GUILTY UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #8

[Tortoise]

"Lucy obviously was concerned and she was responding appropriately," [unnamed nurse] said.
The nurse said she noticed that the monitor had been switched off, which was "not normal protocol", but refuted any suggestion Ms Letby had turned it off.
"I read the prosecution opening speeches online and it suggested that Lucy had switched off the monitor," she told the court.
"I knew that not to be the case."
She explained that on that day, two doctors had apologised to her, as they had not switched the monitor back on."

Lucy Letby: Mum praised nurse on day of alleged murder attempt, jury told

Why would two doctors have been involved in switching on a monitor.

'Here, I'll do it.' 'No I'll do that if you don't mind.' 'No I want to press the button!' (just joking!!)

 

[ColourPurple]

Big deal in that sense but hardly worthy of relating to a colleague, twice, imo.

True, it's a bit strange to mention it twice whichever screening it refers to.

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

Why would two doctors have been involved in switching on a monitor.

'Here, I'll do it.' 'No I'll do that if you don't mind.' 'No I want to press the button!' (just joking!!)

to me.. to you

 

[ColourPurple]

Why would two doctors have been involved in switching on a monitor.

'Here, I'll do it.' 'No I'll do that if you don't mind.' 'No I want to press the button!' (just joking!!)

You'd think somebody would have noticed it hadn't been switched back on anyway , especially if the monitor screen was blank. Though I guess if she was behind a curtain you'd only notice if you were behind there too.

 

[Dotta]

'Letby said: “It’s hard isn’t it. When mum came in today she was like oh I’m so pleased you’ve got her which I thought was a little strange as I don’t know her that well but wonder if she just felt reassured to have a nurse.”'

Sounds like fishing for compliments.

How coy!
Wow!

"I don't know her that well"

Wow Wow
FB searches do not count, right?

My opinion only

 

[Sundial]

like this earlier text

9 Aug 2015, Sun

10.17pm –
LL: I said goodbye to [E&F]'s parents as F might go tomorrow. They both cried and hugged me saying they will never be able to thank me for the love and care I gave to E and for the precious memories I've given them. It's heartbreaking.
Nurse: 'It’s heart-breaking, but you’ve done your job to the highest standard with compassion and professionalism. When we can’t save a baby we can try to make sure that the loss of their child is the one regret the parents have. It sounds like that’s exactly what you have done. You should feel very proud of yourself esp as you’ve done so well in such tough heartbreaking circumstances. Xx’
LL: 'I just feel sad that they’re thanking me when they have lost him and for something that any of us would have done. But it’s really nice to know that I got it right for them. That’s all I want.'
Nurse: ‘It has been tough. You’ve handled it all really well. They know everything possible was done and that no-one gave up on E till it was in his best interest. As a parent you want the best for your child and sometimes that isn’t what you’d choose. Doesn’t mean that your [sic] not grateful to those that helped your child and you tho.’
LL: ‘Thank you xx’

Noticed the similarities between these aswell regarding the mothers.

Baby Es mother was claimed by LL to have hugged and thanked etc when they left for the care she gave (which she may well have done).. yet comparing this with baby Gs mother, in the text conversation LL states (very similarly) how the mum was pleased to see her etc, and previously said mum told her baby G had not been herself”.
This also seems somewhat contradictory when LL is then saying she didn’t know her (baby G/parents) that well.

 

[Sundial]

Noticed the similarities between these aswell regarding the mothers.

Baby Es mother was claimed by LL to have hugged and thanked etc when they left for the care she gave (which she may well have done).. yet comparing this with baby Gs mother, in the text conversation LL states (very similarly) how the mum was pleased to see her etc, and previously said mum told her baby G had not been herself”.
This also seems somewhat contradictory when LL is then saying she didn’t know her (baby G/parents) that well.

To raise another point; wasn’t baby G the same baby she went back to visit off shift? Doesn’t know them “that well”..yet discussions about the mum and pleased to see her etc and visiting off shift. Because the above makes any sense at all

 

[mart321]

Mail Nurse Lucy Letby 'made two more attempts to murder baby girl'

Chester Standard Mother ‘told Lucy Letby she was pleased she was caring for baby girl’

"Following completion of her shift Letby messaged a colleague in the evening to say: “(Child G) poorly again.

“Due date today!”

