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

[squish]

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.

I suspect she searched for these parents the most because the mother walking in on her allegedly attacking baby E. I think her searchs could have been partly have been for her own piece of mind to check whether the parents were expressing suspicion.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I suspect she searched for these parents the most because the mother walking in on her allegedly attacking baby E. I think her searchs could have been partly have been for her own piece of mind to check whether the parents were expressing suspicion.

That’s a valid proposition. When you weigh it against the other positive searches though? I might also assume you would get an indication to level of concern through the frequency of searches and that like nearly everything in this is not consistent enough to draw conclusions of a nefarious nature.

 

[Tortoise]

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 home a handover sheet home.

Yes, especially a child she wasn't the designated nurse for.

 

[covid2020]

I don't see anything very sinister in the Facebook searches. It may be unprofessional but I think if you audited staff in the hospital many would come back as having looked up patients. <modsnip - sub judice>

 

[Tortoise]

Prosecution Expert Opinions​

Child A

Dr Dewi Evans

UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

"He rules out other conditions such as sepsis, a lack of fluids or hypoxia as causes, or contributing factors to the collapse.
He said he had "only one" conclusion, that Child A had received an air embolus, "through an IV line".

"there was no way this could have been done by accident"."

Dr Sandie Bohin

UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

"Mr Johnson: "What, in your opinion, killed [Child A]?"
Dr Bohin: "[Child A] was killed by an air embolus."

Child A's mother wept in the public gallery as Dr Bohin said she was left with only one "plausible explanation" for her son's collapse and death, which was an air embolism."

Child B

Dr Dewi Evans

UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

"He says the cause of her collapse - like her brother Child A - was an air embolism, 'there was nothing else to explain this collapse, which was so sudden and unexpected', he said"

Dr Sandie Bohin

UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

"Dr Bohin said other factors, such as infection or cardiac arrhythmia, could be discounted, and the only conclusion left was "air embolus"."

Child C

Dr Dewi Evans

UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

"He says infection was a part of Child C's status. He adds it did not cause Child C's death."

"He says while Child C had an infection, he was recovering from it, as he had gone off CPAP support, on to Optiflow.
"Respiratory wise, he didn't stay the same, he was improving."

"He said there were three clinical scenarios - injecting air into the stomach that interfered with his breathing, or that air was injected intraveneously, or from a combination of the two"

Dr Sandie Bohin

UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

"This was not a baby who was ill, this was a baby who was improving."

Dr Bohin's conclusion was that he had pneumonia, but that did not cause the collapse or kill him.

She added babies such as Child C do not collapse suddenly and without warning.
She said an infection would not be the cause as that would lead to a gradual deterioration in the baby, not a sudden collapse and no response to resuscitation.

She said one conclusion for Child C's collapse was CPAP accumulation of air, the other being deliberate injection of air.
She said the doctors did not appear to have a concern as they had noted the abdomen to be "soft".

 

[bbsaz]

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.

As I understand it, a doctor is medical. A nurse is clinical. That's the differentiation where I am employed

 

[Parker Knoll]

Prosecution Expert Opinions​

Child A

Dr Dewi Evans

UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

"He rules out other conditions such as sepsis, a lack of fluids or hypoxia as causes, or contributing factors to the collapse.
He said he had "only one" conclusion, that Child A had received an air embolus, "through an IV line".

"there was no way this could have been done by accident"."

Dr Sandie Bohin

UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

"Mr Johnson: "What, in your opinion, killed [Child A]?"
Dr Bohin: "[Child A] was killed by an air embolus."

Child A's mother wept in the public gallery as Dr Bohin said she was left with only one "plausible explanation" for her son's collapse and death, which was an air embolism."

Child B

Dr Dewi Evans

UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

"He says the cause of her collapse - like her brother Child A - was an air embolism, 'there was nothing else to explain this collapse, which was so sudden and unexpected', he said"

Dr Sandie Bohin

UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

"Dr Bohin said other factors, such as infection or cardiac arrhythmia, could be discounted, and the only conclusion left was "air embolus"."

Child C

Dr Dewi Evans

UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

"He says infection was a part of Child C's status. He adds it did not cause Child C's death."

"He says while Child C had an infection, he was recovering from it, as he had gone off CPAP support, on to Optiflow.
"Respiratory wise, he didn't stay the same, he was improving."

