UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #5

[Dcflag]

These bits do make me wonder what would happen if one or more members of staff weren’t following the “systems”, “being obsessive about making sure patients are not injected with air” and being “absolutely meticulous”. Whether through wilful negligence, bad habits, a culture of cutting corners or something else.

The inclusion of these elements in the testimony does seem to suggest that this is a procedure where medical staff have to stay diligent. Would you need to be “absolutely meticulous” if there was no chance of human error?

It will be interesting to hear how the defence medical experts speak of these risks later on.

This is probably the most thought provoking thing I’ve read in a while. If the defence were to say there’s negligence here opposed to intentional murder.. are they basically conceding there’s a high chance their defendant is potentially a big part in the negligence that’s caused the deaths and collapses of these babies?

 

[MsBetsy]

Well her colleague said there was something odd about them (text convo on 30th June)

Yes, but I doubt they would jump to the conclusion that someone was doing deliberate harm, at least not at that time. They may have thought 'someone' had made a series of tragic mistakes, at most.

It probably took a long time to connect the dots. Even then they probably were shocked and reluctant to believe one of their own would do such a thing.

 

[BabaVanga]

Yet still there was no suspicion of foul play at the time.

It’s the last place on earth one would suspect foul play. Unusual and unexplainable events happening repeatedly would eventually cause suspicion … leading to investigation. Voila, she’s on trial.

 

[LiverpoolUK2222]

In my opinion the circumstantial evidence is very strong in this case.

I have seen people who have been convicted in the UK, with less circumstantial evidence than we have seen in this case.

Some people seem to think that this kind of evidence can't be good or reliable. I'm sorry but it's very effective at securing a conviction. We shall see won't we.

And those cases were without the amount of experts we have in this case. Which the defence has not really disproven in any effective manner to be honest.

Obviously e

So she had/has wonderfully supportive parents. I knew she went on holiday with them and they were supporting her so they must have a good relationship. It's especially evident from this though how loving and supportive they are, I mean that's textbook good parenting isn't it? Makes you wonder wth could've gone wrong (if guilty) doesn't it.

The world is full of attention seekers, especially these days, but very few people have been driven to these types of alleged horrific crimes. Not disagreeing with you though, I'm definitely seeing the attention seeker personality now, but there has gotta be something else too if she's guilty, must be a trigger or something. Or it could I guess be a combination of personality traits because we can also speculate she's pretty demanding, highly strung, obsessive, and seems to need A LOT of validation and praise etc.

Do you have a link for the texts to her parents, I hadn't come across that yet. I guess when you think about it, she's not gonna get as much praise for saving any babies or just generally looking after them, because that's her actual job. But when something goes wrong? And everyone's like "aw it's so rough for you right now" (not an actual quote!) she gets the sympathy. PLUS maybe the staff are more likely to be nice to her and give her what she wants, after what they think she just went through. Was it after she got told she couldn't go where she wanted she was like "just feel like there's no team spirit today" Yeh I'm seeing possible emotional manipulation here (not an expert at all just imo) Do we think LL was trying to manipulate her colleague into asking the supervisor to let her go to the room she wanted in those whatsapps. Or am I reading too much into it? In some job situations I could see myself being like "I'll ask X if they'll let you do this" to help out a friend, but obviously the nursing role is completely different and her colleague knew what was likely for the best (and agreed with the supervisor) so LL went into a huff and said there was no "team spirit". Maybe I am overanalysing it's just quite a clever way to try and get something you want.

I’m about to go to sleep and will post the texts tomorrow. The texts were mentioned a few days ago during court reporting.

 

[notsure]

Actually, I'm not sure that's true, but in any case they have concluded unnatural causes and it's obviously a matter for the jury to determine why that would be.

Edited to add one example of Dr Dewi Evans' testimony -

"He said he had "only one" conclusion, that Child A had received an air embolus, "through an IV line".
He said with the systems in place, and the medical equipment, and medical staff being "obsessive" about making sure patients are not injected with air, "there was no way this could have been done by accident"."

And Dr Bohin's testimony -

"Dr Bohin said doctors and nurses are "absolutely meticilous" in making sure even "the tiniest air bubble" is not injected by accident into a patient's circulation.
She adds that even if air was accidentally administered, there is an electronic pump system which would detect the air and stop the administration.
Dr Bohin explains to the court that could be bypassed further down the line by administering the air embolus via a connector normally used for administering drugs."

What a pity it wasn't investigated thoroughly at the time. All the other deaths could have been prevented.

 

[arrogantcat]

You've snipped the parts about the medical equipment preventing accidental administration.

They expressed certainty that it wasn't accidental.

