UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #4

[JosieJo]

So if she searched for other parents it weakens the case of the Facebook to a degree...my only worry now is why she would search for 3 victims together.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Regarding Facebook searches ..having dealt with many deaths in my career I cannot say I've ever searched for deceased families on Facebook...but my Facebook would show many "social" searches.

But obviously people are different..imo it just doesn't post her in a good light when she is on trial for thise involved

If she has a history of regularly searching families who's children are in her care, though, it tends to undermine the suggestion that she's doing it for reasons purely related to the deaths and collapses, though.

I agree that it comes over a kinda weird but, as you say, people are different. I can imagine that there are people who feel the need to know more about the people they are caring for and who go to great lengths to know more even if it does stray into the unethical.

Clearly, the prosecution are bringing this up because they feel that searching for the families in the charges against her helps to prove her guilt. If she does it with everyone then that may be relevant to showing that it doesn't.

 

[squish]

The fact LL searched for other parents than the alleged victims is quite important, and makes her searches seem less sinister.

<modsnip>

But I’m feeling that the prosecution are going to have quite a battle making their case.

<modsnip> so far there doesn’t seem to be a single piece of evidence that, in isolation, can’t be explained away.

Still very early days though.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Digital forensics would reveal how she went to the pages and whether they were suggested 'friends' on Facebook or she typed their names in and hit search.

But she was looking up so many parents on quite a few different occasions (even Christmas Day!) it is of my opinion she was typing their names in and hitting search.

MOO.

As I say, though, it may have been just a case of her seeing the name in the dropdown and clicking it. We don't know for sure either way though.

 

[JosieJo]

If she has a history of regularly searching families who's children are in her care, though, it tends to undermine the suggestion that she's doing it for reasons purely related to the deaths and collapses, though.

I agree that it comes over a kinda weird but, as you say, people are different. I can imagine that there are people who feel the need to know more about the people they are caring for and who go to great lengths to know more even if it does stray into the unethical.

Clearly, the prosecution are bringing this up because they feel that searching for the families in the charges against her helps to prove her guilt. If she does it with everyone then that may be relevant to showing that it doesn't.

Yes I agree ...I would have like to have known why she searched "3 victims" together and whether she searched some parents more than others ..but presumably if the prosecution didn't re examine there's nothing in it

 

[Tortoise]

Sorry guys something's come up and I can't keep up with the updates atm.

 

[Marantz4250b]

The fact LL searched for other parents than the alleged victims is quite important, and makes her searches seem less sinister.

<modsnip>

But I’m feeling that the prosecution are going to have quite a battle making their case.

<modsnip> so far there doesn’t seem to be a single piece of evidence that, in isolation, can’t be explained away.

Still very early days though.

I don't think that that follows at all. Indeed, given that the prosecution witness has confirmed that she has searched for a lot of other families it may well be the case that she can't remember making the searches if there are lots of them. Or at least not specifically when a particular search was done, especially if the "search" merely amounted to clicking a name on a drop-down.

To add: given that there are clearly a lot of searches is it possible that she lied to the police about making them because, lets face it, it's probably a seriously unethical thing to do?

 

[Marantz4250b]

So if she searched for other parents it weakens the case of the Facebook to a degree...my only worry now is why she would search for 3 victims together.

Perhaps they were the ones which stuck in her mind more than others given the circumstances? I wonder whether these three searches were around the time that she sent the WA to a colleague saying that she had a mini melt down and just wanted to spend some time with mum and dad? Such searches would not seem unreasonable if these incidents are consuming your mind already.

 

[Gardenista]

I will never understand why some prosecutors will make a big deal about something (like the FB searches) when they know the defense is going to show they were being misleading. It makes me question every single thing they say.

I guess they just hope some jurors are not paying attention.

 

[Tortoise]

11:25am

Further medication was administered in the theatre as the mum's blood pressure remained high, the consultant adds.
The consultant said the priority was to stabilise the mum's blood pressure before general anaesthetic was administered.

11:27am

There were "no complications" and "minimal blood loss" in what was described as a "routine Caesarean section operation".

11:30am

The court is now hearing a statement from a midwife at the Countess of Chester Hospital, which again is 'agreed evidence', in that neither the prosecution or the defence dispute its contents.

11:38am

The midwife recalled her memory of that night shift, and had recorded that following the birth, she told the parents the babies were "doing well".

