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

[JosieJo]

The prosecution didn’t suggest it was a lie though, it wasn’t called into question at all, so why would BM bring it up?

I'd have thought in the same way BM brought up the the "many" other Facebook searches.

 

[marynnu]

I find the prosecution’s case compelling, but I’ll tell you where the seed of doubt is for me.

These babies’ deaths were not considered suspicious, despite post mortems and debriefs. And even despite a few voices expressing concern internally, the majority dismissed those concerns outright. So they looked retrospectively for foul play, and they’ve found it.

So the question for me is whether, were they to apply the same level of retrospective scrutiny to other premature deaths across the country, might they come across similar findings. It left an impression on me when Dr Evans said the specific lines of air seen in these cases are also seen in SIDS cases. Now, I don’t believe these babies died of SIDS, I’m aware such deaths can’t occur on a hospital ward. But it tells me there are ‘unexplained’ deaths in which this air is found without any explanation for how it got there. My understanding is the specific air findings referred to are not the same as normal port mortem accumulation of air. I’m not questioning the expertise of the experts, but it’s a cause of death that not many seem to know too much about.

In terms of NG air, Letby testified today that the NGs are not always aspirated before feeling. This is very significant information, because until this point I’ve understood that air being aspirated alongside milk vomit has no reasonable explanation, because the air would have been aspirated. But that’s called into question now.

The FB and handover sheet evidence is significantly weakened now the context has been added.

For me, the entire case hinges on the insulin poisonings. But even that has questions, considering we’ve had a nurse testify under oath that the TPN bag was changed unexpectedly the following day. And the pattern of her being the only nurse present is no longer there when only those cases are considered.

There are two outcomes from where I’m sitting, keeping in mind she’s not on trial for being a bit of an odd bod. Either we have frankly psychopathic and sadistic behaviour, like arranging a housewarming party in the minutes between attacking two vulnerable babies, and manipulating others beyond belief for much of her life, or we have a bunch of the worst coincidences imaginable in respect of a competent nurse who threw herself head first into caring for intensive care babies. There’s nothing in the middle.

I’m hopeful the jury will arrive at a decision, and I’m confident in our judicial system. I am also acutely aware that the jury are privy to much much more information that we are, and hopefully things are clear for them.

I also enjoy the chat, so happy to play devils advocate as it helps me to get a clearer understanding in my own mind.

All my opinion.

The incidents weren't considered suspicious because nobody was thinking along those lines. What they were is unexpected and inexplicable, and babies fully expected to survive had died. Not to mention the strange difficulties in reuscitating some of them. All of this is beyond strange on a neonatal unit. I seriously doubt you'd find this scenario on any other NNU. JMO

 

[IspyWithMyBigEye]

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'.

Also, even if you delete all your activity on Facebook, the police can still retrieve it from Facebook as they have every solitary thing you’ve deleted.

 

[ConcernedThirdParty]

Valid points, in part, but equally the issue you raise with the handover sheets appears to be your point of view rather than fact. We simply don’t know if they have accumulated like you describe or not; only what the defence has indicated today.

It was reported these were specific to 2015-16 and we could do with some more clarity on this; you said it was years prior to this she had them in a previous post I think? Do you have a link to your source please?

Nowhere have I found it reported that these were specific to 2015-16, it seems to be an assumption people have made.
I think we understand that it is one handover sheet per shift (could you be given more than 1 sheet?) and she can't possibly have had 257 shifts in one year (a regular 5 day week is about 230 shifts, and nurses on 12 hour shifts average less than a 4 day week) - nor would any of her explanations make any sense at all and would be immediately called out by police/prosecution if she had in fact taken home every single handover sheet for a year while saying she may have taken some home accidentally at times.

Regardless, it is an horrendous amount of confidential papers to have stashed up and *if* this is supposedly accumulated over her working life since qualifying, one must ask, where are the rest? Seemingly disposed of properly perhaps, yet she stated she didn’t know how to dispose of them. She’s also been carrying them around in the same bag so I don’t see how she couldn’t have returned them or even, upon looking into her bag thought she could burn or shred them. Just a thought.

One presumes that most of the time she disposed of them before leaving the hospital, sometimes they were forgotten in a pocket or her bag after a shift, it may be that the ones left are not even all the ones she forgot about and she managed to dispose of some at later dates - it certainly doesn't seem like she was stashing them away in a particular place to take out and read over and over.

