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

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

All staff working with these babies have been named and accounted for in the babies' records, not just at the times of their deaths/collapses but in the days leading up to them. There are no unknown agency or trainee nurses who were caring for them.

I wouldn't imagine it could be possible that anyone was 'unknown' - that would be terrifying, just that there could be an extremely high turn over rate of transient staff who were incompetent, didn't have the correct level of training, or simply didn't care. If LL was the person working the longest hours in the same job year in year out, it would make her look like 'always being there' when anything happened.

It could be said she was 'always there' when a light bulb went out or the bins weren't emptied but it doesn't mean she caused it. That's my only argument re statistics. JMO MOO.

 

[esther43]

In terms of the statistics

I appreciate it is calculated that LL is the only person that was there for all 22 incidents (allegedly) and the average being 7.

However, this could easily be explained by her being a consistent member of staff day in day out when agency staff or incompetent staff or trainees were passing through and in a high churn / turnover. If the transient staff were making a variety of errors, it would still look like LL is the common denominator. So for me, this argument doesn't work too well.

Right from the prosecution's opening speech I've been curious about the stats side of things.
Myers planted the seed that the case was all based on 'coincidence'. But since hearing how matters came to a head ( and boy did we have to wait a long time to hear the finer detail!) It became clearer from those who testified that there were specific concerns around LL.
If the process had been as such that they spotted the increased death toll and it was a case of implicating someone on the basis alone that I would agree, highly dodgy but suspicion followed LL rather than LL following suspicion.
Moo

 

[ColourPurple]

Wow!
Ready ideas

As for AE I distinctly remember her mentioning it in her text about a TV programme.

JMO

The text was about that programme but she didn't mention AE. Here's a link to watch it on . I think it's on youtube too.

An Hour To Save Your Life: Surviving Birth (BBC2, 9pm, 2016)

Following patients and staff at the Leicester Royal Infirmary, this stand-alone episode of An Hour To Save Your Life explores the critical interventions made in…

vimeo.com

 

[Tortoise]

I wouldn't imagine it could be possible that anyone was 'unknown' - that would be terrifying, just that there could be an extremely high turn over rate of transient staff who were incompetent, didn't have the correct level of training, or simply didn't care. If LL was the person working the longest hours in the same job year in year out, it would make her look like 'always being there' when anything happened.

It could be said she was 'always there' when a light bulb went out or the bins weren't emptied but it doesn't mean she caused it. That's my only argument re statistics. JMO MOO.

But how is it relevant to what happened to the babies, if they weren't caring for them? She would still be the only single person who was there for every event.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

But how is it relevant to what happened to the babies, if they weren't caring for them? She would still be the only single person who was there for every event.

If they were having zero interaction with any baby then they could not be a part of the problem.

Do we have it confirmed that LL was the sole nurse interacting with the babies though? I didn't think that was the case?

 

[ColourPurple]

If they were having zero interaction with any baby then they could not be a part of the problem.

Do we have it confirmed that LL was the sole nurse interacting with the babies though? I didn't think that was the case?

Have you seen the chart that includes all nurses that were on shift (on clinical and admin duties)for each of the collapses?

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

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Have you seen the chart that includes all nurses that were on shift (on clinical and admin duties)for each of the collapses?

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

I hadn't seen this, that's pretty damning indeed

What if LL is the one who is straight up incompetent and makes a lot of mistakes?

Then her note is a form of berating herself for not being good enough and acknowledging her failings have caused deaths and that this must be because she is evil?

We keep hearing she was a 'good' nurse but she wasn't was she? I appreciate the 'good nurse' concept is in order to ensure that there is no doubt she set out to cause harm intentionally but maybe she's a completely bumbling fool when she's distracted or tired or didn't eat properly or such?

 

[Tortoise]

I hadn't seen this, that's pretty damning indeed

What if LL is the one who is straight up incompetent and makes a lot of mistakes?

Then her note is a form of berating herself for not being good enough and acknowledging her failings have caused deaths and that this must be because she is evil?

We keep hearing she was a 'good' nurse but she wasn't was she? I appreciate the 'good nurse' concept is in order to ensure that there is no doubt she set out to cause harm intentionally but maybe she's a completely bumbling fool when she's distracted or tired or didn't eat properly or such?

It's not incompetence, these would all be deliberate acts, adding air and fluids and insulin and bypassing safety mechanisms, according to all the experts.

She redid and passed all her competencies a month after she was redeployed.

 

[ColourPurple]

I hadn't seen this, that's pretty damning indeed

What if LL is the one who is straight up incompetent and makes a lot of mistakes?

