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

[katydid23]

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

I guess everyone is different.
Immediately upon reading that note I thought---- “Not good enough to care for them”---- was a reference to her not being a good enough person to care about them. If these allegations are true then she really could not care about them very much.

And that would fit better with her 'I am Evil' 'I don't deserve to live' sentiments than if she was concerned with her competencies.

 

[katydid23]

The feeds aren't necessarily as strictly scheduled as I think you think they might be.
More a guideline than any absolute need to a feed at any exact time.

JMO

I disagree. A very tiny preemie would be on a pretty strict schedule for food and fluids. An older, stronger baby can just have a general guideline. But a 3 lb baby needs frequent and consistent feeds.

 

[katydid23]

It’s not just that, I’m just tryin to figure out why nobody has seemed to notice her leaving her unit and entering the NNU. The feed timelines might not be vigorously adhered to but patients going from one unit to another is almost certainly something the prosecution should be able to prove IMO.

Did you read the mother's testimony? This is what the jurors heard and saw during her emotional testimony. I doubt they are going to dismiss or discount what she and her husband said during the trial because it is very sincere and believable and coming from raw grief filled memories.

And the feeding time was a set schedule. Mom adhered to the schedule, as she attested to. LL 'erased' that 9 pm feeding time and pretended that she was told to omit it, but neither of the other people she said she discussed it with remember it happening, nor did they make any notes of it.


LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, November 14


By August 3, she said the twins were "great - doing really well".
"We were absolutely thrilled that both boys were doing so well and we couldn't have asked for any more than that. They were both progressing."

The father was commuting to and from the hospital at this time, and on August 3 he had gone home to "prepare the house" as it was "imminent" that the babies were going to be transferred to another hospital and she would be able to go home.
She said he left the hospital at about 5pm. At that time, she was "having skin-to-skin contact" with Child E, which ended at "half past 6ish".
She changed his nappy and had cleaned him, around the eyes and neck.

She said she was still "sore and sensitive" but "over the moon" as her two boys were "perfect".

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 hear 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".


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.
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"
Nicholas Johnson KC says it is 'almost like a goatee beard'.
The judge asks for clarification, and the mum says the blood was 'a little above the lips, but mostly below'.


The 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.
She returned to the neo-natal ward "later on that evening", sat in the corridor, watching a team of people around Child E's incubator.
Mr Johnson clarifies this was at the time Child E was being resuscitated.


In the time before that, the mum said she was "panicking", having conversations with the midwife, and was "panicking and waiting, waiting, following the rules".
She said Letby had told her the rules to go back to the post-natal ward and wait for anything further.
She was later told by the midwife and to ring her husband. The midwife called the husband at 10.52pm, telling him to come to the hospital, after the neo-natal rang the maternity ward.
She said she does not know why the midwife rang, but assumed it was because she was "very upset" and "knew there was something wrong".

The mum was taken to the neo-natal ward and the medical team were 'working on Child E' and were unsuccessful in their resuscitation attempts.
She had contact with Lucy Letby after Child E had died.
She tells the court she was asked if she wanted to bath Child E, but at that moment she did not feel able to.
Fighting back tears, the mum says: "I was just...broken, and I couldn't. Lucy Letby bathed him in front of me in the neo-natal unit.
"After he was bathed, he was placed in a white gown.
"I just remember being thankful as we had no clothes for him as he was so little.
"He was given back to us, and put in his incubator, and that is where he stayed."


LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, November 14

 

[katydid23]

The mother could still be expressing the required amount of milk beyond the scheduled feed time though, this could push it back by however long that would take.

<modsnip - Rude, personalizing comment>

Why the assumption that the parents of the deceased baby are wrong about their court testimony?

Even with the corroboration of the designated feeding time being 9 pm, the phone call to dad being at 9:11, and dad's testimony under oath, matching his wife's, there is doubt they are being truthful and accurate?