In evidence, her senior reported she was asked more than once not to keep going back into the family room of bereaved parents.

This all happened on one particular shift, no? I wouldn't characterise that as representative of a pattern of behaviour.

Another mother was also distressed by her comments about putting her baby in a Moses basket where the mother stated; “he’s not dead yet”

And this is evidence of what exactly? Seems the sort of reaction one might easily encounter regardless of whether everything was done correctly, sometimes you do everything correctly but someone else didn't prepare the relative for what was to come, sometimes good doctors and nurses say the wrong thing.

She was also told no about going back into room and did continue to question this.

Same event as above or a second time this occurred?

On other occasions she was advised by her colleagues she needed a break, they were worried for her and she was quite abrupt in her response.

This happens often, I was advised by my colleagues to take a break last week, I routinely advise colleagues to take a break. I assume this is the "I know my own feelings" abrupt response? I imagine everyone on the team was advised at times to take a break, sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't, the main difference is we haven't been scrutinising them for 6 months and 6 years before that. We don't seem to have this over and over again, and there was no real sign that anyone felt she was doing a less than excellent job (except the consultants) until it all came to a head.

These are just some examples, but the majority of evidence already provided in relation to this (which you might like to read) can be found in the links to previous threads.

Have followed pretty closely, just not constantly. Kept apprised of the evidence, but not really followed the discussion since about child E or F or something, just dipped in and out - sorry if that wasn't clear.

Regarding professional conduct and crossing boundaries which you have asked about and I think I have already answered this.
You may not view this as unprofessional conduct, but many seniors and fitness to practice panels do. Of course, you will have your view and I will have mine and that is perfectly fine. We do not have to agree.

I don't think apart from the massive trawling operation, it amounts to anything out of the ordinary. When you take snippets out of context from over a year and put them all together and frame them the way the prosecution has, it looks like a lot more than it is and I'm sure they could do the same for almost every nurse that worked there, even if it looked a bit different.

I think under different circumstances, if the 257 handover notes came to light, they might be forced to act in some way on that, but I also think you'd be able to find other people with similar accumulated volumes that they've never gotten round to disposing of. Certainly would cause quite a problem if you fired everyone who'd brought home handover notes 257 or more times over several years - though I'd expect in most cases they'd have been properly disposed of.

 

[WaxLyrical]

I'd have thought in the same way BM brought up the the "many" other Facebook searches.

Yes, very true.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I find the prosecution’s case compelling, but I’ll tell you where the seed of doubt is for me.

These babies’ deaths were not considered suspicious, despite post mortems and debriefs. And even despite a few voices expressing concern internally, the majority dismissed those concerns outright. So they looked retrospectively for foul play, and they’ve found it.

So the question for me is whether, were they to apply the same level of retrospective scrutiny to other premature deaths across the country, might they come across similar findings. It left an impression on me when Dr Evans said the specific lines of air seen in these cases are also seen in SIDS cases. Now, I don’t believe these babies died of SIDS, I’m aware such deaths can’t occur on a hospital ward. But it tells me there are ‘unexplained’ deaths in which this air is found without any explanation for how it got there. My understanding is the specific air findings referred to are not the same as normal port mortem accumulation of air. I’m not questioning the expertise of the experts, but it’s a cause of death that not many seem to know too much about.

In terms of NG air, Letby testified today that the NGs are not always aspirated before feeling. This is very significant information, because until this point I’ve understood that air being aspirated alongside milk vomit has no reasonable explanation, because the air would have been aspirated. But that’s called into question now.

The FB and handover sheet evidence is significantly weakened now the context has been added.

For me, the entire case hinges on the insulin poisonings. But even that has questions, considering we’ve had a nurse testify under oath that the TPN bag was changed unexpectedly the following day. And the pattern of her being the only nurse present is no longer there when only those cases are considered.

There are two outcomes from where I’m sitting, keeping in mind she’s not on trial for being a bit of an odd bod. Either we have frankly psychopathic and sadistic behaviour, like arranging a housewarming party in the minutes between attacking two vulnerable babies, and manipulating others beyond belief for much of her life, or we have a bunch of the worst coincidences imaginable in respect of a competent nurse who threw herself head first into caring for intensive care babies. There’s nothing in the middle.

I’m hopeful the jury will arrive at a decision, and I’m confident in our judicial system. I am also acutely aware that the jury are privy to much much more information that we are, and hopefully things are clear for them.

