UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #20

[TheCraig]

It's very daring for the defense to go head to head with 2 of the witnesses imo. SE and MT both have matching accounts and they oppose LLs. I feel this has left a big opening for the prosecution during cross.

There’s another nurse who says that LL was with her attending to a different baby at the time and that they were both called to assist with child C

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

 

[WaxLyrical]

This is the only witness statement we have from Caroline Oakley - from Chester Standard.

"The next evidence is an agreed evidence statement from nurse Caroline Oakley, who was shift leader on August 3, and was involved in the resuscitation efforts for Child E, but does not recall who was doing what, as it was a team process.

She adds she does not recall attending a debrief for Child E following his death."

Also this from the mum - "The mum says she did not see anyone else at 9pm when she went to the unit."

So she never testified to being in the room - the first time we have heard this is the defendant on the stand saying she was. And also saying that Caroline Oakley observed the blood. Neither Caroline Oakley or the mum have evidenced this.

And neither did the defendant at her police interview.

I thought today Child F’s file put Caroline Oakley in the room doing meds at 9:15? Have I misunderstood?

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

They’re sealed.

IF some random person decided to inject the bags with insulin they would have leaked…

Besides that, if said random person injected them with insulin how would they know only LL would use them?

They may not have leaked, in that hypothetical scenario.

The hole created may be so minute, and the elasticity of the bag may behave in a manner that effectively, to a greater extent, temporarily reseals the hole.

Or if tiny amounts of liquid escaped then those could have been unnoticable, or gone unnoticed.

I seem to remember a similar set of circumstances in 'The Good Nurse'. It wasnt until the bags that had been tampered with were squeezed that the holes reopened.

 

[IspyWithMyBigEye]

And an equally strong possibility that she may not have, since I'd question why someone knowingly guilty would be questioning themselves in this way.



Maybe. But I'm happy to wait and see how the prosecution ties all this up into one big guilty bow.

Well, when someone writes “I PURPOSELY killed them” I’d be more inclined to question why she wrote that…

She wasn’t questioning Herself: she was saying she’d purposely killed them.

 

[Xanadu62]

This is part of the mother's of E's witness statement. BBM below - the mother would have also had to make up the explanation for why there was blood - doesn't that seem fairly technical and detailed for a lie? And it can't have been another nurse as the defendant accepts she was with the baby as designated nurse the entire time. Mum would also have had to made up this entire narrative below, which is all evidenced by the phone call to her husband. Given it was an ICU ward (and we've seen how tiny they are), it makes sense no one else was around as it was a restricted area and LL was one of the only ICU qualified nurses.

She said she went up to the post-natal ward to express breast milk and have something to eat, 'between 7pm and 8.30pm'.

She then took the expressed breast milk "straight down" to the neonatal unit where her twins were.

She said she arrived there "a touch before nine o'clock."

The mother had drawn a plan of the neonatal unit layout, as she remembered it, to police. That is now shown to the court.

She tells the court she had gone into room 1, where the twins were, as was Lucy Letby, the only other adult in the room beside the mum.

She said she could her her son crying and it was "like nothing I'd ever heard before".

The mum walked to the incubator, to see blood coming out of Child E's mouth, and panicked as she "believed that something was wrong".

The mum, fighting back tears, tells the court which incubators her twins were located in - both in adjoining ones.

She said she heard "crying" - a sound which "shouldn't have come from a tiny baby. I can't explain what that sound was...horrendous. It was screaming more than crying."

She said she heard it in the corridor in the unit itself, and entered the unit through the door where the twins were.

Lucy Letby was "busy doing something, but she wasn't near [Child E]."

She said she immediately went to Child E and used a 'containment technique' which she had been taught, to make him feel calmer, but "it didn't work".

Child E "continued to make the same noise".

She said she was there for "about 10 minutes" in that room.

She said: "There was blood on his face, around his mouth."

She tells the court she was asked by police to draw, on a drawing of a child's face, where the blood was coming from.

She tells the court the blood was coming "around the mouth"
Lucy Letby was at the workstation at the time, the mum tells the court.

A video of the neonatal unit room one is shown to the court.

The mum, fighting back tears, tells the court which incubators her twins were located in - both in adjoining ones.
he mum said she asked Lucy Letby why Child E was bleeding and what was wrong.

