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

[Sweeper2000]

Just a little list I made today from what we've heard so far in the trial about LL's Facebook searches, and items found in LL's home/phone. Might be more info. to add at a later date -

8 Jun 2015 - Twin Baby A - murder charge
9 Jun 2015 – 9.58am - Facebook mother of A&B
10 Jun 2015 - Twin Baby B - attempted murder charge
10 Jun 2015 – 11.31pm - Facebook mother of A&B
Handover sheet relating to Baby B found at LL’s home during police search, showing she was not his designated nurse
14 Jun 2015 - Baby C - murder charge
14 Jun 2015 – 3.32pm - Facebook parents Baby C
22 Jun 2015 - Baby D - murder charge
25 Jun 2015 – 9.50pm – Facebook mum of A&B
25 Jun 2015 – 9.51pm – Facebook parents of Baby D
4 Aug 2015 - Twin Baby E - murder charge
5 Aug 2015 - Twin Baby F - attempted murder charge
6 Aug 2015 – Facebook parents of E&F
23 Aug 2015 – Facebook parents of E&F
2 Sep 2015 – Facebook mum of A&B
7 Sep 2015 - Baby G - attempted murder charge
14 Sep 2015 – Facebook parents of E&F
21 Sep 2015 - Baby G - 2 x attempted murder charges
21 Sep 2015 – Facebook parents of Baby G
21 Sep 2015 – minutes later Facebook mother of E&F
21 Sep 2015 – minutes later Facebook mother of one of the other babies listed in the charges
26 Sep 2015 - Baby H - attempted murder charge
27 Sep 2015 - Baby H - attempted murder charge
30 Sep 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder)
Oct 2015 – (either 3rd, 10th, 17th, 24th or 31st) Facebook father of Baby D
5 Oct 2015 – early hours – Facebook mother of Baby I
5 Oct 2015 – early hours – Facebook father of E&F
5 Oct 2015 – early hours – Facebook mother of H
13 Oct 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder)
14 Oct 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder)
22 Oct 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder)
23 Oct 2015 - Baby I - murder charge
After Baby I’s death LL sent a sympathy card to Baby I’s parents and kept a photo of it on her phone
5 Nov 2015 – Facebook – parents of E&F
27 Nov 2015 - Baby J - attempted murder charge
Nov 2015 – Facebook – parents of Baby J
7 Dec 2015 – Facebook - parents of E&F
25 Dec 2015 – Facebook – parents of E&F
Jan 2016 – Facebook searches (multiple) – parents of E&F
17 Feb 2016 - Baby K - attempted murder charge
9 Apr 2016 - Twin Baby L - attempted murder charge
9 Apr 2016 - Twin Baby M - attempted murder charge
Handwritten log of drugs administered to Baby M during his collapse was found at LL’s house and she had noted his collapse in her diary.
3 Jun 2016 - Baby N - attempted murder charge
15 Jun 2016 - Baby N - 2 x attempted murder charges
23 Jun 2016 - Triplet Baby O - murder charge
24 Jun 2016 - Triplet Baby P - murder charge
25 Jun 2016 - Baby Q - attempted murder charge
Handover sheet for morning of 25 Jun 2016 for Baby Q was found at LL’s home
2016 – LL transferred to an admin role
23 Jun 2017 – anniversary of Baby O’s death – Facebook – Surname of Baby O (and P)
Apr 2018 – Facebook – parents of Baby K
Other unreported dates – Facebook – parents of Baby G
3 Jul 2018 – LL’s first arrest.

No Facebook searches (that I'm aware of yet) for Babies L, M, N, (O & P at the time, although she did do one a year later) or Q. All of these babies came after LL was moved to day-shifts.

What I find particularly interesting are the multiple searches of some of these babies happening within minutes of each other, searches of parents of babies with attempted murder charges G and H, the parents of baby K in 2018, and on the anniversary of Baby O's death, suggesting she might have had a reminder somewhere of the date.

Links in the media thread on various trial dates.

Really good tortoise, thanks so much. I would be very interested to hear of how many attempts were made to fb search the families, with an emphasis on one after the other. If she repeatedly searched for the same family after knowing the status that would indicate an element of obsession. If she searched for them just once it’s more indicative of someone just “checking in” so to speak. I’m not sure you can assume fb searches to be rooted in nefarious intent. None of them seem excessive.

