UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #17

[marynnu]

From what I saw reported today, the police officer asked her a leading question at that point. From Dan O'Donoghue's tweet:

The officer said 'you dealt with all of these, what do you put that down to, bad luck?’

She said ‘yes’

I agree, what else was she supposed to say?

 

[Dotta]

From what I saw reported today, the police officer asked her a leading question at that point. From Dan O'Donoghue's tweet:

The officer said 'you dealt with all of these, what do you put that down to, bad luck?’

She said ‘yes’

It requires Intelligence to answer such a provocative question.

But hey, it was SHE who was the FIRST to use the term "Fate" in her text.

Officer seemed to refer to that.

JMO

 

[notsure]

I agree, what else was she supposed to say?

It doesn't seem very professional on the part of the police officer to phrase a question in this way.

 

[ColourPurple]

I agree, what else was she supposed to say?

I wonder if they were making reference to her texts where she'd said things like "luck of the draw" fate etc

 

[Dotta]

I wonder if they were making reference to her texts where she'd said things like "luck of the draw" fate etc

Absolutely.
She asked for that.
JMO

 

[katydid23]

The defence doesn't get to choose though. If she wasn't behaving normally then the prosecution can easily argue that the jury have a right to see that.

No, because if it is deemed too prejudicial by the court, the prosecution has no say.

 

[katydid23]

‘Letby went on to explain when working at Liverpool Women’s Hospital she had “lost a baby one day and a few hours later was given another dying baby just by the same cot space”.’

From the Chester Standard article linked above, where she’s talking about how she’s ‘dealt with it before’.

I wonder if they checked into those deaths as well?

 

[katydid23]

That seems rather brutal for a young nurse doing her neonatal course.

I wonder if it is accurate or true?

 

[Marie Bell]

They could be edited, though. And, if the point of playing the filmed interviews is to show the demeanor of the defendant then it's surely reasonable that it shows the demeanor of the investigators as well? The jury should be able to judge the actions of both.

I think of the loads of interviews of US police interviewing people and lots of them come across as "interrogations" rather than interviews. It is relevant to judge the actions of both parties, surely?

In the UK we aren't at all accustomed to seeing suspect interviews being filmed visually. It's usual for them to be audio recordings only (obviously it's different in the case of vulnerable victims and witnesses) So for me, no, I definitely wouldn't be expecting to see anyone's demeanour in interviews. I mean, at work I listen to lots and lots of digital police interviews, and read the transcripts too. And basically they only serve as evidence of what was asked and what was answered. Plus whether they gave conflicting answers, and therefore there's a 'but you said.....' further line of questioning, etc. You can always tell whether the suspect has been nervous, or stroppy, or whether there is a lot of input from their solicitor, and so on. It's really what happens in court that matters.
The US filmed interviews are just wild!!

 

[esther43]

I wonder if they were making reference to her texts where she'd said things like "luck of the draw" fate etc

I agree. I would have also thought, being on admin for such a long time would have given her ample time to reflect on what the potential sceneries were.
' I'm worried they think I might have missed something or whatever...'
Yet still she is not saying to the police the quite obvious and blatent thing, that something has blantantley gone wrong here, that YES it's mysterious that there were an astronomical amount of deaths but NO she's not involved.
Obviously there are parts of the tape we have not yet heard and I'm not sure even if the defence could bring more footage later on or if the time is now, as it were.

 

[katydid23]

I have to say that I find those answers perfectly reasonable.

I find them kind of cold hearted answers in that they don't put the babies first. She is thinking only about herself here.

She lost several babies, some right after another, and rather than take a break and try to figure out HOW and WHY, she wants to suddenly be back in charge of the next poorly babies, so she can feel better by seeing a live baby.

The problem is, there were dozens more collapses afterwards. So her method of healing herself did not seem to work.

 

[Dotta]

I agree. I would have also thought, being on admin for such a long time would have given her ample time to reflect on what the potential sceneries were.

Oh, but it had given her ample time to write weird notes during working hours.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

People are different though. I can understand why she wouldn't want to take a break. If you're innocent and these deaths affect you a lot then I can totally understand how the prospect of sitting around your big house on your own for a couple of days might be by far the worse option than going to work.

Not saying she did think that, and MOO, but I can see the issue here.