She said Letby replied the feeding tube was rubbing the back of the throat and that would have caused the blood.

The mum said she accepted that explanation, but was concerned about it.

The mum said Letby "told her to go back to the ward", and she did what she was told as Letby "was in authority and knew better than me and I trusted her - completely."

"She said the registrar was on his way and if there was a problem, someone would ring up to the post-natal ward."

She said she accepted that explanation and returned to the post-natal ward.

Upon her return, she rang her husband as "she knew there was something very wrong".

"I knew I needed to speak to him, and tell him."

The court hears the telephone records, including timings, were obtained.

The call to her husband was made at 9.11pm, and lasted 4 minutes and 25 seconds.

She said she rang her husband about her concerns, and remained on the post-natal ward.

 

[Sweeper2000]

So in the defences case there have been no medical experts presented by mr Myers does that then mean they don’t or won’t have any?

 

[WaxLyrical]

They may not have leaked, in that hypothetical scenario.

The hole created may be so minute, and the elasticity of the bag may behave in a manner that effectively, to a greater extent, temporarily reseals the hole.

Or if tiny amounts of liquid escaped then those could have been unnoticable, or gone unnoticed.

I seem to remember a similar set of circumstances in 'The Good Nurse'. It wasnt until the bags that had been tampered with were squeezed that the holes reopened.

The bags literally have a self sealing port specifically for adding liquid via syringe.

 

[Anxala]

The jig wasn't up at that point in fairness. She still maintained that they had no evidence, so I don't think she expected the police to actually arrest her. I think she assumed it would all blow over eventually and never get to a point she was on trial.

RSBM

I disagree re her not recognising, if guilty, that the jig was definitely up at that stage. She's been removed from her post, she knew an in-house investigation into her practice was underway, she was aware of what was being said about her, she'd have had no idea if she'd slipped up somewhere along the way and that that slip-up would come to light and come back to both haunt and damn her.

Re your ^BIB above, she may equally have thought it would blow over because she knew herself to be innocent.

I do of course appreciate the futility in trying to get inside the mind of a potential serial killer.

 

[IspyWithMyBigEye]

Th

imo there is only one way that sentence would be used and it’s in a genuine admission of guilt to an external audience Where there is doubt either in the minds of the audience or the individual saying it has created doubt in others minds deliberately. If there Is no external audience imagined or otherwise then the sentence is directed at oneself And thus no need to affirm ones own deliberate action. Blaming oneself for something that one really does know one didn’t do is double think. It’s called being in two minds about something, otherwise known as ”did I” or “didn’t I“ and is a frequent aspect of ones lived experience if they live in a world that’s accusing them of something. Akin to gaslighting and the endless inner conflict that comes with it.

An innocent person would never in a million years write to herself saying she “killed the babies ON PURPOSE”. An innocent person who’d made an error may write something like “ It was my fault the babies died because I made a mistake”. They wouldn’t write “I killed them ON PURPOSE “.

 

[IspyWithMyBigEye]

That’s the other thing. All that turmoil and chaos, you really think she’s in the right place to be writing what is alleged to be a confession? No I wouldn’t. I never take emotion laden projection as serious talk, said it before its warm language in a proper confession it’s always cold Maybe interspersed with warmer words. Imo.

Another thing, you say she wrote all thise when in an emotional state, but her so-called emotional state didn’t stop her going too Salsa hours after one baby died; going to dinners; pubs; clubs; having cocktails and laughing; going to Ibiza and having fun….
C’mon, she was having a ball while these babies died.

 

[IspyWithMyBigEye]

I’ll be interested to hear why she called dr brearey and dr Ravi the b word. The way her testimony went would suggest imo that there was something specific said that she had heard. I’m not sure if we will hear that though would seem the questioning on the notes is over.

She didn’t like them possibly because they saw through her feigned exterior.

 

[Sweeper2000]

An innocent person would never in a million years write to herself saying she “killed the babies ON PURPOSE”. An innocent person who’d made an error may write something like “ It was my fault the babies died because I made a mistake”. They wouldn’t write “I killed them ON PURPOSE “.