There is corroboration for the mother's timeline. The established feeding time was at 9 pm, and LL admits that mom arrived at the unit with the expressed breastmilk. LL also admits that she doesn't know for sure what time mom arrived to the unit but denies it was 9 pm.

LL said that two other people discussed omitting the 9 pm feed with her, and she wrote that in her medical notes. But those two people do not back up LL, and have no recollection of that. And they made no medical notes about omitting the feed or of meeting with the mom or LL about making that change.

So the parents have some corroboration for their timeline and LL has none for here's.

 

[katydid23]

Would you expect the mother in this instance to want to be more helpful to the prosecution, or the defence?

<modsnip - not victim friendly>

Totally understandable, I have no problem with it and all the sympathy in the world for the parents in this case. However, in a court of law, up until victim impact statements are to be read for sentencing, feelings shouldn't come into it.

JMO

Whenb these events happened, there was no prosecution or defense. When these memories were made, there was no 'side' to align with.

The parents experienced what they experienced on the night their baby died. They have no reason to lie. They want THE TRUTH so they can figure out what happened to him. They are not trying to be 'helpful' by lying about their deceased child's death.

Their version of events is by far the most reasonable and believable. The baby was scheduled to feed at 9 pm. So mom took up the breastmilk at that time.

LL's notes saying the feed was omitted is not corroborated by anyone, not even the people that she named as making the decision with her.They denied it nor did they make any medical notes saying they omitted the feed, unlike LL.

The parents trial testimony was very believable, sincere and clear. I think the jury will find their testimonies very credible. JMO

 

[katydid23]

Can anyone pull her testimony on the phone call? Is there no record of it either? Got calls for the mum but not ll calling the sho ?

might be a stretch but if anyone knows if an internal call on a hospital phone would be recorded? Would guess she wasn’t saying it was on her mob. What phone would the sho have received the call from if it was made? Mobile, hospital mobile, pagers are outdated probabl, hospital phone etc?

surprising the above point wasn’t covered by the data.

waxlyrical it’s very believable.

Are you really wanting a recording of the phone call to her husband before it could be believed?

wow....They both took an oath to tell the truth on the stand, about the tragic death of their little baby boy. Their timeline has corroboration.

Lucy's has NO corroboration. FOUR different people have testified that she is mistaken in her timeline and assertions about the night baby E died. But you accept Lucy's alleged version of events?

Originally, I was impressed by the ability to question everything the prosecution set forth. I wondered if that same energy to question would be there for the defense case. Maybe not?

 

[esther43]

They likely have an intercom and are buzzed in by people working on the desk.

 

[WaxLyrical]

Are you really wanting a recording of the phone call to her husband before it could be believed?

wow....They both took an oath to tell the truth on the stand, about the tragic death of their little baby boy. Their timeline has corroboration.

Lucy's has NO corroboration. FOUR different people have testified that she is mistaken in her timeline and assertions about the night baby E died. But you accept Lucy's alleged version of events?

Originally, I was impressed by the ability to question everything the prosecution set forth. I wondered if that same energy to question would be there for the defense case. Maybe not?

I think he’s talking about LL’s alleged phone call to the SHO, and whether there would be a record of that. Not the mum’s call to her husband.

 

[WaxLyrical]

There has been corroboration.

Mom's established feeding time with her twins was at 9 pm. She expressed her breastmilk around 8:30 and then went up to baby E's room at 9. [ there is corroboration that 9 pm was the regular feeding time.]
She heard him screaming and crying and saw blood on his mouth and Nurse Letby was just standing by his cot.

She said, go back to your room everything us fine. "Trust me, I am a nurse" said Letby.

There is corroboration that mom made a 4 minute phone call to her husband at 9:11. Her husband testified abiout the frantic phone call from his wife. The next phone call between them was 45 minutes later when the midwife called them to say their son had collapsed.