Also worth mentioning that if she needed a “reminder” it probably means these are not seen as particularly significant in the mind of LL and they would be if she had murdered them IMO. Why no mention of the searches she made for the families of babies who had no problems do they in fact run in tandem with the searches for babies in the cases?

 

[Tortoise]

Really good tortoise, thanks so much. I would be very interested to hear of how many attempts were made to fb search the families, with an emphasis on one after the other. If she repeatedly searched for the same family after knowing the status that would indicate an element of obsession. If she searched for them just once it’s more indicative of someone just “checking in” so to speak. I’m not sure you can assume fb searches to be rooted in nefarious intent. None of them seem excessive.

Sorry, I just had a little laugh at your last line there. I think excessive describes the searches for E&F's parents perfectly.

 

[merrypason]

She didn’t diagnose, the phrasing is suggestive. Nurses are obviously trained to spot these symptoms so are medical and Lucy thinks a rash is indicative of sepsis to the best of her knowledge. Again I think LL is drawing on her experience as a senior nurse and presumably has an understanding what the investigation would entail. A consultant has probably mentioned to her those cases being investigated by word of mouth. There is nothing in the wording or context to suggest deliberate dishonesty on the part of LL especially as she suggests but does not state that sepsis is the cause.

No, a nurse is not more medical or qualified than a doctor. And would not tell anyone something that went contrary to what a doctor said or diagnosed. If a doctor says a rash is something they've never seen before, a nurse more senior than LL says a rash she's never seen before, that it needs investigation - LL telling other colleagues it's "overwhelming sepsis" is spreading misinformation.

a) She should not be discussing a patient who is not even hers, with another colleague over text anyway. Makes it even worse that she's spreading a story that something is sepsis when the doctors have said it is so unusual it needs investigation. This is how rumours start - except it involves the cause of death of a child that is under review and is extremely inappropriate. This is 100% an example of breaking patient confidentiality and not even being accurate with what happened to them.
b) If this rumour somehow made it's way to the parents - they heard baby is being investigated for sepsis as cause of death - can you imagine how upsetting it would be to learn it's not rue? Especially if they realise this was all a rumour started by a nurse and the attending doctor and nurse never said it at all? This is exactly what the mother of child C (the GP) was upset about - that LL told her her child was dead, and not the doctor.
b) She is being dishonest by telling colleagues the investigation will look at whether the baby had enough antibiotics for sepsis. Unless she was told this, she should not be spreading misinformation. Because the truth is the investigation was to ascertain cause of death and this rash.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Sorry, I just had a little laugh at your last line there. I think excessive describes the searches for E&F's parents perfectly.

I thought that might be explained by LL having an expectation of something being posted in the new year ie January, not unreasonable to think. Don’t forget that if these fb searches are of significance to LL why only one mention in her diary of anything to do with the cases? And why is it that on only one occasion multiple searches for the same parents were made on any one particular day.

 

[merrypason]

Was LL confident in what she was doing was the correct response to that situation? And thus wouldn’t contrary to the junior nurses opinion need any help?

LL is NOT a doctor. Nor the most senior nurse or shift supervisor.

If a baby is not responding to oxygen, absolutely a doctor needs to be called. Why would anyone turn down extra help in a situation where a baby's life is at stake? We have heard so many examples in this trial about the number of doctors and nurses who jumped to the patient's support if they were not responding or alarm was sounding. So clearly this is normal practice to get as much help as possible.

Not to mention LL says she was showing up to help other nurses with their patients if there was an emergency...

 

[Sweeper2000]

No, a nurse is not more medical or qualified than a doctor. And would not tell anyone something that went contrary to what a doctor said or diagnosed. If a doctor says a rash is something they've never seen before, a nurse more senior than LL says a rash she's never seen before, that it needs investigation - LL telling other colleagues it's "overwhelming sepsis" is spreading misinformation.

a) She should not be discussing a patient who is not even hers, with another colleague over text anyway. Makes it even worse that she's spreading a story that something is sepsis when the doctors have said it is so unusual it needs investigation. This is how rumours start - except it involves the cause of death of a child that is under review and is extremely inappropriate. This is 100% an example of breaking patient confidentiality and not even being accurate with what happened to them.
b) If this rumour somehow made it's way to the parents - they heard baby is being investigated for sepsis as cause of death - can you imagine how upsetting it would be to learn it's not rue? Especially if they realise this was all a rumour started by a nurse and the attending doctor and nurse never said it at all? This is exactly what the mother of child C (the GP) was upset about - that LL told her her child was dead, and not the doctor.
b) She is being dishonest by telling colleagues the investigation will look at whether the baby had enough antibiotics for sepsis. Unless she was told this, she should not be spreading misinformation. Because the truth is the investigation was to ascertain cause of death and this rash.

