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

[Powermjp]

"Dr Jayaram told Ben Myers KC, representing Letby, that he and his colleagues had become increasingly worried about a run of 'very unusual and seemingly inexplicable' collapses in the neonatal unit from June 2015.[...]

Following half an hour of intense cross-examination, he told the barrister: 'At the time of the coroner’s report, we as a group of clinicians had already begun to raise concern about the association that we’d seen with an individual being present in these situations.

'And at the time we were being told that really we shouldn’t be saying such things and not to make a fuss.

'My concern is that had I suggested this - that this could have been happening – I didn’t have any hard evidence.' "

Lucy Letby trial hears TV doctor and his colleagues 'raised concerns'

Yeah it seems completely obvious they would have major concerns about accusing a nurse of such a thing and raising the subject. As he himself says they didn't have clear evidence.

If they are wrong, its sued for bullying, leaked the public. Lawsuit could cost them thousands.

The trust was put in an extremely difficult situation in my opinion.

 

[Sweeper2000]

"Dr Jayaram told Ben Myers KC, representing Letby, that he and his colleagues had become increasingly worried about a run of 'very unusual and seemingly inexplicable' collapses in the neonatal unit from June 2015.[...]

Following half an hour of intense cross-examination, he told the barrister: 'At the time of the coroner’s report, we as a group of clinicians had already begun to raise concern about the association that we’d seen with an individual being present in these situations.

'And at the time we were being told that really we shouldn’t be saying such things and not to make a fuss.

'My concern is that had I suggested this - that this could have been happening – I didn’t have any hard evidence.' "

Lucy Letby trial hears TV doctor and his colleagues 'raised concerns'

Yip this is where the defence have built the idea and also stated the only link is LL presence because it was noted by the group of clinicians as being the only consistent feature amongst the cases. If that is it and there isn’t anything else to give an indication that LL behaviour is ever under question then how strong can the prosecution’s case actually be?

The police wouldn’t have enough expertise in medicine to be able to say if it was or wasn’t suspicious so they would have to go with what the doctors say and work from there rather than working with other potentials, the way a series of connected but unsolved murders of adults in the general public would be.

 

[JosieJo]

I do get where you're coming from, and I understand how those opinions of her could be formed, but I just don't see it with her. I really don't.

Yes, born to slightly older parents but not really. Her mother would have been 30 when she was born - perfectly usual. Her father, yes, a bit older but not massively so.

I don't see her as being "old fashioned". Her FB pictures certainly don't give that impression. The pictures don't paint her as the wild party animal, exhibitionist type but not as the reclusive wall-flower type, which seems to be being attributed to her, either. Lets not forget that, I think, this comment about her being a bit "socially awkward" seems to originate from one guy speaking to a newspaper who claims to have known her via an ex-girlfriend. How do we know that he met her any more than once? Given the circumstances, it's unlikely that he'd say ...ah, yeah, Lucy, absolutely amazing girl, thought she was drop-dead lovely! I don't put a lot of faith in statements like that.

Nor do I buy the fact that she saw life passing her by, her friends hooking up with doctors, getting married, having kids, etc and her feeling a bit passed over. She was 25, doing well in her career and leading the life she wanted. That's not old by any stretch of the imagination. Also, we don't know if she was single or had been for most of her adult life. There are a couple of photos in the news reports, however, which seem to be foreign holiday photos - one by a plant with lights on it with a restaurant in the background. That has the vibe of a holiday photo with a partner about it, to be honest. There is also a pic of her in the back middle seat of a car and a man's hand next to her - boyfriend? Another pic is of her in a bar with a male each side of her - men don't get themselves into pictures with undesirable women and however seedy that might sound it isn't untrue.

Herein are my "post-it note" ramblings!

To be honest I think it's virtually impossible for any of us (me included) to get any idea what she is like or her life from Facebook photos.
Those photos could depict a girl who hardly goes out unless it's a works outing and has holidays with her parents....or a girl with an amazing fulfilled life and social life that she hardly post photos about or even cares to.

 

[Dotta]

That’s a very reasonable interpretation of what’s available. It’s very curious they haven’t mentioned any motive with the best the prosecution having to offer in “setting the scene” being the note and fb searches. Don’t the police need a motive to make a case? If that is all “this happened and we don’t know why so have to blame someone” then I don’t know what to think or if after it’s summed up by the jury they think the same, what then?

