UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #6

[Sweeper2000]

I think it's quite funny that quite a few people have bemoaned the fact that there's no direct evidence of these alleged crimes, direct evidence being eye witnesses and CCTV evidence, and then in the next breath given all the reasons why eye witness evidence is unreliable and untrustworthy.

I would say (not in relation to this case but generally) that it would be very uncommon for a murderer to do the deed when anyone is looking, they aim not to be seen, so the chances of having an eye witness are remote. In this case, a full neonatal ward, I'm sure staff members were not thinking about what other staff members were doing. All the many trials I have followed have had convictions without eye witnesses to the murder/s.

I agree that eye witness evidence doesn't come close to the strength of a raft of circumstantial evidence. Circumstances don't just arise in an abyss, each one supports the others, viewed from every direction. I've heard it compared to the many strands which entwined together make a rope. Each strand on its own would not lead to any certainty, but together they must exclude any reasonable alternative explanation.

That’s the thing though, I can picture a neonatal unit being very busy but I try and picture someone trying to syringe those lines and it seems pretty easy to spot. I know a fair few of those cases aren’t that route but I still think it’s pretty blatant to spot especially with so many alleged attempts. Over feeding is a pretty poor method, presumably she would understand this is definitely something the staff would look out for. One wouldn’t assume a killer trying to avoid suspicion who was trained not to overfeed babies would then go and choose this method of killing. I can see the AE being of lower suspicion but the rest? And then you have the documentary about BA. Why would she choose the methods that got BA caught? I don’t understand the link between the collapses either, most of them involve more than one collapse is it alleged that a separate bolus was needed for each one? I don’t understand how they have ruled out other causes in terms of the collapses.

One might assume that if a killer were to operate they would prefer not to be seen so I would assume that’s why you don’t get many murders on a neonatal ward, anywhere. Probably better off down a dark alley or something. Too many people, too much scrutiny, too many people looking specifically at health. your only bet there is LL having a thing for offing babies specifically.

I’m not sure all the strands of this rope go to the same place either, seems like spaghetti junction really unless you look at it like she is guilty. Might be a fact that those strands going backwards rather than forwards leads to some doctors and those questionable cases might have made LL look bad due to the rota.

 

[Supernovae]

I definitely remember him bringing it up ..I'm not sure he went as far to say ...you changed your mind because LL wasn't on duty ..which would have been very powerful imo
Unless it just wasn't reported

I imagine it's quite difficult for the journalists to keep up with, and summarise, fast paced and complex cross examination live.

Looking back at the session in question it lasts for about an hour from 2.48PM. There are clearly typos and misquotes in the report ("splintered" for "splinted"):

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, November 1

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.leaderlive.co.uk

Nevertheless you can see the general direction of the cross examination which is to show the fragility of the conclusions, that the proposed causes of death don't flow mechanistically and inevitably from the clinical evidence but have been tailored around the facts on a presumption of or to support, deliberate harm, and have changed over time.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Yes my thoughts possibly that she came in early and behind another nurse to gain entry then officially “ swiped “ in at 7.26.
IIRC I am sure in the report of the hospital failings it stated the wards were dimly lit ?

 

[Sweeper2000]

Yes my thoughts possibly that she came in early and behind another nurse to gain entry then officially “ swiped “ in at 7.26.
IIRC I am sure in the report of the hospital failings it stated the wards were dimly lit ?

Is it known if this was her usual time to clock in? I would have thought the hospital would have had cctv.

 

[Marantz4250b]

^ Agree. And I think it's reasonable to wonder - with absolutely no disrespect to the poor parents - how much recollections have been subsequently influenced and informed by the knowledge that the same nurse went on to be accused of deliberately murdering their babies. The below comes across to me as a recollection informed very much by the above:



The 'sort of hovering' and the 'sort of just was watching us' in particular. I just don't feel that's a recollection that can be relied upon as it's (a) laden with after-the-fact subjective suspicion and (b) reeks of 'Now that I know what she's been accused of, I felt there was something very off about her at the time'.

That's not to say of course that LL is not guilty of what she's been accused of, just that I don't think these later recollections by people under such awful emotional strain at the time can add anything useful to the 'evidence of guilt' bag.

JMO of course.

Yes, I agree here. These statements would not have been made until years after the events. The comments about her "hovering" around the cot/room with apparently nothing to do sound very much like opinions arrived at after having found out that she was suspected of being a murderer. It's very easy for the human mind to read something into entirely innocent situations based on later information if the behaviour in question falls outside of one's normal experience.

It may be entirely possible she didn't, in fact, have anything else to do? But there were, presumably, other babies in that room and it's a fair bet that hospital regulations stipulated that no non-medial/nursing staff were allowed alone with other people's babies so someone was required to supervise them? Under those circumstances⁸

 

[Sweeper2000]

I don't think the "never event" concept applies here. A never event is a specific event that should never happen if appropriate systems are in place to stop it- such as amputating the wrong limb. It doesn't apply to a particular number of deaths. Not to get too technical (and my statistical knowledge is very basic I should add), but a binary event like death/survival will be distributed according to a Poisson distribution.

