UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #21

[Blondiexoxo]

"Then LL sent numerous text messages asking about baby G following further incidents where she almost died. She throws out possible reasons for her collapses…
LL: “Hmm, what can cause that.” “Is it that she is an extreme premature who had long-term inotrope and vent dependency and now she is older and doing more for herself...it just takes a little...something to tip her over.”


I have always thought this wording-----"it just takes a little...something to tip her over.”------is really distressing to hear.

It feels like that might be leakage from her subconscious, and that is how she looks at the collapses? It just takes 'a little something' to 'tip them over' and so she does so.

That’s exactly how I read into it, that if guilty, she thinks the babies are teetering on the edge anyway and just need a little push to go over. If she thought her colleague could be suspicious, she’s tried to remove any suspicion by giving possible reasons for these incidents. Describing her as ‘extremely premature’ ‘vent dependency’, drawing attention to baby G’s vulnerabilities and make it seem like she didn’t have much of a chance anyway, all it took was a ‘little something to tip her over’.

The original over feeding event happening on baby G’s 100th day, to me when looked at in the scheme of things with how many other ‘coincidences’ there were surrounding LL, is unlikely to have been just a coincidence. As has been suggested before, if guilty, this is another sign that her aim may have been to inflict maximum pain on the parents. The 100 day milestone, supposed to be a happy occasion, would turn into a nightmare for the parents who probably went to visit their baby happy that day as she’d reached 100 days and should have been out of the woods. If guilty, attacking child G on her 100th day was very calculated and cruel. It’s like waiting for when the parents think everything is fine and that before long will be preparing to take their baby home finally, then coming along and ruining their positivity, their hopefulness and idea that their baby is going to be ok.

But that text is very disturbing when you read it with the knowledge that she’s now on trial for murder and attempted murder of multiple babies including baby G who she wrote the message about.

All MOO

 

[Tortoise]

Ah yes, I know their evidence is completed, just wondered if it will be repeatedly drawn upon like it has been by Myers in questioning LL.
My thinking is, by the time we are back round to child A with the prosecution's cross, we will go through the whole thing again, this time it will be Andrews who draws upon the anaylisis and so on and so forth with any others bought to the stand by the defence ?

I don't understand what you mean about drawing upon that evidence. Could you give a for instance?

Who is Andrews?

 

[Anxala]

That's a really odd thing to write. I wonder what detail they mean? We HAVE heard detail about the notes she wrote, the kept handover notes, what she says she was doing around the times of each incident.

For me that means that there have been legal discussions in court to do with some aspect of LL that the jury aren't privy to, that would potentially bias the jury against her, and that journalists have heard but can't print. This secret information in the journalist's mind is newsworthy and sensationalist enough for them to hint at the presence of it. In my opinion, of course.

But would the media be privy to legal discussions re LL that the jury were not? Surely legal discussions re LL that the jury were not privy to would also be legal discussions that the media were not privy to? Surely these same legal discussions would be carried out with only those on the prosecution and defence teams in attendance?

Bottom line, no journalist reporting on this case should be hinting at anything that's contrary to and questions their stance as credibly objective, fact-reporting reporters.

 

[Tortoise]

But would the media be privy to legal discussions re LL that the jury were not? Surely legal discussions re LL that the jury were not privy to would also be legal discussions that the media were not privy to?

No I've sat in a public gallery before during legal argument, it's just not reportable. They only make the jury leave.

 

[esther43]

I don't understand what you mean about drawing upon that evidence. Could you give a for instance?

Who is Andrews?

Sorry! Nick Johnson Not Andrews!
What I mean is over the last week, we have watched Myers drag out the sequence of events whilst LL was on the stand.
The sequence as events, I thought ( please correct me if I'm wrong) were laid out primarily by the intelligence analyst when the prosecution bought their case.
Myers drew upon the events laid out in his questioning of LL. To give the jury context and it's this context that I wonder, will be repeated again and again...

 

[marynnu]

"Bought" by Defence?

Ummm....
Geez!

You know it's a typo, yes? Should read "brought".

 

[Tortoise]

Sorry! Nick Johnson Not Andrews!
What I mean is over the last week, we have watched Myers drag out the sequence of events whilst LL was on the stand.
The sequence as events, I thought ( please correct me if I'm wrong) were laid out primarily by the intelligence analyst when the prosecution bought their case.
Myers drew upon the events laid out in his questioning of LL. To give the jury context and it's this context that I wonder, will be repeated again and again...