Edit. I think we can safely assume that the medical evidence is strong and pointed though. If that is the prosecutions strongest approach and is currently strong.

Re the motive

I think the investigators can only guess - roughly.

After all, how can a decent person know what is going on in a demented evil mind?

Every killer has his/her own twisted motive justifying, in their mind, the heinous acts they commit.

Moo

 

[Charlot123]

But this means that people's judgements are coloured by personal experience.

The SovietU has nothing to to with UK's nurse trial.

I don't see any conspiracy theory by Police or Prosecution.

Only the wish to find the cause of babies' numerous deaths.

Moo

@Dotta, for sure our opinions are covered by personal/family/life experiences. How else?

Take anything, murder, domestic violence, kids with illnesses or victims of bullying, racism, antisemitism, personal or family history of grave injustice, religious persection - everything, everything has an effect of how we perceive the situation.

So... this one is horribly complex. In the big scheme, L@D in England. To add, this spike in neonatal mortality and the parents with their grief. To add, this complex case of LL. And Dr. Jay.

I am very much concerned that the tabloids are using terms that are inappropriate, without enough reason.

You want another example of their toxicity?

"TV doctor" in the context of Dr. Jay.

We have TV doctors here, and some of them are so sensationalizing, that if either ever made such an accusation, about a nurse, his name alone would be enough for me to be skeptical of the whole case.

So about Dr. Jay, I had to watch several of his YouTubes, ask myself, "is he a cheap sensationalist, or a professional with own show? How much time does he have to study modern literature? What is his thinking pattern? Fast and impulsive, or logical? How would LL react to a celebrity on the unit?"

It seems that Dr. Jay is nothing like some other TV doctors, thank god. But the term itself, doesn't it hurt the case, either? Should it have even been used in the context of a specialist who once had a show on the side? And it also comes from the same tabloids.

In this case, I believe, much has been poisoned by the press. How difficult it would be for the jurors to weigh in correctly. How hard would it be for the defense to find an expert bold enough to go against the tabloids and public opinion, I don't know.

Hope there will be more persuasive information.

ETA: what happened to good old terms, such as "murder suspect"? You can't call anyone "a killer" in press until it has been proven.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Yeah it seems completely obvious they would have major concerns about accusing a nurse of such a thing and raising the subject. As he himself says they didn't have clear evidence.

If they are wrong, its sued for bullying, leaked the public. Lawsuit could cost them thousands.

I’m reasonably sure that multiple doctors reporting suspicions to superiors about babies dying in their care would take that risk even without hard evidence. Especially if the evidence continually stacked up. I’m also sure that a closer eye would have been kept on LL had these suspicions been based on something other than presence and if it was then nothing was noted and that makes it even more dubious. <modsnip - opinion stated as fact>

 

[Tortoise]

My own view of the post-it note is that at its core it is evidence of deception. The messages in it cannot all be true.

I think it is possibly rough notes for a suicide letter, and possibly contains some untruths to make it palatable for her parents to read.

I also think the capitalised words were added at a later juncture, and a difference in mood and difference in motivation for writing notes, to get them out of her head.

 

[Noseyposy76]

I certainly have experience of pregnancy loss. On multiple occasions. In fact, that’s very possibly another reason why I feel invested in the case. Because I know how difficult it can be for some families to have children. The thought of them being taken away by negligence, or worse, horrifies me.

They were given as examples of possible “triggers”. Any traumatic life experience could be a trigger to someone. I could have picked literally any number of different ones but, if I’ve offended or upset anyone by naming these two particular issues, I am truly sorry.

Well that is exactly why I would find that as a motive very hard to believe. I am not just talking from my own personal experiences, but these conditions often destroy your self confidence, the complete opposite of going out and trying to extinguish something that you so desperately long for yourself.

Everyone deals with things differently though, but LL was only mid twenties and not in a serious relationship as far as we know, so I very much doubt she was even thinking about it let alone trying to even know it was not possible for her. Besides, I hate to bring that note up again, but didn’t she write on there she was never going to marry or have children, as a result of being under suspicion/accused. I don’t think she would mention that if she knew she couldn’t have children anyway.

But as you say, you were just giving examples of trauma.