I wrote immediately upon reading that note that the end of that particular sentence was a reference to her capacity as a nurse. “Not good enough to care for them” can be seen as a reference to her capacity as a nurse and literally evepry bit of the evidence suggests that to be the case highlighting her text to doc choc close to the time of suspension. Something like ”was I good enough/ did I miss something“. I believe her when she said she wrote it ie the date and as all surrounding evidence and coms suggest it to be the case. I also said interpretation of the writing would be difficult but to ascertain it’s truth one would have to look at surrounding evidence and circumstance and it all points to her questioning her capacity as a nurse. Imo

 

[IspyWithMyBigEye]

Why? I did this on purpose is a standard, often used sentence. Why does it sound ridiculous to you?

If she was trying to say that 'other people' were saying this, not her, why not just say that?

Who writes down on a piece of people, several shocking confessions, if they know they are under suspicion already?

I would write that 'people say I killed them but I didn't. ' I cannot imagine writing ' I AM EVIL. I DID THIS' OR I killed them on purpose...I don't deserve to live.... if I was totally innocent of the crimes.

She’d write to herself, though!

She didn’t think for a moment that the police would come knocking at 6am in the morning, and search her house. She felt safe there. Hence why she confessed to herself in writing, never thinking her notes would be discovered.

 

[Sweeper2000]

One of the other things I was looking for was tracks in the snow that when followed came to nothing including tracks heading backwards. Ie she was hiding her tracks, not filling in notes, records etc The opposite is true in this case in all but a few very minor instances. if she is guilty her attempts to hide her presence close to the necessary time frame are non existent IMO.

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

One of the other things I was looking for was tracks in the snow that when followed came to nothing including tracks heading backwards. Ie she was hiding her tracks, not filling in notes, records etc The opposite is true in this case in all but a few very minor instances. if she is guilty her attempts to hide her presence close to the necessary time frame are non existent IMO.

So many of the circumstances point towards guilt, and yet so many of the factors point towards innocence.

Never known a case like it.

JMO

 

[marynnu]

They may not have leaked, in that hypothetical scenario.

The hole created may be so minute, and the elasticity of the bag may behave in a manner that effectively, to a greater extent, temporarily reseals the hole.

Or if tiny amounts of liquid escaped then those could have been unnoticable, or gone unnoticed.

I seem to remember a similar set of circumstances in 'The Good Nurse'. It wasnt until the bags that had been tampered with were squeezed that the holes reopened.

There's a rubber port for injection, it doesn't leak.

 

[esther43]

Does anyone know the process for delivery of expressed breast milk On a NNU ?

I can see it being something that isn’t documented but I would have thought there would be equipment given to a mother for the process. I also don’t know if it’s stored in the fridge for a time or is expressed close to the time it’s needed. I’m just trying to figure out the likelihood that the mother wasn’t told by someone to deliver the milk, told to express the milk, told the NNU was ready for the delivery and cares, helped off the unit, or someone didn’t register that the mom was waiting at the front door of the NNU and buzzed her in around 9pm. I just find it remarkable that not a single person can corroborate her testimony.

At the time of the alleged offences the mother was staying on the postnatal ward. It is likely she would use a pump there as it would be very early days.
As the babies were very young her milk flow would have been taking time to establish and for twins, this would be a challenge to keep up with their demands. As such, the Mother would be very mindful to get milk to the ward at the nearest opportunity. Not doing so would result in the babies having to haver doner milk or formula, something most Mother's will want to avoid.
The baby as I understand it was due a feed at 9pm. It's therefore possible that the mother was dropping newly expressed milk to her babies in time for this. AMOO

 

[Xanadu62]

I thought today Child F’s file put Caroline Oakley in the room doing meds at 9:15? Have I misunderstood?

"The court is shown the timeline for the night shift on August 3-4. Letby is shown administering medication for Child F at 9.13pm, with nurse Caroline Oakley also present, in room 1 - the same as Child E.

Letby is asked if Caroline Oakley observed blood on Child E's face at that point, or if it was noted. Letby replies: "No.""

So a timeline was shown which is not the same as clinical notes (unless they also showed clinical notes and just not reported.). However, below are the defendants own notes that prosecution shared and there's no mention of Caroline Oakley anywhere. So really not sure where this has come from? The defence haven't actually presented any evidence of her being there or not observing there was blood.

Also noticed on her notes below, there was supposed to be a 9pm feed!! So mum was right to show up at 9pm. But defendant says it was omitted, yet there's no evidence of this and the SHO has no recollection of advising to omit the feed. So basically, the mum, SHO and Caroline Oakley would all have to be lying or misremembering to support the defendant's version of events.