Letyby made a few claims that have NOT been corporate by others. She said in her notes things that colleagues denied. None of them remembered ommitting the 9 pm feed, which is what LL said in her notes. Neither of the colleagues remember meeting with LL to talk about ommittinbg the feed, which LL saids in her notes.

And both of the parents deny that the mom was at the unit at 8 pm and then at 10 pm with the breastmilk, and there is evidence that it was not a fact. There was corroboration that she was exprerssing her milk at 8:30, for the established 9 pm feed.

No medical logs other than LL"s say that 9 pm feed was postponed. Yet LL says she had a discussion about it with 2 other people, but neither back that up. Nor do their medical notes back that up.

The moms version is corroborated by her going to express her milk, at 8:30, and her frantic call to dad, and his testimony.



Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders
The prosecution say the mum was "fobbed off" by Lucy Letby.
Two records are made at 4.51am, after Child E had died.
The later note records: "Mummy was present at the start of shift attending to cares. Visited again approx. 22:00. Aware that we had obtained blood from his NG tube and were starting some different medications to treat this. She was updated by Reg xxxxx and contained [Child E]. Informed her that we would contact her if any changes. Once [Child E] began to deteriorate midwifery staff were contacted. Both parents present during resus."
The prosecution say Letby's note suggests the mum was present at the start of the shift (7.30pm-8pm), and returned at 10pm, when "neither is true".
The prosecution say 9pm was an important time, as it was the time Child E was due to be fed, by his mother's expressed breast milk.
The mum said that is why she attended at 9pm. "She was bringing the milk".
The phone call at 9.11pm to her husband also fits the mum's timing, the prosecution add.

12:29pm

Letby's notes also show: "prior to 21:00 feed, 16ml mucky slightly bile-stained aspirate obtained and discarded, abdo soft, not distended. SHO [Senior House Officer] informed, to omit feed."
The prosecution say the nursing notes made are false, and fail to mention that Child E was bleeding at 9pm.
They mention a meeting that neither the registrar or the mother remember.

12:35pm

A record of feeds - a feeding chart - is shown to the court.
At 9pm, Letby has recorded information to detail the volume of fluids given via the IV line and a line in Child E's left leg, and the 9pm feed is 'omitted'.
In the 10pm column is '15ml fresh blood'.
The SHO said he had no recollection of giving advice to omit the 9pm feed.
He was on the paediatric ward most of that night, until Child E entered a terminal decline. He believes the only time he had anything to do with Child E was in a secondary role to the registrar in an examination at 10.20pm.

Yep, I thought Caroline Oakley had been placed in the room at 9:15 via Child F’s notes, and therefore whether she could corroborate. I was corrected that it was simply Letby saying she was in there.

 

[esther43]

That seems to be your personal opinion.

From the agreed evidence presented, the background given, the text messages and social activities, at the time of the alledged attacks, Ms Letby appeared to be well liked by her group of friends. Working the shifts she was working in the career she had chosen, there was probably little chance to expand her social circles beyond what she had already managed.

From what I have read and heard read out in terms of text messages to her, her team and other staff members, appear to have been very supportive of her, and genuinely fond of her.

JMO

I

I guess everyone is different.
Immediately upon reading that note I thought---- “Not good enough to care for them”---- was a reference to her not being a good enough person to care about them. If these allegations are true then she really could not care about them very much.

And that would fit better with her 'I am Evil' 'I don't deserve to live' sentiments than if she was concerned with her competencies.