There are other things she could have done other than sit around in her house. She could have accepted the offer of support and counselling. She could have worked with consultants to try and figure out why the babies were collapsing right and left. If things are going so wrong ,why not step back and try to sort things out?

Even if innocent, don't you want to know if you are making a mistake or if there is a problem with equipment or there is a virus or infection rampant?

 

[katydid23]

Then again, if you were being interviewed by the police on suspicion of murder what else would say?

She could have given potential explanations like an infection or virus or issue with faulty equipment, etc...

 

[ColourPurple]

Bit more of the "bad luck" convo:

The neo-natal nurse is alleged to have injected four babies with air between June 8 and June 22, 2015, killing three of them.

Police asked Letby to explain the "spike" of fatalities at the Countess of Chester Hospital, when she was first arrested in 2018.

In police interviews read at Manchester Crown Court on Thursday, a detective asked her: "What were you thinking during that period?"

Letby replied: "That it was a shock to have that many deaths."

The detective said: "It must have been devastating."

The detective asked: "Did any of the staff sort of question the hospital or colleagues as to where the spike was coming from?" Letby replied: "Not that I'm aware of."

The detective said: "Did you yourself?"

"No," replied Letby.

The detective went on: "You dealt with all those (babies) didn't you? What did you put that down to, bad luck?"

"Yes," Letby replied.

Nurse Lucy Letby told police it was 'bad luck' that three babies died in two weeks while she was on duty | LBC

Lucy Letby claimed it was just "bad luck" that three babies died in the space of a fortnight at the hospital where she was on duty as a nurse.

www.lbc.co.uk

 

[ColourPurple]

More about the timing of Baby C's fatal collapse:

Five days earlier another baby boy - her alleged first victim, Child A - had died in intensive care room one.

On the evening of June 13 2015, the court heard she texted a fellow nurse: "I just keep thinking about Mon(day). Feel like I need to be in 1 to overcome it but (nurse) said no x.

"I just feel I need to be in 1 to get the image out of my head. To be in (room) 3 is eating me up. All I can see is him in 1."

Later she told her colleague "I'll overcome it myself" before at 11.09pm texting her, saying: "Forget it I'm obviously making more of it than I should x.

"Sleep well xx."

At 11.15pm the baby boy, Child C, suddenly deteriorated in room one and died the following morning, jurors have heard.

When interviewed by police about the death of Child C, the defendant said she did not recall the text conversation. Asked what she felt she needed to overcome, she replied: "I'm assuming ... I previously had a bad experience in (room) one."

Letby thought the image she "wanted out of my head" was that of Child A.

She told officers: "It's very difficult, when you see dead babies it's hard to get that image out of your head."

The detective asked: "Why would going into nursery one help?"

Letby replied: "Because I would see a different baby in there, and see a different scenario to the scenario I had at the time when he died."

The detective said: "How would it be a different scenario?" Letby said: "It's a different baby, it's different staff, it's a different night.

"Because I think when you are going to the same incubator space and there is a different baby there you know you let the one you lost go. Until you go into that space, you see that baby until another baby goes in there."

The detective said: "You sent the final text at 11.09pm. Six minutes after you sent that, (Child C) collapsed." "Right," said Letby.

The detective went on: "What are you thoughts on that?" Letby responded: "I don't have any thoughts on that."

The detective said: "The text messages suggest you were frustrated at not working in nursery one, do you agree?"

The defendant said: "Yes, I think it would have helped me if I could have been in nursery one."

Letby agreed she was the only staff member in room one when Child C collapsed and that she was seen at his cot-side when a monitor alarm sounded.

The detective asked: "And at that time you were feeling upset and frustrated?"

"Yes," said Letby. The detective said: "You went on to attack (Child C)?"

Letby said: "No I haven't. No."

Nurse Lucy Letby told police it was 'bad luck' that three babies died in two weeks while she was on duty | LBC

Lucy Letby claimed it was just "bad luck" that three babies died in the space of a fortnight at the hospital where she was on duty as a nurse.

www.lbc.co.uk

 

[marynnu]

She could have given potential explanations like an infection or virus or issue with faulty equipment, etc...

I don't agree. It's not her job to do speculate. And for me, it could look a bit like she's trying to deflect.

 

[katydid23]

I don't agree. It's not her job to do speculate. And for me, it could look a bit like she's trying to deflect.