"He said there were three clinical scenarios - injecting air into the stomach that interfered with his breathing, or that air was injected intraveneously, or from a combination of the two"

Dr Sandie Bohin

UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

"This was not a baby who was ill, this was a baby who was improving."

Dr Bohin's conclusion was that he had pneumonia, but that did not cause the collapse or kill him.

She added babies such as Child C do not collapse suddenly and without warning.
She said an infection would not be the cause as that would lead to a gradual deterioration in the baby, not a sudden collapse and no response to resuscitation.

She said one conclusion for Child C's collapse was CPAP accumulation of air, the other being deliberate injection of air.
She said the doctors did not appear to have a concern as they had noted the abdomen to be "soft".

Thanks tortoise - you are brilliant !

 

[merrypason]

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.

Yep. The prosecution even called this out for child Q in the opening statements.

BBM "In Letby's home search, officers recovered the handover sheet from the morning of June 25 which included Child Q's name. This was a document which should not have left the hospital."

 

[merrypason]

What's really interesting as well about the FB searches is why she did them together.

So she had hundreds/thousands of patients over the years I imagine. We know why these patients are all connected i.e they are on charges for murder/attempted murder.

But when she searched for them they were just random patients with no connection between them.

Yet she searched them at the same time as below. Why these sets of parents together?

25 Jun 2015 – 9.50pm – Facebook mum of A&B
25 Jun 2015 – 9.51pm – Facebook parents of Baby D

So what connected babies A&B and D for her that she searched them together?

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

What connected G, E&F, other charged baby, that she thought of them all at the same time?

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

What connected I, E&F, H that she thought of them all at the same time?

Normally when you search a group of people one after another, there's something that connects them.Like a group of work colleagues, or your ex and their friends, or being nosy about the witnesses at a trial (haha). But the only thing we know that connects these groups of parents is that their children were allegedly murdered or attempts were made to murder. But how would LL have known that at the time..

And because LL says she can't remember why she did the searches, we don't know what connected them for her.

 

[annpats]

I don't see anything very sinister in the Facebook searches. It may be unprofessional but I think if you audited staff in the hospital many would come back as having looked up patients. <modsnip - sub judice>

But surely not as often as LL did!!!

 

[annpats]

Did LL do any searches on Facebook for parents of babies whom she didn't allegedly kill?

Did she ever look up any parents who left the neo-natal unit with healthy babies?

 

[Eloise]

Did LL do any searches on Facebook for parents of babies whom she didn't allegedly kill?

Did she ever look up any parents who left the neo-natal unit with healthy babies?

I want to know if she looked up the parents of healthy babies and/or parents of babies who died of causes definitely and absolutely not linked to these other babies she's accused of killing or harming
Knowing she looked up the parents of the babies she is accused of killing or harming is one thing, we need to know her general pattern of Facebook searching behaviour.

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

I'm not sure who mentoned that injecting air/insulin/ anything into the IV would be suspicious but I have to disagree. From my experience of the Neonatal unit (My baby was there for 4 months), so many things are always going on. While I was in Room 1, the intensive care room, there was only two incubators and the room was always dark unless they had to do a procedure with more lighting but while i sat next to my baby, nurse would come in and out to care for the other baby. I had no clue what they were doing and rarely paid attention and nor did any other nurses who may have walked by or popped into the room. In the second room, Room 2, High dependency, there were around 8 incubators and there was always a nurse or two in the room with one of the other babies. Again I paid no attention. Room 3 is a transitional room ready for going home and there were 6 cots, mostly the babies were left to sleep in there but again, nurses did come in and do things and I would have no clue what. If an alarm had gone off on one of the incubators, after a nurse had been with the baby, I would of looked to see if they had heard, if not in the room and go and get someone if no one was around (They were normally busy with another baby) but I wouldn't of been suspicious, even if the nurse had just been doing something with the baby.
I really do feel that its the level of trust in these units that stops suspicion in its tracks. You just dont expect a nurse (or doctor) to want to hurt a tiny baby and so your mind glosses over anything that could be seen as suspicious.

 

[squish]

Yep. The prosecution even called this out for child Q in the opening statements.

BBM "In Letby's home search, officers recovered the handover sheet from the morning of June 25 which included Child Q's name. This was a document which should not have left the hospital."

She had one for baby B as well.

