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

[GoodDayToYouSir]

12:57pm

One of the searches was for a fundraising challenge, which Letby says would have been to raise money for hospital equipment, or for the new neonatal unit.
In July 2015, the total number of Facebook searches was 70. In August 2015, it was 175. The number of searches in September 2015 is 209.


This, to me, puts a whole different context to her FB searching parents of babies in the indictment. This makes it far more difficult to argue that the searches of families of babies in the charges is anything nefarious, IMO.

Over two hundred searches in one month alone!!!!

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, May 2 - defence begins

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

This is what I have been hoping to see in relation to these searches : some context. Is she a prolific searcher - or , to put it less charitably, a Facebook stalker of nearly anyone who crosses her path for more than a few moments - or did she (eg) conduct 10 searches in a particular month , 7 of which were in relation to victims’ parents?

 

[Sweeper2000]

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.

One way of seeing is if she typed each individual letter of the name, that would mean she had indeed remembered that name rather than it being suggested as part of the algorithm.

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

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?
J with

This is a murder trial. Not an unfair dismissal hearing.

I fail to see what bearing it has on the alleged crimes, other than to paint her as less-than-perfect - and we all know no one is perfect. But 'not perfect' and 'harming newborn babies' are worlds apart.

I just don't see how the Facebook searches tie in with the alleged attacks.

 

[ShireChe]

A victim of what though?

A victim of what though?

Well IF she were not found guilty I think there would be huge questions about depriving someone of their liberty for so long without trial.

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

One way of seeing is if she typed each individual letter of the name, that would mean she had indeed remembered that name rather than it being suggested as part of the algorithm.

You can see this on your own search data though, I just tested it and then checked my 'logged actions' in my settings. I clicked on a profile in the people you may know bit and facebook says 'You visited on Facebook- NAME OF PERSON' then I typed in a name into the search bar and clicked it, this was logged as 'You searched Facebook- NAME OF PERSON' and then a visit after I clicked their profile. It shows up differently on the search data and I assume the defence would say so if they were 'visits' from suggestions and not 'searches'.

 

[mummyshark]

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”.

Hmm, I'm afraid I don't agree. What was she looking for? What did she hope to see, or not to see? She must have gone to look at their page for a reason.

I have been in the exact opposite of this scenario - I searched for the NICU nurses on Facebook who looked after my daughter. I searched for them around her 1st birthday and it was a trauma response. The whole experience of being in NICU felt surreal and, although it was awful, I wanted to re-live it to try to make sense of it. I wanted to remember the names of the nurses to feel closer to that time because the trauma overruled everything. I wanted to go back to that time, mentally, to experience it differently because ultimately my daughter got better, came home and I felt that I'd missed out on the first months of her life by being in that fog. Now I know that LL is saying she has PTSD, but she's cited her arrest as the cause of that, not the deaths of the babies, so I don't see trauma as being a reason why she would have made these searches. So what was the reason?

 

[WaxLyrical]

This is a murder trial. Not an unfair dismissal hearing.

I fail to see what bearing it has on the alleged crimes, other than to paint her as less-than-perfect - and we all know no one is perfect. But 'not perfect' and 'harming newborn babies' are worlds apart.

I just don't see how the Facebook searches tie in with the alleged attacks.

I agree that the Facebook searches as evidence has been seriously undermined by the context of her normal Facebook habits. Obviously gross misconduct, but spending a few seconds looking at what appears to be dozens of patients does not fit in with the idea she was feeding of the grief of victims’ parents. I’ve said it before, but if she was looking for grief, she’d be searching these people much more frequently than she did. I believe that even more so now that I know she was constantly searching on fb.

Looks like she was just obsessively nosy.

JMO.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

To be honest, if she was writing things like ' maybe I did kill them, I don't know' this sounds like more than PTSD. It sounds like she was out of her mind and literally didn't know truth from reality. IMO.

I agree.

My view on those notes has always been that whether she is in fact innocent or guilty, they are written by someone in the middle of some kind of mental breakdown. Either that break down is because she has been wrongly accused of pretty much, the worst crime imaginable, or it is because she is guilty and the chickens are coming home to roost and the consequences of that are overwhelming to her.

The notes are inherently contradictory in that she simultaneously says “I haven’t done anything wrong” and “ I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough.”

I can certainly make credible arguments as to why the notes show she is guilty and equally credible arguments as to why the notes show she is innocent.

But when it comes down to it, I have no idea which bits represent the truth and which bits do not. Therefore, unless they are going to put either a professor of linguistics on the stand to explain to me how one is able to identify which statements are the truth, or/ as well as some kind of psychiatrist to provide a similar explanation, I am minded to disregard the notes as either evidence of guilt or innocence.

