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

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

The vast majority of nurses don’t. I have only encountered one or two who have done something like this and those who have witnessed them doing so have reported it or advised them of their professional conduct. It is a serious can of worms that most nurses are aware of. But aside from the hundreds of searches she also then had all this astonishing amount of confidential information in her home.

Let us focus on this for a moment if you will; whether she is innocent (or not), this is the very reason why nurses are told and taught repeatedly about this. Because of messes like this.

Now, add that to all the other evidence we have heard thus far. I have to say, personally, it is not looking good at all regardless of guilt.
JMO

If innocent, she has got herself in a heck of a pickle, to say the least.

But you take my point? Out of the minority of nurses who also do Facebook searches of patients, parents etc. none of them are necessarily harming babies, or patients, are they? This is the balance we are working with. <modsnip - sub judice>

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

Yes, but she's not been wrongfully arrested has she, as there is clearly authority to justify her arrest and detention, and subsequent trial.

That's fair.

I suppose the question, then, should be - would you not expect someone to consider themself a victim until after they had been cleared of all charges? Because that just doesnt seem realistic to me, personally. I'm not convinced anyone has the capacity to process feelings in such a way.

 

[Marantz4250b]

That is incorrect. Nurses are advised about this all the time and it has huge consequences including fitness to practice meetings. Searching patients and adding to that harvesting dozens and dozens of confidential patient information is likely to have action taken against you, simialr to what we are hearing.
Even if innocent; THIS is exactly why healthcare professionals are told NOT to do this because of the serious implications it can have.

But being unprofessional is not, of itself, evidence of murder. If the searches has been exclusively, or almost exclusively, about parents of patients then there might be some point to mentioning them. As there is there seems to be little relevance to them.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Is it a fact that she spent mere seconds on every search? I don't think it is? We know she made a lot of searches, but not how long she spent looking at each profile as far as i'm aware.

in all the reports about the fb searches there are numerous searches within minutes of each other. All of them As far as I can remember. The quotes today include hundreds of searches in a single month. That information suggests to me that she is just fb scanning and only paying very brief attention to any individual search.

there are some more indicative searches, i think she searched for one family after suspension.

 

[esther43]

Letby says it would not be unusual for her to make several searches in a few minutes on somebody on Facebook. "That would be normal for me".

Nine searches in 9 minutes sounds bizarre to me. That looks like someone who is looking for something in particular....

If you were browsing surely, you'd have a good scroll through?

But then given that these were 'duplicate' searches, perhaps she didn't need much scroll time because she was just checking to see if anything new had been added since the last time she looked.

 

[Marantz4250b]

If so then perhaps she shouldn’t be working in this field then. You simply cannot be storing up confidential patient information like this, searching up dozens of patients, their families etc. whether she had an obsession or not, she would have known this is a huge no-no. I don’t think people seem to understand this.
Moo

I perfectly understand it. It was unprofessional, possibly grossly unprofessional warranting dismissal.

I'm failing to see its relevance to this particular murder case though. It's not evidence of anything criminal, as far as I can see.

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

That's fair.

I suppose the question, then, should be - would you not expect someone to consider themself a victim until after they had been cleared of all charges? Because that just doesnt seem realistic to me, personally. I'm not convinced anyone has the capacity to process feelings in such a way.

She may think of herself as a victim, she's not actually one though is my point, and we shouldn't consider her one unless we see actual proof she has been set-up or mistreated. I certainly don't consider her a victim.

Yes it's probably horrible to be in jail for such a long time, and to be accused of these crimes, even if she's found innocent her life will be changed forever. But what's the alternative? Don't ever investigate or arrest anyone in case it hurts their feelings? Allow people accused of multiple child murders to be out on bail, where no doubt they'd be in great danger from lunatics who would want to attack her?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Would you not describe someone that has been subjected to wrongful arrest, as the victim of wrongful arrest? Just curious

It's not wrongful arrest, though. Arresting an innocent person is not automatically wrongful.

 

[marynnu]

But being unprofessional is not, of itself, evidence of murder. If the searches has been exclusively, or almost exclusively, about parents of patients then there might be some point to mentioning them. As there is there seems to be little relevance to them.

It's a bit more than just unprofessional, IMO. These are bereaved parents. Would you go looking on FB for your neighbours whose child had just died? I bet you wouldn't. And what would you think of someone that did? I'd be thinking it was inappropriate and creepy, to be honest.
All JMO.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Child E & F died in 2015, she was still searching their parents on FB in 2016

Letby searched for the mum and dad of Child E and Child F on Facebook nine times in the following months, the vast majority for the mother. The first of the searches was on August 6 at 7.58pm, and one of the searches is at 11.26pm on December 25.
The final two searches were made in January 2016, the last on January 10 at 11.03pm.

I simply don't believe she doesn't remember, as she remembered the mothers name to search it multiple times over months.

I would need to see information that suggests she did indeed search for that name in particular and wasn’t part of a group of searches or a suggestion by fb memory algorithm ie searches made as part of what is proximal to her.