I didn’t say she was more medically qualified than even a junior doctor just that she was trained to spot symptoms presumably so she may contribute to a diagnosis by a full dr. She suggested sepsis did not diagnose. This was also to fellow colleagues, I’m almost sure they can discuss that type of thing without penalty, the other nurse sure didn’t flag it so presumably that’s normal amongst staff who are on the same ward so already privy to allot of that info. That’s ingroup talk, if she mentioned it to people outside of work or even distant to the ward I might assume that’s cause for a disciplinary or something to notice.

 

[merrypason]

I didn’t say she was more medically qualified than even a junior doctor just that she was trained to spot symptoms presumably so she may contribute to a diagnosis by a full dr. She suggested sepsis did not diagnose. This was also to fellow colleagues, I’m almost sure they can discuss that type of thing without penalty, the other nurse sure didn’t flag it so presumably that’s normal amongst staff who are on the same ward so already privy to allot of that info. That’s ingroup talk, if she mentioned it to people outside of work or even distant to the ward I might assume that’s cause for a disciplinary or something to notice.

The colleague she messaged ended that conversation believing baby D had died of overwhelming sepsis and what was being investigated is whether the baby had enough antibiotics to treat the sepsis. Not that it was an unusual rash, the doctors were baffled, and it required further investigation - which is the truth. Hence why it is misinformation. And that is something a 'professional' nurse would not do.

 

[Tortoise]

I thought that might be explained by LL having an expectation of something being posted in the new year ie January, not unreasonable to think. Don’t forget that if these fb searches are of significance to LL why only one mention in her diary of anything to do with the cases?

There were multiple searches before January 2016. What sort of post would she have an expectation for, do you think?

Perhaps they don't have her 2015 diary.

 

[Sweeper2000]

The colleague she messaged ended that conversation believing baby D had died of overwhelming sepsis and what was being investigated is whether the baby had enough antibiotics to treat the sepsis. Not that it was an unusual rash, the doctors were baffled, and it required further investigation - which is the truth. Hence why it is misinformation. And that is something a 'professional' nurse would not do.

Can you find the actual case and supporting quotes please, if that is the baby that had antibiotics prescribed as a preventative measure it further pushes the idea that it is innocuous. Also the antibiotics prescribed by a dr bolsters LL suggestion of sepsis.

 

[Sweeper2000]

There were multiple searches before January 2016. What sort of post would she have an expectation for, do you think?

Perhaps they don't have her 2015 diary.

Multiple searches for the same parents in one day is suspect, not otherwise. Multiple searches with long gaps inbetween isn’t suggestive especially when weighed against the fact that she also searched for families of surviving babies.
One might assume that she is checking to see the progress of these families as one example she might be trying to see if they have improved or potentially dealt with the tragedy. Which is positive not relishing the grief as some might assume. All my own opinion please feel free to contest it.

 

[BabaVanga]

Multiple searches for the same parents in one day is suspect, not otherwise. Multiple searches with long gaps inbetween isn’t suggestive especially when weighed against the fact that she also searched for families of surviving babies.
One might assume that she is checking to see the progress of these families as one example she might be trying to see if they have improved or potentially dealt with the tragedy. Which is positive not relishing the grief as some might assume.

It’s totally unprofessional. Whether checking progress or relishing the grief. These families are none of her business, her job is in the hospital not on patients families facebooks. My opinion of course

 

[Tortoise]

Multiple searches for the same parents in one day is suspect, not otherwise. Multiple searches with long gaps inbetween isn’t suggestive especially when weighed against the fact that she also searched for families of surviving babies.
One might assume that she is checking to see the progress of these families as one example she might be trying to see if they have improved or potentially dealt with the tragedy. Which is positive not relishing the grief as some might assume.

BBM

One might also assume otherwise.

There isn't only one way of looking at these searches, unless you have some authority on the matter to link to.

