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

[Dotta]

Dear Dotta, may I compliment you upon your use of the English language? You say it isn't your first language, but you're very very good!

I was a good student at school haha

 

[Tortoise]

When they said a six-month trial I wonder if that included three weeks off at Christmas.

 

[covid2020]

She didn't say it was a fact. She said "as far as I'm aware I believe that was the case"

"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.On Wednesday, she confirmed to Ben Myers KC, defending, that she spoke to detectives last month after reading the opening speeches online which suggested Letby had switched off the monitor

Mr Myers said: “From what happened you knew that was not the case?”
The nurse replied: “As far as I’m aware I believe that was not the case.”

She said two doctors, consultant Dr John Gibbs and registrar Dr David Harkness, approached her the same afternoon to apologise for leaving Child G behind the screen and for not turning the monitor back after completing the procedure.
Mr Myers said: “I suggest Ms Letby was cross that the doctors had left her behind the screen with the monitor off?”
The nurse said: “I don’t remember that.
“I remember her being concerned.”
Mr Myers said: “Do you recall she said this is something to make a formal complaint about?”
The witness replied: “I don’t remember but I went to my manager to report it myself without anyone suggesting it.”.




The scenario appears to be:

1. The doctors leave Baby G (and say they would not have left if the baby was not stable.)
2. LL either returns to Baby G or was there all along
3. LL shouts for help
4. The nurse arrives and baby G has deteriorated.
5. The nurse notices the monitor is off
5. LL says the doctors switching the monitors off could be a formal complaint(nurse does not remember this)
6. The nurse reports it to her manager (the manager does not remember this)
7. The Doctors come and apologise to the nurse (The doctors do not rememebr this and do not remember switching the monitor off, one says that would not be his normal practice, the other says at no point di dhe turn it off and he's not sure he woudl even know how to)

So the only person who actually knows whether the doctors left the monitors off is LL. The other nurse only arrived after LL did.

The nurse went out of her way to speak up and confirm what happened. It remains to be seen how compelling a witness she was but she took a risk doing this. This may be the first thread that unravels the whole trial.

 

[ColourPurple]

The nurse went out of her way to speak up and confirm what happened. It remains to be seen how compelling a witness she was but she took a risk doing this. This may be the first thread that unravels the whole trial.

I agree that she was right to speak up once she realised it might be relevant but I was just pointing out that she still didn't say that it was a fact that it was the doctors who switched off the monitor. She said "as far as I'm aware I believe that was the case" and it appears that she didn't witness the doctors switching the monitor off and wasn't first on the scene. LL was. The nurse witnessed LL with a deteriorating baby and the monitor switrched off and it seems it was LL who told her that the doctors had switched it off and that it was formal complaint territory. I do wonder why LL didn't mention this detail in any of her police interviews though.

The alleged subsequent doctors' apology, after she reported it could be seen as proof that it was true,but it could equally be that the doctors assumed that it had happened, as the nurse who reported it had no reason to lie about who switched off the monitor. However, several years later when LL is in the dock facing 7 murder charges and 15 attempted murder charges, if it turns out that LL is the source of the information, then, IF GUILTY, LL had every reason to lie about who switched off the monitor.

I would have expected the prosecution to be asking more questions along those lines, and maybe after the Xmas break they will. Or maybe this particular charge will be withdrawn (particularly as there are two other charges related to Baby G anyway ). I don't think it has any bearing on any of the other charges though, where IMO the prosecution presented a strong case.

 

[Sundial]

Or perhaps she heard the footsteps of someone approaching, and then called for help.

A little bit like Dr Js statement; as soon as he approached the doorway, she was allegedly stood over the incubator, the machine had allegedly been paused (so the alarm didn’t go off) and baby happened to be “deteriorating” just at that very point as he approached her.

In another scenario, the baby where she was allegedly stood in the darkened doorway and stated baby looked pale. ETA: When the nurse turned on the light, baby was deteriorating/barely breathing (or to that affect).