Poisson distribution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I believe I would need denominator data to calculate the Poisson probability of 8 deaths but no number ever truly reaches a probability of zero, and 8 (compared to 3) doesn't jump out to me as so shocking that it would never happen considering there are many many units operating throughout the world, and I believe Richard Gill said something similar in previous threads.

It's been noted elsewhere that a kill count would need to be Shipman-level horrifying to become obvious purely on a statistical level:

How to become a convicted serial killer (without killing anyone) – The Justice Gap

Ah I got that wrong then. I was reading up on the scandals and processes involved. Assumed a never event was something that was considered exceptionally rare but more or less a known thing.

I thought that as well, that 8 isn’t so far from what’s expected as to be astronomically unusual. Especially if variables are taken into account. For example number of babies at the limit of what the hospital can take on increased for that year, high risk babies being transferred, increased medical complications for some babies or even hospital born illnesses. I have read that sepsis was a particular problem for the hospital at that time.

I think it's quite funny that quite a few people have bemoaned the fact that there's no direct evidence of these alleged crimes, direct evidence being eye witnesses and CCTV evidence, and then in the next breath given all the reasons why eye witness evidence is unreliable and untrustworthy.

I would say (not in relation to this case but generally) that it would be very uncommon for a murderer to do the deed when anyone is looking, they aim not to be seen, so the chances of having an eye witness are remote. In this case, a full neonatal ward, I'm sure staff members were not thinking about what other staff members were doing. And what would they have seen anyway? A nurse with a syringe administering something through a line is not exactly suspicious looking or out of the ordinary. All the many trials I have followed have had convictions without eye witnesses to the murder/s.

I agree that eye witness evidence doesn't come close to the strength of a raft of circumstantial evidence. Circumstances don't just arise in an abyss, each one supports the others, viewed from every direction. I've heard it compared to the many strands which entwined together make a rope. Each strand on its own would not lead to any certainty, but together they must exclude any reasonable alternative explanation.

Just wondering how often forensic evidence featured in the many murder cases you have followed. Not sure if it’s considered direct evidence? A hair might say that individual was there but does it say they killed them? Obviously that changes the suspicions if the suspect had no reason to be there.

I might also draw attention to the fact that these collapses are supposed to have happened almost immediately after the alleged administration of the method. It is blatant, you see a nurse inject the lines and her having done so is obvious in the med notes, then two to five minutes later that baby collapses. Very suspicious really. You also have to consider that some of those babies were not under LL care, they were other nurses and again it’s very suspicious if someone treated other nurses babies and then that baby collapses. In that scenario the potential for being caught out or spotted doing some bad stuff is I think quite high, it’s also true in many of the cases that multiple attempts are alleged to have been made. Each one becoming easier to spot. Take for instance the alleged insulin poisoning, LL mentioned herself that the bag was suspect immediately after the collapse or deterioration. If in fact she could administer fatal methods without raising suspicion during, it stands that suspicion is always raised after a collapse or death, if not caught in the act then caught in retrospect seems likely.

 

[Kemug]

I have no medical experience of any sort, or legal for that matter, but it seems to me that this case would have been dropped long ago if there wasn't a reasonable chance that LL is guilty, and would be found so. JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

I have no medical experience of any sort, or legal for that matter, but it seems to me that this case would have been dropped long ago if there wasn't a reasonable chance that LL is guilty, and would be found so. JMO

Agreed. That’s why I’m trying to trace the route of what pointed at LL. I would assume that after multiple arrests and discharges the police would have some serious grounds for suspicion or that might go the other way with them not being able to put enough evidence together to have grounds for arrest. I’m of the mind that that those multiple arrests and discharges points to the police going with what dr evans has said in the final stage of getting LL to court. Remember it must have taken a long time to get the medical evidence together. What dr evans has said is “in lieu of any other explanation this is an embolism” not even this is definitely a embolism. That as well as the fact that nearly all evidence in the trial is medical.

I’m also in consideration of how the prosecution have not been able to drag anything even mildly incriminating from her own words or acts. They checked her diary and as far as I know there is only one mention of any of the events and it’s LL noting one of the child’s collapses. Why only one mention and nothing more than mentioning a collapse? Why specifically for that one case if she is guilty? Why emit any mention of others? One might not assume that mention is incriminating when weighed against the fact that she didn’t mention any others? If they checked all of her notes and scribbles, all of her diary and presumably everything else and they can only present one instance of mentioning anything in the cases then I’m not convinced of it’s weight as incriminating evidence. It goes against it IMO as it’s SO isolated, the same as allot of the other supposedly incriminating incidences of oddness presented by he prosecution up til now. I believe also that when they start talking about the collapses it goes even weaker as these might be normal for babies in that clinic. The suggestion by the medical experts is the “profound” nature of the collapses is suspicious but I will assume it’s not too far from what is normal. Again it might point to dr evans simply saying “in lieu of” it’s harm based and tailoring the conclusion to be harm based.

This is a hard case to say anything conclusive about it with very little but medical evidence pointing to anything suspicious and even then not conclusively.