Yes, as I indicated I had - because that’s literally my point.
If the medical equipment is 100% guaranteed to prevent accidental administration then why the need for meticulous care and obsessive diligence to avoid introducing air? In a roundabout way they seem to be saying human error *can* be a factor, but is usually prevented by medical staff’s diligence.

 

[kittythehare]

Yes, as I indicated I had - because that’s literally my point.
If the medical equipment is 100% guaranteed to prevent accidental administration then why the need for meticulous care and obsessive diligence to avoid introducing air? In a roundabout way they seem to be saying human error *can* be a factor, but is usually prevented by medical staff’s diligence.

It's all pretty well documented in medical and nursing textbooks.
It's part of training..
Not merely common sense.

 

[notsure]

It’s the last place on earth one would suspect foul play. Unusual and unexplainable events happening repeatedly would eventually cause suspicion … leading to investigation. Voila, she’s on trial.

Just one unusual and totally unexplainable event should be enough. We can only conclude they were not unexplainable events.

 

[MsBetsy]

Just one unusual and totally unexplainable event should be enough. We can only conclude they were not unexplainable events.

That the deaths and collapses were unexplainable was probably what raised suspicion in the first place. But I don't see how in June, 2015 they could have proven anything conclusive. One or two unexplainable events do not point to intentional harm.

Dr. Jayaram said at that time there wasn't enough evidence other than the association between sudden collapses/deaths, and Letby's presence.

It wasn't until February, 2017 that the Independent Clinical Review of the hospital began.
I would think the review of the medical evidence would have taken a long time. There are 17 victims. That's a lot of medical records to review.

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

This is probably the most thought provoking thing I’ve read in a while. If the defence were to say there’s negligence here opposed to intentional murder.. are they basically conceding there’s a high chance their defendant is potentially a big part in the negligence that’s caused the deaths and collapses of these babies?

Surely that would conclude with a plea deal?
So far, the odds are stacking against her. If I was her defence, I would be thinking plea deal. Just my two pence/cents

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

I've been following this trial, by chance of an article on BBC a little while back. I am from UK but have lived in Canada for the past 13 years. My 17 year old child was 730g/1lb 10oz. 28 weeks gestation, Pre-eclampsia, IGUR. We both nearly died. This was in Surrey, England. She was in the NICU for 4 months, and I had older children at school. I spent a lot of time, sitting in the rooms with my tiny, fragile baby watching the nurses and advocating for my child. There are good nurses and lazy nurses. I understand the machines and alarms and I have pulled nurses AND doctors up on issues I wanted answers to. My child was suspected NEC for weeks and weeks, with on and off feedings. They DO NOT mess around with even suspected NEC.
So good nurses, that's what we want in all nurse vacancies but unfortunately, you also get career and wage oriented nurses (and doctors, teachers and ambulance drivers and so on), I saw all different kind of nurses, doctors, consultants and volunteers in the period my baby was in NICU. I saw negligence from trainee doctors and I saw raw compassion from auxiliary nurses.
The difference this case presents is the deaths. I was submerged in a level 3 NICU for four months. I watched many babies come and go, but the go was home. I overheard other parents, I overheard staff talk. If there was anything suspicious, it was picked up straight away.
I dont know if Lucy Letby did this or not, my intuition says yes, the facts says yes but we haven't heard it all yet.
Think critically my friends.

 

[FruitTingles]

Also, the nurses thought it was very odd that there were 3 deaths in the month of June, but they gave no indication they felt it was because they thought someone was harming babies. Going by the text messages, at least one colleague recognized the deaths as being similar, but didn't seem to suspect LL at that time.

How does one recognise 3 deaths, as being similar, but still not speak up? Baffling.

 

[FruitTingles]

Surely that would conclude with a plea deal?
So far, the odds are stacking against her. If I was her defence, I would be thinking plea deal. Just my two pence/cents

ITA with you on this.

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

How does one recognise 3 deaths, as being similar, but still not speak up? Baffling.

In that very specific environment, you would not expect anyone that worked in that department to want to hurt these babies and so your mind glosses over consistencies and even, inconsistencies. Your mind 'expects' a certain moral compass and so you expect everyone else around you to oblige to this moral code, right?

But not everyone does. Unfortunately.

 

[arrogantcat]

In that very specific environment, you would not expect anyone that worked in that department to want to hurt these babies and so your mind glosses over consistencies and even, inconsistencies. Your mind 'expects' a certain moral compass and so you expect everyone else around you to oblige to this moral code, right?

But not everyone does. Unfortunately.

I’m not entirely sure about this.
In a clinical setting with children and families you are on high alert for child protection issues. You have to do regular training (ours was annual) on spotting signs. My NHS trainer told us to always respond to the smallest of hunches, always take action, even if it was just a ‘gut feeling’.