I defer to your expertise.

 

[ColourPurple]

I don't agree. It's not her job to do speculate. And for me, it could look a bit like she's trying to deflect.

The funny thing is, the detective is asking her about the 4 babies in June. He asks:

"Did any of the staff sort of question the hospital or colleagues as to where the spike was coming from?" Letby replied: "Not that I'm aware of."

The detective said: "Did you yourself?"

"No," replied Letby.

The detective went on: "You dealt with all those (babies) didn't you? What did you put that down to, bad luck?"

"Yes," Letby replied.


Yet we know that people, including LL DID question the spike

The jury was told that, later that month, another baby, Child D, died on the unit.

On 30 June, Letby and a colleague exchanged messages about the condition of Child B.

Her colleague said: “There’s something odd about that night and the other three that went so suddenly.” Letby replied: “What do you mean?”

She added: “Well [Child C] was tiny obviously compromised in utero, [Child D] septic. It’s [Child A] I can’t get my head around.”

Lucy Letby trial: nurse described newborns’ deaths as ‘sad and cruel’

Defendant accused of murdering seven babies told colleague it was ‘all a bit much’ after two deaths within week

www.theguardian.com

Nurse Lucy Letby told police it was 'bad luck' that three babies died in two weeks while she was on duty | LBC

Lucy Letby claimed it was just "bad luck" that three babies died in the space of a fortnight at the hospital where she was on duty as a nurse.

www.lbc.co.uk

 

[katydid23]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Episode 28 /Lucy Letby trial

Off the Ward---The fallout after Baby Q collapse

It was after the attack upon Baby Q that Lucy was removed from the ward. The jury was shown dozens of text messages and emails which we’ll focus on today

She was initially asked not to come in for her night shift after Baby Q’s collapse—then told she was switched to day shifts and then a couple of shifts later, was told she was moved to clerical duties—but was not told at that stage, exactly why she was being moved.

This all starts on June 27th, 2016, which is just 2 days after the collapse of Baby Q .By this point suspicions had been building amongst consultants on the ward about the number of collapses and unexpected deaths of babies on the unit.

Dr John Gibbs, Dr Stephen Breary and Dr Ravi Jayrahm had all voiced their concerns. Dr Jayrahm told the court he was uncomfortable leaving Lucy alone with a baby. Dr Breary asked a doctor from another hospital to carry out an independent review.

The deaths of Baby O and Baby P who were 2 of 3 triplets were then described as a tipping point and Dr Breary asked for Lucy to be removed from the unit —a request which was initially refused by hospital managers.

And then Baby Q collapsed which prompted Dr Gibbs to ask which nurse had been looking after him. So this all seemed to be the catalyst for what happened next.

Lucy Letby had been working a day shift on June the 25th, when Baby Q collapsed and she was next due to be on duty for a night shift on June 27th. She intended to arrive to her shift around 7 pm. But shortly before 6 pm she received a call from the Neo-natal unit manager, Aryan Powell, who asked her not to come in.

Now we will hear a series of What’s App messages between LL and another nurse [who cannot be named for legal reasons]
June 27th 5:41 pm

L: E just phoned telling me to do days this week and not go in tonight, as trying to protect me [sad face emoji]

N: what’s that mean?

L: I don’t know - asked if there was a problem and she said no, just trying to protect me, has had a difficult run just before holidays
Less people on nights, etc and we can have a chat etc tomorrow but I’m worried I’m in trouble or something


L: I know but worrying, in case they think I missed something or whatever Why leave it all now to ring ?

N: It is very late, I agree , maybe she’s getting pressure from elsewhere

L: She said it’s busy so more support for me on days and can look at paperwork bits, etc
She was nice enough I just worry— this job messes with your head

N: Yeah it does. Do you want to come over after?

L: yeah maybe, would that be okay?

