Lucy Letby #5

[Justreading]

Been reading (where I can) but not yet commented.
I'm really hopeful she's innocent. I cannot fathom out why she would allow this to drag on for 6 months if she had done it! Knowing she could plead guilty and not put herself and her own parents through this.

I'm a bit of a FB lurker, probably if I was pulled up on a charge, my FB searches could tell a very strange tale however I'm not being charged for anything! Playing devil's advocate here, maybe she was just a caring nurse who genuinely wondered how the family were doing on Christmas day, or on an anniversary?

I too would shout from the rooftops if I was innocent and not reply no comment.

Of course the note and the sightings of her stood over a cot are more dubious. It's not looking good in that sense.
The next few months will be very up and down for everyone!

 

[abusyday]

I personally would conclude the same if she said I don’t know why I searched grieving parents Facebook 7 times and if she now all of a sudden has a reason/excuse. So I guess we will be left with the I don’t know on that. I think that’s very disrespectful to the parents regardless of whether she’s guilty or not personally. She will know even if it’s a yeah I’m
Weird like that and look up everybody all the time because I have no life.
Also everyone that’s admitted to a little Facebook snoop - I assume this is a one off out of curiosity. You might think she’s had a look thinking “hope they’ve got support. Is there another child that the parents may get some comfort and strength from amidst their grief” etc. I can’t see any reason for 7 searches on these people. What more did she need to know to satisfy general curiosity? I can also see why if she’d had a really long and involved caring experience with these families whilst their baby was very sick that she may still have a desire to look them up or send cards (keep a photo of it ) I don’t understand that to be the case, I think the babies were under her care for a relatively short time before unexpectedly and unusually going very downhill/dying in very similar ways.

This is very possibly a long shot but could she have Facebook stalked certain families because she fancied one of the parents (either parent)? Might sound silly but any of my friends that talk to me about having a wee Facebook stalk, it is generally because they fancy someone and are therefore wanting to see them on socials.

 

[Tofino]

Been reading (where I can) but not yet commented.
I'm really hopeful she's innocent. I cannot fathom out why she would allow this to drag on for 6 months if she had done it! Knowing she could plead guilty and not put herself and her own parents through this.

I'm a bit of a FB lurker, probably if I was pulled up on a charge, my FB searches could tell a very strange tale however I'm not being charged for anything! Playing devil's advocate here, maybe she was just a caring nurse who genuinely wondered how the family were doing on Christmas day, or on an anniversary?

I too would shout from the rooftops if I was innocent and not reply no comment.

Of course the note and the sightings of her stood over a cot are more dubious. It's not looking good in that sense.
The next few months will be very up and down for everyone!

If she has done it then it means she is capable of killing tiny innocent babies. She isn’t going to suddenly care about putting people through the heartache of a trial. A trial is the only chance she has of being found not guilty and getting her freedom back (even if she is guilty). She has nothing to lose by going on trial.

 

[Leo100]

When the trial is expected to be so long (6 months) did they expect jury to be present for the whole period? What about juries work responsibilities etc? Did anyone know how it works? Did the people who serve as a jury are being granted some sort of letter from the court and the employer have to grant them paid leave? Or the court pay them daily salary?
Sorry for silly question, I'm not British and I don't have any experience with legal stuff. I'm genuinely curious

Some employers will have their own policy on pay during jury trial like pay full or what ever for so long and I think you can also claim some type of statutory pay if your employer doesn't offer any,

Although with it being 6 months you would hope their would be some extra support, especially during the cost of living crisis. I know its the law to go if you're called up but it's not fair on the jurors if they're going to be struggling financially not to mention the mental impact it will already be having, it would take over my mind if I was them

 

[showerbelle]

Some employers will have their own policy on pay during jury trial like pay full or ebay ever for so long and I think you can also claim some type of statutory pay if your employer doesn't offer any,

Although with it being 6 months you would hope their would be some extra support, especially during the cost of living crisis. I know its the law to go if you're called up but it's not fair on the jurors if they're going to be struggling financially not to mention the mental impact it will already be having, it would take over my mind if I was them

Yeah you can claim if your employer won't pay, unless you're a fairly high earner it sounds like you'd be covered:

Jury service

What to do if you're asked to do jury service - taking time off work, delaying jury service, claiming expenses. Includes information from the withdrawn 5222, 5222A and Juror Charter guidance.

www.gov.uk

Edit to add- seems to be roughly a 'wage' of £32k max so not overly high but get food allowance too so hopefully would cover bills.

