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

[ColourPurple]

On the other hand it's difficult to marry with the overall narrative of the case where she's managed to develop an effective, silent, bloodless method of inducing collapses- for whatever reason- some of them fatal, with low risk of detection. She executes this method cooly and proficiently on multiple occasions with colleagues in the vicinity, if not directly observing her. Then on this occasion she branches out to doing something (possibly impulsively?) that causes bloody injury. That's a huge risk. It would also be a massive risk to then proceed to murder him with an air embolism, inviting further investigation, including autopsy (she was lucky-on this version of events- that that didn't take place), and the risk that the mother might say something about their 9 o'clock encounter, rather than just thanking her lucky stars that no major harm seemed to have been done.

Possibly? I was thinking more as an impetus. If Baby E was about to be transported to a more acute facility with better resources, imaging tools, ENTs/Peds GI docs with endoscopes etc, the doctors there would investigate the causes of the bleeding and treat him. If there was deliberate harm done to baby E, then in the course of that, the other hospital might find evidence of it. A person with criminal intent might be motivated to prevent that transfer.

That baby E was about to be taken away from the hospital at all, (and potentially Baby F and the parents too) may have been enough reason.

Also, this was really only a few weeks after the first suspected killing so rather than having developed an effective method of inducing collapses over a long period of time, it could be said to still be in the very early stages of development.

 

[Dotta]

Who was this Swiss consultant who testified via video link?
(Who didn't need an interpreter after all).

I somehow missed his testimony

Was he Prosecution or Defence witness?
Did he say anything important?

 

[katydid23]

That’s kind of my point. If she wanted to evade suspicion why make a bad situation worse with an AE after the possible but not alleged 9pm trauma based attack? It might make sense if LL wrote the notes retrospectively and only guessed the 9pm interaction was suspicious after the alleged AE At which point it is too late To change the suspect 9pm interaction.

Perhaps the compulsion to harm the babies was stronger than the urge to evade suspicion?

 

[Tortoise]

Well to quote MRD he (in this case she) would say that would'nt he (she)

They didn't know what they were treating, according to the expert witness opinions that this was a barrage of assaults, and that the senior nurse in charge of the baby is alleged to have hidden the significant bleed an hour earlier from the doctor. They're looking for diseases and risks faced by premature babies, not one of their own nurses attempting to kill the baby (allegedly).

 

[Dotta]

Perhaps the compulsion to harm the babies was stronger than the urge to evade suspicion?

And the need to allegedly experiment?

After all, it was reported the alleged serial killer got bored quite often.
Moo

 

[ColourPurple]

It is hard to expect someone to be logical or rational, if they are on a mission to harm children. So if she had begun 'attacking' this child, and was almost caught doing so, a rational reaction would be to stop because the mum already caught her out.

But a rational person doesn't set out to harm babies, so we can't expect them to have logical, objective reactions to danger, etc. JMO

Exactly. We're all looking at this from a rational viewpoint but if somebody is allegedly deliberately harming babies they're already acting irrationally.

 

[katydid23]

I believe you are suggesting a pathological need that overrides ones capacity for self protection. the prosecution could only allege this if LL is guilty, they have also not stated it in evidence which means it’s not what they are thinking. They would seriously struggle to make a case for it, as there is nothing else to support it other than the possibility that LL is guilty as accused.

There are things to support this contention, that she was possibly suffering from a compulsion. The mother has phone records and a conversation with her husband, to support her assertion that she visited her child at 9 pm, and saw blood on his chin. That visit and the blood was not in LL's notes and she continues to deny it ever happened.

Is that evidence that supports her compulsion to continue with her mission as opposed to her need for self protection?

If in fact someone harmed one child and then went on to try and harm their twin, that could also an example of their compulsion overriding their need to evade suspicion. JMO

 

[Tortoise]

Who was this Swiss consultant who testified via video link?
(Who didn't need an interpreter after all).