I also enjoy the chat, so happy to play devils advocate as it helps me to get a clearer understanding in my own mind.

All my opinion.

All of this. spot on imo.

I do wonder about the differences in pathologist reports. Why did the initial coroner not spot the globules found by dr marnerides? Dr marnerides also did not do the actual autopsy. In one med report on AE in a clinical setting it was found that air bubbles were visible exiting the organ upon dissection so why didn’t they see it? The globules are important and represent something at least approaching hard evidence but actual bubbles in the autopsy would be one thing of really really solid evidence for the prosecution. One thing about the reporting was we heard there were globules found but we didn’t hear why they were indicative of AE or why it is likely they traveled there whilst alive. It’s the med evidence that’s the prosecutions strongest point.

 

[IspyWithMyBigEye]

Asked whether she had ever wanted to hurt a baby, Letby replies: "No that’s completely against what being a nurse is, I only wanted to help and to care for them"

She ‘only ever wanted to help and to care for them’ she didn’t follow this up with ‘and that’s what I did’ or even say ‘I only ever cared for them’ but that she wanted to. Wanting to do something and doing it are two completely different things IMO. If guilty, maybe she wanted to care for them, but sinister urges took over which meant she didn’t, if guilty. MOO

I think her reply was odd.

If a barrister ( or anyone else) asked me if I’d ever wanted to hurt a baby I’d recoil at such a suggestion and probably say something like “ My God, how could anyone ever hurt a baby?!” I don’t think I’d calmly say “ No that’s completely against what being a nurse is”

If you read even more deeply into her answer it’s like she’s not talking about normal human emotions, she’s talking about being a nurse. It’s just odd…

 

[Xanadu62]

Occasional lurker on this forum and have followed this case with much interest. Now that her defence has begun I thought I would comment here. It's very interesting to me from a trial strategy for both the prosecution and defence. The prosecution presented compelling medical evidence. Various experts, all unrelated, reviewing it from different specialities, all reaching the same conclusion that the deaths and incidents were deliberate is impossible to ignore. It's the suddenness of the deaths - babies who were improving or stable then collapsing with no warning and not meeting the criteria for collapses due to pneumonia or other infections, sepsis, underlying blood condition, their size at birth or any of the alternative explanations the defence have offered. It's also the rash that was witnessed by other doctors and documented for later victims, that only matches an air embolism. And of course the insulin that was externally administered, there seems to be no plausible reason for.

I am curious to see what the defence will show as regards the medical evidence. So far what they have offered mirrors what the defendant herself suggested to colleagues at the time - and I thought the prosecution experts explained well why none of these alternative theories were medically possible. It doesn't sit well with me to suggest that just because a baby is born pre-term with underlying conditions, they're doomed to death or collapse for no reason. Or as the defendant suggested, being down to 'bad luck' or more complex cases. Modern medicine and science has made this a rarity or neonatal death numbers would be far higher across the board! So there needs to be an explanation and I doubt any medical expert could make up findings that didn't exist like air being present where it shouldn't. It will never be 100% certainty, but it doesn't need to be - just beyond reasonable doubt.

For me the medical evidence will be what this boils down to. Everything else adds to the narrative around her personality at work and home, which on its own is benign (though certainly unprofessional, and whatever happens to the trial the handover sheets and FB messages/searches at home seal her fate with the NMC). But combined with the charges, it paints a picture of who she is that will be powerful with juries. And juries like knowing more about the person who's future they are deliberating after all. I do think some of her discrepancies between the police interviews and evidence on stand will be noted, like her responses about social media searches, the shredder, and coping mechanisms taught at Liverpool Women's Hospital. Some might be accepting of it, some might see it as capacity to lie - the police caution that declining to mention something you later rely on in court could harm your defence is given for a reason after all.

All my own opinion.

 

[WaxLyrical]

The incidents weren't considered suspicious because nobody was thinking along those lines. What they were is unexpected and inexplicable, and babies fully expected to survive had died. Not to mention the strange difficulties in reuscitating some of them. All of this is beyond strange on a neonatal unit. I seriously doubt you'd find this scenario on any other NNU. JMO

People were thinking along those lines though. Dr J raised concerns with Stephen B after Baby D, and even the nurses were talking about the deaths as being ‘odd’. Discussions of the strange rash. So I struggle to accept that all the suspicious deaths were just allowed to keep happening while everyone chose to turn a blind eye, especially if, as you say, this activity is unheard of in NNUs. JMO.