Regarding Facebook searches, whilst inappropriate to search any patients families, it depends for me if she just searched these families, whether she searched all families that she cared for (or even just those that sadly died) as to whether its significant as in wanting to see what pain they're going through or whatever. It'll come out in the evidence I suspect, until then not sure. 7ish years ago Facebook was the main social media platform really and did seem a lot more popular, if she spent long periods or time on it again it feels to me less telling then if she just used it for this purpose. Again it is inappropriate and not saying its fine if she searched anyone, just changes the optics I think.

 

[Laura8868]

Been reading (where I can) but not yet commented.
I'm really hopeful she's innocent. I cannot fathom out why she would allow this to drag on for 6 months if she had done it! Knowing she could plead guilty and not put herself and her own parents through this.

By admitting she is guilty she would lost everything (freedom, possibly her family if they turns against her, chances of coming back to profession (if she decided too).
By pleading not guilty she still have the chance of being clear of charges and having her life back.
Possibly that's what she is hoping for

 

[stardust1]

I personally would conclude the same if she said I don’t know why I searched grieving parents Facebook 7 times and if she now all of a sudden has a reason/excuse. So I guess we will be left with the I don’t know on that. I think that’s very disrespectful to the parents regardless of whether she’s guilty or not personally. She will know even if it’s a yeah I’m
Weird like that and look up everybody all the time because I have no life.
Also everyone that’s admitted to a little Facebook snoop - I assume this is a one off out of curiosity. You might think she’s had a look thinking “hope they’ve got support. Is there another child that the parents may get some comfort and strength from amidst their grief” etc. I can’t see any reason for 7 searches on these people. What more did she need to know to satisfy general curiosity? I can also see why if she’d had a really long and involved caring experience with these families whilst their baby was very sick that she may still have a desire to look them up or send cards (keep a photo of it ) I don’t understand that to be the case, I think the babies were under her care for a relatively short time before unexpectedly and unusually going very downhill/dying in very similar ways.

Following on from this the FOI request it seemed that they were all mostly early/late neonatal deaths meaning they died at most on day 28 so it seems very early to have built such a bond you snoop on families regularly (presumably without their knowledge) and if as the defence says these babies would have died regardless if that was normal for the unit you would be accustomed to that and not feel the need to regularly check their social media. I expect to see evidence of searching many of the other babies she looked after for me to believe it was some weird curiosity. I would not like it if I found out the nurses from NICU were on my social media as many as 7 times. That is passed being curious to me.

 

[da1sycha1n]

Yes points made during a phonecall, that's a very good insight.

surely the defence would mention this if it was the case

 

[MmmB777]

Actually it’s not subjective, there’s statistical analysis exactly for this purpose. Say there are 10 possible nurses a baby could be assigned to, and some number of deaths per year, there’ll be a point where a certain number of deaths for 1 nurse will be so unlikely that you can say with 95%/99% confidence that it’s not random anymore. Here we have not only total deaths up by a huge amount, but all linked to her - if it was random or hospital negligence it would be distributed across various nurses. I think this number of deaths being linked to her must be statistically significant. I guess they’ll get experts in for this.

Can I ask something that may be totally irrelevant/stupid but.. is it possible to somehow merge that kind of statistical likelihood about her presence every time with the statistics on these poor tiny babies chances - eg prematurity statistics for certain ages/weights/conditions. So there is then another element of statistical chance? I am probably not explaining that very well sorry!

 

[allybongo]

By admitting she is guilty she would lost everything (freedom, possibly her family if they turns against her, chances of coming back to profession (if she decided too).
By pleading not guilty she still have the chance of being clear of charges and having her life back.
Possibly that's what she is hoping for

I would say presumably rather than possibly

 

[avabella]

Can I ask something that may be totally irrelevant/stupid but.. is it possible to somehow merge that kind of statistical likelihood about her presence every time with the statistics on these poor tiny babies chances - eg prematurity statistics for certain ages/weights/conditions. So there is then another element of statistical chance? I am probably not explaining that very well sorry!

The maths hurts my head with this one but the statistical 'fact' that she was simply there for every baby in isolation just isn't enough for me.

 

[MmmB777]

The maths hurts my head with this one but the statistical 'fact' that she was simply there for every baby in isolation just isn't enough for me.

It wouldn’t be enough for me in isolation (although it is highly worrying). It’s the unexpectedness, unusualness, suddenness, similarities in presentation, not to mention her behaviour on many levels not just the online bits. Lots of other things too but yes. I mean a 90+% chance of unlikely being random is pretty staggering alone.

 

[Aberscot]

In the opening defence arguments, if she had been searching lots of other parents in Facebook over the years would they have not brought that up ? If it is just the babies that have been harmed that’s red flags for me

 

[mrbusiness]

I’m a healthcare professional. Scapegoating is a very real worry. Usually they pick a black or Asian person to blame it on.
It worries me that the trust was investigated for its death rates and by chance LB was on shift when some babies died. She probably worked 50 hours a week so it’s highly likely she would be
I don’t know, I hope she doesn’t get stitched up

 

[Its_Me]

In the opening defence arguments, if she had been searching lots of other parents in Facebook over the years would they have not brought that up ? If it is just the babies that have been harmed that’s red flags for me

Not when they’re trying to paint a picture that points to her being guilty. Either they will go on to say they were the only ones or her defence will bring it up and say she also searched others.

 

[stardust1]

I’m a healthcare professional. Scapegoating is a very real worry. Usually they pick a black or Asian person to blame it on.
It worries me that the trust was investigated for its death rates and by chance LB was on shift when some babies died. She probably worked 50 hours a week so it’s highly likely she would be
I don’t know, I hope she doesn’t get stitched up

If she was a scape goat it would take everyone to be on board. Also when they did the independent review it gave the hospital ways to improve without pinning the blame on anyone so that was their chance to sweep it all under the rug. It doesn’t make sense why they would then still contact the police knowing they could get into even more trouble if they were found lying to stitch her up. There is far easier ways to have got rid of her than this.

 

[Aberscot]

Not when they’re trying to paint a picture that points to her being guilty. Either they will go on to say they were the only ones or her defence will bring it up and say she also searched others.

thats what I meant, why did her defence no bring it up in opening statements, that she had been searching other families

 

[Tofino]

In the opening defence arguments, if she had been searching lots of other parents in Facebook over the years would they have not brought that up ? If it is just the babies that have been harmed that’s red flags for me

Interestingly, unless I’ve missed it or it just wasn’t reported, he didn’t mention Facebook or the photo of the dead babies in the opening statement.
He did mention the paperwork found at home and the notes though.

However his opening statement was very brief, just one afternoon, so I’m sure he will have something to say about it eventually. But you would think if he could smash reasonable doubt into it easily (eg the photo was asked for by the parents) then he would want to use it in the opening statement.

 

[Dizzy]

Has anyone seen the series ‘Bodies’, written by Jed Mercurio? About an Obs/Gyn ward. The writer was a doctor before quitting to become a writer, so I believe it’s quite an accurate portrayal. The incompetency and arrogance of the consultants and managers is breathtaking, and so much a-covering.
It’s very good television but quite disturbing, so I can well believe this story.

Is this a BBC thing? I’d like to watch but I’m due to have a big op next year (10 hours on the slab ) and I’m wondering if it’s a good idea to watch it ahead of that

 

[Gingerfattie]

I thought the FB snooping on families and patients was really off. I’ve never looked up patients or their families on FB, I wouldn’t want to as feels really creepy and also just don’t want to put my NMC pin on the line!! I don’t want to know things I shouldn’t outside of the workplace either that puts me in a difficult position i.e safeguarding stuff, that you have to sit with because you discovered it by snooping. No way. I’ve had the odd patient request me, and not accepted, but have known some staff accept requests which is breaching boundaries big time. Obviously this doesn’t make her guilty. But there certainly seem to be massive issues with her fitness to practice.