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

[ColourPurple]

Was that after someone else said to her "what on earth is going on" though ?

I think it was after Doc Choc had pondered whether it could be a virus in his messages to LL too. He said:

'I don't know what happened to Baby O and Baby P, and accept that the pm may not give any useful answers. I do wonder if they may have had had adenovirus – it's terrible in neonates/perinates. 'Baby Q is different. His behaviour is more bacterial…I wouldn't be surprised if he comes back positive'.

Lucy Letby harmed baby by 'pouring clear liquid down his throat'

Letby, 33, originally from Hereford, is on trial at Manchester Crown Court accused of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder a further 10 between June 2015 and June 2016.

www.dailymail.co.uk

'

 

[ColourPurple]

The point is that she knew an air embolus is dangerous and how to avoid it. That's all you need as a nurse.

True. She acknowledged:

'We were always told to make sure there was no air in a long line because that would be dangerous to patients."

and

"was aware that 'you just didn't want it going into the bloodstream'."

and then when told experts believed he had been injected with air, she left open the possibility that she had done it accidentally by saying:

'I didn't deliberately give him any air'.

But seems to have avoided acknowledging that she knew at the time that it could kill.

ETA the reason I think her failure to acknowledge that the harm an air embolism can cause is death, is important, is because by not acknowledging it, she leaves open the argument that, if guilty, she didn't intend to kill. That becomes particularly important when looking at the attempted murder charges (Though of course it could be argued that, if guilty, after Baby A's death she knew it could kill and that any further attacks were done with that intention)

All JMO if guilty etc.

 

[katydid23]

But that's casual chat with a colleague just after the events. By the time she was arrested the deaths had been extensively reviewed and nobody had an answer. Why would you think you could come up with one?

True. If innocent that would be true, if not, it was deflection all along.

 

[ColourPurple]

She seems to repeatedly answer with I didn't do anything "deliberately"

Yes. Clever wording if you suspect they have evidence that points towards you alone. eg being last to have used the long line just before the collapse, the only person with a baby when they collapsed etc

 

[Marantz4250b]

She did keep her answer rather short at a mere 'yes' when responding to whether it was bad luck. Guessing that if she went into it, she knows she would be opening a can of worms.

Why would you do anything other then answer the question in the simplest terms if you're being interviewed on suspicion of a major crime?

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think at one point LL did reference in a text the possibility of a virus going around and a link between that occuring and the potential deaths.
I wonder why she didn't mention that she was engaged with speculation around this?

Why would you if you're being interviewed on suspicion of murder?

 

[ColourPurple]

Why would you if you're being interviewed on suspicion of murder?

Because why lie if you did speculate? it's not a crime, and you just look like a liar when they then produce texts showing that you did speculate.

 

[Marantz4250b]

That she didn't know what harm it could cause. ie she didn't know it could kill? I'd say that's common knowledge even outside medical circles.

Hmmm....we are back to this issue of accuracy of reporting. The report says:

She claimed not to know what harm an air embolism might actually cause, but was aware that 'you just didn't want it going into the bloodstream'.

The first part before the comma is paraphrasing by the reporter, they aren't her exact words. The ones in quotes are.

Did she really not know what harm an air embolism might cause or is that just an incorrect recounting of what's been said? Was it that she actually meant that she didn't have a detailed knowledge of how an AE could cause damage, the amount needed to do so, etc?

 

[Tortoise]

I think it's just crap reporting. The interview dates are of supreme importance so I think that they just aren't being reported accurately enough. I cannot believe that the prosecution are just randomly throwing together quotes from interviews potentially a couple or more years apart.

we've got our answer in the Mail report

Jurors were taken through a summary of numerous interviews Letby gave Cheshire Police following her original arrest in July 2018.

Letby admits she was 'frustrated' before death of baby she 'murdered'

 

[Marantz4250b]

I get the impression from this they’re asking her the specifics/mechanics of an air embolism, and that’s what she doesn’t know, which is fair as is seems like very few do. JMO

Yes, I wish I'd seen your post before my previous. I think that's what she meant. Lets face it, they've had to call expert witnesses to testify as to AE, how it works and how the volume and speed of admission might impact its effect.

 

[JosieJo]

Just goes to show how things get mis-reported. We all thought she said she didn't know what an air embolism was. Wrong. What she said about it was perfectly reasonable.

Although I agree it was totally misrepresented that she didn't know what an air embolus was ..she describes it and knows its dangerous..I'm not sure I'd agree with her not knowing more.

A nurse would know that any type of embolus blocks arteries and prevents blood flow and is potentially deadly not just dangerous

 

[ColourPurple]

Hmmm....we are back to this issue of accuracy of reporting. The report says:

She claimed not to know what harm an air embolism might actually cause, but was aware that 'you just didn't want it going into the bloodstream'.

The first part before the comma is paraphrasing by the reporter, they aren't her exact words. The ones in quotes are.

Did she really not know what harm an air embolism might cause or is that just an incorrect recounting of what's been said? Was it that she actually meant that she didn't have a detailed knowledge of how an AE could cause damage, the amount needed to do so, etc?

That's one interpretation but I think the fact that she doesn't appear to have acknowledged that the harm it can cause is death is important.

