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

[Dotta]

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

Oh, it seems there is
(quoting the classic)

"Method in all this madness"

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

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.

I don't recall that text.

Do you mean either of these texts?

6 Sep 2015, Sun

8pm – LL’s night shift – LL Room 1. Not designated nurse for baby G in room 2.

8.30pm –

LL texted a colleague Kate Bissell enquiring about expressed breast milk for her designated baby for that night. The matter is clarified in the text conversation.

7 Sep 2015, Mon

3.15am – LL was made baby G’s designated nurse and she was moved to room 1.

8am – end of LL’s night shift.

8.57am – Ll wrote her retrospective notes for G's 2.15am vomit and milk and air aspirated.

10am – LL clocked off.

10.46am –

LL texted a colleague in relation to the care of a different child on the neonatal unit from the previous night.

 

[ColourPurple]

I don't recall that text.



6 Sep 2015, Sun

8pm – LL’s night shift – LL Room 1. Not designated nurse for baby G in room 2.

8.30pm –

LL texted a colleague Kate Bissell enquiring about expressed breast milk for her designated baby for that night. The matter is clarified in the text conversation.

7 Sep 2015, Mon

3.15am – LL was made baby G’s designated nurse and she was moved to room 1.

8am – end of LL’s night shift.

8.57am – Ll wrote her retrospective notes for G's 2.15am vomit and milk and air aspirated.

10am – LL clocked off.

10.46am –

LL texted a colleague in relation to the care of a different child on the neonatal unit from the previous night.

I think it was mentioned on here at the very start of the Baby G evidence. I assumed it was a tweet, unless it was somebody referring back to another charge. Can't find a way to search the thread.

 

[Tortoise]

I think it was mentioned on here at the very start of the Baby G evidence. I assumed it was a tweet, unless it was somebody referring back to another charge. Can't find a way to search the thread.

I don't think there are any other texts about feeding. I think there was discussion here about the 8.30pm text about breast milk, which wasn't about baby G.

 

[ColourPurple]

I don't recall that text.

Do you mean either of these texts?

6 Sep 2015, Sun

8pm – LL’s night shift – LL Room 1. Not designated nurse for baby G in room 2.

8.30pm –

LL texted a colleague Kate Bissell enquiring about expressed breast milk for her designated baby for that night. The matter is clarified in the text conversation.

7 Sep 2015, Mon

3.15am – LL was made baby G’s designated nurse and she was moved to room 1.

8am – end of LL’s night shift.

8.57am – Ll wrote her retrospective notes for G's 2.15am vomit and milk and air aspirated.

10am – LL clocked off.

10.46am –

LL texted a colleague in relation to the care of a different child on the neonatal unit from the previous night.

Yes the Kate Bissell text is the one I was remembering. Thanks for finding it!

I'd read that to mean it was about Kate's designated baby and wondered whether Kate's desingated baby was baby G (as we know Baby G wasn't LL's designated baby that night) . But it could mean LL's designated baby (and maybe Kate had had that baby during the day) in which case it's not that relevant.

6 Sep 2015, Sun

8pm – LL’s night shift – LL Room 1. Not designated nurse for baby G in room 2.
8.30pm – LL texted a colleague Kate Bissell enquiring about expressed breast milk for her designated baby for that night. The matter is clarified in the text conversation.

 

[Tortoise]

Yes the Kate Bissell text is the one I was remembering. Thanks for finding it!

I'd read that to mean it was about Kate's designated baby and wondered whether Kate's desingated baby was baby G (as we know Baby G wasn't LL's designated baby that night) . But it could mean LL's designated baby (and maybe Kate had had that baby during the day) in which case it's not that relevant.

6 Sep 2015, Sun

8pm – LL’s night shift – LL Room 1. Not designated nurse for baby G in room 2.
8.30pm – LL texted a colleague Kate Bissell enquiring about expressed breast milk for her designated baby for that night. The matter is clarified in the text conversation.

this is the exact quote -

Letby had messaged colleague Kate Bissell at about 8.30pm enquiring about expressed breast milk for the baby she was the designated nurse for that night. The matter is clarified in the text conversation.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, December 1

Kate Bissell wasn't G's designated nurse that night. G's designated nurse's name is not being reported.