 

[Sweeper2000]

It's this pattern with all the babies that is so damning I feel ...yes the babies had problems they would not be in neonatal if they didn't..but this pattern of sudden collapse and skin discolouration that comes and goes

That’s been my thinking from the start. Those medical issues are obviously suspect hence why we are here but looking at everything everyone had to offer in the opening statements you could obviously infer a lack of anything direct. I anticipated the medical Cases would involve so many things no lay person would be able to put together to get a clear picture, like how these collapses are linked to an air embolism and not to other potentials. I also anticipated the fact that lacking anything non medical to suggest deviance or nefarious character of LL presents a significant issue for the prosecution. They can say yeh these cases are unusual but you throw it into the world of probability and in lay persons understanding you couldn’t piece it together especially as the drs have said there isn’t anything conclusive about the cases. Are they absolutely sure that these events are not related to the very complicated world of medical issues and not of deliberate harm? It’s also reasonable to assume that considering the extremely severe nature of the allegations that one would have to be of a certain Disposition which would be evident in her history and the lack of anything conclusively that, may just be as remarkable as the cases by themselves.

 

[Anxala]

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

I came into this case/thread with that view. I remember LL's original arrest and re-arrest and then when the charges against her were revealed, I thought she had/has to be guilty because I could not get my head around the idea that she could have been accused of such heinous crimes without absolute foolproof evidence to back them up.

Thanks to the very 'thoughtful' discourse on here, I am now very much on the fence. There's a bit of me that hopes she is BARD found guilty of what she's been accused of because the thought of the alternative - that she's innocent and a victim of circumstance - is as heinous as the crimes she's been accused of.

I am looking at this case for the first time, so forgive my asking a basic question. Has anyone explored the possible motives for nurse LL doing what she is accused of doing? Thank you!

It's not remotely a basic question. I would imagine it's at the absolute heart of this thread. If we 'knew' her, we could speculate but because she's so absent, so remote a figure in her own trial, I find it impossible to guess at motive.

 

[MsBetsy]

Can you find the actual case and supporting quotes please, if that is the baby that had antibiotics prescribed as a preventative measure it further pushes the idea that it is innocuous. Also the antibiotics prescribed by a dr bolsters LL suggestion of sepsis.

It was Baby C I was thinking of who had no signs of sepsis and was given antibiotics as a precaution, according to a clinical note.

I'm not sure about Baby D.

Just wanted to clear that up.

 

[JosieJo]

Just a little list I made today from what we've heard so far in the trial about LL's Facebook searches, and items found in LL's home/phone. Might be more info. to add at a later date -

8 Jun 2015 - Twin Baby A - murder charge
9 Jun 2015 – 9.58am - Facebook mother of A&B
10 Jun 2015 - Twin Baby B - attempted murder charge
10 Jun 2015 – 11.31pm - Facebook mother of A&B
Handover sheet relating to Baby B found at LL’s home during police search, showing she was not his designated nurse
14 Jun 2015 - Baby C - murder charge
14 Jun 2015 – 3.32pm - Facebook parents Baby C
22 Jun 2015 - Baby D - murder charge
25 Jun 2015 – 9.50pm – Facebook mum of A&B
25 Jun 2015 – 9.51pm – Facebook parents of Baby D
4 Aug 2015 - Twin Baby E - murder charge
5 Aug 2015 - Twin Baby F - attempted murder charge
6 Aug 2015 – Facebook parents of E&F
23 Aug 2015 – Facebook parents of E&F
2 Sep 2015 – Facebook mum of A&B
7 Sep 2015 - Baby G - attempted murder charge
14 Sep 2015 – Facebook parents of E&F
21 Sep 2015 - Baby G - 2 x attempted murder charges
21 Sep 2015 – Facebook parents of Baby G
21 Sep 2015 – minutes later Facebook mother of E&F
21 Sep 2015 – minutes later Facebook mother of one of the other babies listed in the charges
26 Sep 2015 - Baby H - attempted murder charge
27 Sep 2015 - Baby H - attempted murder charge
30 Sep 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder)
Oct 2015 – (either 3rd, 10th, 17th, 24th or 31st) Facebook father of Baby D
5 Oct 2015 – early hours – Facebook mother of Baby I
5 Oct 2015 – early hours – Facebook father of E&F
5 Oct 2015 – early hours – Facebook mother of H
13 Oct 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder)
14 Oct 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder)
22 Oct 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder)
23 Oct 2015 - Baby I - murder charge
After Baby I’s death LL sent a sympathy card to Baby I’s parents and kept a photo of it on her phone
5 Nov 2015 – Facebook – parents of E&F
27 Nov 2015 - Baby J - attempted murder charge
Nov 2015 – Facebook – parents of Baby J
7 Dec 2015 – Facebook - parents of E&F
25 Dec 2015 – Facebook – parents of E&F
Jan 2016 – Facebook searches (multiple) – parents of E&F
17 Feb 2016 - Baby K - attempted murder charge
9 Apr 2016 - Twin Baby L - attempted murder charge
9 Apr 2016 - Twin Baby M - attempted murder charge
Handwritten log of drugs administered to Baby M during his collapse was found at LL’s house and she had noted his collapse in her diary.
3 Jun 2016 - Baby N - attempted murder charge
15 Jun 2016 - Baby N - 2 x attempted murder charges
23 Jun 2016 - Triplet Baby O - murder charge
24 Jun 2016 - Triplet Baby P - murder charge
25 Jun 2016 - Baby Q - attempted murder charge
Handover sheet for morning of 25 Jun 2016 for Baby Q was found at LL’s home
2016 – LL transferred to an admin role
23 Jun 2017 – anniversary of Baby O’s death – Facebook – Surname of Baby O (and P)
Apr 2018 – Facebook – parents of Baby K
Other unreported dates – Facebook – parents of Baby G
3 Jul 2018 – LL’s first arrest.

