UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #37

[JosieJo]

The jury had the staffing rotas and the defence pushed this ...yet the jury didn't accept this as relevant.

In order it to be relevant to the murdered babies.. we would have heard of Dr's not being present...or nurses finding babies who had collapsed a long time before the nurses got to them ...or observations not carried out for hours on end....babies not being fed etc etc ...none of which were shown

 

[JosieJo]

I'm quite sure if safety was compromised due to staffing LL would have done a Datix

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

Genuine question if this had been you and you had viewed this whole situation as a fly on the wall and had suspicions- when you had an interview with the CQC a few hours later (I will gift you a temporary promotion to clinical director of children’s services)- would you not have mentioned it?

Hindsight is so powerful. I would love to be able to say I would have known better and acted differently. But if I think back to 2015 when I had never heard of Lucy Letby and when I put myself in their shoes I honestly can't say I would have acted much differently. That's because I know what it's like to encounter a totally unprecedented situation and how difficult it is 1) to recognize that it is unprecedented and the 2) understand how to deal with it in an equally unprecedented way. You fumble along doing the best you and trying to apply what you know while all the time it's not working. And all the while wondering if you are going crazy. You can't even find the language to say what you are thinking.

Now that I've heard the trial? I have a mental model of how to identify staff deliberately harming patients and an idea of what to do about it. This is despite the fact that the last child protective module I took didn't even cover this information. I've never had a training that covered this information.

And I really think that's one of the whole points of Thirlwall. Normalcy bias is so real. In order to help people step out of it, there has to be a framework. It has to be simple, and people have to be aware of it. Everyone at CoCh suffered from normalcy bias to one degree or another.

Maybe we can look to the educational system for an example. It seems like in schools there is much more awareness that a staff member might behave inappropriately with a student, and there is a process to report and deal with that.

But this is also where administration is so important. I've already got so many things to think of, if I have a problem I don't know how to deal with, I want to be able to go to my administration and get good advice and know thar if the problem is much bigger than me, that my administration has the tools and knowledge to address it.

You would think wouldn’t you- except they have numerous excuses for not doing so regardless of the reason- no DATIX, no SUDIC, no post mortems

I mean the Datix. If the datix is anything like our error reporting forms, there is a place to report staffing as a contributing factor. I'm sure one of our British nurses can do this topic much more justice than I could.

 

[Charlot123]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

The adjacent unit, the maternity one, had a similar spike in 2015. Vogue article.

 

[JosieJo]

The adjacent unit, the maternity one, had a similar spike in 2015. Vogue article.

These cases would have been dealt with by midwifes and Obstetric Consultants not the same team of Drs

 

[Charlot123]

Forget staffing. Obviously it was witchcraft.

View attachment 579035

In reality, I am weighing in between:

"Someone on the unit was paranoid and had some way to persuade others, either via their position or their personal art of persuasion".

Or: "it started as something personal, an anonymous letter or such. This is why people are saying, you were not there to see...but objectively, there is no proof whatsoever. Yet there are emails between doctors discussing which case to ascribe to LL, and which not. If I were a doctor on such unit, I'd rather leave than add my name to a group idly accusing someone. Unless there is something else, that we are not privy to. I can't believe the doctors were so incompetent that they didn't see a parallel rise in stillbirths."

And then there are other things. Why is "nurse Death" used as a proof? Why do some posters rely on personal behaviors? Who is even thinking of dragging in obsolete MBP and "sociopathy" that were not the part of official investigation or LL's diagnosis? Is dr. Evans the supporter of MBP? His colleague, the one who died before the trial, was, it is known... Dr. Bonin, another trial witness, had eight open complaints against her during the trial.

While saying "i am not a statistician"? Sorry, 15 lifetimes deserve a statistician.

And now we have objective evidence - Dr. Jay's email about baby K is at sharp variance with his statements two years ago.

So before I make subjective guesses of what could make a group get together and decide what cases to hang on to Lucy and what, not, I am asking for more objective evidence.

Two doctors' names are whited out. One, I assume, is the married doctor who was hitting at her. Who is the other one?

