That’s not the case, Baby A and now it seems Baby C were referred to the Coroner as the Drs couldn’t understand the reasons for the deaths.Yes but equally those doctors have years more experience than Letby so how come she could murder these babies and nobody is picking up on it? Nobody at any time said they suspected the babies had been injected with insulin for instance and yet it was a medicine they must have been familiar with and it’s side effects.
Nobody seemed to notice anything until they moved Letby off the night shifts and the deaths followed her. I would have thought the doctors would suspect how it’s being done yet they didn’t, only one doctor so far has had the thought of Letby being the common denominator.
Exactly this. I listened to a Podcast about Stepping Hill and Rebecca was in prison on remand for six months facing very very similar charges although not on neo nates. The actual culprit got too cocky and hit while she was on remand and so she was found to have no case to answer. He was eventually found guilty. She has never worked again as a nurse and WHO CAN BLOODY BLAME HER!
But yes, this has to be pinned on someone, as with Allit, Conlon and this case it can't be disputed that these murders via insulin happened, just at whose hands. Unless the defence has some evidence as to the real culprit or to prove how it could not have been LL beyond a reasonable doubt (because, say, she was on remand)??? I have voted guilty.
Oh my days thankyouI’ve read all of your posts across these threads and I just wanted to say even through this forum I can tell you must of been the most kind and compassionate professional nurse. You can honestly feel how kind and caring you are through my phone! Your children and grandchildren are very lucky
Insulin just leads to coma and death. It’s not obvious if somebody is already frail and could have died of other causes. She was targeting frail premature babies, not healthy newborns. A bit like Dr Shipman who killed lots of old ladies by giving them lethal doses of morphine. Nothing was suspected for years and years.Yes but equally those doctors have years more experience than Letby so how come she could murder these babies and nobody is picking up on it? Nobody at any time said they suspected the babies had been injected with insulin for instance and yet it was a medicine they must have been familiar with and it’s side effects.
Makes you wonder, if she was hurting and killing these children that this couldn’t have been her third child. surely you’d not be standing there when the alarm goes off, it looks so obvious.Nobody knows why or when she went into the room.
I’m assuming she must have slipped in while the designated nurse went to the nurses station for a short time. When she came back she heard the alarm and Lucy was already in there.
Absolutely. Watching The Good Nurse which is based on a true story, he operated for years. These crimes are so hard to detect let alone to investigate. We forget as well, we are seeing this unfold in retrospect, with the context of knowing what’s suspected of her. Also, Letby was the only constant on shifts for babies ABCD, meaning there wasn’t a single person seeing this unfold every time except her. Recommend The Good Nurse, really chilling. Insulin poisoning in saline bags, which he did to avoid detection. Knowing they could be hung and kill and he didn’t even have to be present. Exactly how LL thought she was being clever with the bags, hung by others or when she was leaving her shift. IMO.Insulin just leads to coma and death. It’s not obvious if somebody is already frail and could have died of other causes. She was targeting frail premature babies, not healthy newborn. A bit like Dr Shipman who killed lots of old ladies by giving them methyl doses of morphine. Nothing was suspected for years and years.
Yeah...this will be very interesting to say the least...Just one last note on the Mails podcast. Their journalist that attends court daily said that the defence will have witnesses when it is their time. I know there’s been a few comments wondering.
Rebecca Leighton had taken medication from the hospital for a friend, which can't have helped the police opinion of her when they found it during their search. They automatically had something incriminating. She was still suspended for that even after the murder charges were dropped. However you'd really hope that her defence could have given reasonable doubt over how easily the bags could have been injected by someone else.True- but if the actual killer in that case had just stopped murdering people as soon as Rebecca Leighton was charged then they possibly could have continued with prosecuting her. She obviously did enough to justify a charge but she was innocent. A lot of what ifs, and in some ways no they’re not comparable. But there’s a lot we don’t know about what has actually happened at the hospital LL was at and really I think a lot of it is stuff we won’t find out until after their investigation has ended, which could take years.
I said the same way back, but these babies were actually not expected to die. even Baby B, who had CPR at birth was said to be 'in good condition'(or words to the effect of) at birth which I would not agree with.Insulin just leads to coma and death. It’s not obvious if somebody is already frail and could have died of other causes. She was targeting frail premature babies, not healthy newborns. A bit like Dr Shipman who killed lots of old ladies by giving them lethal doses of morphine. Nothing was suspected for years and years.