 

[katydid23]

If g there's more chance of her shredding the lot.
If she's as clever & cunning as it's been made to appear then shredding potential evidence would make more sense ?

I'm not sure if that is true. If she is guilty, then she did a lot of very brazen, reckless things. So her ignoring a bunch of handover sheets in a bag under her bed is nothing, in the scheme of things. JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

Yes.

The rules here are that if you state something as a fact then you are either an accredited expert or you post a link to an article published by a credible outside source.

 

[Dotta]

So
People.com was well informed, no?

Just saying

Good night

 

[Marantz4250b]

Excellent points, Josie.

Especially the sympathy card: I wonder if she can produce pictures of greeting/sympathy cards she’s sent to anyone else? IMO I bet she can’t.

It’s a souvenir.

She has said that she takes photos of cards she sends. I don't think that the prosecution has challenged that. Anyway, she said it so if there aren't photos on her phone of same then it's easy to shoot her down.

 

[Noseyposy76]

and

"Dr Brearey said there were "no more events" after Letby left the neo-natal unit.

He said: "It was the same staff doing the same job and there were no sudden collapses."

Doctor asked for Lucy Letby to be taken off shift, court hears

Letby, 33, denies the murders of seven babies and the attempted murders of 10 others between June 2015 and June 2016

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk

Had the neo-natal unit at the Countess not been downgraded at that point and the babies requiring more specialist care were sent elsewhere?

 

[Marantz4250b]

But LL was the ONLY person who could have delivered insulin into the babies!

That isn’t circumstantial - it’s a fact.

Furthermore, we’re not talking about a random murderer stalking the streets at night looking for a victim - this is a completely different set of circumstances. She was in a position of trust, and how do you know she didn’t want to work with babies because she had a secret desire to do do this? Of course she wouldn’t be so stupid to act strangely or aggressive amongst her colleagues - she’s not that daft. Many, many murderers when caught surprise their workmates, neighbours etc…and say what a gentle friendly man he seemed.

It happens all the time.

No-one really knows what goes on inside someone’s head. But that one note alone that she wrote displays she had deep serious issues. And to say she “purposely” killed the babies aren’t the words of an innocent person IMO.

It absolutely is not a fact!

The prosecution has said no such thing, as far as I'm aware. Indeed, one of the points raised here is that there is no evidence which places her as being the one who physically adulterated the equipment with insulin.

As previously stated; this site requires links to things which are stated as facts. Feel free to provide one.

 

[CocktailQueen]

I think her reply was odd.

If a barrister ( or anyone else) asked me if I’d ever wanted to hurt a baby I’d recoil at such a suggestion and probably say something like “ My God, how could anyone ever hurt a baby?!” I don’t think I’d calmly say “ No that’s completely against what being a nurse is”

If you read even more deeply into her answer it’s like she’s not talking about normal human emotions, she’s talking about being a nurse. It’s just odd…

If you reply ‘my god’ it implies that you’re shocked at being asked this question.

Why would you be shocked at being asked this question, when it’s literally the reason you’re on trial?!

She will have been asked multiple times if she ever hurt or wanted to hurt a baby. Replying ‘my god’ as if it had never been asked before would be ridiculous!

This applies whether she is guilty or innocent.

 

[Tortoise]

Had the neo-natal unit at the Countess not been downgraded at that point and the babies requiring more specialist care were sent elsewhere?

I don't think it was just babies requiring more specialised care during the year in question who were collapsing/dying. The babies in the indictment were in the main said to be stable and their collapses unexpected; indeed some of them were due to go home the next day.

 

[Marantz4250b]

The police have the most highly qualified analysts searching data, so trust me, if Therese said (and shown) which they have, evidence that LL actively searched for those parents - then she did. Saying she doesn’t remember searching for them is proof that she couldn’t think what to tell them as to why she was searching.

My guess is is she wanted to see if they mentioned their heartache. JMO.

Or that, well, she couldn't remember searching for them, surely?

 

[Sundial]

Nowhere have I found it reported that these were specific to 2015-16, it seems to be an assumption people have made.
I think we understand that it is one handover sheet per shift (could you be given more than 1 sheet?) and she can't possibly have had 257 shifts in one year (a regular 5 day week is about 230 shifts, and nurses on 12 hour shifts average less than a 4 day week) - nor would any of her explanations make any sense at all and would be immediately called out by police/prosecution if she had in fact taken home every single handover sheet for a year while saying she may have taken some home accidentally at times.


