UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #19

[marynnu]

It’s strange isn’t it because I totally agree. But even where I am there are dozens of nurses coming out of NNU and ITU etc all arrive and leave in their uniform. It shouldn’t happen in these environments but it actually does.
In my experience. I’ve seen them doing it.

Makes no difference to the case though, does it!

 

[Sundial]

As far as I understand it a barrister/KC is under an equal duty to the court as they are to their client. If they know that someone is not telling the truth then they are duty bound to do something about it.

I get that, but what I’m saying is; even if he doesn’t know for definite if she’s innocent and she says xyz to him, his role is is to defend her. Hence why I said, she could say whatever she wanted (in a roundabout way) even if it wasn’t true. If she’s said I didn’t do it on purpose and I just meant xyz (even if that isn’t true); it’s his responsibility to ensure she is released.
Moo

 

[katydid23]

We're back after a short break, Ben Myers KC is continuing to ask Ms Letby about the various tasks that had to be undertaken by nursing staff at the Countess of Chester

Court is being shown a blood gas record for Child Q - Ms Letby is being asked what goes into filling in a chart like that (she is talking through the process of taking the reading)

Ms Letby is asked to what extent nurses assist each other on the unit, she said 'you're always working with another person when doing anything to do with medication or fluids'

Ms Letby says, about the June 2015-June 2016 period, that the unit was 'noticeably busier' and that there was 'a lot more' babies with 'complex needs'. She said staffing levels weren't changed to reflect this

Ms Letby is asked if nurses could request specific babies to care for, she says 'generally no', but said if you were working a run of shifts, you might be designated a baby to maintain continuity of care

Ms Letby is asked what impact the death of a baby on the unit has, she says 'it effects everyone'. She said there is a 'noticeable change in atmosphere' on the unit

She said there was no formal support offered, staff just leant on each other - asked how she coped with losing a child on the unit, she said she used a method that she learned at Liverpool Women's Hospital

She said 'they encourage that if you lose a baby you go back into that unit as soon as possible, as a way of processing things, don’t ruminate on that one particular baby being in that place', she said

You have to carry on and have to be professional for the other babies you're caring for', she added

Mr Myers KC asks Ms Letby what a 'memory box' is - this was given to bereaved parents after they lost a child on the unit. The boxes are provided by a charity and enable nurses/staff to take hand and frontprints, lock of hair for them to keep

Ms Letby helped make up several boxes for parents in this case

Usually after the death of a child, there is a debrief with doctors and nurses. She said these events were 'very upsetting', she added: 'You don’t forget things like that they stay with you'

Ms Letby is asked about colleagues at the hospital, she lists a number of people she was friends with on the unit. She is asked about one doctor in particular, who cannot be named for legal reasons

Ms Letby said the pair would go for walks, meals, coffees together and he would sometimes come to her house - she said he was a 'trusted friend', but said it wasn't anything more than a friendship

The doctor moved to another hospital in 2016 and Ms Letby said they they stayed in touch until 2018, when the friendship 'fizzled out'

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

Her defence barrister Ben Myers KC also asked about Facebook searches carried out for the parents of children in this case and others. She said she was "always on my phone" and would carry out searches for parents, colleagues and others "out of general curiosity".


A document, which summarises Ms Letby's Facebook searches, is now being shown to the court - these are agreed between defence and prosecution

t shows a fuller picture of her searches, so for example in June 2015 she searched for the parent of a child at Liverpool Women's, then the mother of Child A, then a doctor on the unit and then other social searches all within minutes of each other

In the month of June 2015, Ms Letby made a total of 113 Facebook searches for parents, staff and other social things. She says that was 'just normal behaviour for me', she added 'It’s general curiosity…we do a lot on our phones, I would out of interest look up a lot of people'



Dan O'Donoghue


Court now breaking for lunch, back at 2pm

 

[Jazmania]

Yes, I totally understand that. Being unprofessional in that regard is not evidence of murder, though.

The sheer number of searches, to me, seriously undermines the assertion that they constitute evidence of these crimes. The implication by the prosecution, surely, was that she did them for some sort of personal gain, thrill or need to feed off people's grief. The implication is that that is something highly unusual. The fact that one month alone contained over 200 searches and other months were well over 100 seems to show that FB searching people was a very common activity for her and absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.

