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

[Tortoise]

Who was the colleague she was texting though. If it was the nurse that she told then it would make sense that she wouldn't mention it, as they had already spoken in person about it.

I would say she wasn't texting the designated nurse from this dialogue

8.56pm -
LL: G poorly again
Nurse: asks what is wrong with her and expresses concern that G has been moved to nursery 4 so fast because it seemed too good to be true. She asks if G is septic again.
LL says G is vomiting, pale and apnoeic and has been cold for the past 24 hours. She adds “Due date today!”
Nurse: “Oh she likes to ‘celebrate’ the big ones in style ☹
LL: “Due imms today too. I got her screened this morning after she vomited.
Nurse: Was she still in 4 then?
LL: “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”
Nurse: “See. It really worries me. I wasn’t on when she was moved but wouldn’t have done it myself.”
LL: “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.”
Nurse: “F ***. I wish she’d told a registered nurse.”
LL: “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.”

 

[JosieJo]

It doesn't sound as if she is talking to the colleague who was with her at the time

 

[BabaVanga]

Not necessarily, because the call for help is the payoff. The potential motive for this whole charade, allegedly, is the drama and the attention that comes with the urgent situation. JMO

Agree 100%

 

[JosieJo]

IMO there are a few possible scenarios

Either

LL Found the baby collapsed and called for help

LL Turned off the monitor , did something to the baby and waited a few minutes before shouting for help ..in hope of her being the part of the drama of the babies death.

The Dr's left the baby without monitoring and LL took advantage of that

 

[Tortoise]

It might not be obvious with a lot of testimony to follow, but LL was calling for help with most of these babies when they collapsed/died. By that token she wouldn't be on trial if it was used as a measure of not causing them harm.

 

[JosieJo]

We haven't actually heard how the nurse came to know it was the Dr's who left the monitor.

There must have been ongoing discussion at the time for the Drs to go and apologies to the designated nurse.

If the Dr's did leave the baby they couldn't know the baby collapsed while the monitor was still off unless someone told them. They would presume a nurse would automatically switch it back on and the monitor would surely be back on by the time the Dr's arrived to attend the collapse

 

[Marantz4250b]

Not necessarily, because the call for help is the payoff. The potential motive for this whole charade, allegedly, is the drama and the attention that comes with the urgent situation. JMO

They have to prove that her intention was to cause death, though. That is very specific and is a very hard thing to prove to the relevant legal standard.

By calling for help it tends to show that, even if she did do something to this baby, then the intent was not to cause death. She could easily have waited until the child died and then caused a ruckus for the attention and glory but she didn't.

Now, she my have been risking the death of the baby (if she did anything at all) but that is very different from proving a specific intention to cause death.

 

[JosieJo]

They have to prove that her intention was to cause death, though. That is very specific and is a very hard thing to prove to the relevant legal standard.

By calling for help it tends to show that, even if she did do something to this baby, then the intent was not to cause death. She could easily have waited until the child died and then caused a ruckus for the attention and glory but she didn't.

Now, she my have been risking the death of the baby (if she did anything at all) but that is very different from proving a specific intention to cause death.

For her to leave the child to die relies 100% on it being the Dr's who left it off and I do not think we know that ..it would depend on who told the Dr's that the child collapsed without the monitor being on

 

[Marantz4250b]

I would say she wasn't texting the designated nurse from this dialogue

8.56pm -
LL: G poorly again
Nurse: asks what is wrong with her and expresses concern that G has been moved to nursery 4 so fast because it seemed too good to be true. She asks if G is septic again.
LL says G is vomiting, pale and apnoeic and has been cold for the past 24 hours. She adds “Due date today!”
Nurse: “Oh she likes to ‘celebrate’ the big ones in style ☹
LL: “Due imms today too. I got her screened this morning after she vomited.
Nurse: Was she still in 4 then?
LL: “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”
Nurse: “See. It really worries me. I wasn’t on when she was moved but wouldn’t have done it myself.”
LL: “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.”
Nurse: “F ***. I wish she’d told a registered nurse.”
LL: “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.”

That puts the text conversation into a very different context, in my opinion. It's a lot less "attention seeky" than the edited versions I've seen previously.

 

[JosieJo]

I really struggle that LL in her statement, or in any text messages, or the witnesses first statement there was absolutely no mention of Dr's leaving monitor off. Its not something you would forget and it would definitely have been in LL favour to mention it

 

[Marantz4250b]

It might not be obvious with a lot of testimony to follow, but LL was calling for help with most of these babies when they collapsed/died. By that token she wouldn't be on trial if it was used as a measure of not causing them harm.

I'm talking about this specific event only, though. She is charged with attempted murder. She apparently had the perfect opportunity to commit that crime in an almost undetected manner yet called for help. This tends to suggest that she did not intend to cause death, surely?