N: Yeah, shall we say 7:30 ish?
L: okay, thanks

N: No worries, can have proper chat , as not had the a chance to

L: Thank you it’s late isn’t it?
N: yeah, very
L: wish she had done this earlier because I’d have just gone in and spoken to her

N: yeah, not been given opportunity and naughty to leave till tomorrow’s

L: Messes with your head a bit to be told that at this time—would have sounded more
reasonable if had done it earlier which is why I wonder if it’s come from higher up as
she usually finishes at 4 . anyway we’ll chat later

N: Yeah, try not to worry too much, at the end of the day there’s been no common factors in any of it and a lot of other people involved



L: I know, I think everyone works tirelessly and I don’t see how any of that could be questioned.
I imagine she may want to know why I had triplets back the next day and why I had Baby Q Sat, but there are reasons for that and wouldn’t have prevented me from being part of resource

N: yeah

L: Perhaps she waited so long to ring as was waiting to see if could find cover
N: if was that bothered could always work herself

L: that’s true


Around the same time Lucy was also messaging a doctor that she’d become close to via Facebook. We refer to him as Dr A and as you’ll hear she was voicing the same worries about being asked not to come into work that night.

The messages start with Lucy Letby at around 5:41 pm:

L: Ariane just phoned telling me not to come in tonight and to do days instead. I asked if there was a problem and she said no, just trying to protect me a bit, and we can have a chat about it tomorrow but now I’m worried

Dr A: Please don’t worry, I’m expecting the same conversation tomorrow as the medical lead for Thurs/Fri, I’m expecting they’ll want to chat

LL: I can’t do this job if it’s going to be like this. My head is a mess. Why is she ringing at this time? There must be a problem.

Dr A: Lucy, you did nothing wrong at all. It is an odd time to ring but you’ve had a rough few days and a good manager would realise that. There is no problem. I suspect my head is in about the same place.

The management was appropriate and your recognition of an unwell baby was spot on. The care delivered was quick and accurate. I can’t fault your care for either baby last week.
If there was anything I would have said so. Ariane knows you. Has there ever been a reason for you not to trust her?



LL: I can’t talk about this now.


LL: Sorry, that was rude. Felt completely overwhelmed and panicked for a minute. We all worked tirelessly and did everything possible.
I don’t see how anyone can question that . E has always been very supportive

Dr A: No it wasn’t rude it was unexpected and that’s never very nice. Okay now?

LL: I’m having a meltdown but think that’s what I need to do , anyway, I’ll be OK
You have enough on your plate too

Dr A: When I said it was unexpected, I meant the phone call There isn’t anything to question. You’ve already done what anyone with Neo-natal knowledge would do —look at the situation, look at the intervention, and look at the response
You didn’t give any drugs that haven’t been checked or made by anyone else
You didn’t delay any treatment and your suggestions were all perfectly appropriate
There is nothing that could have been done differently
E was a good manager when I was here last time
There isn’t a high staff turnover which suggests the unit is well run.
There is nothing to be gained by not addressing how your staff has been hit by an event.
You didn’t look well Sat. Maybe that was noticed.


LL: It’s just hit me a bit as was an unexpected call. If she had phoned earlier I wouldn’t have worried

So these messages were all taking place on June 27th.

Lucy then worked a series of day shifts ——the messages are between herself and Dr A---
The following conversation took place from around 1 am on July the 6th:

Dr A: You need to keep this to yourself. The meeting this afternoon looked at everything with baby O and baby P from birth onwards. We reviewed everything. Room/meds/medical reviews and actions. We looked at all documentation.
If you’ve any doubt about how good you are at your job STOP now.
The documentation was perfect. Everybody commented about the appropriateness of your request for a review of Baby O following vomit.
There is absolutely nothing for you to worry about. Please don’t.
There are going to be some recommendations based on staffing/kit he had nothing but good things to say about you.


LL: Okay. I really appreciate you telling me. It won’t go any further. I was one member of a huge team effort but you know I’ve been carrying the worry of the what if I wasn’t enough. It’s reassuring to hear that it doesn’t appear that anything could have been done differently
Or that I didn’t act on or do something that I should have , thank you


Dr A: I was invited to attend because SB and A thought it was good consultant preparation for me. There were a few questions which were easy to answer. I felt proud for both of us

LL: That’s good to hear. I’m glad you’ve had positive feedback too. You were fantastic. It was an awful situation but I wouldn’t have wanted anyone else to be there
I now feel confident thagt we did absolutely everything and it’s reassuring to know that the documentation reflects that.