I added this to an earlier post:

The reason I think her failure to acknowledge that the harm an air embolism can cause is death, is important, is because by not acknowledging it, she leaves open the argument that, if guilty, she didn't intend to kill. That becomes particularly important when looking at the attempted murder charges (Though of course it could be argued that, if guilty, after Baby A's death she knew it could kill and that any further attacks were done with that intention)

 

[Marantz4250b]

She seems to repeatedly answer with I didn't do anything "deliberately"

It does sound somewhat unusual but, as before, I'm not sure any of us would be able to say how exactly they'd answer questions when interviewed on suspicion of murder.

Also, when you think about it, if she genuinely has doubts as to her performance as a nurse - as expressed in her notes "I'm not good enough" - then these answers don't seem all that unusual.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Because why lie if you did speculate? it's not a crime, and you just look like a liar when they then produce texts showing that you did speculate.

She didn't lie, though. She was asked directly if she knew what caused the collapse. Speculation is speculation, not knowledge.

Well, I mean if she's guilty then she did know what caused it. If she's not guilty then she didn't lie to the question.

 

[ColourPurple]

She didn't lie, though. She was asked directly if she knew what caused the collapse. Speculation is speculation, not knowledge.

Well, I mean if she's guilty then she did know what caused it. If she's not guilty then she didn't lie to the question.

I was referring to when police asked her about the spike in deaths in June 2015 and whether anybody, including her, had questioned it either to the hospital or to other colleagues. She said no. Text messages show a conversation where her colleague was questioning it and she responded with her opinion (some may call it speculation) of what had caused the deaths in June.


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

 

[Marantz4250b]

we've got our answer in the Mail report

Jurors were taken through a summary of numerous interviews Letby gave Cheshire Police following her original arrest in July 2018.

Letby admits she was 'frustrated' before death of baby she 'murdered'

That article is very revealing. As regards the FB searches; the earlier articles gave the distinct impression that she did not recall making them. This one makes it clear that she doesn't recall what she was looking for! That puts an entirely different light on these searches which is far less sinister or creepy.

I have to say that I'm quite surprised at how well she handles herself in these interviews. When I first heard of this case I imagined a rather shy young woman who would be in absolute bits in a police interview. She seems to be quite the opposite, though.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Although I agree it was totally misrepresented that she didn't know what an air embolus was ..she describes it and knows its dangerous..I'm not sure I'd agree with her not knowing more.

A nurse would know that any type of embolus blocks arteries and prevents blood flow and is potentially deadly not just dangerous

Depends on what the specific question put to her was and how she perceived it. We can't judge unless we know what it was - the reporting on the specific details has been wrong in so many instances that it's impossible to judge without specifics.

 

[katydid23]

Lucy Letby told police three baby deaths in fortnight ‘bad luck’

NURSE Lucy Letby said it was “bad luck” that three babies died in a fortnight while she was on duty, her murder trial has heard.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Letby, 33, was asked by detectives to explain the “spike” of fatalities at the Countess of Chester Hospital in June 2015 when she was first arrested three years later.

In police interviews read at Manchester Crown Court on Thursday, April 20, 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.”

“Yes,” replied Letby. “You just have to find a way to deal with it, do the job and provide the care that we give.”

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 said: “Why didn’t you question the spike?”

Letby said: “In a formal way? Because I didn’t feel like anything needed to be looked into, it was just a shock for everybody.”

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.




I think this ^^^ extra information puts a different light on it---She didn't question where the spike in deaths was coming from----

The detective said: “Why didn’t you question the spike?”

Letby said: “In a formal way? Because I didn’t feel like anything needed to be looked into, it was just a shock for everybody.”


She had seen 3 babies under her care collapse and die unexpectedly , back to back to back---wouldn't that call for someone to look into why?

 

[marynnu]

I was referring to when police asked her about the spike in deaths in June 2015 and whether anybody, including her, had questioned it either to the hospital or to other colleagues. She said no. Text messages show a conversation where her colleague was questioning it and she responded with her opinion (some may call it speculation) of what had caused the deaths in June.


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

My feeling is that by 'questioning' she took it to mean whether she, or anyone else, thought there was anything suspicious which needed investigating. Speculating as to reasons is different.

'Letby, 33, claimed that neither she nor other staff had questioned what had caused the 'spike' of three deaths and one near-death on the neonatal unit in the single month of June eight years ago.
.... Backing up why she did not question the spike in deaths, she added: 'I didn't think there was maybe anything to be looked into. It was just a shock for everybody.'

 

[katydid23]

That article is very revealing. As regards the FB searches; the earlier articles gave the distinct impression that she did not recall making them. This one makes it clear that she doesn't recall what she was looking for! That puts an entirely different light on these searches which is far less sinister or creepy.

I have to say that I'm quite surprised at how well she handles herself in these interviews. When I first heard of this case I imagined a rather shy young woman who would be in absolute bits in a police interview. She seems to be quite the opposite, though.

I disagree---she did say she didn't recall making the searches:


The court heard Letby made 10 searches on her Facebook account for the boys’ parents between August 6, 2015 and January 10, 2016, including Christmas Day.

Letby told detectives she did not remember making the searches but it could be to “see how babies were doing” and that members of staff “cared for the babies”.