Yes she was disciplined and had some restrictions to her practice or a caution( can't remember which)by by nmc for that, but not struck off and apparently then worked in a nursing home for a while...she was in custody for just 6 weeks, so horrendous as it must have been for her, it seems evidence came to light that she wasn't guilty!I’m four pages behind but someone maybe have said this. She had admitted taking codeine from the hospital which is not allowed. She did try to get her job back but on that basis she wasn’t allowed back. She did successfully sue the police though
I agree...I breaks me to think that some or all of these babies, despite their prematurity and the problems they did have they were pretty strong/fighters in their own way...I said the same way back, but these babies were actually not expected to die. even Baby B, who had CPR at birth was said to be 'in good condition'(or words to the effect of) at birth which I would not agree with.
I think some of us are struggling with what we are reading against the learned opinions of the nurses amongst us, in that we think these babies are much more frail than they really are.
Hope I’m explaining it well…
Ah right I’ve missed that. There was one that the parents didn’t want the baby to have a post mortem, that was Baby E, the baby that bled a lot and his mum walked in on an alleged attack. I wonder if they had, foul play may have been suspected there but totally understandable they chose not to.That’s not the case, Baby A and now it seems Baby C were referred to the Coroner as the Drs couldn’t understand the reasons for the deaths.
They’re Drs, not Pathologists or Coroners. They referred the cases to the appropriate officials, at that time.
This has driven me up the wall all day....and I'm repeating myself, so apologies!!! But for goodness sake...she has conversations with colleagues about how awful and distressing a time it's been and " hope it settles soon" yet, she neglects her own poorly baby/patient( reowatedly) just to get herself into that family room/around the bereaved parents....what the actual hell?Some more context about the baby LL was supposed to be looking after, from for the Independent here https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-murder-trial-nurse-b2214595.html
The nurse, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, said she was more worried about the baby that Letby was tasked to care for in room three, and that in her opinion he was the “most poorly baby” on the unit.
She said: “I was concerned he had some signs of respiratory distress.
“I asked Lucy to increase his observations from two-hourly to one-hourly and asked Lucy to call the registrar on call to come and review him immediately.”
Simon Driver, prosecuting, asked: “Were those instructions observed?”
The witness, giving evidence from behind a screen, replied: “I can’t remember whether the observations were increased, but the registrar did come.”
Mr Driver said: “At the first time of asking?”
The nurse said: “I don’t remember.”
The witness said: “I asked Lucy to focus on (her designated baby) because I was still concerned about him.
“However, Lucy went into the family room a few times and I asked her to come out and leave that family with Melanie Taylor.”
Mr Driver asked: “Was it any part of the responsibilities for her to go into that family room at this time?”
The witness replied: “Not that I can remember.”
Mr Driver went on: “You instructed her to return her attention to (her designated baby) once or more than once?”
The witness said: “More than once.”
She added that she felt she wanted to return to room one where a baby boy – her alleged first victim – had died, to “get the image out of my head”.
The witness agreed with Mr Myers that she had told police that some nurses preferred to work in intensive care room one.
Mr Myers asked her: “That’s a fact of professional life, isn’t it?”
“Yes,” said the witness.
Looking at Ben Myer's questioning - he's making it sound like some nurses would prefer working in ICU as a part of professional life. But those were not LL's reasons? She could have just said she wanted the challenge or wanted to work in ICU as a general preference - and no one would have found it odd, since it's so normal. Instead she gave reasons that it was her way of dealing with deaths....? For me, it looks like he's grasping at straws here because his reasoning for it directly contradicts his client's messages on why she wanted to do it.
Also, wanting to work in ICU is one thing, what's this fixation on being around the parents though? At the cost of your own patient - especially as it seems the registrar had to be called for that little one as well (so clearly there was some escalation in severity of their condition)?
Just feeding and doing observations clearly isn’t good enough for her so maybe she thought being around the parents was more involved. Arrogant and entitled springs to mind.Some more context about the baby LL was supposed to be looking after, from for the Independent here https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-murder-trial-nurse-b2214595.html
The nurse, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, said she was more worried about the baby that Letby was tasked to care for in room three, and that in her opinion he was the “most poorly baby” on the unit.
She said: “I was concerned he had some signs of respiratory distress.
“I asked Lucy to increase his observations from two-hourly to one-hourly and asked Lucy to call the registrar on call to come and review him immediately.”
Simon Driver, prosecuting, asked: “Were those instructions observed?”
The witness, giving evidence from behind a screen, replied: “I can’t remember whether the observations were increased, but the registrar did come.”
Mr Driver said: “At the first time of asking?”
The nurse said: “I don’t remember.”
The witness said: “I asked Lucy to focus on (her designated baby) because I was still concerned about him.
“However, Lucy went into the family room a few times and I asked her to come out and leave that family with Melanie Taylor.”
Mr Driver asked: “Was it any part of the responsibilities for her to go into that family room at this time?”
