once she realised he was deteriorating and wasn’t recovering. Her notes weren’t completed (she was called back the next day to complete them) because she became involved in getting adrenaline for Child A.

8.20pm – Child A hands and feet noted to be white in LL’s retrospective notes the next morning.

8.20pm – swipe data shows the shift leader entered the neonatal unit. She became involved in the resuscitation attempts. She describes the unusual skin colouring- which she’d never seen before.

C.8.24pm – Dr.DH was scrubbed and sterilised and concentrating on a procedure on a third baby in the room.

8.26pm – LL calls for help for Child A’s breathing problems. Dr.DH attended. Nurse CB was in Room 1. When Child B was safe, she went to help with Child A, helping LL with neopuffing. She said no crash call was put out as doctors were already in attendance.

 

[Sundial]

I doubt it would be patient emails. It would revolve around assessing risks to ensure patients are safe, I suppose.

I’ve just been re-reading this; I get the impression ll was saying “just been in email” (her email), she’s expressing her thoughts what was wrote by E made it sound like it was ll decision to be in patient risk/safety.
It looks as though LL had a copy also sent to her via email about the secondment hence why she said she was “fuming”.
It’s wrote as though she had a choice which isn’t the case and ll was reflecting on it.

She seems to still be copied into those (work/unit) emails is how I read it.

JMO

 

[Dotta]

I would think they could certainly express a preference. For me personally, I would be interested in finding out more about other departments, as NNU is quite isolated. Not to mention getting away from the stress of all the terrible events for a while. I don't think I'd be fuming like LL! JMO

I agree!
Changing work environment from time to time is good for mental health
It helps to avoid burn out.
New opportunities, new challenges - even in the same professional field.

Don't Americans advise to change job every 10 years?
Well, that is what I was once told!

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

At one stage in the WhatsApp and Facebook messages Letby mentions the possibility of an air embolism being the cause of a baby's death.

that’s specific wordin and I’m wondering if that’s a glimpse into the convo. Does that mean they were doing the normal and going over the years events and getting as much info as possible and going over potential causes? Do we know who this convo was with or can work it out? I’m guessing it’s the nurse who said about some babies being incompatible with life.

I can’t believe they didn’t report on this more, it’s information so relevant to what might be the more popularly appealing side of it.

 

[ColourPurple]

Given that six of the seven babies had post mortems, and baby E didn't but had been ascribed a cause of death, there's only one baby whose cause of death was unascertained at post mortem and that was baby A. I'm gonna guess that she was referring to baby A

At one stage in the WhatsApp and Facebook messages Letby mentions the possibility of an air embolism being the cause of a baby's death.

His collapse happened soon after shift handover and he'd died before 9pm.

In police interview she said (amongst other things) -

"She said Child A went pale after a colleague had connected the fluids. She said Child A had "gone pale" 'about five minutes' after the fluids were administered.

She said she could not recall who attached the fluids line, but believed it was her nursing colleague Melanie Taylor who had connected the fluids.

She agreed she had been taught to prime lines so air could not get in them.
She denied having done so via Child A's long line or UVC.
She said she didn't know exactly what an air embolism was."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, October 26

The actual timing of events was -

8pm – Child A was said to be stable and care handed over by MT to LL at 8pm. Emergency equipment checks made.

8.05pm – Child A’s administration of fluids via the long line; '10% glucose commenced at 8.05pm', signed by Lucy Letby, as a 'major event' on the chart for the 8pm timeslot. LL’s barrister asserts that MT was in sterile clothing and administered these fluids with LL assisting. MT doesn’t recall. MT does not recall Child A being jittery (see LL’s retrospective nursing notes next morning for context) – says she would have made a note of it if she saw that.

MT’s retrospective nursing note (written at 9:28pm): "Observations stable, pink, well perfused. UVC still in situ, but in wrong position, to be used if no other access available. "Long line inserted by reg Dr Harkness, secured, x-rayed. 10% dextrose run through and connected to long line."

8.14 - 8.15pm & 8.18pm – MT is using the computer, referring to the family of A & B being updated on the condition of child B.

MT is unable to say how long she had been away from Child A’s incubator but thinks it was after the dextrose was administered. At some point Child A’s monitor sounded and she went over to help LL, once she realised he was deteriorating and wasn’t recovering. Her notes weren’t completed (she was called back the next day to complete them) because she became involved in getting adrenaline for Child A.

8.20pm – Child A hands and feet noted to be white in LL’s retrospective notes the next morning.

8.20pm – swipe data shows the shift leader entered the neonatal unit. She became involved in the resuscitation attempts. She describes the unusual skin colouring- which she’d never seen before.

C.8.24pm – Dr.DH was scrubbed and sterilised and concentrating on a procedure on a third baby in the room.

8.26pm – LL calls for help for Child A’s breathing problems. Dr.DH attended. Nurse CB was in Room 1. When Child B was safe, she went to help with Child A, helping LL with neopuffing. She said no crash call was put out as doctors were already in attendance.

Am I reading this right... that Baby A, her very first alleged murder was carried out while a doctor was there in the same room with another baby, and the nurse she'd just handed over from was possibly in the same room too? (if the computer she was writing up notes on was the one in room 1)

If guilty, IMO

 

[Tortoise]

Am I reading this right... that Baby A, her very first alleged murder was carried out while a doctor was there in the same room with another baby, and the nurse she'd just handed over from was possibly in the same room too? (if the computer she was writing up notes on was the one in room 1)

If guilty, IMO

correct!

I believe Dr Harkness was preparing to insert a line into another baby.

 

[ColourPurple]

correct!
I believe Dr Harkness was preparing to insert a line into another baby.