Her colleague, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, responded: “Oh she likes to ‘celebrate’ the big ones in style (sadface).”

Letby replied: Due imms (immunisations) today too. I got her screened this morning after she vomited.”

Her colleague said: “Was she still in (nursery) 4 then?”

Letby said: “Yup and had NN (nursery nurse) all weekend … looked rubbish when I took over this morning, then she vomited at 9 and I got her screened.”

The colleague said “See. It really worries me. I wasn’t on when she was moved but wouldn’t have done it myself.”

Letby replied: “I personally felt it was a big jump considering how sick she was just a week ago. Being in 4 is bad enough and then having NN that just doesn’t always know what to look for/act on. Mum said she hasn’t been herself for a couple of days.”

The colleague said: “*advertiser censored**. I wish she’d told a registered nurse.”

Letby said: “It’s hard isn’t it. When mum came in today she was like oh I’m so pleased you’ve got her which I thought was a little strange as I don’t know her that well but wonder if she just felt reassured to have a nurse.”

She absolutely loves to message colleagues and tell them about complements that other people have apparently made about her. WHO does that?

I find that a very strange thing to do. Talk about blowing smoke up your own BEEP

 

[mart321]

Why would two doctors have been involved in switching on a monitor.

'Here, I'll do it.' 'No I'll do that if you don't mind.' 'No I want to press the button!' (just joking!!)

I get the impression that this nurse thinks LL is innocent with her statements

 

[katydid23]

I agree but in the absence of knowing more I'm holding space for the notion that someone who doesn't follow instruction, goes 'off piste', thinks they know better, takes their own instruction, doesn't ask for help, doesn't refer to management guidelines, is delusional about their own knowledge and skills, is trying to appear perfect and getting it all wrong, is in denial about their lack (usually backed up with possibly unconscious profound feelings of shame and inferiority), might be the same sort of person who makes bizarre and disastrous decisions that leave a trail of destruction. No right minded person can relate as they think well 'I would never do that' and 'we've been trained not to do that'.

I've worked with people like that and I had an ex-friend like it, when you suss out what they're doing you can never unsee it but they really fly under the radar in many situations and circumstances. There's people all around them doing mop up jobs for the insanity they leave in their wake and yet no-one seems to confront them. It's mind-blowing. My ex-friend took her own life in the end. Nobody ever did confront her to the bitter end. But are those type of people doing it 'on purpose' in order to cause harm, no. Harm is not their end goal at all, it's collateral damage to the fake image. They're profoundly mentally unwell with denial, delusion, narcissistic problems.

Was LL really 'faking it' and absolutely terrible at her job but nobody called it until Dr J bravely spoke out like the little boy in the Emporers New Clothes?

JMO MOO

If all of the above is true, then there should be legal consequences----like criminal negligence leading to manslaughter x10

 

[Kemug]

We should remember that LL had been nursing for years before this stuff happened, and apparently there were no doubts about her competence back then.

 

[Kemug]

21st Sept is the date LL looked up the parents of baby G on Facebook, then minutes later the mother of twins E&F, and again minutes later one of the other mothers - I think it must have been the mother of either baby C or baby D.

the charges for E&F refer to August 2015 - E died, F survived
the charges for C & D refer to June 2015 - both babies died

I wonder if it's possible that these facebook searches were done to try to find out if there were any siblings back home - and if there weren't, then that might make targetting certain babies more attractive, to inflict maximum pain on the parents. JMO

 

[Kemug]

But on the other hand, she could have just asked the parents I suppose.

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

Accidentally or clumsily injects insulin into a TPN bag? Allegedly . Accidentlaly or clumsily injects air into a baby's stomach? Allegedly.

How would that work? Can you suggest a possible scenario where either of those things could happen?

One of those, tripped and fell onto the syringe things...

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

I have a question.

So the monitor was off.

Isn't it a procedure to TURN it ON when attaching it to a patient?

IMO I think maybe the doctors just 'left' it for the nurse to deal with. I see it a lot with doctors, while waiting in their rooms for them, a nurse will come in and set up the examination bed etc and when they are finished, i have seen doctors just walk off, leaving nurses to clean up or fix things they have changed etc.

 

[AnnesCuthberts]

How coy!
Wow!

"I don't know her that well"

Wow Wow
FB searches do not count, right?

My opinion only

I’m confused, what do you mean by the FB searches? Did I miss something?