 

[ColourPurple]

this is the exact quote -

Letby had messaged colleague Kate Bissell at about 8.30pm enquiring about expressed breast milk for the baby she was the designated nurse for that night. The matter is clarified in the text conversation.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, December 1

Kate Bissell wasn't G's designated nurse that night. G's designated nurse's name is not being reported.

Ah thanks. I wonder why they bothered mentioning the text exchange at all, unless it's to do with where LL may have got the extra milk from that she allegedly used to overfeed Baby G. Or maybe it was just mentioned to set the background for the night's events.

 

[Tortoise]

Ah thanks. I wonder why they bothered mentioning the text exchange at all, unless it's to do with where LL may have got the extra milk from that she allegedly used to overfeed Baby G. Or maybe it was just mentioned to set the background for the night's events.

I had thought it might be about where she got the milk from but someone here said there would be plenty of opportunity for LL to find spare milk in such a unit.

 

[Tortoise]

I think all texts included must be relevant in some way, to tend to prove something for one of the parties.

 

[ColourPurple]

I had thought it might be about where she got the milk from but someone here said there would be plenty of opportunity for LL to find spare milk in such a unit.

But I guess if you were to take too much from certain babies' supplies it might be noticed so it would be handy to know how much you could take without it being noticed by their nurse on the next feed. Though I guess there's donor milk available too.

 

[MsBetsy]

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?

Maybe she knew it would look worse if she didn't call for help, like other babies that collapsed when she was the only one standing there. It could be that Letby was tampering with machines, pausing them, shutting them off or turning them back on when necessary.

I think LL wanted to be the first one to sound the alarm for each incident, just like she was the first to text all her colleagues about the deaths, possibly controlling the narrative with all her explanations.

One of the nurses testified that Letby seemed angry after she called for help. Did she interfere with Letby's plans? Did Letby really believe it wasn't necessary or was she just mad that she didn't have control?

Baby G was 100 days old and had no significant issues before the documented feeding by Letby at 2:00 am on the 7th. The baby was taken to Arrow Park Hospital and was doing well before returning to the hospital to be cared for again by Letby.

There were two more alleged attempts five hours apart on September 21, with the baby having the same symptoms she had after the first documented feed by Lucy.

That sounds like intent to me.

I wonder if she told her colleagues it was just bad luck that Baby G was left with permanent brain damage.

 

[Anxala]

I agree but it makes no sense not to complete child Gs evidence prior to the break I'd imagine there may only have been another 2 days

True, and maybe they hoped to do that. But they lost a few days, didn't they, here and there, with various key people off ill/indisposed etc so maybe the intention was to complete on Child G's case pre the Christmas break but life just got in the way. As it does.

 

[Eloise]

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 think so, personally, as each baby is an individual charge. At worst this might jeopardise the prosecution case on this charge only. JMO.
They already dropped (or she was found not guilty of? I can't remember specifically) one charge due to lack of evidence before the trial began, so it wouldn't be the first time.

 

[katydid23]

True, and maybe they hoped to do that. But they lost a few days, didn't they, here and there, with various key people off ill/indisposed etc so maybe the intention was to complete on Child G's case pre the Christmas break but life just got in the way. As it does.

And I think the jury probably had enough already. This must be so hard to take in, with all the medical terminology and all the horrid accusations and descriptions of babies collapsing and having brain damage and grieving families. I am sure they needed a nice long break before having their own family celebrations. I hope they all return---I'd probably be tempted to call in sick by January.

 

[katydid23]

There is a case that seems kind of similar to this one against LL. It is about a Doctor Swango, and it is fascinating.

Here is a special I watched tonight:

Very Scary People​

Dr. Death: A License to Kill (Part 1)​

Season 2; Episode 11 (2020)
Donnie Wahlberg (Host)
DocumentaryCrime
Sat 17 Dec, 10:00 pm CNN (Ch. 62)

1 hour
New, CC
For nearly two decades, physician-turned-murderer Michael Swango leaves a trail of death and mayhem across two continents.

He injected poisons in patients IVs, but it took years to actually catch him at it. Look at this LONG timeline:


1979: Graduates summa laude from Quincy College.
1983: Graduates from Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, where classmates nickname him “Double-0 Swango” and faculty raise concerns about his performance. Accepted into the neurosurgery program at Ohio State University Medical Center.
February 1984: A nursing student reports that Swango tampered with an IV just before the patient suffers a seizure and respiratory arrest. The patient survives, but nurses suspect Swango in five deaths on the ward. Hospital leaders conduct interviews and dismiss these suspicions.
March 1984: Ohio State recommends Swango for medical licensure. He completes his internship but is not invited to stay on for a neurosurgery residency.
July 1984: Finds work as a paramedic in Quincy. Colleagues fall ill and suspect Swango of poisoning them. Police search his house and find a “mini-laboratory” of poisons, including handwritten recipes for ricin, botulism and supersaturated cyanide.