Then her note is a form of berating herself for not being good enough and acknowledging her failings have caused deaths and that this must be because she is evil?

We keep hearing she was a 'good' nurse but she wasn't was she? I appreciate the 'good nurse' concept is in order to ensure that there is no doubt she set out to cause harm intentionally but maybe she's a completely bumbling fool when she's distracted or tired or didn't eat properly or such?

But the not good enough note also says "I killed them on purpose" and "I am evil. I did this" and even she has admitted that the insulin poisonings can't have been accidental, whoever did it.

There were only two nurses who were on shift for both insulin poisonings, and the other nurse was only present for 5 collapses in total, compared to LL's 22.

All jmo

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Just catching up from Friday evening as I took the weekend off from WS.

Something that is still really getting my back up is the insinuation that the mother of baby E and F is remembering things incorrectly.

I have had 2 babies in NICU, my eldest 14 years ago, there are things that happened during the time she was in there that I can recall clearly even now 14 years later. They were the first days of my daughters life and even though I’d had a c section, was tired, emotional, overwhelmed and in pain I can remember with such clarity it’s asif it happened yesterday.

My youngest was born at 35 weeks, 6 years ago now. She was in NICU for 2 weeks. When I think back I can picture the room, the layout of where everything was, I can see one of the nurses in my mind and if I saw her I’d recognise her. I will never ever forget them trying to put a cannula in her the day she was born, we were asked to wait outside and the sound of her screaming ignited my mother’s instinct like nothing I had ever felt before. I needed to get to my baby, she was in pain. They kept trying for what felt like an eternity, I was sobbing because I was having to ignore my instinct to rush in and grab my baby from them. It is a traumatic memory that I remember so well I could tell you exactly where my daughter was. I could also recall which bed my eldest daughter was in 14 years ago.

For LL to insinuate that the mother of baby E isn’t remembering correctly is so insulting I just can’t believe she would have the gall to get up there and accuse a grieving mother of lying. One of the only memories Baby E’s mum has is of her baby bleeding and screaming hysterically. When she says he was screaming I believe her. A mother knows the difference between ‘unsettled’ and hysterical.

I understand LL wanting to answer the accusations against her. But as she has said her memory isn’t good, she can’t recall many things, and I expect we are going to hear a lot more ‘I don’t remember’ while she is on the stand. IMO Baby E’s mum knows what she saw and heard, she knows what was said to her.

She has no reason to make it up, to ‘help a conviction’ as someone has theorised. If your baby passes away you would much rather believe it was down to an illness and that nothing more could have been done to save them, than believe that someone intentionally harmed your child, and that if not for them your baby would be thriving and alive right now. When you’ve already grieved for a baby thinking they died unexpectedly but not suspiciously. To get a phone call and be told that your baby may have been murdered must be horrific and it would be the natural response to think ‘not my baby, maybe someone else’s but not mine’ if anything you would try and convince yourself they’ve got it wrong and your baby wasn’t the victim of foul play because it would bring on a whole lot of anger and another grieving process that you do not want to go through. You would be relieved to hear that the investigation is closed and that there was no foul play, but to have to hear all of this evidence in court, why would any grieving parent want to go through that?

That’s another reason why I believe baby E’s mums statement, why would you want to believe that your baby was murdered as opposed to passing away from some other cause and that doctors did all they could to save them?

All IMO anyway.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Have you seen the chart that includes all nurses that were on shift (on clinical and admin duties)for each of the collapses?

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

It’s not asif there was anyone else present for even close to the amount of times LL was. I wonder, if guilty, if her methods changed depending how many others were on shift.

In other words, if guilty, did she have more opportunity to cause greater harm if there were less nurses on shift to catch her in the act or notice suspicious behaviour. I notice that the first attempted murder of child I, there were 11 total nurses on shift that day, compared to just 5 on shift when baby E died. Less others on shift with her gives more opportunity to ‘succeed’ in attacking a baby. When there’s 10 other nurses on shift the chances of being completely alone with a baby and knowing no one else is close by is slim. Meaning, if guilty, it might have been a bungled attempt due to being weary of being caught. Whereas for baby E only 5 nurses on shift means that they could have all been occupied with other tasks, less chance of someone happening upon an attack in progress, more time to make sure that her attempt ‘succeeds’, if guilty.

That’s if I’m reading that chart correctly.