 

[MissMarbles]

The consultant doctor said he "could not recall" if Child G's monitoring equipment was switched off during the cannula fitting, but "it is his practice to transfer the sensor from one limb to another or if temporary detachment is required to reattach the monitor as soon as possible." He added if Child G was not stable he would not have left her. After the doctors had gone, the nurse responded to Lucy Letby's shout for help. When she attended, Child G's monitor had been switched off (power was off). Child G was struggling to breathe. Letby was giving ventilation breaths.

RSBM BBM
Am finding this interesting. Unless the machine went on standby (?) due to someone forgetting to reattach the sensor? (PS I don't know if this possible or not), well if true then someone may have deliberately turned the machine off. MOO.

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

I get the impression that this nurse thinks LL is innocent with her statements

Maybe I'm very naïve but I didn't actually know witness's were allowed to read about the trial online before they gave evidence either. Obviously I know the jury can't, and that some witness's do hear the testimony of others in court. But I didn't know it was actually fine to read about the trial online before you took the stand!

 

[Tortoise]

Maybe I'm very naïve but I didn't actually know witness's were allowed to read about the trial online before they gave evidence either. Obviously I know the jury can't, and that some witness's do hear the testimony of others in court. But I didn't know it was actually fine to read about the trial online before you took the stand!

I thought the same as you as I was reading her testimony.

 

[Supernovae]

I think the monitor thing is more significant than people are perhaps recognising. It was a major plank, if not the main plank of the second attempted murder charge:

3:20pm

Five days after her return to the Countess, Child G was due to receive her immunisations, such was her improved condition.
A team of nurses came on the day shift that day, Lucy Letby being among them. Letby was Child G's designated nurse that day.

3:23pm

Child G was fed with 40ml via a NG tube by Letby at 9.15am. At about 10.20am, Child G had projectile vomited twice and went apnoeic for several seconds, the court is told. Child G's blood saturations fell to 30%. The same problem she had faced two weeks prior.
A nurse took over the care from Letby at 11.30am, as Letby was looking after two other children in room 4.
The nurse took all the observations and noted Child G was connected to a 'Masimo monitor' - which measures oxygen saturations and heart rate levels. It is a device which stays on and cannot be turned off by a baby.

3:25pm

At 3.30pm a consultant doctor was called to cannulate Child G. Privacy screens were erected and Child G was on a trolley, with the monitor still attached.
The nurse went to care for another baby.
The consultant doctor said he "could not recall" if Child G's monitoring equipment was switched off during the cannula fitting, but "it is his practice to transfer the sensor from one limb to another or if temporary detachment is required to reattach the monitor as soon as possible."
He added if Child G was not stable he would not have left her.

3:26pm

After the doctors had gone, the nurse responded to Lucy Letby's shout for help. When she attended, Child G's monitor had been switched off (power was off). Child G was struggling to breathe. Letby was giving ventilation breaths.
Child G responded to treatment.

3:28pm

In a text sent by Letby to a colleague, she wrote Child G: "...looked rubbish when I took over this morning then she vomited at 9 and I got her screened … mum said she hasn’t been herself for a couple of days”.
But the prosecution said Child G had been due to have her immunisations, something which would not have been contemplated if Child G had not been well.
The prosecution say Child G had vomited because she had been given excessive milk and air.
A subsequent MRI scan revealed neurological changes and, in August 2016, it was revealed Child G had suffered "irreversible brain damage".

3:28pm

In a text sent by Letby to a colleague, she wrote Child G: "...looked rubbish when I took over this morning then she vomited at 9 and I got her screened … mum said she hasn’t been herself for a couple of days”.
But the prosecution said Child G had been due to have her immunisations, something which would not have been contemplated if Child G had not been well.
The prosecution say Child G had vomited because she had been given excessive milk and air.
A subsequent MRI scan revealed neurological changes and, in August 2016, it was revealed Child G had suffered "irreversible brain damage".

3:29pm

The overfeeding "doesn't happen by accident," Mr Johnson told the court.
He added similar cases will be heard with other babies.

3:30pm

Mr Johnson: "Someone had switched off the monitor when Child G collapsed, and she was 'discovered' by Lucy Letby".

3:37pm

For the second incident, Letby denied either over-feeding or injecting air into Child G's stomach.
In Novemver 2020, Letby denied to police that she had switched off the Masimo monitor.