8pm: Letby's note for 8pm at August 3 is written, written at 4.51am retrospectively, to say: "Mummy was present at start of shift attending to cares."

A further Letby note reads: 'Prior to 9pm feed, 16ml 'mucky' slightly bile stained aspirate' recorded for Child E.

9pm: The neonatal fluid chart for the 9pm column records, under milk feeds, 'omitted', and the word 'discarded' is in a non-specific line. For aspirates, the note '16ml mucky' is made.

10pm: To the right of that, at the 10pm column, is '15ml fresh blood' on aspirates.

The two columns for that chart are signed by Lucy Letby's initials.

 

[Sweeper2000]

"The court is shown the timeline for the night shift on August 3-4. Letby is shown administering medication for Child F at 9.13pm, with nurse Caroline Oakley also present, in room 1 - the same as Child E.

Letby is asked if Caroline Oakley observed blood on Child E's face at that point, or if it was noted. Letby replies: "No.""

So a timeline was shown which is not the same as clinical notes (unless they also showed clinical notes and just not reported.). However, below are the defendants own notes that prosecution shared and there's no mention of Caroline Oakley anywhere. So really not sure where this has come from? The defence haven't actually presented any evidence of her being there or not observing there was blood.

Also noticed on her notes below, there was supposed to be a 9pm feed!! So mum was right to show up at 9pm. But defendant says it was omitted, yet there's no evidence of this and the SHO has no recollection of advising to omit the feed. So basically, the mum, SHO and Caroline Oakley would all have to be lying or misremembering to support the defendant's version of events.

8pm: Letby's note for 8pm at August 3 is written, written at 4.51am retrospectively, to say: "Mummy was present at start of shift attending to cares."

A further Letby note reads: 'Prior to 9pm feed, 16ml 'mucky' slightly bile stained aspirate' recorded for Child E.

9pm: The neonatal fluid chart for the 9pm column records, under milk feeds, 'omitted', and the word 'discarded' is in a non-specific line. For aspirates, the note '16ml mucky' is made.

10pm: To the right of that, at the 10pm column, is '15ml fresh blood' on aspirates.

The two columns for that chart are signed by Lucy Letby's initials.

for some reason I doubt that ll has the level of foresight needed to alter the documents neccesa for her to escape the consequences. As an example not getting rid of the handover notes, the damned note, marks in her diary etc

 

[IspyWithMyBigEye]

Sure, I’m not suggesting it’s impossible to convict people of crimes, because clearly it’s not. But the jury still needs to consider each allegation and decide how persuaded they are by the prosecution’s case or whether they doubt it enough to not feel sure that a) a crime took place and b) LL did it.

For example, if I was on the jury, based on the small amount of info I know, there are certain cases that I might not be convinced by. Such as Baby N. I would then have to consider how that impacted the bigger picture. In that scenario, it would remove the suggested pattern that she attacked babies immediately before and after her holiday.

Which is fine, because I may well be compelled enough about some of the other cases that I can safely conclude she is guilty, and don’t need to consider such patterns. However, in doing so, that doesn’t mean I should automatically go back and say “well she probably did do it to Baby N too then”, because it still comes down to whether I am sure based on the evidence presented, and in that case I’m not persuaded it’s been established that an attack took place at all. For the insulin cases, I think it HAS been established the babies were poisoned, and so the train of thought and reasoning around those would be different.

Anyway, it’s matters not a jot, as I’m not on the jury!

I see your point.

But there’s 17 babies she allegedly tried to kill, seven of which did die unnaturally. To be charged with just the death of one baby in your care is horrendous - but to be charged with SEVENTEEN (seven of who died) babies die suddenly and inexplicably in your care, only to discover they’d been imjected with air in their cannula and insulin in their feeding bag, means that the nurse caring for them must have been involved in their deaths.

Why wasn’t any other nurse suspected?

Why did it only happen to the babies she was monitoring?

I agree with you about the insulin: how did so many babies die of insulin overdose who were solely in her care - but no other babies died of insulin overdose in other nurses care on the same ward? All the nurses had access to the same locker which contained the sealed insulin and feeding bags, so how was it that the insulin only ended up in the feeding bags that LL fed the babies and not in any of the other nurses?