 

[Sundial]

If innocent, she has got herself in a heck of a pickle, to say the least.

But you take my point? Out of the minority of nurses who also do Facebook searches of patients, parents etc. none of them are necessarily harming babies, or patients, are they? This is the balance we are working with. <modsnip - sub judice>

Respectfully, No sorry, I can’t take your point.

Thats because of those who “do” this are warned along the lines that if they were called into fitness to practice meetings these panels may take a view that one is considering an intention of harm, breaching confidential information, abusing vulnerable patients etc. The list is endless. These panels don’t know *what* you’re intending to do with these documents or searching for. That’s exactly why you don’t do it. Because there may be an assumption.

I have known people attend these very panels because they cannot adhere to basic ethics of professional conduct. They do not like being told it is odd, weird, unprofessional etc.

She would have known all this. Educated, qualified, additional training, fundraising, bought a house etc. It’s a simple, serious line that you don’t keep crossing over as a healthcare professional.
She is the one on trial, not others. Now if you would for a moment; group all of the searches, documents found at her home, all the evidence heard, medical explanations, parents witness testimonies and some of those from her colleagues. How is any of that usual?
JMO

 

[mummyshark]

in all the reports about the fb searches there are numerous searches within minutes of each other. All of them As far as I can remember. The quotes today include hundreds of searches in a single month. That information suggests to me that she is just fb scanning and only paying very brief attention to any individual search.

there are some more indicative searches, i think she searched for one family after suspension.

What would be the point of the search then? What could she have determined in a matter of seconds? I find it odd that she would just casually search for parents of babies who died on the unit to only pay very brief attention. What would be the objective?

 

[Sweeper2000]

It's a bit more than just unprofessional, IMO. These are bereaved parents. Would you go looking on FB for your neighbours whose child had just died? I bet you wouldn't. And what would you think of someone that did? I'd be thinking it was inappropriate and creepy, to be honest.
All JMO.

One wouldn’t need to fb search for anyone in direct proximity to themselves whereas if one has a interest in someone who is far away fb and the like are the only way to gain any insight. Jmo

 

[marynnu]

I would need to see information that suggests she did indeed search for that name in particular and wasn’t part of a group of searches or a suggestion by fb memory algorithm ie searches made as part of what is proximal to her.

Pardon?

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Bolded all snipped, copied and pasted by me. Sorry for the extra long post incoming….

She said when she found the allegations against her 'sickening'. 'I just couldn’t believe it, it was devastating', she said

After she became aware of the allegations in September 2016 she said 'I went to my GP, I wasn’t sleeping, I wasn’t eating had a complete change in my whole life. I was started on some antidepressants which I remain on now'

Ms Letby said over the last few years there has been 'times when I didn’t want to live'. She said her 'job was her life' and that she 'can't put in to words' the impact the accusations have had on her

She tells the court she was told she was being charged with murder and attempted murder and taken away in her pyjamas. After this first arrest she was released on bail - part of her bail conditions was that she couldn't return to her home, so she moved in with parents

It was just the most, the scariest thing I've ever been through…it didn’t happen once, twice and a third time…it’s just traumatising', she said

She said she has been diagnosed with PTSD following the arrests and receives psychological support. She says it takes her one hour and a half to get to court from where she is currently being held. She gets up at 5.30am and gets back at 7pm

re: 'I am an awful person...', Letby said at the time she did feel an awful person as she was worried she had made any mistakes.
She said she was being taken away from the job she loved for things she had not done.
She adds, at the time, she could not see a future for herself, in relation to 'I'll never children or marry'.
She says "my whole situation felt hopeless, at times".


11:00am

Re: 'HATE' and 'Hate myself for what this has' - "At the time, I did hate myself".
She says she was made to feel incompetent in some way.
She says her mental health at the time of writing this note was "poor".
She says it was "difficult", with the "isolation I felt", and this lasted "two years".

Re: 'I killed them on purpose because I am not good enough to care for them, I am a horrible evil person'.
Asked what she means by that note, Letby responds: "I [felt as though I] hadn't been good enough and in some way I had failed [in my duties, my competencies]...that was insinuated to me."
Re: 'I AM EVIL I DID THIS' - "I felt at the time if I had done something wrong, I must have been an awful person..."
Letby says she feared she may have been "incompetent" and because of that, she had "harmed those babies".
She adds she could not understand "why this happened to me".
She says, looking back, she was "really struggling" at the time of writing the note.

When asked how many babies she had cared for during the period in question, she says: "Probably hundreds."
Myers, Letby's defence barrister, goes on to ask her: "And did you care for them?", to which she replies "yes".
She is then asked if she ever wanted to hurt any baby.
"No that’s completely against what being a nurse is, I only wanted to help and to care for them," she says.
She is then asked how she felt when she was taken off duty.
"I was distraught... It was life changing. I was put into a non-clinical role which I didn't enjoy... from a self confidence point of view it made me question everything about myself."

