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

[notsure]

Regarding that UVC catheter placed by the trainee doctor, I found this on Google (I know it's not authoritative, but it made me think): "potentially serious complications of UVC use include thromboembolism, air embolism, arrhythmia...)

 

[notsure]

That seems odd to me too. If she was a calculated killer would she have rushed into doing it first thing into her shift? not sure.

It certainly doesn't fit in with the theory that she was doing it out of boredom.

 

[JosieJo]

Regarding that UVC catheter placed by the trainee doctor, I found this on Google (I know it's not authoritative, but it made me think): "potentially serious complications of UVC use include thromboembolism, air embolism, arrhythmia...)

The baby had an x ray that didn't show any complications..plus if it was air embolism it would have caused collapse much sooner after insertion imo

 

[LondonMama]

3:35pm

Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal nurse assistant Lisa Walker said, in her agreed evidence statement, she was not working in the neonatal room 1, but knew it was "very busy" that night.
She said she could "recall the sadness in the atmosphere in the unit" that night.
She added she could recall an increase in the number of neonatal unit deaths at the time, and prior to that, in her 10 years, "there was only news of a couple of deaths".
She added: "I remember thinking, 'what on earth is happening?'" in relation to the increased number of neonatal unit deaths.
The witness concludes, in her statement, that she had a lot of interaction with Child B as she recovered in the weeks following her non-fatal collapse and subsequent relocation to nursery room 4, and was in contact with the mother.

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, October 20

Am I reading this correctly when I hear that the nurse here describes the number of deaths increasing on the night of child A’s death…I.e BEFORE any of the other incidents LL is accused of?

If so, I think this is very useful for the defence and could indicate institutional failings. It could be just the way it’s written here though…keen for clarification if anyone has any other reports from the day?

 

[Tortoise]

The baby had an x ray that didn't show any complications..plus if it was air embolism it would have caused collapse much sooner after insertion imo

Yes most of the expert opinions referred to in the prosecution's opening speech say that the air would have been injected one to two minutes before the collapse.

 

[MissMarbles]

Just remembered the other question I've bean wanting to ask - does the prosecution have to specify a motive in a case such as this? If so, at what point do they say what they think the motive is, would it be in their closing statement?

 

[MissMarbles]

Yes most of the expert opinions referred to in the prosecution's opening speech say that the air would have been injected one to two minutes before the collapse.

Thank you for clarifying

 

[Tortoise]

Just remembered the other question I've bean wanting to ask - does the prosecution have to specify a motive in a case such as this? If so, at what point do they say what they think the motive is, would it be in their closing statement?

No, they don't have to show motive.

 

[gill1109]

No, they don't have to show motive.

They don't *have* to show motive, IMO. But they do have to create a consistent picture of LL, a picture which accounts for all the evidence brought to the court, including evidence pertaining to her character or psychology. After all, the prosecution is trying to prove *murder*, not *carelessness*. Murder implies deliberate and prior intention to kill. That means that the jury has to make a judgement about what was going on in LL's mind. For instance, a prosecution might present factual evidence of planning and preparing to kill. Notice that the accused in such a case might plead guilt, and psychiatric evidence might result in the decision that he or she was mentally ill, which would imply a sentence of detention in a psychiatric ward.

In previous UK health care serial killer cases (Allit, Norris, Geen, Chuo) the prosecution has argued that there was a motive (a perverse desire to kill? frustration and anger? ...) and the judges announcing the sentence have echoed the prosecution's suggestion of "motive". Shipman had an expensive addiction to certain medications. Of course, we do not know what the jury was thinking, but I cannot imagine that they did not come to a judgement of character / psychology, like we all do all the time, about anyone about whom we have to make decisions.

 

[arrogantcat]

2:39pm

Dr Harkness says "there was no evidence" for the long line to have moved in Child A.
"This has been proved on the post-mortem."
Mr Myers says would the long line have still been in there at the time of the post-mortem?
Dr Harkness: "No, and there was no damage [found] there [where the long line had been]."
Dr Harkness said the long line was removed at 8.27pm as a "theoretical" concern "based on no evidence at the time". He said the last new thing, as far as he could know, was the addition of the long line at the time of the collapse.
He adds: "The logical thing was to remove it."

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, October 20

Gosh, I can see why this was traumatic. That poor little one was so nearly brought back from the brink.

 

[arrogantcat]

Just noticed a few things that made me think.
Mostly (although not presented by LL or defence yet) people feel she may have searched the parents out of concern or to see how they are doing but reading this
"An analysis of her internet use also revealed that she carried out repeated Facebook searches on Baby A's mother – the first of them at 9.58am the morning after his death."
At this point she would have not long got home after her shift. She would have known exactly how the parents were doing ..in her own words she had just witnessed the father sobbing on the floor.