 

[Charlot123]

These cases would have been dealt with by midwifes and Obstetric Consultants not the same team of Drs

Well, the doctors could have looked and seeing parallel statistics (and newborns were moved from maternity to ICU), tried to look for objective explanation for both trends, not "Lucy on shift". This is scary that they had absolutely no objective evidence. Why didn’t they accuse a doctor or a midwife of "organizing stillbirths" but accused LL?

Something is missing in this case. I am 50/50 torn between an anonymous signal or one doctor suffering from increased suspiciousness. I don't know which one.

 

[Tortoise]

If Letby hadn't murdered at least seven babies and attacked at least another seven, there would have been no chaos in the NNU. IMO



This is how busy she was at work, and I haven't included all the examples -

Child B

Mr Johnson goes through the timeline of Child B's events.
A message from Letby to Yvonne Griffiths said: "...Hard coming in and seeing the parents".
Mr Johnson says she is "engaged in chit-chat with a friend" between 8.41pm-9.10pm on the night shift in a social context. Letby says that sort of conversation was not limited to just her.
Mr Johnson says further messages are exchanged between 9.12pm-9.32pm.
Letby says "all members of staff use their phones on the unit". She says it was "accepted".
She says she cannot comment for the whole unit, but her designated babies were being cared for.
She says she does not believe there were staffing issues - "I can't see what's going on with the other babies [at this time]."
Further messages are exchanged involving Letby, some in a social context, up to 10.28pm.
Mr Johnson says in the middle of the block of messages, Letby signs for medication for a baby at 10.20pm. Letby says she didn't use her phone in clinical areas.
A "further block of messages" are exchanged on Letby's phone between 10.38-10.59pm.
NJ: "Were you bored?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "As a matter of fact, do you text a lot when in [room 3]?"
LL: "I text regardless where I am on shift."
NJ: "Even with an ITU baby [in room 1]?"
LL: "Yes, and I think everyone else would say the same if they were honest."


Child F

On the night shift from 1 to 2 August 2015, Letby was the designated nurse for Child F.
Letby sent a message to one of her friends complaining about the shift at 10.35pm.
"Yeah it's fine bit too q word really," she wrote.
Letby says this is a reference to it being quiet.
"Sometimes the shifts, they can be long nights if you haven't got as many babies on the unit," she tells the court.


Child G

A staffing rota for the night is shown for September 6-7 - "a quiet night", and Child G received a full feed from a bottle at 11pm
Ailsa Simpson recalled she had been sitting with Lucy Letby at the nurses' station when, 15 minutes' into her colleague's break, they both heard the projectile vomit.


Child H

Mr Johnson asks if Letby was "bored" with the children she was looking after in room 2 prior to Child H's collapse.
LL: "No."
She denies she had "time on her hands".
At 12.45am on September 27, Letby is recorded as 'liking' a post on Facebook. At 12.46am, she liked a Facebook photo posted by a colleague.
Letby says she may have been on her break at this point.
Mr Johnson says Letby was involved in a fluid balance chart for one of her designated babies around that time. Letby: "Yes, at 1am."


Child I

Letby messages a colleague to say that night had 'only 8 babies' in the unit, and there is a discussion over transporting a baby to Stoke. The prosecution say that would then leave her with one designated baby that night.
She adds: "I think I need to see greys anatomy !!!"
Later in the conversation, Letby messages to say Child I "had abdo scan that was fine".
Ms Letby was assigned to Nursery 3 on the neonatal unit that night and was responsible for a child not part of this case.
Messages now being shown to court from that night to a colleague, who wasn't on shift. Ms Letby messaged: 'Just went to tell baby's parents that transport coming...bedroom door answered after lots of what sounded like scrambling in tiny lacey dress hardly covering anything'
Colleague responded 'OMG' - several more messages of a social nature go back and forth. We're now approaching 22:30 on 22 October


Children L & M

Letby messages colleague Alisa Simpson at 10.34am, wishing her good luck at picking the horses at the Grand National that day, and that her feet don't get too sore.
Child L's blood sugar reading is 1.6 at 11am.
Letby is engaged in messaging people between 11.12am and 12.33pm.
Letby messages Alisa Simpson shortly afterwards: "Oh good hope you have a fab time. Im in work doing an extra! x"
Letby also messages her mother, asking if her father was betting on the Grand National, and if so, to put a bet on grey horses for her. Her mother replies that has already been done.
The court hears Letby continues to be involved in messaging, including a group message to colleagues and friends: "Sorry guys mad 4 busy days in work..." then invites the three people to crash at hers, apologising she hasn't fully unpacked yet.
She adds: "Got magnum prosecco and vodka woop. No disco ball but sure we can manage. x"
Child L's blood sugar reading is recorded as 2.0 at 2pm, and 1.5 at 3pm.