I do personally find it triggering when people make assumptions, that if you have lost a child or can’t have one, you must be bitter and so jealous you couldn’t possibly be happy for anyone else who has been blessed - it makes you feel even more of an outcast.

Thank you for your honesty and I am very sorry for your losses. This case and details of the babies is incredibly hard for everyone to hear, but to even get to that point of having a baby and for then potentially it being taken away, is unimaginable.

 

[Powermjp]

I’m reasonably sure that multiple doctors reporting suspicions to superiors about babies dying in their care would take that risk even without hard evidence. Especially if the evidence continually stacked up. I’m also sure that a closer eye would have been kept on LL had these suspicions been based on something other than presence and if it was then nothing was noted and that makes it even more dubious. <modsnip - opinion stated as fact>

But that's what eventually happened, they switched her to day time.

Then took her off the ward.

And then the police started investigating.

And maybe more things i don't know about

It just took time.

As he said they had 0 clear evidence at the time.

They couldn't go all guns blazing, they were afraid like i said of being wrong. And if they were wrong the potential for a lawsuit, bullying etc would be huge.

Hindsight is 20/20. Perhaps they should have moved faster, that is true.

But this potential crime is clearly extremely hard to detect, and i hope going forward these babies are better protected. It really shows how vulnerable they are. I hope cctv or something could be implemented

 

[Tortoise]

I’m reasonably sure that multiple doctors reporting suspicions to superiors about babies dying in their care would take that risk even without hard evidence. Especially if the evidence continually stacked up. I’m also sure that a closer eye would have been kept on LL had these suspicions been based on something other than presence and if it was then nothing was noted and that makes it even more dubious.<modsnip>

She was moved to day-shifts and according to the prosecution the unexplained collapses and deaths moved with her.

She was then moved into an admin role while the hospital passed the cases of concern to the Royal College for review, as a first step.

 

[MissMarbles]

OK so the note in question - should we expect some sort of Linguistics expert to be called as a witness at some point? And a handwriting analyst? I must admit I'm intrigued by what they might have to say if so. Also other notes were referred to in the opening statement so we will hear about them too presumably.

 

[MsBetsy]

"Dr Jayaram told Ben Myers KC, representing Letby, that he and his colleagues had become increasingly worried about a run of 'very unusual and seemingly inexplicable' collapses in the neonatal unit from June 2015.[...]

Following half an hour of intense cross-examination, he told the barrister: 'At the time of the coroner’s report, we as a group of clinicians had already begun to raise concern about the association that we’d seen with an individual being present in these situations.

'And at the time we were being told that really we shouldn’t be saying such things and not to make a fuss.

'My concern is that had I suggested this - that this could have been happening – I didn’t have any hard evidence.' "

Lucy Letby trial hears TV doctor and his colleagues 'raised concerns'

Didn't Dr. Jayaram say it was because of this concern that he went to check on child K? He realized Lucy was in the room with the baby and went to check on them?

The prosecutor stated that nobody on the ward could believe a staff member was capable of harming babies. They may have suspected her, but initially could not believe it.

 

[ShireChe]

That’s a very reasonable interpretation of what’s available. It’s very curious they haven’t mentioned any motive with the best the prosecution having to offer in “setting the scene” being the note and fb searches. Don’t the police need a motive to make a case? If that is all “this happened and we don’t know why so have to blame someone” then I don’t know what to think or if after it’s summed up by the jury they think the same, what then?

Edit. I think we can safely assume that the medical evidence is strong and pointed though. If that is the prosecutions strongest approach and is currently strong.

They don't 'need' a motive. A motive certainly helps make a case stronger but it's not a requirement. Sometimes (talking in general here) we just never find out why someone did what they did

 

[BuzzC]

Well that is exactly why I would find that as a motive very hard to believe. I am not just talking from my own personal experiences, but these conditions often destroy your self confidence, the complete opposite of going out and trying to extinguish something that you so desperately long for yourself.

Everyone deals with things differently though, but LL was only mid twenties and not in a serious relationship as far as we know, so I very much doubt she was even thinking about it let alone trying to even know it was not possible for her. Besides, I hate to bring that note up again, but didn’t she write on there she was never going to marry or have children, as a result of being under suspicion/accused. I don’t think she would mention that if she knew she couldn’t have children anyway.