11:54am

The next 'agreed evidence' statement is from Dr Gail Beech, who worked at the Countess of Chester Hospital at the time.
She recalls, in a statement, the care she provided to Child A in the minutes after he was born, including breathing support via a neopuff device to inflate the lungs, to get the required heart rate. Child A then cried.
Further ventilation support was given to Child A with the neopuff device "for a short time" to reduce the pauses in between breathing.
He was then recorded as having "very good" oxygen levels, so the use of the neopuff device was reduced and Dr Beech noted Child A was "fully breathing by himself".
Administering breathing support was "not expected" for a pre-term baby.
The decision was then taken to transfer him to a neonatal unit.
Dr Beech recalls showing Child A briefly to his family en route to the unit.

11:57am

She recalls 'chest compressions' were seen on Child B, which she interpreted as "a bad sign".
"It was difficult to know which baby to assist," Dr Beech recalled, as Child A was still not yet stable.
Another doctor entered and Dr Beech said for that doctor to look after Child B.
Dr Beech said she did not have any direct care for Child B that night shift.

12:17pm

We've had a short adjournment - and the prosecution will now continue giving agreed evidence.

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, October 19

 

[Dcflag]

I noticed that babies A and B had been baptized.

Given that I have faint ideas about the traditions of different churches practicing in England, I have several questions.

First, how is baptism of neonates performed? Do they immerse babies into water, or just sprinkle water on them?

Second, aren't you supposed to be somewhat healthy; what are the rules about preemies and baptism?

(One extra person in the NICU + immersion in water? Is the water brought with the priest, or the local one used?).

In short, does the fact that the babies were baptized testify to the fact that they were considered stable enough by the ICU staff and doctors?

Or is there a "light" form of baptism used in cases when a neonate is very fragile?

Thanks in advance.

I had my son christened in a&e after death and I had my daughter christened on the ward.

They use a sprinkling of water. You can hold the baby throughout, or they can be laying down anywhere (my daughter was just on the hospital bed). There are no rules regarding health. The chaplain doesn’t even actually have to physically touch the baby if it’s not no possible.

The chaplain brings the water. In our case we used the same hospital chaplain both times. We aren’t actually religious particularly but after our son died they asked if we wanted him christened, I didn’t want to regret it so we did. It’s offered to all dying or deceased.

 

[Tortoise]

12:21pm

Dr Beech's recorded observations at the time (June 9) for Child B are shown to the court. There was 'suspected sepsis' and 'jaundice'.
A management plan to 'start allowing time off CPAP', among other treatments, is noted.

12:26pm

Dr Beech's note at 2.50pm asked for an "urgent post-mortem" for Child A to look for signs of thrombosis, "as this may have implications for [Child B]".

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, October 19

 

[Dcflag]

The question was whether she looked up the parents of children other than the ones in the cases at issue. The witness confirmed that she did.

That, to me, seriously undermines any theory that she was doing it as some weird thrill after the events. No, it doesn't dismiss it entirely but it is significant.

I don’t think you can rule out that other people searched that aren’t involved in the charges today were not potentially victims of harm.

 

[BuzzC]

I had my son christened in a&e after death and I had my daughter christened on the ward.

They use a sprinkling of water. You can hold the baby throughout, or they can be laying down anywhere (my daughter was just on the hospital bed). There are no rules regarding health. The chaplain doesn’t even actually have to physically touch the baby if it’s not no possible.

The chaplain brings the water. In our case we used the same hospital chaplain both times. We aren’t actually religious particularly but after our son died they asked if we wanted him christened, I didn’t want to regret it so we did. It’s offered to all dying or deceased.

I’m very sorry for your loss.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I don’t think you can rule out that other people searched that aren’t involved in the charges today were not potentially victims of harm.

This is true but, in terms of evidence presented at this trial, it would be unfair not to rule that out.

 

[Tortoise]

12:33pm

A video is now played to the court of what the interior of the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit nursery room 1 looked like.

12:36pm

An agreed evidence statement by Dr Andrew Brunton is read out to the court.
He records that at 11.50pm on June 7, he carried out observations for Child A, who "appeared well" and was "clinically stable on CPAP".

12:42pm

An x-ray review had shown Child A had a symptom of newborn respiratory distress syndrome, but this was "nothing unusual" for a pre-term baby. The review was recorded during the night of June 7.

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, October 19

 

[Tortoise]

12:52pm

The next agreed evidence comes from someone who was a trainee doctor at the time, who is explaining how certain medical procedures were carried out for Child A.

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, October 19

 

[Tortoise]

12:59pm

The trainee doctor was called to insert a UVC (a catheter) into Child A on the afternoon of June 8. Following an X-ray, the catheter was "not ideally placed".
The trainee doctor then removed and re-sited the UVC, following discussion with more senior doctors.

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, October 19

 

[Tortoise]

I'm confused about the difference between a catheter and a cannula.

 

[BuzzC]

I'm confused about the difference between a catheter and a cannula.

Edit: I think I’m wrong