 

[Tortoise]

prosecution opening - Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

"Letby 'vaguely' recalled the day Child G vomited after her return to the hospital, accepting she had been the designated nurse. She had no recollection of Child G vomiting."

"In November 2020, Letby denied to police that she had switched off the Masimo monitor."



Nurse's evidence in chief 13th December - https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

[she said] she asked to review her original statement to police last month - as she said she had seen in the prosecution opening that there was a suggestion Ms Letby had turned the monitor off...

She tells the court that on 21 September two doctors came her to apologise...


Defence cross-examination of the nurse 14th December - Lucy Letby trial: Doctor questioned over status of baby monitor

"Mr Myers said: “I suggest Ms Letby was cross that the doctors had left her behind the screen with the monitor off?”

The nurse said: “I don’t remember that.

“I remember her being concerned.”

Mr Myers said: “Do you recall she said this is something to make a formal complaint about?”

The witness replied: “I don’t remember but I went to my manager to report it myself without anyone suggesting it.”

--

It looks like LL said nothing about any of this in her police interviews and has communicated the above submissions to her barrister after hearing the nurse's testimony.

I think LL thought the nurse would go along with these submissions, and they are a perfect example of manipulation.

According to the nurse, LL wasn't cross and the nurse went to the manager of her own accord without LL suggesting it. Taken together with no mention of this in LL's police interviews, and no mention of this in her texts, I think it's something she likely downplayed on the day because she didn't want the exposure of it in case it backfired on her, and that she had no clue the nurse spoke to anyone about it until trial. It wasn't in the defence opening speech.

It's quite illuminating to see her response to the allegation originally, and how she responded to this testimony by purporting to remember strong feelings and conversation about formal complaints that she couldn't remember closer to the time and omitted from her texts that evening. It's evidence imo of a manipulative and exploitative nature.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

The nurse went out of her way to speak up and confirm what happened. It remains to be seen how compelling a witness she was but she took a risk doing this. This may be the first thread that unravels the whole trial.

I don't see how this kerfuffle over who turned off a monitor, would unravel the entire trial. The jurors have heard evidence in SEVEN baby attacks so far. That is a lot of damning information. Much of it was straightforward and not really disputed.

So if there is confusion over who turned off a monitor, I don't see it demolishing the entire trial. It is just one small component, and not even that important overall. The monitor did not cause this tiny baby to collapse. So it is a distraction in the whole scheme of things. JMO

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

I've been busy lately and haven't had time to post (I have my finals for Uni this week).
But I wanted to add something I thought of regarding the monitor being turned off.
The nurse said the doctors apologised to her for not turning it off, but I think it was in the context of hearing that Baby G had collapsed and the monitor had been off, so maybe they said something along the lines of "I'm not sure if it was us who left it off, but if it was we are sorry," that makes more sense than two of them apologising for not turning it off, IMO.

 

[MissMarbles]

He said he doesn't remember it and it's testimony for the jury's consideration whether they believe a consultant with a long career would have turned off a monitor, and not just him but two doctors. Two doctors pressing the off switch together, if she's correct about their apologies.

We're not actually getting transcripts or the benefit of seeing witness demeanour to supplement our understanding of the evidence.

What we've been told he agreed is conditional upon her memory of the apology being accurate, not his memory - 'if I apologised, presumably it happened, I don't remember' doesn't constitute fact.

It could have been a senior doctor acting graciously and apologising to a nurse for a distressing situation dealing with a collapsed baby and she's misinterpreted their apologies. It could have been as she said, but no notes and 7 years later I don't think it's factual evidence at all.

IMO

IMO memories won't be 100% perfect years later, but if witnesses are very specific and give detail then that stands out for me.

I do think what the nurse said about talking to the doctors is truthful though, it comes across as she's certain JMO. I'm imagining a scenario where the nurse sees the monitor off, assumes doctors switched it off in error and didn't turn it back on.

And then in my imagined scenario she then has conversation with doctors, then they apologise to her, both assuming the nurse's assertion is correct - that they must have done this (unintentionally).