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

Well IF she were not found guilty I think there would be huge questions about depriving someone of their liberty for so long without trial.

I feel the same. However, as Marantz and Lady E have rightly pointed out, there is easily enough evidence to make a case of murder against ms. Letby. So all things considered, what other option is there? Simply cannot please everyone in such a situation.

 

[Sweeper2000]

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?

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.

so would that explain why she searched for the family of child e and f. Ie her memory is prompted by them returning to the ward without a baby on it? Would one possible implication be that she wouldn’t have searched for them had her memory not been jogged by them popping in every now and then? Ie if they didn’t refresh the staff’s memory of them would ll searches for them have tapered off like the rest? Ie would ll have forgo about them if they didn’t show up on the ward again? That’s what I mean by proximal. Ie ll is curious about people who are proximal to her and then when a amount of time goes by she eventually stops remembering them because she isn’t reminded of them? Which is in line with what everyone expects seemingly .

jmo

 

[Marantz4250b]

Hmm, I'm afraid I don't agree. What was she looking for? What did she hope to see, or not to see? She must have gone to look at their page for a reason.

I have been in the exact opposite of this scenario - I searched for the NICU nurses on Facebook who looked after my daughter. I searched for them around her 1st birthday and it was a trauma response. The whole experience of being in NICU felt surreal and, although it was awful, I wanted to re-live it to try to make sense of it. I wanted to remember the names of the nurses to feel closer to that time because the trauma overruled everything. I wanted to go back to that time, mentally, to experience it differently because ultimately my daughter got better, came home and I felt that I'd missed out on the first months of her life by being in that fog. Now I know that LL is saying she has PTSD, but she's cited her arrest as the cause of that, not the deaths of the babies, so I don't see trauma as being a reason why she would have made these searches. So what was the reason?

I really don't know but I think her basic personality has something to do with it; to me the huge amount of FB searching is exactly the same as what seems to be her "collecting" and "hoarding" mentality - the hand-over sheets, keeping all her training and uni stuff, the notes, etc. She even said herself that she has trouble getting rid of stuff and the FB searches seem to be a manifestation of that, quite frankly.

No expert and MOO, obvs.

 

[ShireChe]

I feel the same. However, as Marantz and Lady M have rightly pointed out, there is easily enough evidence to make a case of murder against ms. Letby. So all things considered, what other option is there? Simply cannot please everyone in such a situation.

I suppose it depends on where you draw the line on unreasonable delay. Would it be okay to keep someone for 2/5/10 years awaiting trial.

Anyway. This is digressing from the case so I'll leave it there

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

I really don't know but I think her basic personality has something to do with it; to me the huge amount of FB searching is exactly the same as what seems to be her "collecting" and "hoarding" mentality - the hand-over sheets, keeping all her training and uni stuff, the notes, etc. She even said herself that she has trouble getting rid of stuff and the FB searches seem to be a manifestation of that, quite frankly.

No expert and MOO, obvs.

I do wonder, if without the handover sheets and facebook searches as evidence, would this ever have made it to trial?
In the nicest possible way I hope so, if that makes sense.

 

[esther43]

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”.

Yes but why didn't she add them as friends?

 

[JosieJo]

Only just trying to catch up at the min ...but seems all as expected..saying pretty much what she said in her police interviews.
It takes balls to take the stand but many do
I'd imagine the prosecution will.not get on to her till later in the week

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

Yes but why didn't she add them as friends?

Because if she is not supposed to be searching them then she sure as heck isnt supposed to add them as friends either!

 

[JosieJo]

I do wonder, if without the handover sheets and facebook searches as evidence, would this ever have made it to trial?
In the nicest possible way I hope so, if that makes sense.

Of course it would ...babies were being purposely harmed by someone

 

[Becky53]

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 don’t buy it either but she could’ve consulted her dossier of handover sheets for information - would be easy seeing as it was only half full.
JMO

 

[JosieJo]

Regarding the Facebook searches ...searching many social friends and colleagues amongst baby's parents in the trial doesn't really alter anything
In order to mitigate the parents searches there would need to many parents not involved in the case ...

Parents of these children amongst many social contacts and staff is just as damning

 

[esther43]

Because if she is not supposed to be searching them then she sure as heck isnt supposed to add them as friends either!

Exactly. But still she breached this boundary, not just a bit but excessively. Given her apptitude for promotion and her desire to role model best practice, it begs the question as to why she let herself down in this way, similarly with the handover notes really... Imo