UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #661
12:52pm

In police interview, Letby said he could remember Child E and he was "stable" at the time of the handover, with nothing of concern "before the large bile aspirate".
She said she and another member of staff had disposed of the aspirate and the advice was to omit the feed.
She said Child E's abdomen was becoming fuller and there was a purple discolouration, so had asked a doctor to review Child E.
She said she had got blood from the NG tube.
She was asked about the 10pm note and said if there had been any blood prior to the 9pm feed, "she would have noted it".
She said it was after 9pm that the SHO had reviewed Child E but could not reall if it was face-to-face or over the phone.
She said she could remember the mum leaving after 'the 10pm visit'.
In a June 2019 interview, she was pressed over a conversation with the SHO.
She said she had no independent memory of it.
Shesaid she could not remember the mum coming into the room at 9pm with milk, nor Child E being upset, with blood coming from the mouth.
She said she would not have told the mum to go back upstairs.
"We have a stark contrast between what the mum says and what Lucy Letby says," Mr Johnson tells the court.
"You know he was due to be fed...breastmilk. You know, we say, that is why [the mum] was there.
"This has been wiped out of the records, by Lucy Letby, because she knows the consequences of [the mum] being right about this."

12:54pm

In a November 2020 interview, Letby is asked why she had sent a text referring to Child E had queried whether he had Down Syndrome.
She said she could not remember whether there had ever been any mention of Downs in the medical notes.
The prosecution say Lucy Letby "took an unusual interest" in the family of Child E. She did social media searches on the parents two days after Child E’s death, and on August 23, September 14, October 5, November 5, December 7, and even on December 25.
The prosecution say there were further searches in January 2016.

12:55pm

The court is now adjourning for the lunch break.
It will resume later this afternoon, discussing the circumstances surrounding the collapse of Child F - Child E's twin brother.
The prosecution allege this was an attempted murder by insulin poisoning.

 
  • #662
I'm about to call it a day, and go to bed. But - Oh. My. Goodness.
 
  • #663
There's a lot of evasion on everything - she's not helping herself!
Jeez, give her a chance. These are all quoted from interviews that took place long ago.
 
  • #664
The repeated social media searches of Child E's parents over a period of many months is interesting. Doesn't prove anything mind you, but I don't think it is a good look. It will be interesting to see if this pattern of consistent searching continues going forward.
 
  • #665
Child C, who was alive when the nightshift started at 8pm on 13 June, and deceased by 6am on 14 June, was described in the original charges as having been murdered between 12 and 15 June. (I can't link because his name was given in MSM at that time.)

I wonder why? Was there originally some suggestion that the wheels were set in motion for his death a day earlier?
Isn't this just the usual format of giving the day before and the day after, with the alleged crime taking place between those dates. As the period in question was before and after midnight, they've included two dates.
 
  • #666
Deleting your browser history would probably get rid of any evidence of Google searches. I don't think Google saves anything at their end as to what you've been searching for.

Facebook seems to save everything for ever, though. If you delete the specific searches from the FB search window I think the evidence of them might remain on your account activity history but I couldn't say for certain. You can request a download of your FB activity. I might do that just to see what info it actually retains.
You need to go into your google account and you can delete it in there. You can also delete your Facebook search history manually in your activity log, I do so regularly. It will constantly reassure you nobody else can see it but I don't care lol.
No service keeps data indefinitely (if you delete it). It's just not worth the storage space. If it was still around after so much time she never deleted it or didn't delete it properly. Hubris, perhaps? Didn't think they'd look for her or look in there?
 
  • #667
Jeez, give her a chance. These are all quoted from interviews that took place long ago.
Waiting until your trial to give your side of events for the first time is not terribly sensible....Not remembering what happened during the most traumatic cases of your life (including an interaction with the mother you check up every month on FB) doesn't look good. Not remembering if you've checked up a family every month?
 
  • #668
Less than 24 hours after Child C had died, at 3.52pm, Letby searched on Facebook for his parents. Given she had come off duty at 8am, "the timing may suggest this was one of the first things she did having woken up".

That is "strange" I have to say. Having said that, who can say what amounts to unusual in these circumstances?
I don't find it particularly strange. When I get up, my routine is to let the dog out, put the kettle on, feed the dog, then sit down with a cup of tea at my laptop, look at the news headlines, then anything else that springs to my mind.
 
  • #669
Waiting until your trial to give your side of events for the first time is not terribly sensible....Not remembering what happened during the most traumatic cases of your life (including an interaction with the mother you check up every month on FB) doesn't look good. Not remembering if you've checked up a family every month?
Once she was charged no more police interviews would have been allowed. The trial will be her first opportunity to give her account since then.
 
  • #670
Was she in a relationship during the time of these events?
 