Have recently been wondering if the note was LL contemplating what she might write on a final suicide note. It can be read as a conflict between denial and admission in her doodle. As though she is not sure whether to proclaim innocence or confess to a crime.
She starts out by talking about being overwhelmed, being victimised and discriminated against and not having done anything wrong'. She then moves on to talking about her 'paying for it every day' and how she is undeserving of her parents. She then clarifies intent, with words like 'I'm evil, I did this' I killed them on purpose because I am not good enough to care for them.
On the right hand side of the note, I believe she may be toying with the idea of a full disclosure but only after killing herself. JMO

 

[JosieJo]

Jmo ..... but for both sides of the fence there is evidence that has the potential to be debated till the cows come home and still be down to personal opinion

Baby Es mums testimony is not one of them ..to me it's clear there's more than enough evidence to back it up ..and none to back up LLs version

 

[marynnu]

Just chipping in to the long discussion re. the 9pm visit by Mom. What has stood out to me all along is the explanation for the blood on the chin given by LL. In my view the very idea that an NGT ( or OGT) could cause this is very strange. Why say it? Oral tubes can move around a lot but never make a child bleed. The very idea is ridiculous. JMO.

 

[Dotta]

Baby Es mums testimony is not one of them ..to me it's clear there's more than enough evidence to back it up ..and none to back up LLs version

To me it looks like the final insult

But I trust Prosecution know their job.

JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

So would you say it’s circumstantial that a senior consultant doctor said in court that he saw LL standing over one of the babies, where she’d turned off the alarms on the monitors, and he’d been injected with air?

Would you say it’s circumstantial that one baby had injuries so shocking to their liver that it was as though they’d been in a fatal car crash?

Would you say that it was “just circumstantial” that most of the babies who died in LL’s care ALL had the same mottling on their bodies which no doctor had ever seen before?

Would you say that the fact LL took 257 medical notes home with her, which “hid” her involvement with their deaths was just circumstantial?

Oh, I could go on and on and on…

I don’t need to as she’s already tripped herself up today - and that was with her defence barrister!

I'm sorry but ALL of these are circumstantial!

They are the very definition of circumstantial evidence!

You're also, yet again, stating allegations as fact. Please read the rules as to what is and is not allowed to be posted here.

 

[Xanadu62]

Just chipping in to the long discussion re. the 9pm visit by Mom. What has stood out to me all along is the explanation for the blood on the chin given by LL. In my view the very idea that an NGT ( or OGT) could cause this is very strange. Why say it? Oral tubes can move around a lot but never make a child bleed. The very idea is ridiculous. JMO.

Yep. And there’s no way a mum is going to make that bit up, both her question and the response. It’s completely unreasonable to think she not only lied about it but drew a photo of it that was also made up.

Also mum would have been questioned BEFORE nurse letby was arrested. They brought it up in her July 2018 interview first, and so when the mum gave her statement she wouldn’t necessarily know nurse letby was under suspicion, and what the charges were.

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

Just chipping in to the long discussion re. the 9pm visit by Mom. What has stood out to me all along is the explanation for the blood on the chin given by LL. In my view the very idea that an NGT ( or OGT) could cause this is very strange. Why say it? Oral tubes can move around a lot but never make a child bleed. The very idea is ridiculous. JMO.

Yes it is ridiculous, especially that amount of blood to have spilled from his mouth.

What I noticed about it though is that LL appears to have revealed the location of the bleeding, which accords with the experts view. I think the mum turning up a bit early for the feed took LL by surprise. Saying it was just rubbing in the throat, a localised injury, and not anything more alarming such as a gastric haemorrhage, the mum would have probably been easier to get rid of. Later as he swallowed blood and it was aspirated from his stomach, doctors suspected it was gastric.

It's the same phenomenon as I was explaining when she inadvertently reveals knowledge of air being administered, by distancing herself from all the feeds and intravenous administrations during police interview, saying the other nurse did it and her signature is there as the second nurse, when initially she doesn't know what the experts have said about the causes of the events, she's just being asked to explain who did what. Who needs the experts to tell them why these babies collapsed when the nurse distances herself from the very, alleged, cause?

JMO

 

[katydid23]

Here is Meyer's cross examination of baby E and F's mum:

Ben Myers KC, defending, said: “What happened that night, it must have been very intense and very upsetting?”
“Yes,” replied the witness.