But as you say, you were just giving examples of trauma.

I do personally find it triggering when people make assumptions, that if you have lost a child or can’t have one, you must be bitter and so jealous you couldn’t possibly be happy for anyone else who has been blessed - it makes you feel even more of an outcast.

Thank you for your honesty and I am very sorry for your losses. This case and details of the babies is incredibly hard for everyone to hear, but to even get to that point of having a baby and for then potentially it being taken away, is unimaginable.

You make a good point about why those particular “triggers” (if I call them that) would be unlikely to manifest themself in this way. Had I considered it more before posting, I would have used different examples.

I literally picked examples of ’trauma’ that I could imagine a young women having experienced and didn’t give it much more thought than that. Certainly something I can reflect on and be more careful of in future.

I’m sorry for your experiences too and thank you for your understanding towards me.

 

[Powermjp]

Didn't Dr. Jayaram say it was because of this concern that he went to check on child K? He realized Lucy was in the room with the baby and went to check on them?

The prosecutor stated that nobody on the ward could believe a staff member was capable of harming babies. They may have suspected her, but initially could not believe it.

It makes sense, you wouldn't want to even consider a close work mate would do one of the worst things possible, and be quite evil. Who would want to think someone in your ward was doing such a thing.

Especially without clear evidence, as we unfortunately see with a crime like this (even if she is innocent), its very hard to get any clear evidence, because if a clever and determined person wanted to do this they could cause a lot of harm very quickly.


A fresh pair of eyes from the doctor, it makes sense they would be more likely to spot something off.

 

[Sweeper2000]

My own view of the post-it note is that at its core it is evidence of deception. The messages in it cannot all be true.

I think it is possibly rough notes for a suicide letter, and possibly contains some untruths to make it palatable for her parents to read.

I also think the capitalised words were added at a later juncture, and a difference in mood and difference in motivation for writing notes, to get them out of her head.

I’m not sure anything in the post it note is true that might be why it exists,”an expulsion of unwanted thoughts and feelings” it is supposed to be “cathartic”. I don’t think anyone at all was supposed to read it again suggesting it isn’t a significant thing to LL otherwise it would have been disposed of.

You are correct. 3 phases of writing with the letters in bold being the last. It starts lucid and then tails off in tone, feel and font. I think the first phase might be taken more seriously than the rest and it’s still contradictory.

@noseyposey76. I think your right when you say that LL mentioning “family” in the note means it wasn’t off the cards at the time. No potential issues however unlikely with that then?

But that's what eventually happened, they switched her to day time.

Then took her off the ward.

And then the police started investigating.

And maybe more things i don't know about

It just took time.

As he said they had 0 clear evidence at the time.

They couldn't go all guns blazing, they were afraid like i said of being wrong. And if they were wrong the potential for a lawsuit, bullying etc would be huge.

Hindsight is 20/20. Perhaps they should have moved faster, that is true.

But this potential crime is clearly extremely hard to detect, and i hope going forward these babies are better protected. It really shows how vulnerable they are. I hope cctv or something could be implemented

Yeh but it takes nothing not even much of a risk to insinuate something. I’m sure a doctor would be able to say to LL something like “your not having any problems at work are you Lucy, anything I should be aware of”? He didn’t mention anything at least again really suggests not much suspicion at all.

 

[MsBetsy]

Well that is exactly why I would find that as a motive very hard to believe. I am not just talking from my own personal experiences, but these conditions often destroy your self confidence, the complete opposite of going out and trying to extinguish something that you so desperately long for yourself.

Everyone deals with things differently though, but LL was only mid twenties and not in a serious relationship as far as we know, so I very much doubt she was even thinking about it let alone trying to even know it was not possible for her. Besides, I hate to bring that note up again, but didn’t she write on there she was never going to marry or have children, as a result of being under suspicion/accused. I don’t think she would mention that if she knew she couldn’t have children anyway.

But as you say, you were just giving examples of trauma.

I do personally find it triggering when people make assumptions, that if you have lost a child or can’t have one, you must be bitter and so jealous you couldn’t possibly be happy for anyone else who has been blessed - it makes you feel even more of an outcast.

Thank you for your honesty and I am very sorry for your losses. This case and details of the babies is incredibly hard for everyone to hear, but to even get to that point of having a baby and for then potentially it being taken away, is unimaginable.