I somehow missed his testimony

Was he Prosecution or Defence witness?
Did he say anything important?

not a consultant in 2015, she was then a registrar at the hospital.

here's the link to her testimony UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

 

[JosieJo]

Possibly? I was thinking more as an impetus. If Baby E was about to be transported to a more acute facility with better resources, imaging tools, ENTs/Peds GI docs with endoscopes etc, the doctors there would investigate the causes of the bleeding and treat him. If there was deliberate harm done to baby E, then in the course of that, the other hospital might find evidence of it. A person with criminal intent might be motivated to prevent that transfer.

I agree totally

 

[Dotta]

not a consultant in 2015, she was then a registrar at the hospital.

here's the link to her testimony UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

Ooops!
So a registrar and "she"
Thanks!

 

[ColourPurple]

Looking at some older news stories and this one from the week LL was arrested has some interesting info :

Figures showing the number of babies who died at the facility between 2009 and 2016:

• 2009 - 3
• 2010 - 1
• 2011 - 3
• 2012 - 3
• 2013 - 2
• 2014 - 3
• 2015 - 8
• 2016 - 5

Timeline of baby probe​

2013: Two babies die on Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal unit.
2014: A further three babies die at the unit.
JUNE 2015 to JULY 2016: 15 babies die on neonatal unit and six others suffer non-fatal collapses.
FEBRUARY: Senior doctors and nursing staff carry out a “high level” review into ten neonatal deaths at the hospital.
JUNE: Hospital bosses ask the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to investigate why the number of deaths on its neonatal unit had increased.
JULY: Chiefs announce that gravely-ill babies will be cared for at neighbouring units.
SEPTEMBER: Review team visits hospital and interviews staff.
NOVEMBER: RCPCH publishes report making 24 recommendations.
MAY 2017: Hospital asks Cheshire Police to investigate 15 baby deaths and six non-fatal baby collapses. Operation Hummingbird is launched.
YESTERDAY: Female healthcare worker is arrested on suspicion of murder of eight babies and attempted murder of a further six infants.
Cheshire Police also reveal the scope of the investigation has been widened to 17 baby deaths and 15 non-fatal collapses between March 2015 and July 2016.

Nurse held over 8 baby murders investigated by ANOTHER hospital she worked at

A SECOND hospital is investigating a nurse at the centre of a police probe into the suspected murder of eight babies in Chester. Liverpool Women’s Hospital said today it is assisting detectiv…

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[crowmarsh]

Who was this Swiss consultant who testified via video link?
(Who didn't need an interpreter after all).

I somehow missed his testimony

Was he Prosecution or Defence witness?
Did he say anything important?

The defence have not had the opportunity yet to call their witness(es), we are hearing the case for the prosecution

 

[Jazmania]

That baby E was about to be taken away from the hospital at all, (and potentially Baby F and the parents too) may have been enough reason.

Also, this was really only days after the first suspected killing so rather than having developed an effective method of inducing collapses over a long period of time, it could be said to still be in the very early stages of development.

That is a chilling thought. Perhaps she saw it as her last chance to attack baby E and keep the babies and parents at the hospital

 

[Jazmania]

And the need to allegedly experiment?

After all, it was reported the alleged serial killer got bored quite often.
Moo

Yes. And people who are easily bored are more likely to seek out risks and stimulation

 

[katydid23]

I’m not sure how well the timings on this suggest an AE if a collapse is expected within minutes of an AE. The first serious deterioration happens at 11.40 so presumably the AE would have to have been administered before then?

“The note of 12.36am - CPR commenced, is mentioned. The transfusion would have followed.”

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, November 17

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

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

that’s an hour after it was supposedly administered. Would it take an hour to cause the heart to stop? I could probably guess there isn’t much research on how long it takes assuming the air reached the heart intermittently.

in that research paper it states the amount of time is affected by how close to the right side of the heart the air is administered.