Child N

Letby agrees Child N collapsed just after Christopher Booth went on his break.
Letby denies she was 'bored' or had 'time on her hands' working in nursery 4 that shift.
Mr Johnson says Letby was texting her friends 'right through this shift'.
A sequence of messages is shown to the court. The first sent by Letby is at 7.33pm, followed by 7.35pm, 7.58pm, 7.59pm, 8pm ['We have got a baby with haemophilia'], 8pm, 8.01pm, 8.02pm, 8.03pm, 8.04pm [Ah ok I'll have to Google it later lol don't know much about it [haemophilia]], 8.06pm, 8.11pm [Complex condition, yeah 50;50 chance antenatally].
NJ: "That is where you got the answer from, Dr Google?"
LL: "No, '50:50' is something staff would know"
Messages are sent by Letby at 8.26pm [Ffs Mel asking me how to make up 12.5%],
Letby said she was "shocked" that a band 6 colleague was asking her how to make up such a solution, when she could have looked for herself.
8.29pm: 'No I've passed her folder but now asking if can run via cannula- she needs to look herself!'
Letby says she was "not happy" with Mel.
Another message is sent from Letby at 8.29pm, and at 8.31pm, and 8.31pm, at 8.32pm, 8.34pm.
Letby is asked how she can feed a baby at 8.30pm when she was also texting.
LL: "You can't."
Letby denies feeding the baby "very quickly" by putting the plunger on the end.
Another message is sent from Letby at 8.38pm [Had strange message from [doctor colleague] earlier...']
Mr Johnson asks if Letby's nursing colleague was implying Letby and the doctor were in a relationship. Letby says she does not know.
Letby's colleague sent two messages: "Did u? Saying what?
"Go commando? [cry laugh emoji]"
Letby is asked by Mr Johnson if she knows what the implication of 'go commando' means.
LL: "I don't know what was meant, I can't say right now."
NJ: "Do you think this was an army reference, being from Hereford?"
LL: "I don't know."
The messages are sent by Letby at 8.39pm, 8.40pm, 8.41pm, 8.43pm [Do you think he's being odd?], 8.44pm [Shut up!], 8.44pm [I don't flirt with him!].
Mr Johnson says Letby was 'texting non-stop' on the nursery room.
Letby says the feed "must have happened at a different time". She says she cannot answer when. She denies 'pushing it through' the feed.



all links in WS media thread

 

[Charlot123]

You would think wouldn’t you- except they have numerous excuses for not doing so regardless of the reason- no DATIX, no SUDIC, no post mortems

That's the issue. Absence of PMs or, say, information about the coagulation status of baby A presented at the trial provide no objective evidence for exogenous factor, the killer on the unit.

This is what i am looking for. "Well, here is PT/PTT, fibrinogen, IgGs levels, IgMs levels". Not just "the mother didn't pass it onto the kid". Because now we have two groups of experts: the trial hematology expert and the independent group stating the opposite.

Neither was present on the unit. So they all review the same data. There is evidence of one thrombus in Baby A. There is evidence of baby A being without IV fluids for 4 hours and no consultant on the unit that day.

The majority of untoward effects happening before LL came on the unit at 7:30 pm.

Yet LL is convicted of killing baby A by air embolus.

I'd say, if the registrars could not establish the IV line, the consultant had to stop by and do it.

Yet Lucy is serving one lifetime for baby A.

I'd say, drop this case. 14 people agreed that it was thrombosis. If not enough, send it to 14 more.

 

[Charlot123]

he cared so much he only turned up twice a week

Well, if it was their schedule, and as long as they were paid for working only twice a week this is OK. But from what I understand, there was no senior consultant on the unit for the whole day of baby A's life. The registrars are in training. That was a hard case. Dr. Jay showed up during resuscitation. His information about the "rash" is, sadly, postmortem. We do have the registrar's evidence, but a doctor-in-training is still in training.