October 1984: Ohio State University police are joined by the Franklin County prosecutor and the state medical board in investigating Swango’s time at Ohio State. Despite suspicious stories, there is no hard evidence. No charges are brought.
February 1985: Ohio State law school dean James Meeks investigates the university’s handling of Swango during his internship. In a sharply worded report, Meeks concludes the hospital’s inquiry was “far too superficial.”

August 1985: Convicted in the nonfatal Illinois poisonings. He serves two years of a five-year sentence.

August 1987: Released from prison.

March 1992: Secures a residency at a university hospital in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, using forged documents.
1993: Several healthy patients die. Swango’s past becomes known. He is fired. Again using forgeries, Swango is hired as a psychiatry resident at State University of New York at Stony Brook. He is assigned to a Veterans Administration hospital. His past, again, comes out, and Swango is fired.

1994: Federal investigators obtain a warrant for Swango’s arrest on fraud charges, but he flees to Zimbabwe, where he gets a job at a hospital in Mnene. Again, patients die mysteriously. Swango is arrested and charged, but goes into hiding.
June 1997: Swango is hired by a hospital in Saudi Arabia. Returning to the U.S. to obtain a visa, he is arrested in a Chicago airport on federal fraud charges. He pleads guilty and is sentenced to 3 years in prison.

July 2000: Days before Swango is to be released, federal investigators charge him in the 1993 deaths of three of his VA hospital patients whose exhumed remains have been found to contain poisons.

Timeline of Serial Killer Michael Swango's Life and Crimes

From Illinois valedictorian to Ohio State neurosurgery internist to convicted murderer, a timeline of serial killer Michael Swango's life and crimes.

www.columbusmonthly.com

 

[Dotta]

There is a case that seems kind of similar to this one against LL. It is about a Doctor Swango, and it is fascinating.

Here is a special I watched tonight:

Very Scary People​

Dr. Death: A License to Kill (Part 1)​

Season 2; Episode 11 (2020)
Donnie Wahlberg (Host)
DocumentaryCrime
Sat 17 Dec, 10:00 pm CNN (Ch. 62)

1 hour
New, CC
For nearly two decades, physician-turned-murderer Michael Swango leaves a trail of death and mayhem across two continents.

He injected poisons in patients IVs, but it took years to actually catch him at it. Look at this LONG timeline:


1979: Graduates summa *advertiser censored* laude from Quincy College.
1983: Graduates from Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, where classmates nickname him “Double-0 Swango” and faculty raise concerns about his performance. Accepted into the neurosurgery program at Ohio State University Medical Center.
February 1984: A nursing student reports that Swango tampered with an IV just before the patient suffers a seizure and respiratory arrest. The patient survives, but nurses suspect Swango in five deaths on the ward. Hospital leaders conduct interviews and dismiss these suspicions.
March 1984: Ohio State recommends Swango for medical licensure. He completes his internship but is not invited to stay on for a neurosurgery residency.
July 1984: Finds work as a paramedic in Quincy. Colleagues fall ill and suspect Swango of poisoning them. Police search his house and find a “mini-laboratory” of poisons, including handwritten recipes for ricin, botulism and supersaturated cyanide.

October 1984: Ohio State University police are joined by the Franklin County prosecutor and the state medical board in investigating Swango’s time at Ohio State. Despite suspicious stories, there is no hard evidence. No charges are brought.
February 1985: Ohio State law school dean James Meeks investigates the university’s handling of Swango during his internship. In a sharply worded report, Meeks concludes the hospital’s inquiry was “far too superficial.”

August 1985: Convicted in the nonfatal Illinois poisonings. He serves two years of a five-year sentence.

August 1987: Released from prison.

March 1992: Secures a residency at a university hospital in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, using forged documents.
1993: Several healthy patients die. Swango’s past becomes known. He is fired. Again using forgeries, Swango is hired as a psychiatry resident at State University of New York at Stony Brook. He is assigned to a Veterans Administration hospital. His past, again, comes out, and Swango is fired.