The policy is that if you have suspicions of harm to a child, you are responsible for that ‘jigsaw piece’ and cannot ignore it or pass it to anyone else - you have to make sure it is recorded and shown to the people who might have other pieces of the puzzle. The idea being that alone, your piece might not look like much, but combined you see a big picture.

While nothing of this magnitude, I have suspected and reported both colleagues and parents for negligence or actions that put a child at risk. Years on, I’m still hyper vigilant for child protection issues with eg my daughter’s friends. It’s not something you can turn off.

All of which makes the actions of the dept once at least one doctor did voice his concerns all the more astonishing and negligent. There are policies for these sorts of things, however rare or unexpected. All suspicions are supposed to be taken seriously.

 

[kittythehare]

I’m not entirely sure about this.
In a clinical setting with children and families you are on high alert for child protection issues. You have to do regular training (ours was annual) on spotting signs. My NHS trainer told us to always respond to the smallest of hunches, always take action, even if it was just a ‘gut feeling’.

The policy is that if you have suspicions of harm to a child, you are responsible for that ‘jigsaw piece’ and cannot ignore it or pass it to anyone else - you have to make sure it is recorded and shown to the people who might have other pieces of the puzzle. The idea being that alone, your piece might not look like much, but combined you see a big picture.

While nothing of this magnitude, I have suspected and reported both colleagues and parents for negligence or actions that put a child at risk. Years on, I’m still hyper vigilant for child protection issues with eg my daughter’s friends. It’s not something you can turn off.

All of which makes the actions of the dept once at least one doctor did voice his concerns all the more astonishing and negligent. There are policies for these sorts of things, however rare or unexpected. All suspicions are supposed to be taken seriously.

Good points, well made.
What is absent in this so far is the internal hospital investigation report.
I have no idea what or who initiated it, what actions were taken and what evidence they collected that led to the police investigation.
I don't know whether it will be presented in evidence or not.
Like you say, there are policies and procedures and the UK is known to practice very high standards.
I just worked there intermittently and that was in the private sector but it was right across the board.
Might well come up in evidence.

 

[Tortoise]

Yes, as I indicated I had - because that’s literally my point.
If the medical equipment is 100% guaranteed to prevent accidental administration then why the need for meticulous care and obsessive diligence to avoid introducing air? In a roundabout way they seem to be saying human error *can* be a factor, but is usually prevented by medical staff’s diligence.

I suggest your answers will be found in reading Mr Myers' cross-examination of the medical experts.

If he hasn't raised it (and he hasn't) it is because he acknowledges accidental administration, and especially of the amount of air seen by Baby A's spine, is not an explanation. Neither is faulty equipment raised as a possibility.

The evidence is that the connections are filled with saline so that air cannot get in.

Additionally, the evidence (allegedly) is that air would have been administered one to two minutes before collapse. There is no administration of anything through the lines, in LL's nursing notes, one to two minutes before his collapse. He'd received his glucose about 20 minutes earlier.

 

[merrypason]

How does one recognise 3 deaths, as being similar, but still not speak up? Baffling.

Because the deaths were looked at by coroners and sent to post mortem - we don't know if these messages were before or after that point.

Also the attending nurse would need to speak up, not someone going off what they've heard. And LL was the only common attendee from everyone - so really, it was her place to speak up. Her colleague shared her suspicions but only LL could do something about it as she was the one present with the most information and relationship with the parents.

 

[Tortoise]

9:01am

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, continues today (Thursday, November 3).
We will be bringing live coverage of the court case throughout the day.

9:04am

Here is what happened in court on Wednesday, November 2: Lucy Letby trial: Murder-accused nurse told police she found baby’s lingering death ‘quite hard’

9:09am

And here is our coverage from Tuesday, November 1: Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, November 1

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, November 3

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Marantz4250b]

Surely that would conclude with a plea deal?
So far, the odds are stacking against her. If I was her defence, I would be thinking plea deal. Just my two pence/cents

A plea deal isn't really a thing here and definitely not with murder. You can't plea down to a lesser degree of murder as there is only one - murder, for which the sentence is one of life.

An early guilty plea - before a trial, essentially - can get a certain amount off your tariff (the part that you spend in jail before application for release on life licence) but it cannot be legally agreed to before hand and the discount you can get is set in law. Wayne Couzens pleaded guilty and still got a whole life order, though. As did Joanna Dennehy.

You could plead guilty to manslaughter but the prosecution needs to be satisfied that you are actually guilty of that and can't just allow it because it's easier than a murder trial if they believe that murder is the appropriate allegation, as appears to happen in other jurisdictions.

Plea deals aren't something I personally agree with, in the main. They are a sign of a poor system in my opinion. You either have the evidence to prove a particular crime or you do not. Asking someone to plea to a lesser crime, often still with decades inside, is a recipe for a miscarriage of justice.