In no way I am blaming the registrars, btw. They were trying their best, the same as the nurses. I don't know how all of them feel now.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

Well, the doctors could have looked and seeing parallel statistics (and newborns were moved from maternity to ICU), tried to look for objective explanation for both trends, not "Lucy on shift". This is scary that they had absolutely no objective evidence. Why didn’t they accuse a doctor or a midwife of "organizing stillbirths" but accused LL?

Something is missing in this case. I am 50/50 torn between an anonymous signal or one doctor suffering from increased suspiciousness. I don't know which one.

<modsnip>

The very first thing anyone did was look for causes. Eirian Powell is the one who looked at staffing and identified the connection with LL. And Eirian thought LL was the "Creme de la creme."

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

Well, if it was their schedule, and as long as they were paid for working only twice a week this is OK. But from what I understand, there was no senior consultant on the unit for the whole day of baby A's life. The registrars are in training. That was a hard case. Dr. Jay showed up during resuscitation. His information about the "rash" is, sadly, postmortem. We do have the registrar's evidence, but a doctor-in-training is still in training.

In no way I am blaming the registrars, btw. They were trying their best, the same as the nurses. I don't know how all of them feel now.

The training system in the UK is different from the US. Some registrars could have had as much experience as a neonatology fellow or newly qualified neonatologist in the US. Registrar does not equal resident.

@Furore ?

 

[Ruthbullock]

I'm quite sure if safety was compromised due to staffing LL would have done a Datix

Why is that solely her responsibility?

 

[Ruthbullock]

<modsnip>

The very first thing anyone did was look for causes. Eirian Powell is the one who looked at staffing and identified the connection with LL. And Eirian thought LL was the "Creme de la creme."

I thought it was Dr Brearey who identified the connection with Lucy

 

[JosieJo]

Why is that solely her responsibility?

It's not ...but we were made aware at trial that she did complete some...and had no problem staying over shift to complete work.
I also seem to remember at trial someone testifying to the fact that she did regularly report issues.
(Plus I must admit to it being a slightly sarcastic comment due to the case made that she did a datix to cover her tracks)

 

[Ruthbullock]

Dr Neame was questioned about why they didn’t complete the DATIX (page 23/24) have a read around page 30 as well- it just wasn’t really deemed relevant to complete the DATIX

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Thirlwall-Inquiry-2-Oct-2024.pdf

 

[Charlot123]

The training system in the UK is different from the US. Some registrars could have had as much experience as a neonatology fellow or newly qualified neonatologist in the US. Registrar does not equal resident.

@Furore ?

Oh, I know. Some emigrants from UK had to go through residency here. Again. 40-year-old guys with lots of experience. So maybe that registrar was in this position; maybe he moved to the UK from another country and had tons of experience back home. Maybe more than dr. Jay. Or maybe he had much better dexterity that dr. Breary.

By the same token, he could be young and inexperienced and could have felt better in the presence of the senior consultant on the unit.

 

[Charlot123]

<modsnip>

The very first thing anyone did was look for causes. Eirian Powell is the one who looked at staffing and identified the connection with LL. And Eirian thought LL was the "Creme de la creme."

So...how does anyone identify the connection? Given that Lucy took many shifts?

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

I thought it was Dr Brearey who identified the connection with Lucy

Lucy Letby among 'creme de la creme' of nursing students, inquiry told

Lucy Letby was identified among the 'creme de la creme' of students by a nursing boss, who has told a public inquiry that she never saw any evidence of wrongdoing by Letby.

www.dailymail.co.uk

So as the nursing manager Eirian Powell was the one who would have made up the staffing chart including the nursing staff. The doctors would not have had easy access to that information. And Lucy's name was on it. I'm sorry I can't put all my links in one post but I will also find in the actual transcript and Brearey's email where he explains that Powell is drawing up a staffing chart. Powell believed that it was a coincidence Lucy was on duty for the collapses. She was in no way motivated to implicate Lucy and in fact wanted to protect her from what she believed was bullying.

 

[Ruthbullock]

So page 25- one of the reasons the management couldn’t take things further is because there were not enough DATIX reports completed. This was 29 June 2015- you would guess at that point the doctors and consultants would then have a lightbulb moment and start completing more DATIX forms to highlight the issue- but they didn’t????

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Thirlwall-Inquiry-3-October-2024.pdf