1994: Federal investigators obtain a warrant for Swango’s arrest on fraud charges, but he flees to Zimbabwe, where he gets a job at a hospital in Mnene. Again, patients die mysteriously. Swango is arrested and charged, but goes into hiding.
June 1997: Swango is hired by a hospital in Saudi Arabia. Returning to the U.S. to obtain a visa, he is arrested in a Chicago airport on federal fraud charges. He pleads guilty and is sentenced to 3 years in prison.

July 2000: Days before Swango is to be released, federal investigators charge him in the 1993 deaths of three of his VA hospital patients whose exhumed remains have been found to contain poisons.

Timeline of Serial Killer Michael Swango's Life and Crimes

From Illinois valedictorian to Ohio State neurosurgery internist to convicted murderer, a timeline of serial killer Michael Swango's life and crimes.

www.columbusmonthly.com

"He's serving three life sentences at the country's only supermax federal penitentiary in Florence, Colorado."

How satisfying

 

[Tortoise]

https://twitter.com/lizhull

The trial of alleged killer nurse Lucy Letby is now on a Christmas break until Jan 9, latest episode of the podcast out Monday and we will be back in the New Year - catch up on @mailplus or @LucyLetbyTrial

 

[Marantz4250b]

There were two more alleged attempts five hours apart on September 21, with the baby having the same symptoms she had after the first documented feed by Lucy.

That sounds like intent to me.

I wonder if she told her colleagues it was just bad luck that Baby G was left with permanent brain damage.

Intent to do what, though, is the question. I agree with others here that, if guilty, one of her motives appears to be to want to revel in the drama of a near death situation and to bathe in the glory of saving a life and the subsequent adoration of her colleagues and the parents.

This, if correct, does not tend to lend evidential weight to support a charge of attempted murder, though, especially when you take into account the calling for help multiple times and suchlike - imo, obviously.

When all this started I was astonished at the number of attempted murder charges against her - and yet more were added at the start of the trial! Attempted Murder was always going to be problematic as it's a very high bar to clear. Murder, in contrast, is easy as the prosecution need not prove any intent what-so-ever.

For an attempted murder charge it must be proven that the accused had the specific intent to cause death by their actions. Being reckless as to whether someone may die; doing something which is extremely dangerous to someone and has a high chance of causing death; or simply not caring whether death occurs is not good enough - an actual intent to cause death must be proven. Nothing else will do. That is a notoriously difficult thing to do. It is extremely difficult to prove what a person had in their mind at a specific point in time unless they tell you, write it down or do some action which makes it very clear.

The more we see evidence coming out of her assisting in resuscitation, calling for help, and doing "positive" things the more I think it is likely to undermine the attempted murder charges. In addition, the sheer number of attempted murder charges against her may, in themselves, undermine the prosecution's case; the fact that she did not, in fact, manage to successfully cause death on so many occasions (three times in the case of Baby G, I believe) could very well be seen as evidence that it was not her intention to cause death and, imo, supports the argument that it was essentially attention seeking behavior. Dangerous attention seeking behavior to be sure, but attention seeking all the same.

I would not be surprised at all if the prosecution withdraws their evidence relating to some or all of the attempted murder charges after the Christmas break. If they do I think there will be questions raised as to why they used that charge at all. It would surely have been better to bring simple GBH charges as they are much easier to prove and, given the overall context, can still result in a very long sentence.

 

[Marantz4250b]

True, and maybe they hoped to do that. But they lost a few days, didn't they, here and there, with various key people off ill/indisposed etc so maybe the intention was to complete on Child G's case pre the Christmas break but life just got in the way. As it does.

I'm sure it'll pick up speed now the World Cup is done with. Don't think there are any major sporting events early next year - if it drags, though, we might get some sickies pulled for the Snooker which is, erm, May Bank Holiday???

 

[Marantz4250b]

I don't think so, personally, as each baby is an individual charge. At worst this might jeopardise the prosecution case on this charge only. JMO.
They already dropped (or she was found not guilty of? I can't remember specifically) one charge due to lack of evidence before the trial began, so it wouldn't be the first time.

Yes, that was the baby girl who was transferred to Arrowe Park and died there at about three days old. Prosecution offered no evidence so the judge directed a not guilty verdict.