All IMO MOO

 

[Sweeper2000]

There is actually something about the mother’s testimony that I don’t know what to think of. She was asked if on her trip at 9 pm if she saw anyone who was staff she said she didn’t. The NNU was a locked unit, someone had to open the doors for her thus as far as I can see she must have seen someone.

 

[Tortoise]

There is actually something about the mother’s testimony that I don’t know what to think of. She was asked if on her trip at 9 pm if she saw anyone who was staff she said she didn’t. The NNU was a locked unit, someone had to open the doors for her thus as far as I can see she must have seen someone.

When you press a buzzer to be let in through a locked door you don't see the person who released the lock from an area inside the unit, presumably at the nurse's station.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

There is actually something about the mother’s testimony that I don’t know what to think of. She was asked if on her trip at 9 pm if she saw anyone who was staff she said she didn’t. The NNU was a locked unit, someone had to open the doors for her thus as far as I can see she must have seen someone.

From experience of having 2 babies in neonatal, the unit my daughters were in you pressed the buzzer then a little voice came over the intercom and asked who you were there to visit. You say your name and that you’re here to see ‘child’s name’ and the door unlocks. I think there’s a little camera at the door so they can see who’s there too. But you don’t usually physically see anyone, unless a nurse happens to be near the door and lets you in. Imo

 

[Sweeper2000]

i thought it would be standard to have the release button by the door itself so staff know who they are letting in.

 

[Tortoise]

It’s not asif there was anyone else present for even close to the amount of times LL was. I wonder, if guilty, if her methods changed depending how many others were on shift.

In other words, if guilty, did she have more opportunity to cause greater harm if there were less nurses on shift to catch her in the act or notice suspicious behaviour. I notice that the first attempted murder of child I, there were 11 total nurses on shift that day, compared to just 5 on shift when baby E died. Less others on shift with her gives more opportunity to ‘succeed’ in attacking a baby. When there’s 10 other nurses on shift the chances of being completely alone with a baby and knowing no one else is close by is slim. Meaning, if guilty, it might have been a bungled attempt due to being weary of being caught. Whereas for baby E only 5 nurses on shift means that they could have all been occupied with other tasks, less chance of someone happening upon an attack in progress, more time to make sure that her attempt ‘succeeds’, if guilty.

That’s if I’m reading that chart correctly.

All IMO MOO

There were always more staff on during day shifts, and less parents around at night.

There was about a month between the alleged attempted murders of baby F and baby G, which coincides with LL not working night-shifts during that time.

Later on in the year, when LL was moved to day shifts to give her more support in terms of staffing numbers, the events started happening during days as well.

 

[Tortoise]

i thought it would be standard to have the release button by the door itself so staff know who they are letting in.

usually there is a camera focused on the entrance so they can see who they are buzzing in.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

i thought it would be standard to have the release button by the door itself so staff know who they are letting in.

There is one the other side of the door so staff can physically let you in, I think they have to put their lanyard card (swipe card?) up against it which registers that it’s an authorised person (like the swipe card data we have for LL) so not just anyone can press a button and let people in. Theres not always someone around by the door so some have the intercom system too, that way the nurse can verify who you are and let you in without having to leave the desk to keep letting people in. I think it varies from unit to unit though.

 

[WaxLyrical]

I hadn't seen this, that's pretty damning indeed

What if LL is the one who is straight up incompetent and makes a lot of mistakes?

Then her note is a form of berating herself for not being good enough and acknowledging her failings have caused deaths and that this must be because she is evil?

We keep hearing she was a 'good' nurse but she wasn't was she? I appreciate the 'good nurse' concept is in order to ensure that there is no doubt she set out to cause harm intentionally but maybe she's a completely bumbling fool when she's distracted or tired or didn't eat properly or such?

The chart doesn’t paint a full picture, which makes it less helpful that it could be. For example, Baby N had several desaturations on the shift prior to the second alleged attack, when LL wasn’t working, but that won’t appear on the chart as it only includes the shifts of LL’s alleged attacks.

 

[marynnu]

In terms of the statistics

I appreciate it is calculated that LL is the only person that was there for all 22 incidents (allegedly) and the average being 7.

However, this could easily be explained by her being a consistent member of staff day in day out when agency staff or incompetent staff or trainees were passing through and in a high churn / turnover. If the transient staff were making a variety of errors, it would still look like LL is the common denominator. So for me, this argument doesn't work too well.

It doesn't work that way. No specialist area like NNU employs just any random agency nurse, as it's more trouble than it's worth - it would be like putting a neonatal nurse in theatres! The agency nurses at CoC were a well-known group of people who knew what they were doing.