Mr Myers said: “I am suggesting there were three times you went down that evening.
“I am going to suggest you went down about 8pm… then actually it’s nearer to 10pm – rather than 9pm – when you went down with the breast milk. And you then went back again when (Child E) was being resuscitated at about 11pm.
“Do you disagree with that?”

Child E’s mother said: “Absolutely.”

Mr Myers went on: “I am not going to suggest that (Child E) was not upset when you went down. I am going to suggest he was not as upset to the degree you described. It was not as bad as that?”

The witness replied: “ It was horrendous.”

Mr Myers said: “You said what you saw was blood. Is it possible what you saw was some sort of dark liquid with flecks of material – aspirates?

Child E’s mother said: “It was blood.”
Mr Myers said: “I suggest to you that there was no time that Miss Letby said the tube was irritating (Child E)?

The witness said: “I disagree.”

Mother ‘completely trusted’ nurse when she left ‘screaming’ son in her care

Nurse Lucy Letby, 32, is said to have murdered the infant with an injection of air into the bloodstream.

www.expressandstar.com

Sounds like mum really stood her ground. It is not a good look for an attorney to say " .... I am going to suggest he was not as upset to the degree you described. It was not as bad as that?” when the baby died hours later....

 

[marynnu]

Yep. And there’s no way a mum is going to make that bit up, both her question and the response. It’s completely unreasonable to think she not only lied about it but drew a photo of it that was also made up.

Also mum would have been questioned BEFORE nurse letby was arrested. They brought it up in her July 2018 interview first, and so when the mum gave her statement she wouldn’t necessarily know nurse letby was under suspicion, and what the charges were.

MOO

It's also the 'screaming' she heard when approaching the room which breaks my heart. More objectively, taken with the blood around the mouth and subsequent haemorrhage it all fits with inflicted harm IMO. You know, lots of people focus on the insulin poisonings, which I do understand, but for me personally Baby E has always been the standout case.

 

[marynnu]

Here is Meyer's cross examination of baby E and F's mum:

Ben Myers KC, defending, said: “What happened that night, it must have been very intense and very upsetting?”
“Yes,” replied the witness.

Mr Myers said: “I am suggesting there were three times you went down that evening.
“I am going to suggest you went down about 8pm… then actually it’s nearer to 10pm – rather than 9pm – when you went down with the breast milk. And you then went back again when (Child E) was being resuscitated at about 11pm.
“Do you disagree with that?”

Child E’s mother said: “Absolutely.”

Mr Myers went on: “I am not going to suggest that (Child E) was not upset when you went down. I am going to suggest he was not as upset to the degree you described. It was not as bad as that?”

The witness replied: “ It was horrendous.”

Mr Myers said: “You said what you saw was blood. Is it possible what you saw was some sort of dark liquid with flecks of material – aspirates?

Child E’s mother said: “It was blood.”
Mr Myers said: “I suggest to you that there was no time that Miss Letby said the tube was irritating (Child E)?

The witness said: “I disagree.”

Mother ‘completely trusted’ nurse when she left ‘screaming’ son in her care

Nurse Lucy Letby, 32, is said to have murdered the infant with an injection of air into the bloodstream.

www.expressandstar.com

Sounds like mum really stood her ground. It is not a good look for an attorney to say " .... I am going to suggest he was not as upset to the degree you described. It was not as bad as that?” when the baby died hours later....

What a ludicrous thing to suggest, that this mother imagined LL told her that the gastric tube was irritating her baby. I can't see how this would even occur to her as a possibility. JMO

 

[DianaWW]

It's also the 'screaming' she heard when approaching the room which breaks my heart. More objectively, taken with the blood around the mouth and subsequent haemorhage it all fits with inflicted harm IMO. You know, lots of people focus on the insulin poisonings, which I do understand, but for me personally Baby E has always been the standout case.

Me too. The mum’s testimony broke my heart. What a brave woman. JMO.