I don't think it's assumed that parents who have lost a child are bitter or jealous of another parent's happiness.

However, someone who is unstable or suffers from a severe mental health disorder, might be resentful and jealous. Anything could be a trigger.

However, I haven't seen any indication that LL was resentful or bitter. We know so little about her, although witness testimony is beginning to paint a picture of how she was perceived by her colleagues, and in some cases, the victims who lost their children.

 

[Sweeper2000]

OK so the note in question - should we expect some sort of Linguistics expert to be called as a witness at some point? And a handwriting analyst? I must admit I'm intrigued by what they might have to say if so. Also other notes were referred to in the opening statement so we will hear about them too presumably.

Think it would be reliable. I might have thought it would be considered by the defence already. Any other notes will presumably be of a less clear nature than that note offered by the prosecution and the defence has stated it’s one amongst many statements of innocence. Will be interesting to read them and gain a comparison.

She was moved to day-shifts and according to the prosecution the unexplained collapses and deaths moved with her.

She was then moved into an admin role while the hospital passed the cases of concern to the Royal College for review, as a first step.

That’s not a first step when it comes to killing babies. Wouldn’t any reason have been offered for the move to day shifts? I might have thought something would have been said by this point. I would also assume if your willing to move someone onto day shifts due to concerns about murder you wouldn’t do it as a way of testing the water and seeing if it follows her?

Didn't Dr. Jayaram say it was because of this concern that he went to check on child K? He realized Lucy was in the room with the baby and went to check on them?

The prosecutor stated that nobody on the ward could believe a staff member was capable of harming babies. They may have suspected her, but initially could not believe it.

Yes that’s right as reported, it’s one of the instances of stronger implication but strangely enough Baby k is not amongst the charges.

 

[Noseyposy76]

I know we are trying desperately to get away from that note, but I can see the importance of it. Either it is literally a confession note or it means absolutely nothing in amongst the other ramblings of self loathing and desperation.

It is that one sentence which is confusing, as “on purpose” is with intent and “not good enough to care for them” to me is without intent. Both just totally contradict one another.

But it is the “on purpose“ that is the most baffling. Why would you need to add that in if you were already being accused of murder anyway, like stating the obvious...My theory is that this note was written when she was not under suspicion for murder, but rather suspected of negligence. She was put on admin duties for a while, so I very much doubt she was aware that foul play was suspected of her then (if indeed it was), just lack of competence - obviously with extremely serious consequences. So for me that note would make more sense to have been written at that point in time and read like this “I killed them, but I actually did it on purpose”.

All just my opinion and to me can still be taken either way, as a confession or as a stressed out rant.

 

[Marantz4250b]

"Dr Jayaram told Ben Myers KC, representing Letby, that he and his colleagues had become increasingly worried about a run of 'very unusual and seemingly inexplicable' collapses in the neonatal unit from June 2015.[...]

Following half an hour of intense cross-examination, he told the barrister: 'At the time of the coroner’s report, we as a group of clinicians had already begun to raise concern about the association that we’d seen with an individual being present in these situations.

'And at the time we were being told that really we shouldn’t be saying such things and not to make a fuss.

'My concern is that had I suggested this - that this could have been happening – I didn’t have any hard evidence.' "

Lucy Letby trial hears TV doctor and his colleagues 'raised concerns'

This is all a bit non-committal, though, isn't it?

Who were these other clinicians? How precisely did they "raise concerns"? With whom where they raised? Who, specifically, told them that they shouldn't be saying such things and not to make a fuss? From the statement these were not concerns expressed to the coroner. Why not if so many doctors were so concerned?

Doctors, and it's been said on here, are particularly precise and demanding people. They make notes on these sorts of things. The fact that "a group of clinicians" apparently raised these concerns makes me even more skeptical than I was before. One doctor could be ignored, fobbed off or even intimidated into keeping quiet. I find it very difficult to believe that a group of them could be. Also, "a group" tends to suggest that this involved a good number of doctors in that quite small unit.

He talks about not having any "hard evidence". He isn't providing any "hard evidence" for these claims either.

I'm not saying he's lying. Statements of "fact" made years after an event, and made in the context of a murder enquiry, need to be treated with great scepticism, though.