@LadyEdgeworth

following on from where the doctor was immediately preceding the 11.40 collapse I’m led to think he was on the unit If it ws him who made these prescriptions then he was local.

“Dr Harkness says, from his recollection, he does not believe he left the unit as the bleed was 'something unusual' in Child E so he does not believe he went very far.
For the 11pm note, he says Letby called him into room 1, where 'Further GI blood loss and desaturation to 70%' is noted.
Dr Harkness said he would then have been preparing to intubate and get the equipment ready.
Prescriptions are made from 11.28pm-11.30pm for a number of drugs.”

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

The doctor reporting today mentions the blood as being related to the ng tube, supporting LL testimony and quote to the concerned mother. Doesn’t explain it though or why there is no notes. Yes I think that is what he is trying to do - discredit the doctor and build a 'this hospital is...

www.websleuths.com

I think he probably was in unit 1 from approx 11.30 until the 11.40 Collapse. I’m not sure I can see how LL was supposed to have administered the AE if that’s the case And there is apparently only a very very limited window of opportunity and apparently it’s under the direct observation of a consultant.

"I think he probably was in unit 1 from approx 11.30 until the 11.40 Collapse. I’m not sure I can see how LL was supposed to have administered the AE if that’s the case And there is apparently only a very very limited window of opportunity and apparently it’s under the direct observation of a consultant."

I don't think we know that the DR was IN that tiny room from 11:30 until 11:40, continuously. He was preparing instruments for intubation and prescribing medications and communicating with consulting doctors, etc.

The only other person that could have had the chance to administer the AE would have been the defendant because she was assigned to closely observe the baby. She was expected to be in that room all of the time and would have known when the DR said " I am going to go call the supervisor OR I am going to go call in the meds or go get the instruments ready.'

She could have had things set and ready to go in a moments notice. JMO

 

[ColourPurple]

"I think he probably was in unit 1 from approx 11.30 until the 11.40 Collapse. I’m not sure I can see how LL was supposed to have administered the AE if that’s the case And there is apparently only a very very limited window of opportunity and apparently it’s under the direct observation of a consultant."

I don't think we know that the DR was IN that tiny room from 11:30 until 11:40, continuously. He was preparing instruments for intubation and prescribing medications and communicating with consulting doctors, etc.

The only other person that could have had the chance to administer the AE would have been the defendant because she was assigned to closely observe the baby. She was expected to be in that room all of the time and would have known when the DR said " I am going to go call the supervisor OR I am going to go call in the meds or go get the instruments ready.'

She could have had things set and ready to go in a moments notice. JMO

BBM I'm assuming that she would just need to carry an empty syringe around with her, so no prep needed.

 

[Dotta]

BBM I'm assuming that she would just need to carry an empty syringe around with her, so no prep needed.

Always prepared.
Never letting the opportunity pass by.

Allegedly.

Moo

 

[katydid23]

But his notes say quite clearly that the person who was closely observing the baby before the collapse was LL!

"sudden deterioration at 11.40pm'. Prior to that, Child E was still to be 'under close observation' by Lucy Letby."

But for arguments sake let's say he and LL were both closely observing the baby prior to the collapse and its now believed that somebody injected air into the baby. It would suggest that one of the two people closely observing the baby injected the air. Either LL or the Dr.

But in reality, the Drs notes say that it was LL who was closely observing the baby...

Exactly. And even if the Dr was hovering around the patient, LL would still be doing the usual tasks, like setting up Fluids in the IV, flushing the IV, pushing meds, etc.....so she could have set up the attack without being noticed, as the DR was involved doing his own important tasks, like phone calls, prescribing meds, setting up equipment, etc.

 

[notsure]

It's interesting that so far, none of the witnesses has stated that they had any suspicions of LL doing anything wrong. IMO

 

[Tortoise]

It's interesting that so far, none of the witnesses has stated that they had any suspicions of LL doing anything wrong. IMO

Dr Ravi Jayaram has.