One presumes that most of the time she disposed of them before leaving the hospital, sometimes they were forgotten in a pocket or her bag after a shift, it may be that the ones left are not even all the ones she forgot about and she managed to dispose of some at later dates - it certainly doesn't seem like she was stashing them away in a particular place to take out and read over and over.


This all happened on one particular shift, no? I wouldn't characterise that as representative of a pattern of behaviour.


And this is evidence of what exactly? Seems the sort of reaction one might easily encounter regardless of whether everything was done correctly, sometimes you do everything correctly but someone else didn't prepare the relative for what was to come, sometimes good doctors and nurses say the wrong thing.


Same event as above or a second time this occurred?


This happens often, I was advised by my colleagues to take a break last week, I routinely advise colleagues to take a break. I assume this is the "I know my own feelings" abrupt response? I imagine everyone on the team was advised at times to take a break, sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't, the main difference is we haven't been scrutinising them for 6 months and 6 years before that. We don't seem to have this over and over again, and there was no real sign that anyone felt she was doing a less than excellent job (except the consultants) until it all came to a head.


Have followed pretty closely, just not constantly. Kept apprised of the evidence, but not really followed the discussion since about child E or F or something, just dipped in and out - sorry if that wasn't clear.


I don't think apart from the massive trawling operation, it amounts to anything out of the ordinary. When you take snippets out of context from over a year and put them all together and frame them the way the prosecution has, it looks like a lot more than it is and I'm sure they could do the same for almost every nurse that worked there, even if it looked a bit different.

I think under different circumstances, if the 257 handover notes came to light, they might be forced to act in some way on that, but I also think you'd be able to find other people with similar accumulated volumes that they've never gotten round to disposing of. Certainly would cause quite a problem if you fired everyone who'd brought home handover notes 257 or more times over several years - though I'd expect in most cases they'd have been properly disposed of.

You could easily be given more than one sheet per shift yes, print it off if you haven’t got one, mislaid it, print it off again etc. It’s fairly straight forward.

You mention the 2015-2016 time period as peoples assumptions but haven’t followed the reporting. So I’m just wondering if you have made the assumption they are from a wider range? It has been discussed at length here at WS already.

I must add I also find it a bit odd you say:

“I think under different circumstances, if the 257 handover notes came to light, they might be forced to act in some way on that”

Why under different circumstances? So this issue on the sheets can be acted on alone, in isolation, but not collectively with the wider evidence that the accused is also directly involved with for each of the cases?
Previously you asked me how she broke professional boundaries. This is just one of those examples. You appear to accept this with the sheets and they “might be forced to act” but ignore the rest of the evidence that has been put forward.

There are several patterns of behaviour which different colleagues and parents have testified are unusual to say the least.
Comments such as “not leaving here alive” and being animated by preparing memory boxes. Mothers testifying babies are screaming; baby E with blood around his face as the accused was stood there not doing anything to help him. Or baby K moments from death and the accused witnessed by another where she was stood not assisting.
The colleague who was stood with her where the accused claimed the baby “looked pale” from the darkened doorway and a canopy over the cot.

These are just a few.
I don’t think the prosecution has taken snippets out of context and framed them as you describe. If it was that simple there would not be medical experts all agreeing their findings. Deliberate air, milk or insulin administered.
It also would not have made it to trial if the evidence the prosecution has was not of value. We must also keep in mind that this isn’t about other people and what other people have or are doing. They aren’t on trial, she is.

It is not just about handover sheets, but collectively all the other compelling evidence that the jury will decide whether the accused is guilty or not.

IMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think her reply was odd.

If a barrister ( or anyone else) asked me if I’d ever wanted to hurt a baby I’d recoil at such a suggestion and probably say something like “ My God, how could anyone ever hurt a baby?!” I don’t think I’d calmly say “ No that’s completely against what being a nurse is”

If you read even more deeply into her answer it’s like she’s not talking about normal human emotions, she’s talking about being a nurse. It’s just odd…

After five years (almost) of being asked the same question, including over thirty police interviews under arrest, I think that expressing shock as to being asked that question yet again would come over as being remarkably weird and false, quite honestly!