Is there any way she could have benefited from these sheets? Do they have incriminating information on them that she was hiding? Did she need the info to help her remember names for Facebook searching?

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

I'm not sure who mentoned that injecting air/insulin/ anything into the IV would be suspicious but I have to disagree. From my experience of the Neonatal unit (My baby was there for 4 months), so many things are always going on. While I was in Room 1, the intensive care room, there was only two incubators and the room was always dark unless they had to do a procedure with more lighting but while i sat next to my baby, nurse would come in and out to care for the other baby. I had no clue what they were doing and rarely paid attention and nor did any other nurses who may have walked by or popped into the room. In the second room, Room 2, High dependency, there were around 8 incubators and there was always a nurse or two in the room with one of the other babies. Again I paid no attention. Room 3 is a transitional room ready for going home and there were 6 cots, mostly the babies were left to sleep in there but again, nurses did come in and do things and I would have no clue what. If an alarm had gone off on one of the incubators, after a nurse had been with the baby, I would of looked to see if they had heard, if not in the room and go and get someone if no one was around (They were normally busy with another baby) but I wouldn't of been suspicious, even if the nurse had just been doing something with the baby.
I really do feel that its the level of trust in these units that stops suspicion in its tracks. You just dont expect a nurse (or doctor) to want to hurt a tiny baby and so your mind glosses over anything that could be seen as suspicious.

Edit: Many of the babies in the neonatal unit are tube fed, NG tube. The way the feeds are done is like using a child's liquid medicine, syringe, they also used the NG tube for other medications. For example, Domperidone is a gastric medicine and was used at every feed for my child. It was added after the milk via the NG tube. I know because I did it myself. When the babies are over the worst, parents are allowed to do certain care including feeding the babies via the NG tube.

And I just had an thought, It was weeks before I was allowed to tube feed, but I now remember being shown numerous times how to do it, I had anxiety and so I was over cautious and I remember the nurses telling me how to make sure there is no air in the NG, and they stayed with me whilst I did it up until around a month before we left.

Could this be accidental, with a lack of supervision? They seem to be too young or too poorly for the parents to be allowed to contribute to the care, many just a few days old.

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

She had one for baby B as well.

Is there any way she could have benefited from these sheets? Do they have incriminating information on them that she was hiding? Did she need the info to help her remember names for Facebook searching?

So she had two separate medical notes for Baby B and Baby Q?
One could be a mistake, but two is leaning towards suspicious.

 

[BabaVanga]

Todays link is up already guys LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, November 8

 

[merrypason]

Did LL do any searches on Facebook for parents of babies whom she didn't allegedly kill?

Did she ever look up any parents who left the neo-natal unit with healthy babies?

This is interesting because the defence have cross examined the intelligence analyst a few times - but not on FB searches. They did ask right at the start whether LL had done other FB searches and the analyst confirmed there were lots of searches.

But they didn't probe this more. Because 'lots of searches' could be personal ones too, not necessarily parents of victims. And still doesn't explain why she searched these sets of parents one after the other within a few minutes. So I don't think we will get any more information, and the fact the defence hasn't probed more about patterns of searches make me believe they can't explain it either. So all we know is she searched sets of parents together when there is no connection between them other than being victims of a crime she is accused of.

 

[merrypason]

So she had two separate medical notes for Baby B and Baby Q?
One could be a mistake, but two is leaning towards suspicious.

The parents of P&Q were also the ones who refused a post mortem, which the prosecution said they now realise is a mistake. Could be that she wanted it in case they changed their mind, and she needed to get her facts straight being the designated nurse.

This was also the time when LL was being questioned by a doctor on her whereabouts and was getting worried (as per her messages).

So I find it strange she would have taken the handover sheet home, knowing the doctors were getting suspicious. Surely the one time you ensure not taking home anything patient related, even if normally you'd be lax about it.

 

[squish]

The parents of P&Q were also the ones who refused a post mortem, which the prosecution said they now realise is a mistake. Could be that she wanted it in case they changed their mind, and she needed to get her facts straight being the designated nurse.

This was also the time when LL was being questioned by a doctor on her whereabouts and was getting worried (as per her messages).

So I find it strange she would have taken the handover sheet home, knowing the doctors were getting suspicious. Surely the one time you ensure not taking home anything patient related, even if normally you'd be lax about it.

Wasn’t it baby E whose parents refused an autopsy, which was described as a terrible mistake?