The witness replied: “Not that I can remember.”
Mr Driver went on: “You instructed her to return her attention to (her designated baby) once or more than once?”
The witness said: “More than once.”
She added that she felt she wanted to return to room one where a baby boy – her alleged first victim – had died, to “get the image out of my head”.
The witness agreed with Mr Myers that she had told police that some nurses preferred to work in intensive care room one.
Mr Myers asked her: “That’s a fact of professional life, isn’t it?”
“Yes,” said the witness.
Looking at Ben Myer's questioning - he's making it sound like some nurses would prefer working in ICU as a part of professional life. But those were not LL's reasons? She could have just said she wanted the challenge or wanted to work in ICU as a general preference - and no one would have found it odd, since it's so normal. Instead she gave reasons that it was her way of dealing with deaths....? For me, it looks like he's grasping at straws here because his reasoning for it directly contradicts his client's messages on why she wanted to do it.
Also, wanting to work in ICU is one thing, what's this fixation on being around the parents though? At the cost of your own patient - especially as it seems the registrar had to be called for that little one as well (so clearly there was some escalation in severity of their condition)?
I would have hated to be the Senior in charge that night!This has driven me up the wall all day....and I'm repeating myself, so apologies!!! But for goodness sake...she has conversations with colleagues about how awful and distressing a time it's been and " hope it settles soon" yet, she neglects her own poorly baby/patient( reowatedly) just to get herself into that family room/around the bereaved parents....what the actual hell?
Talk about she should have done what she was told/asked by her senior!?
Her arrogance is unbelievable!!
It’s a hard one. Working on itu we wouldn’t give a supervised nurse a sick patient that could deteriorate the baby was borderline being sent to Liverpool based on his weight. It sounds like the staffing was low and maybe using a supervised nurse to take their own patient which happens but isn’t right - deeming her competent because she was a student there I don’t buy - a newly qualified might be good but if they are still supervised. If like Lucy you are an experienced nurse then if your patient is stable you could ask someone to keep an eye on your patient to support another nurse. So I don’t find that all too strange. What I find awful is they tried to intubate the baby and failed and told the family that in his best interest let him go as he would have potentially have brain damage, but then he started to breathe and had a heartbeat and they let him go. We prolonge life in patients with hypoxic brain injury as it can take a year for the brain to recover - not necessarily humane in some instances but a baby… I don’t like that and so traumatic for the parents he started to breathe again and had a heartbeat.To be fair, there are usually reasons to ‘float about’ maybe even more on nights than days.
I’m getting the impression that senior Nurse MT and junior nurse SE were both designated babies in room 1 as then MT could supervise SE, give her advice, help with care, setting up IVs, double signing meds etc. SE would probably not have been in that room alone.
There was probably another nurse with LL in the other room for the same sort of reasons.
Staff have to go for breaks etc so there would be some legitimate movement but LL placing herself in room 1 frequently would be over the top, especially if MT was there.
Was this the night there was ‘no team spirit’?
Exactly!! Last thing you need is someone ignoring you when you're trying to sort that awful situation outI would have hated to be the Senior that night!
The defence would have had to share their evidence and experts testimony with the prosecution. So the prosecution will have prepared their case accordingly. Tbh I don't think there there will be a huge, big smoking gun because he would have at least alluded to it during her character sketch in the opening or in the way he was questioning the prosecution's experts. I think his witnesses will just give evidence on all the points he is raising currently during the cross examination - because the jury need to know he didn't just pull out alternative causes for death, from thin air. I doubt there will be anything that he isn't already covering.Yeah...this will be very interesting to say the least...I keep thinking...has the crafty so and so got something massive up his sleeve!!! But then I think...his arguments up to press are pretty weak by just trying to discredit the witnesses and not much else. I don't know much about how a trial works so maybe he isn't going to put up much of a defence other than this ..then pull the proverbial rabbit out the hat when it's his time? Maybe someone here has an idea how this could pan out, if his defence on all the othwr babies is going to be the same?
If he does have something up his sleeve then I'll eat my words...!
Yes, it's the disobeying repeatedly of her superior's orders that's problematic. It has made me question where she got the confidence from to do that, or why she thought she knew better than the shift leader. Clearly, not the first time she has done this I imagine.This has driven me up the wall all day....and I'm repeating myself, so apologies!!! But for goodness sake...she has conversations with colleagues about how awful and distressing a time it's been and " hope it settles soon" yet, she neglects her own poorly baby/patient( reowatedly) just to get herself into that family room/around the bereaved parents....what the actual hell?
Talk about she should have done what she was told/asked by her senior!?
Her arrogance is unbelievable!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?