Wow. If guilty, I'd wrongly assumed that attacking babies while others were present in the same room was something she'd built up to in later attacks, when her confidence had grown, not something she'd allegedly done from day one!

If guilty, IMO etc

 

[Tricia]

Short Version. We need donations to pay for the server and other bills. Please use one of the following cash apps.
Please use PayPal Pay Websleuths.com, LLC using PayPal.Me
If the PayPal link does not work for you go to www.paypal.com and put in the email [email protected] and you can send a donation that way.
Venmo name is Tricia-Griffith-14
OR
Cash App $tgrif14

If you can donate we would be so grateful

Hi Everyone,
(PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS DONATIONS ON THIS THREAD. CLICK HERE FOR DISCUSSION)
Websleuths is very expensive to run. Most months we make enough to pay for the server, pay the IT guy, and a bit of money left over for me for some bills or food. This way I can keep Websleuths free for everyone.
There are months when this is not the case.
I recently pre-paid the server fee and almost all I owed our IT guy. I knew the money coming in for the month from advertising would not cover the bills but I thought I had another revenue stream coming in so I wasn't worried. That revenue stream didn't happen.

Basically, I need donations to cover the server and what I owe the IT and a bit extra for my groceries.

I have provided Websleuths free for almost 20 years (since 2004) and will do my best to keep Websleuths free for members and visitors.

This month we need 2700 dollars to keep Websleuths running. I don't know what next month's ad dollars will be. Hopefully, you won't be hearing from me.

Let me stress if you cannot afford a donation please do not send anything. I understand times are hard.

When we reach our goal I will announce it and stop accepting donations. It is urgent however that we raise the money as fast as possible.

Please use PayPal Pay Websleuths.com, LLC using PayPal.Me
If the PayPal link does not work for you go to www.paypal.com and put in the email [email protected] and you can send a donation that way.
Venmo name is Tricia-Griffith-14
OR
Cash App $tgrif14
Thank you everyone for your help.
Tricia

 

[Parker Knoll]

Oh my head hurts after todays write ups !
Doc choc is up to his ears in this utter mess, what on earth was he thinking of.
I also hazard a guess he was keeping Letby up to speed for a significant time afterwards, you can’t convince me they didn’t discuss it over Tapas.
She really thinks this will all be dealt with internally from how I’m reading it, how wrong she was.
This case is BAFFLING.

 

[May72031]

This is clearly a way to get LL off the ward without incriminating her, implying anything bad about her, or getting themselves (management) in trouble.

Yet, we hear elsewhere, they spent the next 11 months trying to get her reinstated on the ward...

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

Yes, I thought similar to you when trying to think of more innocent explanations for that comment. If she felt that she may be suspected of negligence and similar, then it would make sense for her to say "they've got nothing or minimal on me".
It depends on personality - I know some on here have said that they'd be beside themselves and would be proclaiming innocence in their panic, but if someone is quite defiant then they might have a 'they'll look silly/I'll prove them wrong' as their first reaction.

Obviously speculation on my part and I can completely see the perspective where it seems incriminating as that's where my thoughts first went.

RBBM
I am in the 'proclaiming innocence' team, yet I am also defiant when I need to be and I have always assumed they mostly go together.
In other words, I would defiantly proclaim innocence.
IMO

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

Just caught up on today's activity and I am at a loss to even try and speculate why there is only a minimal amount of media attention on this case. I have guessed at a couple of reasons but nothing really makes sense.
This case is really unbelievable, I can honestly say I have never heard or read of a case this evil, for lack of a better word.
If guilty, of course.
The calmness, self-centeredness, superiority and bizarre excuses and explanations make for a very strange combination.
But we have seen it before. Bundy, for example, except he did the opposite to silence and repped himself.
Dr. Choc, at some point realized he had been naive and wanted out, possibly taking a deal to testify. IMO.

I'm sorry I don't remember who said it maybe @Dotta ? but they said it was stranger than fiction.
IMO, it is!, it's almost like a hospital drama show playing out live.

We have heard before how she didn't want to be in the less medical rooms as she got 'bored'. Could this all be a way to liven things up? Add some drama to her boring day?
ALL JMO and If guilty of course.

 

[katydid23]

I agree ...but the method makes me feel uncomfortable..feels so underhand..but ..I can't really think of a different approach

I think management was in a very hard position. The consultants and senior doctors were adamant that one of the band 6 nurses was somehow connected to the rise in collapses on the unit. But there was no solid evidence of any wrong doing at the time. Yet they couldn't ignore the spike in deaths.

And the union was fighting against the doctors, insisting their employee was being unfairly treated and they filed a grievance in accordance with their claims.

I think the hospital management took a very measured approach to a very difficult set of circumstances.

 

[katydid23]

Yes, I thought similar to you when trying to think of more innocent explanations for that comment. If she felt that she may be suspected of negligence and similar, then it would make sense for her to say "they've got nothing or minimal on me".
It depends on personality - I know some on here have said that they'd be beside themselves and would be proclaiming innocence in their panic, but if someone is quite defiant then they might have a 'they'll look silly/I'll prove them wrong' as their first reaction.

Obviously speculation on my part and I can completely see the perspective where it seems incriminating as that's where my thoughts first went.

I see your point. But I still wonder why she'd be defiant about an investigation into the mysterious death of babies on her unit. If innocent, why not be cooperative and helpful as opposed to bitter and defiant?

 

[katydid23]

RBBM
I am in the 'proclaiming innocence' team, yet I am also defiant when I need to be and I have always assumed they mostly go together.
In other words, I would defiantly proclaim innocence.
IMO

I would at some point be defiant, but I don't think I would start out that way when the investigation was just beginning. I'd try to be cooperative and want them to get all the info they'd need from me in order to sort things out.