 

[Marantz4250b]

For her to leave the child to die relies 100% on it being the Dr's who left it off and I do not think we know that ..it would depend on who told the Dr's that the child collapsed without the monitor being on

Who left it off isn't relevant. The prosecution must prove her specific state of mind. They must prove that she intended to cause death. Why would you call for help if you intended to cause death when you had what sounds like the perfect opportunity to do so?

The fact that a doctor left the monitor off just makes it even easier to to deny the charge.

 

[katydid23]

They have to prove that her intention was to cause death, though. That is very specific and is a very hard thing to prove to the relevant legal standard.

By calling for help it tends to show that, even if she did do something to this baby, then the intent was not to cause death. She could easily have waited until the child died and then caused a ruckus for the attention and glory but she didn't.

Now, she my have been risking the death of the baby (if she did anything at all) but that is very different from proving a specific intention to cause death.

There are 15 cases of attempted murder and 7 cases of murder that this jury will hear. Just because in this instance there was a call for help with a dying baby, that does not negate all of the other sketchy, suspicious circumstances with the other unexplained deaths/collapses.

I am looking at the overall pattern here. It is really hard to ignore the surge of collapses and deaths, the connection LL seemed to have to those deaths, and the stunning way the same babies improved when transferred away from LL.

After LL left the floor of that hospital, did that surge of unexplained deaths continue? Apparently it stopped once they transferred her out.

 

[Tortoise]

I'm talking about this specific event only, though. She is charged with attempted murder. She apparently had the perfect opportunity to commit that crime in an almost undetected manner yet called for help. This tends to suggest that she did not intend to cause death, surely?

I think she thought baby G was the most vulnerable of the babies, with her history. Her last text message after the first incident a fortnight earlier showed that. IMO

"...it just takes a little bug or something to tip her over as no reserves and chronic lung etc."

 

[Marantz4250b]

There are 15 cases of attempted murder and 7 cases of murder that this jury will hear. Just because there is one instance where there was a call for help with a dying baby, that does not negate all of the other sketchy, suspicious circumstances with the other unexplained deaths/collapses.

I am looking at the overall pattern here. It is really hard to ignore the surge of collapses and deaths, the connection LL seemed to have to those deaths, and the stunning way the same babies improved when transferred away from LL.

After LL left the floor of that hospital, did that surge of unexplained deaths continue? Apparently it stopped once they transferred her out.

I am not for one minute saying that it does. I'm looking at this incident is isolation.

She had what seems like the perfect opportunity to kill the child, probably completely undetected, yet took actions to prevent her from dying - and she did not die.

Now, perhaps she did have the intention to kill her and then changed her mind but I don't see any evidence to support that.

 

[Tortoise]

Just because doctors don't remember a day from years ago, doesn't mean they wouldn't have remembered on the actual day leaving LL in charge of her, if the designated nurse wasn't in the room.

I think, if she was attempting to kill the babies, she had to at least juggle that with acting like a nurse, to not raise suspicion. It wouldn't look good for LL to have a dead baby that wasn't assisted at all, when she was alone in the room with her.

JMO

 

[Dotta]

So...
I guess the month of "time off" for the Jury is the result of the Big Bang moment (and the following legal discussion).

At last they will have time to rest a bit

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

The fact that a doctor left the monitor off just makes it even easier to to deny the charge.

It's not a fact.

 

[Anxala]

Wow ..bit early

I'd guess they have to do this in order to accommodate people's Christmas plans, both the jury's and the witnesses'. Apart from anything else, a lot of people go away and/or have pre and post Christmas arrangements and commitments, and those of the jury and the witnesses in particular would have been known, noted and built into the trial's schedule.

I'd guess also that the jury in particular could do with a decent break after the harrowing couple of months they've had so they come back fresh and refreshed in Jan.

 

[katydid23]

I am not for one minute saying that it does. I'm looking at this incident is isolation.

She had what seems like the perfect opportunity to kill the child, probably completely undetected, yet took actions to prevent her from dying - and she did not die.

Now, perhaps she did have the intention to kill her and then changed her mind but I don't see any evidence to support that.

It is hard to look at this one incident in isolation because it loses all context. Looking at it in isolation makes her look like a concerned nurse trying to save a little baby from death.

However the overall big picture makes it look different, in my opinion. Here is how the standard described the testimony from that attending nurse:

A nurse, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, told jurors at Manchester Crown Court she heard Letby call for help from the nursery.

She said the screen was still up when she entered and a “concerned” Letby was trying to revive the youngster who was not breathing.

And she recalled a nearby monitor, which also measures heart rate, was not switched on.


So I look at the above, and I see a nurse who is alone in a room, with an unmonitored baby, not breathing, on the brink of death. If a doctor or nurse came in and LL had NOT called for help yet, she would be in big trouble. And she knew that others were already a bit suspicious of her. I think she had to call for help because she knew how guilty she'd look if he died when she was there and she hadn't called out. JMO