 

[BabaVanga]

I have no medical experience of any sort, or legal for that matter, but it seems to me that this case would have been dropped long ago if there wasn't a reasonable chance that LL is guilty, and would be found so. JMO

Absolutely

 

[Marantz4250b]

Or maybe she was in the hospital earlier than she officially shouldve been and then swiped in officially at said time of 7.26. Maybe this is why the times have been brought up in court

Or maybe people are just trying to find reasons to put far more faith in eye-witness evidence given years after the events that it deserves? It's a type of evidence which is notoriously unreliable and any decent investigator knows this.

Let's think about how likely the theory is that she was in early; it was stated right back at the start that shifts would start at 08:00 and that it was usual for nurses to arrive about half an hour early on order to complete all the handover paperwork, be briefed by a senior nurse, etc, etc. That makes LL's swipe-in at 07:26 entirely normal.

If we are to believe the eye-witness evidence that the witness spoke to her a full hour before she was on duty and nearly 30 minutes before she would normally have been there then we also have to accept that LL did not sign into any computer, didn't complete any paperwork and left absolutely no trail of her presence what-so-ever for at least half an hour before her planed "false" swipe-in at 07:26. The police had her phone so could presumably find out where she was fairly accurately.

In addition, if the witness is correct about the time of 07:00 then it's likely that she was there well before that time as it doesn't seem likely that the very first thing that LL did the second she got in the building was talk to this person so she'll have had to have been there for some time, most likely.

If you are planning a false alibi then doing it this way seems to be the exact opposite of trying to divert suspicion from yourself because you will obviously stand out massively because people won't expect to see you there and if they are questioned later they'll far more likely remember seeing you at a time they didn't expect to.

So, the most likely answer to this is that LL did swipe in at 07:26 which was her genuine arrival time and the witness is wrong in their statement.

 

[notsure]

I have no medical experience of any sort, or legal for that matter, but it seems to me that this case would have been dropped long ago if there wasn't a reasonable chance that LL is guilty, and would be found so. JMO

One could say that about any case, I suppose. Yes, it has taken a long time to bring to court, no doubt partly because of all the anomalies they have found in the hospital's record-keeping. I've worked in hospital admin before, and the notes are often notoriously patchy or unintelligible. Without an accurate written record, they're relying on people's memories of events from years ago or contradictory statements given to police at the time.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think the prosecution will be severely undermined if the defence can present experts who can legitimately contest the idea that the collapses are suspect, with every case explained as either not out of the ordinary or not conclusively the alleged method the prosecution look weaker and weaker. Even if one case is found to be relatively normal and thrown out then it makes the entire case look weak.

 

[Marantz4250b]

One could say that about any case, I suppose. Yes, it has taken a long time to bring to court, no doubt partly because of all the anomalies they have found in the hospital's record-keeping. I've worked in hospital admin before, and the notes are often notoriously patchy or unintelligible. Without an accurate written record, they're relying on people's memories of events from years ago or contradictory statements given to police at the time.

Indeed. And let's not forget that the police weren't even asked to investigate until a year after the last incident so some witnesses would have been giving statements from memories which were already two years old for the earliest charges. And that's assuming that they started taking statements immediately which seems unlikely, to be honest.

 

[JTS101]

Regarding the "swipe-in" at 7:26, I assume this "swipe-in" was to open a locked door to access the unit (I am assuming at least a level of secure access here). If so, then LL could not have possibly arrived earlier, then swiped in at 7:26 (Unless she followed someone else in through the door, in which case it would be obvious to other members of staff)

 

[Parker Knoll]

But would you of remembered if you held the door for her when questioned about it over a year later ? This could of been done by a nurse who had been on shift for 8+ hours.

 

[MissMarbles]

Are there any live feeds for today yet does anyone know?

 

[JTS101]

I'm not sure anyone would have held a secure door for anyone else without them swiping in, as the implications of this in a unit with such security are quite profound.

 

[Marantz4250b]

But would you of remembered if you held the door for her when questioned about it over a year later ? This could of been done by a nurse who had been on shift for 8+ hours.

Quite possibly not but the point of this (I think) seems to be the implication that the witness is correct in her evidence as to the time so LL must have planned to enter the building surreptitiously in order to commit crimes and then swipe-in later in order to build a false alibi.

This doesn't seem reasonable to me as it's easy to arouse suspicion when you are at a place you aren't supposed to be at the particular time. It also requires that you are in precisely the place at a time when someone else is going through the door so you likely have to "loiter" in the area until the opportune moment.

I have no idea if this is the case but - is it possible that the hospital actually requires staff to swipe-in regardless of whether someone else is going through the door at the same time? If that is actually the case then someone holding a door open would be unlikely to happen, you'd think?

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

Are there any live feeds for today yet does anyone know?

Not been able to find one this morning, to be fair Friday's was a bit of a jumble until @Tortoise did the amazing timeline.

I'll keep my eyes peeled for one and update if possible

 

[notsure]

Dan O'Donoghue is giving live updates on Twitter.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies