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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #1,061
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 ?
I do believe the minimum training would be

5 years of medical school
2 years of foundation training
8 years of specialist training
1 year fellowship

16 years of medical education, and at least a decade of post graduate training between 40-60 hours a week. Moreover most will have done extra fellowships to get a job on competitive training programmes - one would become a registrar in year 3 of 8 of specialist training so at least five years post grad as a minimum. See attached!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5972.webp
    IMG_5972.webp
    70.4 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_5973.webp
    IMG_5973.webp
    73 KB · Views: 0
  • #1,062
<modsnip - quoted post was removed>
Which shifts were understaffed when these incidents occurred? Letby herself confirmed it was not a factor so I have no idea what your point is.
re. lack of staff on a shift, what you do is prioritise. Parents get little or no attention, feed times are changed, drugs are given late, staff go without breaks. Babies do not collapse and die as a result.
If you bothered to investigate you would know CoC was no worse off for staff than other similar units, if anything it was above average.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,063
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)

Again, behavior is not something we can make inferences from nor explain. Between a woman who stays late at work because she is lonely, one who is contemplating divorce from an alcoholic husband and one whose husband has poor physical boundaries, you see the same behaviors, "spending too much time at work". I'd say that only woman nr. 2 might eventually hint at domestic problem to coworkers. Nr. 1 will not, nr 3 will be misunderstood. So we simply know too little about people to interpret behaviors. JMO.
ETA: Lucy discussing the doctor's advances at her with the colleague who adviced to "go commando" might indicate two issues,

- Lucy's poor boundaries with colleagues
- the other woman perceiving Lucy as slightly immature, not wanting to be involved in a lengthy conversation about Lucy's personal life or probably, joking off.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,064
@magikarpmagikarp

You are an ARNP nurse. I am not.

I'm not an APRN, just a plain old crotchety bedside nurse/lifer. :) (but I have done a neonatal course and do have certification in my nursing specialty...I'm not a "nurse practitioner" - i don't prescribe drugs, I give them.)

I gotta make dinner now but I'll be back for more of this lively discussion later. I haven't forgotten that I need to gather some receipts re: Eirian Powell. Yes there were doctors on the chart.

Charlot - Dr. Jayaram did not use the wrong tube. Most likely the 2.0 was used because of an initial inability to pass a 2.5. That's called real life, not medical error. A baby who needs a breathing tube is better off with one that is too small than with no breathing tube. The tube can be upsized when the baby is more stable.
 
  • #1,065
The adjacent unit, the maternity one, had a similar spike in 2015. Vogue article.
Similar as in unexplained collapses and deaths?
 
  • #1,066
  • #1,067
Similar as in unexplained collapses and deaths?
Comparable rise in stillbirths in 2015.

I don't know about "unexplained". It really depends on who explains. Because we have two sources. One, the doctors in COCH NICU and the other one, the independent team.
The doctors in COCH can't explain it.
The doctors of the independent team provide explanation and in two cases, the link is to the consultants lacking the knowledge.

What I think is missing.
When someone can't explain what's going on, maybe the best thing is to ask for an independent peer review.

Was this done?

Were peer neonatologists invited to look at the unit, at cases? Were they asked, what is wrong here?

No doctor refuses a colleague asking for help.
 
  • #1,068
Genuinely don't think it will change a thing. It's the furthest thing from a detailed account of that event with corroborating accounts. It's more like a hastily scribbled memo done whilst busy with something else with almost zero detail, it's not going to be a good recall of it at all. Genuinely don't think it changes a thing. Did Lucy even contest that account from Dr jayaram?
 
  • #1,069
I do believe the minimum training would be

5 years of medical school
2 years of foundation training
8 years of specialist training
1 year fellowship

16 years of medical education, and at least a decade of post graduate training between 40-60 hours a week. Moreover most will have done extra fellowships to get a job on competitive training programmes - one would become a registrar in year 3 of 8 of specialist training so at least five years post grad as a minimum. See attached!

Compare to US training

4 years medical school
3 years residency - now qualified as a pediatrician (and have rotated through NICU twice)
3 years fellowship- now qualified as a neonatologist.

Comparable rise in stillbirths in 2015.

I don't know about "unexplained". It really depends on who explains. Because we have two sources. One, the doctors in COCH NICU and the other one, the independent team.
The doctors in COCH can't explain it.
The doctors of the independent team provide explanation and in two cases, the link is to the consultants lacking the knowledge.

What I think is missing.
When someone can't explain what's going on, maybe the best thing is to ask for an independent peer review.

Was this done?

Were peer neonatologists invited to look at the unit, at cases? Were they asked, what is wrong here?

No doctor refuses a colleague asking for help.
Yes this was done. It was the RCPCH invited review.
 
  • #1,070

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20250414-221145_Drive.webp
    Screenshot_20250414-221145_Drive.webp
    51.9 KB · Views: 4
  • Screenshot_20250414-221341_Drive.webp
    Screenshot_20250414-221341_Drive.webp
    61.6 KB · Views: 5
  • #1,071
OK, the Vogue article mentioned absolutely identical rise in stillbirth on maternity unit in COCH in 2015. That wasn't Lucy's doing. It is not that we are talking about one unit in the middle of nowhere.
There are many possible causes of stillbirths . There is no evidence that the living, breathing, eating and sleeping newborns died of the same causes of prior still births. You can't just jump to that conclusion.

Did those stillbirths involve babies dying of massive internal hemmorages? Did they suddenly collapse and have rashes seemingly out of the blue?
 
  • #1,072
@Ruthbullock

Here is the original table. Lucy's name in red. Prepared by Eirian Powell. She later also prepared a more extensive spreadsheet and she included the doctors.


Further details on the tables:
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20250414-222441_Drive.webp
    Screenshot_20250414-222441_Drive.webp
    22.8 KB · Views: 5
  • Screenshot_20250414-223249_Chrome.webp
    Screenshot_20250414-223249_Chrome.webp
    36.1 KB · Views: 5
  • Screenshot_20250414-223256_Chrome.webp
    Screenshot_20250414-223256_Chrome.webp
    44.5 KB · Views: 5
Last edited:
  • #1,073
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.
In real life, when neonatologists have questions about whether or not a baby has a hematologic condition, they defer to the expert opinion of the pediatric hematologist. You are not qualified to evaluate the meaning of lab tests.
 
  • #1,074
I followed this case quite closely but not on this site. What’s the consensus here on the safety of the conviction? A lot has been written in the British press proclaiming Letby`s innocence and dismissing the notes she made (which came very close to a confession) as a result of stress and possible mental health issues. I just can’t imagine an innocent person accused of murder writing I did it, and I am evil, in any circumstances.
 
  • #1,075
<modsnip - quoted post was removed>


After each death there was a staff review meeting with nurses/doctors etc. Everyone was giving their own input about what they saw, heard, thought. Notes were taken, suggestions were made, and future tests were discussed.

in the first several such meetings, it was never suggested that a staff member had acted maliciously.

They were focused upon possible infections or viruses or faulty equipment or poor training.

It was quite awhile before they became suspicious of Nurse Letby. When they did, and when they told administration about their concerns, they were quickly rebuffed and admonished.

They had no solid proof. Nurse L was very cunning, imo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,076
Baby E---opening statement description of events:


At 9pm on August 3, 2015, the mother decided to visit her twin sons, and "interrupted Lucy Letby who was in the process of attacking Child E", the prosecution say, although the mum "did not realise it at the time".

12:21pm

Child E was 'acutely distressed' and bleeding from the mouth.
The mum said Letby attempted to reassure her the blood was due to the NGT ittirating the throat.
"Trust me, I'm a nurse," Mr Johnson told the court.

12:22pm

Letby said the registrar would be down to review Child E, and urged her to return to the postnatal ward.

The mum called her husband when she got to the labour ward, in a call lasting four minutes and 25 seconds, at 9.11pm.

Letby made a note in Child F's records (Child F being the twin of Child E), "after she had got rid of" the mum, Mr Johnson said.

The next time the mum visited Child E, he was in terminal decline.

The prosecution say the mum was "fobbed off" by Lucy Letby.

Two records are made at 4.51am, after Child E had died.

The later note records: "Mummy was present at the start of shift attending to cares. Visited again approx. 22:00. Aware that we had obtained blood from his NG tube and were starting some different medications to treat this. She was updated by Reg xxxxx and contained [Child E]. Informed her that we would contact her if any changes. Once [Child E] began to deteriorate midwifery staff were contacted. Both parents present during resus."

The prosecution say Letby's note suggests the mum was present at the start of the shift (7.30pm-8pm), and returned at 10pm, when "neither is true".


The prosecution say 9pm was an important time, as it was the time Child E was due to be fed, by his mother's expressed breast milk.

The mum said that is why she attended at 9pm. "She was bringing the milk".
The phone call at 9.11pm to her husband also fits the mum's timing, the prosecution add.



Letby's notes also show: "prior to 21:00 feed, 16ml mucky slightly bile-stained aspirate obtained and discarded, abdo soft, not distended. SHO [Senior House Officer] informed, to omit feed."
The prosecution say the nursing notes made are false, and fail to mention that Child E was bleeding at 9pm.
They mention a meeting that neither the registrar or the mother remember.



A record of feeds - a feeding chart - is shown to the court.
At 9pm, Letby has recorded information to detail the volume of fluids given via the IV line and a line in Child E's left leg, and the 9pm feed is 'omitted'.

In the 10pm column is '15ml fresh blood'.

The SHO said he had no recollection of giving advice to omit the 9pm feed.
He was on the paediatric ward most of that night, until Child E entered a terminal decline.

He believes the only time he had anything to do with Child E was in a secondary role to the registrar in an examination at 10.20pm.



The registrar recalled being told Child E had suffered a blood-flecked vomit.


[So Lucy never called them at 9 to report bleeding from the mouth--she waited an hour and left a message about vomit w/flecks of blood]


He does not recall seeing any blood on Child E's face, but regarded the presentation as undramatic.
But "around half an hour to an hour later there was a large amount of fresh blood which had come up" Child E's tube.

The prosecution said: "This was the first indication of any serious problem so far as the medical staff were concerned.
"There was a further loss of 13 mls of blood at 23:00 hrs."


"13mls may not sound much, but [the doctor] had never seen a small baby bleed like this."
This was the equivalent to 25 per cent of Child E's blood volume, a figure which the prosecution say is an under-estimate in context.

The prosecution add that at 11.40pm, Child E suffered a sudden desaturation.
His abdomen "developed a striking discolouration with flitting white and purple patches."
CPR was started, but Child E "continued to bleed".
Although Letby was participating in the resuscitation of Child E, she co-signed for medication given to another baby in room 4.

Child E was pronounced at at 1.40am.

Medical expert Dr Sandie Bohin agreed the cause of death was air embolus and acute bleeding.
She concluded that the cause of the bleeding was unknown but acknowledged “fleetingly rare” possible natural causes that could not be ruled out in the absence of a post-mortem.
Dr Bohin concentrated on the abdominal discolouration and concluded that air was deliberately introduced via an intravenous line.

 
Last edited:
  • #1,077
Police interview/Courtroom testimony about Baby E:


The court is reminded by the prosecution that, once again, only Lucy Letby was "the constant presence" for all of the collapses in Children A-E.

12:52pm

In police interview, Letby said he could remember Child E and he was "stable" at the time of the handover, with nothing of concern "before the large bile aspirate".
She said she and another member of staff had disposed of the aspirate and the advice was to omit the feed.
She said Child E's abdomen was becoming fuller and there was a purple discolouration, so had asked a doctor to review Child E.
She said she had got blood from the NG tube.
She was asked about the 10pm note and said if there had been any blood prior to the 9pm feed, "she would have noted it". [so she denied it in court]

She said it was after 9pm that the SHO had reviewed Child E but could not reall if it was face-to-face or over the phone.
She said she could remember the mum leaving after 'the 10pm visit'.

[Again, she tries pushing mum's visit to 10 pm---but mom stood by her testimony and had phone records to corroborate the 9 pom visit]


In a June 2019 interview, she was pressed over a conversation with the SHO.
She said she had no independent memory of it.
Shesaid she could not remember the mum coming into the room at 9pm with milk, nor Child E being upset, with blood coming from the mouth.

She said she would not have told the mum to go back upstairs.


"We have a stark contrast between what the mum says and what Lucy Letby says," Mr Johnson tells the court.

"You know he was due to be fed...breastmilk. You know, we say, that is why [the mum] was there.

"This has been wiped out of the records, by Lucy Letby, because she knows the consequences of [the mum] being right about this."

In a November 2020 interview, Letby is asked why she had sent a text referring to Child E had queried whether he had Down Syndrome.
She said she could not remember whether there had ever been any mention of Downs in the medical notes.


The prosecution say Lucy Letby "took an unusual interest" in the family of Child E. She did social media searches on the parents two days after Child E’s death, and on August 23, September 14, October 5, November 5, December 7, and even on December 25.
The prosecution say there were further searches in January 2016.

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders
 
  • #1,078
well did she call for help or not if she dident why does his email say she did if she did why did he cliam in court that she dident
 
  • #1,079
well did she call for help or not if she dident why does his email say she did if she did why did he cliam in court that she dident
Are you talking about Baby E?

She lied when she told the mum at 9 pm that she had called the doctor.

She didn't message him until almost 10 pm, but NEVER reported the baby was bleeding from his mouth. She only said he had 'blood flecked vomit.' So it was not put as an emergency ----by the time the doctor came to see him he was declining rapidly.
 
  • #1,080
no we are talking about baby k
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
164
Guests online
2,766
Total visitors
2,930

Forum statistics

Threads
632,139
Messages
18,622,645
Members
243,032
Latest member
beccabelle70
Back
Top