It does beg the question of why she didn't say this in her original police interviews however. When questioned she said she didn't remember Facebook searching any parents, and could offer no explanation as to why she had.

Now on the stand she is saying she does remember searching for victims families in general, and did so out of 'curiosity'.

 

[notsure]

It does beg the question of why she didn't say this in her original police interviews however. When questioned she said she didn't remember Facebook searching any parents, and could offer no explanation as to why she had.

Now on the stand she is saying she does remember searching for victims families in general, and did so out of 'curiosity'.

Given the number of Facebook searches she did on a regular basis, there's no wonder she didn't remember them all. She remembers them retrospectively, because she has been told she made those specific searches. All of the searches would of course be 'out of curiosity.' What other reason could there be?

 

[WaxLyrical]

It does beg the question of why she didn't say this in her original police interviews however. When questioned she said she didn't remember Facebook searching any parents, and could offer no explanation as to why she had.

Now on the stand she is saying she does remember searching for victims families in general, and did so out of 'curiosity'.

We’ve only heard such tiny snippets from the c30 police interviews, I highly doubt anything she’s saying here is at odds with what she told police. If pressed on why a certain family was ‘on her mind’. JMO.

 

[Sundial]

Yes, I totally understand that. Being unprofessional in that regard is not evidence of murder, though.

The sheer number of searches, to me, seriously undermines the assertion that they constitute evidence of these crimes. The implication by the prosecution, surely, was that she did them for some sort of personal gain, thrill or need to feed off people's grief. The implication is that that is something highly unusual. The fact that one month alone contained over 200 searches and other months were well over 100 seems to show that FB searching people was a very common activity for her and absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.

It is part of the whole picture though and I don’t think you can take these pieces in isolation alone. I didn’t say however that it was evidence of murder, more so that she has abused her position and it needs to be asked *why*

Why is she searching for dozens of people who are her patients?

From those dozens of searches she also had DOZENS of confidential patient information in her home, organised in folders whilst also claimed she did not know how to dispose of them. She recognised they should be in confidential waste and yet the shredder was retired in another room, seemingly working with bank statements found in it.

She also has not lost the use of her hands to burn, return them on next shifts or just basically destroy them. She is an educated women who has breeched the profession and what it is to be a nurse. She would know all that, but ignored it anyway, so why?

Whether that points to innocence or guilt will remain to be seen, but we cannot simply look the other way and ignore this or take it in isolation when we should be looking at the case a whole in its whole entirely.
JMO

 

[Jazmania]

Given the number of Facebook searches she did on a regular basis, there's no wonder she didn't remember them all. She remembers them retrospectively, because she has been told she made those specific searches. All of the searches would of course be 'out of curiosity.' What other reason could there be?

But my point is that in her interviews she said she didn't remember searching any parents of victims on Facebook. So not just not remembering specific ones, but not remembering searching for parents. And at the time she did not say she did so out of curiosity, she said she didn't know why she had searched for them. It suggests she has come up with this explanation more recently.

 

[Sundial]

It does beg the question of why she didn't say this in her original police interviews however. When questioned she said she didn't remember Facebook searching any parents, and could offer no explanation as to why she had.

Now on the stand she is saying she does remember searching for victims families in general, and did so out of 'curiosity'.

And when interviewed her memory would have been “fresher” knowing why she had done so.
IMO

 

[marynnu]

Regarding the huge amount of FB searches, for me looking for bereaved parents is still crossing a red line, whether she searched for 20 people or 200. And just a few hours after one death (Baby A I think)? It just doesn't sit well. JMO.

 

[ColourPurple]

Given the number of Facebook searches she did on a regular basis, there's no wonder she didn't remember them all. She remembers them retrospectively, because she has been told she made those specific searches. All of the searches would of course be 'out of curiosity.' What other reason could there be?

Well "curiosity" is a catch all term that covers pretty much everything.

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

The Facebook searches are of no signicance, imo.

They are being blown way out of proportion, they are just simple Facebook searches that most people in their mid twenties and a Facebook account might make. Literally nothing incriminating about them. JMO

 

[Jazmania]

We’ve only heard such tiny snippets from the c30 police interviews, I highly doubt anything she’s saying here is at odds with what she told police. If pressed on why a certain family was ‘on her mind’. JMO.