No Facebook searches (that I'm aware of yet) for Babies L, M, N, (O & P at the time, although she did do one a year later) or Q. All of these babies came after LL was moved to day-shifts.

What I find particularly interesting are the multiple searches of some of these babies happening within minutes of each other, searches of parents of babies with attempted murder charges G and H, the parents of baby K in 2018, and on the anniversary of Baby O's death, suggesting she might have had a reminder somewhere of the date.

Links in the media thread on various trial dates.

To look at it in this format is so much more revealing I hope the Jury have a list in a similar format.

What is interesting..apart from the obvious over interest in parents (at best) are the searches for the "attempted" murder charges.
These babies didn't die so no real reason to "check how the family are"

This imo is not checking in on a couple of parents you had a bond with its obsessive

 

[Tortoise]

especially as the drs have said there isn’t anything conclusive about the cases.

snipped by me.

Excuse my ignorance but where did you read this please? Last I knew, the experts for the cases of A, B and C agreed on conclusions of air embolisms caused deliberately.

 

[merrypason]

Can you find the actual case and supporting quotes please, if that is the baby that had antibiotics prescribed as a preventative measure it further pushes the idea that it is innocuous. Also the antibiotics prescribed by a dr bolsters LL suggestion of sepsis.

I think you can find these details on the case yourself online and in the thread? These are crucial facts of the case we need to be aware of to discuss it with any value.

Child D was placed on CPAP, with 40% oxygen support, and placed on 'double phototherapy'.

Doctor Ahmed Chowdhury noted discussing Child D with the parents, saying 'on moving baby to labour ward baby became blue/dusky. Sats 47% on arrival NNU - had bagging, sats picked up. Given antibiotics, baby put on CPAP. Not explained to parents yet'.

Notes record the administration of antibiotics and sodium chloride to Child D.

The court hears phototherapy was carried out to treat Child D's jaundice.

So the baby did have antibiotics but nowhere is sepsis mentioned. Jaundice is.

Nothing else about sepsis was mentioned in the notes, when a lot of other problems the baby was facing were. Sepsis is a common rash. The doctors said this was an unusual rash meaning it can't be sepsis. Why would she still think it was?

The following evening, she even told the same colleague that the baby did have the right antibiotics.

"The colleague responds: "I'm worried I missed something."

Letby: "I don't think any of us did and she [Child D] was on the right antibiotics."

Yet a week later, she told another colleague (the one questioning the oddness of the incidents) that baby D was septic.

What was this dogged pursuit of sepsis? What did she know that even the doctors didn't?

 

[Tortoise]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

Facebook searches of the parents of twins E&F

6 Aug
23 Aug
14 Sep
21 Sep
5 Oct
5 Nov
7 Dec
25 Dec
Jan - multiple


How is this one search in three months?