Posted at 10:4810:48

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Myers is asking Letby how she felt when she learnt what she was being accused of.
"It was sickening, I just couldn't believe it. It was devastating," she says, adding: "I don't think you can be accused of anything worse than that. I just changed as a person. My mental health deteriorated. I felt very isolated."

Lucy Letby is crying in the witness box.
She says "my job was my life" and "my whole world was stopped".
She is still crying.

Asked how hard it is to cope "with what you're being accused of", Letby says "everything has changed".
"Everything about me, my hopes for the future, has changed... I've been remanded in prison since November 2020. I've been in four different prisons."

He asks her how she feels as she is being asked about the arrests and the note (see our previous posts), to which she responds: "It's uncomfortable for me. I'm a very private person."


Bolded is some of the testimony from LL so far. So far we have a lot of ME ME ME and I I I. The only reference she makes to the babies is as ‘those babies’.

HER life, HER mental health, HER future, HER career,
HER world has stopped. Yet there are 7 lots of parents who’s babies are dead. And she has been accused of killing them, along with seriously harming many more. Maybe she will move on to say some actual heartfelt comments about the babies, except she says it’s sickening and the worst thing to be accused of as a nurse, but that’s pretty much it. The rest is all about poor Lucy, making a 3 hour round trip for court, being arrested in her pyjamas and how she now suffers with her mental health. But none of this is relevant to her actions during June 2015- 2016.

Her explanation of the notes is deflecting at best and falls flat IMO. It’s a given that whether innocent or guilty you would be very depressed in prison, but it isn’t relevant to whether you did or did not do the things you are being accused of. I have a feeling that once it’s the prosecutions turn she is going to answer ‘I don’t recall’ ‘can’t remember’ ‘have no recollection’ of a lot of the incriminating evidence. Such as why exactly did she write a note apologising to one of the triplets aswel as to their parents on their birthday (the today is your birthday note) aswell as saying she doesn’t know if anyone else will remember them? What a strange thing to say!

I’m guessing Myers will gloss over alot of the incriminating stuff and ask her lots of questions she can easily answer or deflect. Crying and wiping her eyes with tissue over HER life being destroyed when the parents of tiny babies she is accused of murdering are watching this. I’m floored. Court is only 2 days this week aswell is this to ‘allow her time to recover’ from giving evidence?

Sorry for the extra long post but all I’m seeing is a lot of self pity and everything is about how Lucy has been affected, but not adding anything about how devastated the parents must be, or the fact babies will never live to have their first day at school never mind have a career, get married or have children!

All MOO

She’s answering the questions put to her in the order they are put to her. I’m sure she’s been advised to keep her answers confined to the question being asked and not to go off on tangents.

She will no doubt be asked how she feels about the parents/babies and , whether she is guilty or not, I’m certain she will give an answer expressing sympathy for them .

 

[Lammergeier]

I would need to see information that suggests she did indeed search for that name in particular and wasn’t part of a group of searches or a suggestion by fb memory algorithm ie searches made as part of what is proximal to her.

I’ve been thinking this for ages too because of the unusualness of making so many searches regularly. I know the prosecution and defence have both accepted the data but I work in tech and can easily see how other things (e.g. suggestions) might end up being erroneously classified as ‘searches’. Which would also explain why she doesn’t remember. I would love to see the raw data.

 

[ColourPurple]

I perfectly understand it. It was unprofessional, possibly grossly unprofessional warranting dismissal.

I'm failing to see its relevance to this particular murder case though. It's not evidence of anything criminal, as far as I can see.

Searching for the parents of babies you are accused of murdering, at times on anniverseries like their deaths, at times going from one alleged victim to the next in quick succession is relevant. Sure, it's not evidence of anything criminal in itself, and it wouldn't have been enough on its own to charge her with anything, and the charges would IMO still have been brought without this information, but it's relevant to the case nonetheless.

IMO

 

[Jazmania]

I perfectly understand it. It was unprofessional, possibly grossly unprofessional warranting dismissal.

I'm failing to see its relevance to this particular murder case though. It's not evidence of anything criminal, as far as I can see.

It's relevant because the jury are being asked to consider how likely it is that the one person who was on duty for all of these medically unexplained deaths and collapses also has an obsessional, and extremely unusual, interest in the babies and parents of babies in her care. By itself it is next to nothing, but in combination with other evidence it is very relevant.

 

[Sweeper2000]

What would be the point of the search then? What could she have determined in a matter of seconds? I find it odd that she would just casually search for parents of babies who died on the unit to only pay very brief attention. What would be the objective?

You only need to spend a few seconds on someone’s fb profile to see all the most recent posts. If she is just mildly curious just looking at the most recent post would satiate that curiosity. I would be much much more concerned if she spent a long time scrolling through every picture and every friend on that profile. In a phrase “just touching base” “ just checking In”.

 

[marynnu]

One wouldn’t need to fb search for anyone in direct proximity to themselves whereas if one has a interest in someone who is far away fb and the like are the only way to gain any insight. Jmo

The parents of Babies A&B and E&F weren't far away, were they. They were still visiting the unit after one of their babies died.
And why would you have an interest anyway?