I see what you mean. They will only repeat whatever is relevant to the questioning, to remind and refresh jurors' memories or aid understanding/context of the question/answer.

So it won't be necessary to repeat everything, only what relates to the events that the barristers want to focus on. The fact she got through six babies in one day shows it is moving at quite a pace.

IMO

 

[esther43]

I see what you mean. They will only repeat whatever is relevant to the questioning, to remind and refresh jurors' memories or aid understanding/context of the question/answer.

So it won't be necessary to repeat everything, only what relates to the events that the barristers want to focus on. The fact she got through six babies in one day shows it is moving at quite a pace.

IMO

I agree. I give no more than a days worth of evidence on experts. LL could have wrapped up babies A -F in 30 mins for all she contributed.

 

[Dotta]

You know it's a typo, yes? Should read "brought".

Good to hear
Retrial would be the death of me.

 

[esther43]

I'm a big believer in anecdotal evidence and find the number of times staff escalated concerns compelling. I put together a brief timeline that focuses purely on this aspect.

June 2015 - Concerns (1)
After child D died. Dr SB carried out a review. As a result of this review an association to nurse LL was made. RJ states it was 'an association but nothing more'

Doctor ‘wishes he had gone straight to police over Lucy Letby concerns’

JUNE 2015

A further report which details DR SB's account, Nurse manager EP was also involved in this review. Dr SB is said to have testified that EP the nursing manager of the neonatal unit, had first noticed a connection while carrying out a review into three events in June 2015.

Senior hospital executive ignored warnings about killer Lucy Letby

FEB 2016 - Concerns (2)
According to the testimony of RJ, concerns were again escalated by his colleague Dr SB in feb 2016. This time to the director of nursing and the medical director but senior managers failed to respond for three months.

Doctor ‘wishes he had gone to police over nurse Lucy Letby baby collapse concerns’


FEB 2016
Also in Feb 2016, according to this source a colleague from Liverpool womens hospital undertook a review to look at the increased levels of morbity at Coc. In on article Dr SB is quoted saying that 'more suspicion arose as more and more events happened on the unit'

Senior hospital executive ignored warnings about killer Lucy Letby



JUNE 2016
Following the report from Liverpool womens nurse manager EP had looked into a number of things to understand the increase in mortality. These things included staffing, incubator space and microbiology according to Dr SB
Senior hospital executive ignored warnings about killer Lucy Letby

JUNE 2016
Following the death of twins of O and P on the 24th of June a consultants meeting was held.(End of June )

Doctor tells Lucy Letby's murder trial a 'chill went down my spine'

JUNE 2016
Following the deaths of twins O & P Dr SB contacted the duty executive in urgent care to say he did not want nurse LL to return to the unit.

Senior hospital executive ignored warnings about killer Lucy Letby

JUNE 2016
An incident with child Q occurs and LL is removed from the unit.

Lucy Letby: doctor asked for nurse to be removed from duties, trial hears

Hospital boss refused to remove Letby from shift despite colleagues raising concerns about her presence and series of infant deaths

www.theguardian.com

JULY 2016
CoC NNU downgraded to a level 1

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2017-05-18/report-found-inadequate-staffing-numbers-at-hospital

SEPT 2016
RCPH visit the coc hospital
(See RCPH report)


NOV 2016
RCPH issue final report
( See RCPH report)

NOV 2016
At this same time consultants were fighting not to have LL returned to the unit.

May 2017
Police investigation launched

Police investigating baby deaths at Countess of Chester hospital

Cheshire police will look at deaths of 15 babies and six non-fatal incidents between 2015 and 2016 after trust contacted them

www.theguardian.com

 

[esther43]

Curiouser still, I thought the resignation process was also interesting. Info sourced from linked in and twitter

MAY 2017 - New CEO 'Acts up' at CoC
SG becomes the 'Acting CEO' for CoC

JULY 2018 - First arrest
14 months after the police investigation was launched nurse LL was arrested.

AUG 2018 - Medical Director resigns.
Dr IB throws in the towel and takes early retirement. Replaced by Dr DK

MARCH 2019 - Official resignation of CEO
TC hands in his resignation. Dr. SG recruited as replacement.