Dr A: There was a liver capsule [?] haemorrhage in Baby O. It’s not considered by SB and A to be significant. There will be an inquest. We may have to attend

LL: Would he have died from that?
Dr A: I don’t think so. He collapsed. The liver on the 1st x-ray looked normal and looked abnormal on the 2nd x-ray but CPR was needed for something— it doesn’t explain why liver changed appearance
LL: Okay
Dr A: I wouldn’t have wanted anyone else but you to be looking after Baby O or Baby P
We do work well together


After this, Lucy Letby had a number of days off. On July 15th an email was sent to all the nurses on the Neo-natal unit , letting them know that as part of an external review, nurses would be subject to individual clinical supervision

In the email, Mrs Powell explained the supervisions would start with staff involved in many of the acute events and she said for that reason Lucy Letby had agreed to be the first to undergo the supervision.

The email goes on to say this is not meant to be a blame or a competency issue but a way forward to ensure our practice is safe.

Later that same day, Lucy messaged her friend and colleague ,we can’t name, on What’s App again. It begins with Lucy:


LL: I’ve done a timeline of this year
N: Fab
and how quite a few babies weren’t compatible with life anyway?
N: I wonder if midwives get this amount of still births?
LL: yeah and some went off within hours/on handover

N: yep
LL: Or, were already acutely unwell when I took over

N: Exactly

LL:And put that when baby Q went off no other staff able to care for him etc

N: not like all behaving fantastic, little writing ? to shift,

LL: Hoping to get as much info together as possible— if they have nothing or minimal on me, they’ll look silly , not me





Four days later, Lucy was no longer working on the ward. She’d starting working the Patient Experience Team on July 19th and then just over a month later she was moved to Risk and Patient Safety


An email sent by Mrs Powell to staff around 2:20 pm on the 9th of August


Offered opportunities for secondments and it mentioned Lucy Letby’s move. The email immediately prompted more messages between Lucy and the same nursing colleague:

LL: Bloody Hell, fumin…I’m in email and makes it sound like my choice.

N: Really?
LL: yeah, They’ve been able to facilitate me going for three months


Around a month later, on September 1st, the court heard, that Lucy attended a review meeting with her union rep and on Sept 7th she put in a formal grievance against the hospital.

Dr A:The management was appropriate and your recognition of an unwell baby was spot on. The care delivered was quick and accurate. I can’t fault your care for either baby last week.

Dr A: When I said it was unexpected, I meant the phone call There isn’t anything to question. You’ve already done what anyone with Neo-natal knowledge would do —look at the situation, look at the intervention, and look at the response
You didn’t give any drugs that haven’t been checked or made by anyone else
You didn’t delay any treatment and your suggestions were all perfectly appropriate
There is nothing that could have been done differently
E was a good manager when I was here last time
There isn’t a high staff turnover which suggests the unit is well run.
There is nothing to be gained by not addressing how your staff has been hit by an event.
You didn’t look well Sat. Maybe that was noticed.

Dr A:You need to keep this to yourself. The meeting this afternoon looked at everything with baby O and baby P from birth onwards.

We reviewed everything. Room/meds/medical reviews and actions. We looked at all documentation.
If you’ve any doubt about how good you are at your job STOP now.
The documentation was perfect. Everybody commented about the appropriateness of your request for a review of Baby O following vomit.
There is absolutely nothing for you to worry about. Please don’t.
There are going to be some recommendations based on staffing/kit he had nothing but good things to say about you.


The prosecution seems intent on getting these^^^^ texts in front of the jury. And I can see why.

Dr Choc is listing all these reasons why it makes no sense that these babies were collapsing:

You didn’t give any drugs that haven’t been checked or made by anyone else
You didn’t delay any treatment and your suggestions were all perfectly appropriate
There is nothing that could have been done differently

There isn’t a high staff turnover which suggests the unit is well run.
There is nothing to be gained by not addressing how your staff has been hit by an event.

We reviewed everything. Room/meds/medical reviews and actions. We looked at all documentation.
The documentation was perfect. Everybody commented about the appropriateness of your request for a review of Baby O following vomit.


Dr Choc is singlehandedly ^^^clearing out all of the explanations the defense is now trying to set forth.

Dr Choc is absolutely setting forth exactly WHY these collapses were making no sense. He is saying that Nurse Letby is a superior nurse, with excellent skills and meticulous documentation and appropriate reactions. He has no doubts that she is a highly qualified nurse.

How is Meyers going to respond to this?