I think two things strike me as being at odds with her police interviews so far. One the timing of the 'not good enough' note. At the time she said she wrote it around July 2016 after being taken off clinical duties and seconded. Now she is saying she can't remember when she wrote it, but it was sometime between July 2016 to her arrest in 2018. That's key, because her her reactions of saying 'I'm an evil horrible person', or 'I will never have a family' and 'Police investigation' seem very extreme if written around July 2016.

Second the recollection of the Facebook searches. At the police interviews she had no recollection of making any and no reason for it. Now she recalls generally regularly searching for parents of babies in her care.

 

[Marantz4250b]

It does beg the question of why she didn't say this in her original police interviews however. When questioned she said she didn't remember Facebook searching any parents, and could offer no explanation as to why she had.

Now on the stand she is saying she does remember searching for victims families in general, and did so out of 'curiosity'.

Yes, a very valid question to ask.

Did she say she didn't remember searching "any parents" or just specific ones she was asked about? If the former then it's perhaps not too believably but if the later then it sounds reasonable, especially if you are making multiple hundreds of searches each month.

I don't know the answer, to be honest. All I can suggest is perhaps embarrassment given the sheer number of searches, not to mention the fact that it's probably professionally a highly dubious thing to be doing - I mean it's kinda weird to me. Then again, I'm not, and have never been, a 25 year old woman who seems to live on her phone so perhaps it's very common among that demographic? I wouldn't be at all surprised, to be honest.

 

[ColourPurple]

And when interviewed her memory would have been “fresher” knowing why she had done so.
IMO

Especially as one was only a few months before her first interview. Thankfully she's remembered now years later though. Curiosity!

 

[ShireChe]

A victim of what? If she's found innocent it doesn't mean she was set up and used as a scapegoat.

I don't think she was specifically 'set up' or 'scapegoated' but I very much think that someone found innocent, but having been held in jail for a few years would be a victim.

 

[Sundial]

Regarding the huge amount of FB searches, for me looking for bereaved parents is still crossing a red line, whether she searched for 20 people or 200. And just a few hours after one death (Baby A I think)? It just doesn't sit well. JMO.

I actually had a discussion some years back with a senior colleague about this; another member of staff was searching a showing other colleagues random stuff of patients etc on social media. Exactly like this.
I think people need to understand how distasteful and unprofessional this is. I have known people be held in fitness to practice meetings over things like this and it is widely frowned upon.

Nurses know this. They have been warned numerous times over the years about this very thing and she would be aware of that. It’s a huge red flag to behave this way.

 

[ColourPurple]

The Facebook searches are of no signicance, imo.

They are being blown way out of proportion, they are just simple Facebook searches that most people in their mid twenties and a Facebook account might make. Literally nothing incriminating about them. JMO

And the fact that some are done on anniversaries like a baby's death is simply coincidence I guess...

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

I don't think she was specifically 'set up' or 'scapegoated' but I very much think that someone found innocent, but having been held in jail for a few years would be a victim.

Not to mention the nature of the crimes being alledged.

How could anyone be put through that and not become filled with resentment?

 

[Marantz4250b]

It is part of the whole picture though and I don’t think you can take these pieces in isolation alone. I didn’t say however that it was evidence of murder, more so that she has abused her position and it needs to be asked *why*

Why is she searching for dozens of people who are her patients?

From those dozens of searches she also had DOZENS of confidential patient information in her home, organised in folders whilst also claimed she did not know how to dispose of them. She recognised they should be in confidential waste and yet the shredder was retired in another room, seemingly working with bank statements found in it.

She also has not lost the use of her hands to burn, return them on next shifts or just basically destroy them. She is an educated women who has breeched the profession and what it is to be a nurse. She would know all that, but ignored it anyway, so why?

Whether that points to innocence or guilt will remain to be seen, but we cannot simply look the other way and ignore this or take it in isolation when we should be looking at the case a whole in its whole entirely.
JMO

She's on trial for murder though and the prosecution have entered the searches as evidence against her as evidence to support their case of multiple murders.

I'm not expert but the huge number of searches along with all the other stuff like the notes she wrote and hoarding hand over sheets does seem to paint the picture of someone who has some significant obsessional disorder. Not that I'm an expert but I don't really see any rational explanation for it. I'm not convinced that any of that is evidence of murder, to be honest.