  • #671
Once she was charged there would have been no more police interviews allowed. The trial will be her first opportunity to give her account.
Yes, exactly. She had the option at police interview to speak the truth or at least provide some responses/context, to help herself. People here are suggesting it may have equipment failure, errors, a cover up etc - but it doesn't seem like LL gave LE anything to work with. Being evasive and lying at interview isn't going to help anyone. Avoiding trial is normally the goal.
 
  • #672
Once she was charged no more police interviews would have been allowed. The trial will be her first opportunity to give her account since then.
I’m having a brain fog moment - does she only go on the stand if she chooses to?
 
  • #673
12:54pm

In a November 2020 interview, Letby is asked why she had sent a text referring to Child E had queried whether he had Down Syndrome.
She said she could not remember whether there had ever been any mention of Downs in the medical notes.
The prosecution say Lucy Letby "took an unusual interest" in the family of Child E. She did social media searches on the parents two days after Child E’s death, and on August 23, September 14, October 5, November 5, December 7, and even on December 25.
The prosecution say there were further searches in January 2016.



That looks really, really strange!
 
  • #674
  • #675
The repeated social media searches of Child E's parents over a period of many months is interesting. Doesn't prove anything mind you, but I don't think it is a good look. It will be interesting to see if this pattern of consistent searching continues going forward.
Yep, it's strange, to say the least. As you say, it doesn't prove anything though; it may be a coping mechanism, she may suffer from some sort of OCD, mild autism or some other condition. Maybe, if she's not guilty, she may be racked with guilt that she'd messed up and was looking to see if anything was being said publicly? Or, maybe she's a murderer and she's getting some sort of thrill from it?

Not a good look, though.
 
  • #676
That looks really, really strange!
I feel conflicted about the searches.

I can understand someone being traumatised by a tragic death of a baby in their care, and developing a slight obsession with wanting to know how the family are coping. Regardless of any questions that might raise re professionalism etc., because I think people are only human at the end of the day.

Its going to depend for me on how she responded to questions about all the searches in interviews, as this plays out. If interviews show she continued to not remember, I would find that hard to believe personally.
 
  • #677
eta I find the way she 'doesn't remember' so many things to be quite offputting. Sure, trauma can affect memory, but I don't get the sense its any kind of trauma-induced memory loss but we'll just have to wait for the defence.

I don't find it particularly strange. When I get up, my routine is to let the dog out, put the kettle on, feed the dog, then sit down with a cup of tea at my laptop, look at the news headlines, then anything else that springs to my mind.
Haha SAME. If we give her the benefit of the doubt, and imagine she was a 'normal' nurse who genuinely just wanted to see how they were going, I'd do it as soon as I woke up too. It might be a bad habit but I always check SM the minute I wake.

The repeated social media searches of Child E's parents over a period of many months is interesting. Doesn't prove anything mind you, but I don't think it is a good look. It will be interesting to see if this pattern of consistent searching continues going forward.
I'd imagine the defense would be if she can be shown to have googled/FB searched the parents of babies that didn't die or aren't even named in this case at all.

Good point. I suppose less qualified could just mean she didn't have the additional training or seniority LL did, but still had many years in neo natal care or even on the ward? That wasn't made clear though. Like if I'm a teaching assistant rather than a senior teacher, I will still be able to witness the same behaviour in the classroom. Just means I'm less qualified.

MOO though.
I'd imagine this to be the case. I don't know what the equivalent to an Enrolled Nurse (Australia)/Licensed Practical Nurse (US) is in the UK, but I know from working in a hospital that an EN with decades of experience might be less qualified than a newly graduated Registered Nurse, but she sure does have a lot to teach that new graduate RN regardless :) When I was young and silly at that job, I made the mistake of assuming an EN couldn't do something and she made it very clear exactly what her position entailed and what she was capable of :)
However given LL had specific further neonatal training this other nurse may simply have been an RN who hadn't completed that further training.
Was she in a relationship during the time of these events?

How is this relevant?
 
  • #678
Once she was charged no more police interviews would have been allowed. The trial will be her first opportunity to give her account since then.

Just for the sake of clarity. Once there is sufficient evidence to charge a suspect must be charged and the police cannot seek to interview them any further, in relation to that offence.

HOWEVER

There is provision within the Police and Criminal Evidence Act for the defendant, normally through their legal representative, to request a further interview under caution, with the police, about the offence. This is invariably when they have had a crisis of conscience and wish to make an admission.
 
  • #679
Yes I cant understand why she wouldsay she doesn't remember doing it

We don't know if she really said that. In the Husel case, police and family members of the deceased lied about what Husel said. The defense proved they were lying.
 
  • #680
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
106
Guests online
2,319
Total visitors
2,425

Forum statistics

Threads
632,725
Messages
18,630,978
Members
243,274
Latest member
WickedGlow
Back
Top