It's actually at least 10 searches over 5 months.

 

[ColourPurple]

Just a little list I made today from what we've heard so far in the trial about LL's Facebook searches, and items found in LL's home/phone. Might be more info. to add at a later date -

8 Jun 2015 - Twin Baby A - murder charge
9 Jun 2015 – 9.58am - Facebook mother of A&B
10 Jun 2015 - Twin Baby B - attempted murder charge
10 Jun 2015 – 11.31pm - Facebook mother of A&B
Handover sheet relating to Baby B found at LL’s home during police search, showing she was not his designated nurse
14 Jun 2015 - Baby C - murder charge
14 Jun 2015 – 3.32pm - Facebook parents Baby C
22 Jun 2015 - Baby D - murder charge
25 Jun 2015 – 9.50pm – Facebook mum of A&B
25 Jun 2015 – 9.51pm – Facebook parents of Baby D
4 Aug 2015 - Twin Baby E - murder charge
5 Aug 2015 - Twin Baby F - attempted murder charge
6 Aug 2015 – Facebook parents of E&F
23 Aug 2015 – Facebook parents of E&F
2 Sep 2015 – Facebook mum of A&B
7 Sep 2015 - Baby G - attempted murder charge
14 Sep 2015 – Facebook parents of E&F
21 Sep 2015 - Baby G - 2 x attempted murder charges
21 Sep 2015 – Facebook parents of Baby G
21 Sep 2015 – minutes later Facebook mother of E&F
21 Sep 2015 – minutes later Facebook mother of one of the other babies listed in the charges
26 Sep 2015 - Baby H - attempted murder charge
27 Sep 2015 - Baby H - attempted murder charge
30 Sep 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder)
Oct 2015 – (either 3rd, 10th, 17th, 24th or 31st) Facebook father of Baby D
5 Oct 2015 – early hours – Facebook mother of Baby I
5 Oct 2015 – early hours – Facebook father of E&F
5 Oct 2015 – early hours – Facebook mother of H
13 Oct 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder)
14 Oct 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder)
22 Oct 2015 - Baby I - alleged attempted murder (not charged but chgd w/murder)
23 Oct 2015 - Baby I - murder charge
After Baby I’s death LL sent a sympathy card to Baby I’s parents and kept a photo of it on her phone
5 Nov 2015 – Facebook – parents of E&F
27 Nov 2015 - Baby J - attempted murder charge
Nov 2015 – Facebook – parents of Baby J
7 Dec 2015 – Facebook - parents of E&F
25 Dec 2015 – Facebook – parents of E&F
Jan 2016 – Facebook searches (multiple) – parents of E&F
17 Feb 2016 - Baby K - attempted murder charge
9 Apr 2016 - Twin Baby L - attempted murder charge
9 Apr 2016 - Twin Baby M - attempted murder charge
Handwritten log of drugs administered to Baby M during his collapse was found at LL’s house and she had noted his collapse in her diary.
3 Jun 2016 - Baby N - attempted murder charge
15 Jun 2016 - Baby N - 2 x attempted murder charges
23 Jun 2016 - Triplet Baby O - murder charge
24 Jun 2016 - Triplet Baby P - murder charge
25 Jun 2016 - Baby Q - attempted murder charge
Handover sheet for morning of 25 Jun 2016 for Baby Q was found at LL’s home
2016 – LL transferred to an admin role
23 Jun 2017 – anniversary of Baby O’s death – Facebook – Surname of Baby O (and P)
Apr 2018 – Facebook – parents of Baby K
Other unreported dates – Facebook – parents of Baby G
3 Jul 2018 – LL’s first arrest.

No Facebook searches (that I'm aware of yet) for Babies L, M, N, (O & P at the time, although she did do one a year later) or Q. All of these babies came after LL was moved to day-shifts.

What I find particularly interesting are the multiple searches of some of these babies happening within minutes of each other, searches of parents of babies with attempted murder charges G and H, the parents of baby K in 2018, and on the anniversary of Baby O's death, suggesting she might have had a reminder somewhere of the date.

Links in the media thread on various trial dates.

Not sure if this has been discussed before but is there anything that links the babies whose handover sheets, or handwritten list of meds, she had at home? Or could it just be the case that she regularly took these home but for some reason never returned these ones? In which case, why?

I can't think of any good reason for a nurse to ever take a handover sheet home.