It’s quite common for parents with sick babies to post regular updates on FB. I can see how, as a member of the care team, it would be interesting to check in on these updates - even just to hear about their experience of your workplace from the other side. Maybe even see if you got a little mention or some praise that let you know you were doing a good job.

Following the death of the child, it seems like it would be human nature to check in again and see how they had shared the sad news. Maybe checking for a fundraiser or similar.

She doesn’t have to have been searching out of pure hearted compassion to be innocent. Curiosity isn’t a crime, after all.

 

[Charlot123]

No, they don't have to show motive.

If they don’t have to show motive, they don’t need to get into LL’s mind to explain why. However, equally, they don’t need to use her searching anyone’s FB as the proof, either. They try to use LL’s FB searches as proof of her frame of mind, but then, they don’t need to know her frame of mind, right?

So IMHO, prosecution needs to rely on solid facts in this case.

 

[notsure]

It’s quite common for parents with sick babies to post regular updates on FB. I can see how, as a member of the care team, it would be interesting to check in on these updates - even just to hear about their experience of your workplace from the other side. Maybe even see if you got a little mention or some praise that let you know you were doing a good job.

Following the death of the child, it seems like it would be human nature to check in again and see how they had shared the sad news. Maybe checking for a fundraiser or similar.

She doesn’t have to have been searching out of pure hearted compassion to be innocent. Curiosity isn’t a crime, after all.

She certainly did seem to be interested in people's thoughts and reactions.

For instance, we heard that she texted a colleague after watching a documentary about neonatal care. When the colleague said she didn't watch that kind of thing, as she has enough of it at work, LL replied that she found it interesting to learn about the public's view of their work.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

If they don’t have to show motive, they don’t need to get into LL’s mind to explain why. However, equally, they don’t need to use her searching anyone’s FB as the proof, either. They try to use LL’s FB searches as proof of her frame of mind, but then, they don’t need to know her frame of mind, right?

So IMHO, prosecution needs to rely on solid facts in this case.

Perhaps they don't 'have to' show motive, ie that is not a necessary component, but clearly they are trying to 'suggest' motive.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Perhaps they don't 'have to' show motive, ie that is not a necessary component, but clearly they are trying to 'suggest' motive.

They clearly are. As far as I can see, though, they're doing a pretty poor job of proving anything at all thus far.

 

[BuzzC]

It’s worth remembering that we’re 4 days (of evidence) into a 6 month trial.

In a case which, I expect, will rely almost exclusively on evidence which - in isolation - could be classed as circumstantial, I think it might be the prosecution’s hope that the sheer amount of circumstantial evidence will be overwhelming.

Time will tell, but it’s far too early to come down on either side IMO.

 

[JosieJo]

It’s worth remembering that we’re 4 days (of evidence) into a 6 month trial.

In a case which, I expect, will rely almost exclusively on evidence which - in isolation - could be classed as circumstantial, I think it might be the prosecution’s hope that the sheer amount of circumstantial evidence will be overwhelming.

Time will tell, but it’s far too early to come down on either side IMO.

Absolutely!!

 

[WaxLyrical]

Hi folks! First post, but long time lurker.

Obviously I appreciate we’re only a very short while into a very long trial. From what I gather so far, it all seems to hinge on the unusual discolourations found on the neonates at the time of collapse, and that the causes of death are being considered in retrospect to be air embolus.

If it cannot be reliably concluded that these discolourations are indeed a symptom of air embolus in neonates, then where does this leave things? Can a jury still find LL guilty even without being sure of the specific cause of death, but based on all the other circumstances?

 

[AnalyticalMind]

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 had my daughter christened/baptised a few hours after she was stillborn, they didn't have a Protestant or non denominational Chaplin available but thankfully a Catholic one was happy to do it, which I'll be forever indebted to him for. It made no difference to me as long as they were Christian, and he was a lovely man. Similar process to your own experiences.

 

[Charlot123]

They clearly are. As far as I can see, though, they're doing a pretty poor job of proving anything at all thus far.

It might not be there fault. The suspicion of LL’s involvement in NICU deaths was post factual. At the times of the babies’ demises, no one looked for evidence of murders. But then they turned to LE, and LE came to the conclusion that these babies were murdered. As the proof, they now have to operate with the few pieces of evidence they got. Maybe there is more to come. I am very much against the tabloids calling LL “killer nurse”, though, as it goes against the presumption of innocence, and worse, manipulates public opinion.