Just my opinion.

 

[ColourPurple]

IMO memories won't be 100% perfect years later, but if witnesses are very specific and give detail then that stands out for me.

I do think what the nurse said about talking to the doctors is truthful though, it comes across as she's certain JMO. I'm imagining a scenario where the nurse sees the monitor off, assumes doctors switched it off in error and didn't turn it back on.

And then in my imagined scenario she then has conversation with doctors, then they apologise to her, both assuming the nurse's assertion is correct - that they must have done this (unintentionally).

Just my opinion.

Exactly how I think it's most likely to have played out. The doctors had no reason to think the nurse would be lying, but now years later, we know that LL was first on the scene so the other nurse had no first hand evidence of who switched off the monitor and can only have relied on LL's version of events.And if guilty of this and all the other murders and attempted murders, then LL had every reason to lie about who switched off the monitor.

Things that are strange (other than the fact that nobody but the nurse remembers the apology and that they didn't also apologise to LL) are:
1. When discussing screening Baby G with another colleague, later that day, LL doesn't mention the monitor being turned off at all, let alone the doctors doing it.
2.LL also apparently did not mention that the doctors turned it off, at any point during police interviews even when she was directly accused of switching the monitor off, and then charged with attempted murder for this incident. (though she's now added detail since the other nurse mentioned the doctors)

If it was action that was so out of order, that the other nurse reported it to her manager (and LL now says she said it was worthy of a formal complaint), you would think LL would remember it . Yet just a few hours later she doesn't appear to consider it worthy of mentioning when discussing Baby G with her colleague.

 

[ColourPurple]

I've been busy lately and haven't had time to post (I have my finals for Uni this week).
But I wanted to add something I thought of regarding the monitor being turned off.
The nurse said the doctors apologised to her for not turning it off, but I think it was in the context of hearing that Baby G had collapsed and the monitor had been off, so maybe they said something along the lines of "I'm not sure if it was us who left it off, but if it was we are sorry," that makes more sense than two of them apologising for not turning it off, IMO.

Exactly. I can see that happening, as at that point in time (long before all these murder and attempted murder charges) they would have no reason to think a nurse would lie about something like that .

PS Good luck with your finals!

 

[ColourPurple]

It's quite illuminating to see her response to the allegation originally, and how she responded to this testimony by purporting to remember strong feelings and conversation about formal complaints that she couldn't remember closer to the time and omitted from her texts that evening. It's evidence imo of a manipulative and exploitative nature.

JMO

I guess it's possible that the nurse's new statement jogged LL's memory of the incident in a way that being accused of attempted murder failed to. However, it does come across like she's taking full advantage of the nurse adding a bit of information about the doctors, and then running with it and adding even more of her own detail that paints her in a good light, IMO.

 

[Tortoise]

IMO memories won't be 100% perfect years later, but if witnesses are very specific and give detail then that stands out for me.

I do think what the nurse said about talking to the doctors is truthful though, it comes across as she's certain JMO. I'm imagining a scenario where the nurse sees the monitor off, assumes doctors switched it off in error and didn't turn it back on.

And then in my imagined scenario she then has conversation with doctors, then they apologise to her, both assuming the nurse's assertion is correct - that they must have done this (unintentionally).

Just my opinion.

I agree the nurse's evidence was truthful.

Where I disagree is with the point that it is a fact the doctors turned it off.

Her information was only as good as the information given by LL, who is accused of trying to kill the baby multiple times, and is not a reliable source for being behind a screen with the baby not breathing and the monitor off, also given other alleged incidents of her lying about what doctors and parents did.

This was not a report directly from the nurse to the doctors either. It was LL to the nurse, nurse to the manager, manager to two doctors, two doctors back to the nurse. By the time the doctors came back we don't know what they each thought about the complaint, or about the other doctor, or about the intent and content of their apologies. Was it "sorry" or was it "sorry I turned off the monitor and didn't turn it back on again"? You see the absurdity of the latter because it doesn't take two doctors to unplug a machine or press a switch. Her evidence - "they both apologised to me" - does not adequately explain who accepted personal responsibility for an action, it only explains accepting responsibility in a different regard that we are not aware of.