JUNE 2019 - The second arrest
Nurse LL is arrested for the second time

MARCH 2020 - The Chair resigns
Sir DN resigns from his position as board chair and is replaced by Dr CH.

JUNE 2020 - New Medical Director resigns.
Dr DK who took over from Dr IB as medical director resigns and as replaced by Dr NS

NOV 2020 - The third arrest.
Nurse LL, arrested, charged and remanded in custody.

 

[Tortoise]

I'm a big believer in anecdotal evidence and find the number of times staff escalated concerns compelling. I put together a brief timeline that focuses purely on this aspect.

June 2015 - Concerns (1)
After child D died. Dr SB carried out a review. As a result of this review an association to nurse LL was made. RJ states it was 'an association but nothing more'

Doctor ‘wishes he had gone straight to police over Lucy Letby concerns’

JUNE 2015

A further report which details DR SB's account, Nurse manager EP was also involved in this review. Dr SB is said to have testified that EP the nursing manager of the neonatal unit, had first noticed a connection while carrying out a review into three events in June 2015.

Senior hospital executive ignored warnings about killer Lucy Letby

FEB 2016 - Concerns (2)
According to the testimony of RJ, concerns were again escalated by his colleague Dr SB in feb 2016. This time to the director of nursing and the medical director but senior managers failed to respond for three months.

Doctor ‘wishes he had gone to police over nurse Lucy Letby baby collapse concerns’


FEB 2016
Also in Feb 2016, according to this source a colleague from Liverpool womens hospital undertook a review to look at the increased levels of morbity at Coc. In on article Dr SB is quoted saying that 'more suspicion arose as more and more events happened on the unit'

Senior hospital executive ignored warnings about killer Lucy Letby



JUNE 2016
Following the report from Liverpool womens nurse manager EP had looked into a number of things to understand the increase in mortality. These things included staffing, incubator space and microbiology according to Dr SB
Senior hospital executive ignored warnings about killer Lucy Letby

JUNE 2016
Following the death of twins of O and P on the 24th of June a consultants meeting was held.(June 19th)

Doctor tells Lucy Letby's murder trial a 'chill went down my spine'

JUNE 2016
Following the deaths of twins O & P Dr SB contacted the duty executive in urgent care to say he did not want nurse LL to return to the unit.

Senior hospital executive ignored warnings about killer Lucy Letby

JUNE 2016
An incident with child Q occurs and LL is removed from the unit.

Lucy Letby: doctor asked for nurse to be removed from duties, trial hears

Hospital boss refused to remove Letby from shift despite colleagues raising concerns about her presence and series of infant deaths

www.theguardian.com

JULY 2016
CoC NNU downgraded to a level 1

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2017-05-18/report-found-inadequate-staffing-numbers-at-hospital

SEPT 2016
RCPH visit the coc hospital
(See RCPH report)


NOV 2016
RCPH issue final report
( See RCPH report)

NOV 2016
At this same time consultants were fighting not to have LL returned to the unit.

May 2017
Police investigation launched

Police investigating baby deaths at Countess of Chester hospital

Cheshire police will look at deaths of 15 babies and six non-fatal incidents between 2015 and 2016 after trust contacted them

www.theguardian.com

"So all this took place in June 2015 but it wasn’t until four months later in October that same year that this association or link between Lucy Letby and the poorly babies was first raised with hospital management. Jurors weren’t told exactly when in October Dr Jayaram and Dr Brearey went to hospital managers to talk about their findings but you might remember that it’s the prosecution’s case that at the end of October Lucy Letby murdered baby I. […]

So the court heard that at some point in October this association between Lucy Letby and these unexpected deaths and collapses that Dr Brearey and Dr Jayaram had been discussing back in June was escalated. The consultants were starting to wonder if these events as they call them on the unit […] were linked in some way.

So who was told what? In his evidence to the court this week Dr Jayaram said that specifically the director of nursing was alerted at this stage. Now she wasn’t named in court but we understand she no longer works at the Countess. And what happened once the concerns had been referred up the hospital chain in October? Dr Jayaram said the initial response from managers was ‘it’s unlikely, we’ll see’. So the court heard that in a nutshell nothing happened."

The Trial of Lucy Letby, Episode 19: An Association, "The truth of it is we were thinking the unthinkable. We didn’t want to believe it.” - The Mail

www.mailplus.co.uk

 

[esther43]

"So all this took place in June 2015 but it wasn’t until four months later in October that same year that this association or link between Lucy Letby and the poorly babies was first raised with hospital management. Jurors weren’t told exactly when in October Dr Jayaram and Dr Brearey went to hospital managers to talk about their findings but you might remember that it’s the prosecution’s case that at the end of October Lucy Letby murdered baby I. […]

So the court heard that at some point in October this association between Lucy Letby and these unexpected deaths and collapses that Dr Brearey and Dr Jayaram had been discussing back in June was escalated. The consultants were starting to wonder if these events as they call them on the unit […] were linked in some way.

So who was told what? In his evidence to the court this week Dr Jayaram said that specifically the director of nursing was alerted at this stage. Now she wasn’t named in court but we understand she no longer works at the Countess. And what happened once the concerns had been referred up the hospital chain in October? Dr Jayaram said the initial response from managers was ‘it’s unlikely, we’ll see’. So the court heard that in a nutshell nothing happened."

The Trial of Lucy Letby, Episode 19: An Association, "The truth of it is we were thinking the unthinkable. We didn’t want to believe it.” - The Mail

www.mailplus.co.uk

Interesting, because the DM also stated


"In late June or early July that year he and Ms Powell had a meeting with Alison Kelly, the hospital's director of nursing, and the head of risk. 'Three deaths in a short period of concern were a matter of concern,' said Dr Brearey."

Senior hospital executive ignored warnings about killer Lucy Letby

Karen Rees, a duty executive in urgent care in June 2016, insisted there was no evidence against Letby, and refused to take her off duty until the unexplained death of a triplet was investigated.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[esther43]

You know it's a typo, yes? Should read "brought".

Always the teacher Dotta.

 

[Jazmania]

That's interesting! So the press get to hear stuff that the jury can't?

Yes I'm pretty sure they do. That's why often when people are found guilty, newspapers will then often print stories, saying things like 'now we can reveal x,y,z...

 

[Becci]

So 27th Nov 2015 child J
AM airway obstruction.

17th Feb 2016 child K
AM tube dislodgment
Dr J witnessed LL next to cot doing nothing

2 complaints made in Feb 2016

Next
9th April 2016 child L
AM insulin poisoning

I'll stay zipped on my thoughts lol

 

[Jazmania]

But would the media be privy to legal discussions re LL that the jury were not? Surely legal discussions re LL that the jury were not privy to would also be legal discussions that the media were not privy to? Surely these same legal discussions would be carried out with only those on the prosecution and defence teams in attendance?

Bottom line, no journalist reporting on this case should be hinting at anything that's contrary to and questions their stance as credibly objective, fact-reporting reporters.

Yes the media are privy to these discussions, but they cannot print them, and I agree in the interest of a fair trial I don't think it is right to even hint at them. But I think that is exactly what the podcast journos are doing in this instance. Wouldn't be surprised if that comment was later excised.

 

[esther43]

So 27th Nov 2015 child J
AM airway obstruction.

17th Feb 2016 child K
AM tube dislodgment
Dr J witnessed LL next to cot doing nothing

2 complaints made in Feb 2016

Next
9th April 2016 child L
AM insulin poisoning

I'll stay zipped on my thoughts lol

Yes, or if you were looking at in the context of 'deaths' only ( given that AM's were likely only discovered on investigation) then there were three poignant events that occured between raising the first and second set of concerns. They were :

child E's death in aug 2015,
child I's death in Oct 2015
child K (AM) in Feb. 2016

-Concerns raised in Feb 2016 -
Then the next deaths were O and P in June 2016

-further concerns raised-

There may have been some concerns discussed in October according to podcast link.

 

[Becci]

Yes, or if you were looking at in the context of 'deaths' only ( given that AM's were likely only discovered on investigation) then there were three poignant events that occured between raising the first and second set of concerns. They were :

child E's death in aug 2015,
child I's death in Oct 2015
child K (AM) in Feb. 2016

-Concerns raised in Feb 2016 -
Then the next deaths were O and P in June 2016

-further concerns raised-

There may have been some concerns discussed in October according to podcast link.

Good point.

 

[Dotta]

Good morning!
Another beautiful day here

I want to ask about Monday.
So is the Court sitting tomorrow?

I somehow got confused with ever
changing schedules

TIA
Have a nice day all!