Two doctors said there would not be a reason to turn off the monitor, it's not their practice to switch it off either, and they would have seen the baby was stable and handed over her care to a nurse before leaving the room. That's 7 opportunities with two doctors in attendance, and a nurse appointed to watch her, for discovering an error that there is no basis in standard practice for the doctors to commit. That's how I view it.

Evidence of a game of telephone of sorts, and only one likely culprit (IMO) for the machine being off, to delay calling for help.

 

[Dotta]

I would add
"Break a leg" dear Observant
Oh, and don't thank - it brings bad luck (on exams of course)

 

[Tortoise]

I guess it's possible that the nurse's new statement jogged LL's memory of the incident in a way that being accused of attempted murder failed to. However, it does come across like she's taking full advantage of the nurse adding a bit of information about the doctors, and then running with it and adding even more of her own detail that paints her in a good light, IMO.

I think she would have talked about it in her texts, instead of going on about the nursery nurses as she did.

I don't think she wanted to draw attention to it because the more scrutiny given to it the more chance that this could escalate in an unpredictable way, with people talking about it.

JMO

 

[ColourPurple]

I think she would have talked about it in her texts, instead of going on about the nursery nurses as she did.

I don't think she wanted to draw attention to it because the more scrutiny given to it the more chance that this could escalate in an unpredictable way, with people talking about it.

JMO

I'm waiting to hear more details of the remaining charges, as it looks like this was the only charge where the monitor was turned off completely. Then in at least one, or is is two charges after this one she is accused of pausing the alarm on the monitor to stop it going off, rather than turning it off completely. If guilty, this could be an example of her adapting her methods, after the other nurse had noted when the monitor had been switched off completely or maybe with the remaining charges there was no screen present, so a blank screen on a monitor was more likely to be noticed.

IMO

 

[Dotta]

If guilty

- The motive is elusive (although I think it is there in her "famous" note)

- The methods are varied (although repetitive)

- The ward seemed to be in chaos (how lucky for an alleged SK)

- And it seems to me that (alleged) taking advantage of every opportunity was her strength.

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

I'm waiting to hear more details of the remaining charges, as it looks like this was the only charge where the monitor was turned off completely. Then in at least one, or is is two charges after this one she is accused of pausing the alarm on the monitor to stop it going off, rather than turning it off completely. If guilty, this could be an example of her adapting her methods, after the other nurse had noted when the monitor had been switched off completely or maybe with the remaining charges there was no screen present, so a blank screen on a monitor was more likely to be noticed.

IMO

There is a parallel here to LL not pointing out to doctors or nurses that baby G had been fed double the amount of milk she should have had in her stomach, the first time she projectile vomited.

If these incidents were not caused by LL I think she would have been drawing attention to them.

JMO

 

[ColourPurple]

If guilty

- The motive is elusive (although I think it is there in her "famous" note)

- The methods are varied (although repetitive)

- The ward seemed to be in chaos (how lucky for an alleged SK)

- And it seems to me that (alleged) taking advantage of every opportunity was her strength.

JMO

I almost used the word "opportunist" in my post about how it appeared that LL had taken the nurse's new information as an opportunity to add other detail to portray herself in a good light, regarding something she had failed to mention at all, at any point before, even in police interviews.
IMO

 

[ColourPurple]

There is a parallel here to LL not pointing out to doctors or nurses that baby G had been fed double the amount of milk she should have had in her stomach, the first time she projectile vomited.

If these incidents were not caused by LL I think she would have been drawing attention to them.

JMO

It's a shame we didn't get to hear more detail about the contexts of the text she sent to a colleague about their designated baby's feeding. The fact that it was mentioned hints that the baby may have been Baby G, but I don't think we've ever seen it confirmed.