Lucy Letby Case #16

[DianaBanana]

I think this is really important from the notes yesterday too, Mum's account:

9.11pm to 10.52pm – mother was waiting to hear about Child E, panicking and talking to the midwife. Mother had not seen this midwife before. She confirms the first name of the midwife was Susan. She was later told by a midwife to call her husband.

Lucy's note:

10pm - In the 10pm column of LL’s nursing notes for aspirates: '15ml fresh blood'. LL’s notes: "At 10pm large vomit of fresh blood. 14ml fresh blood aspirate obtained from NG tube. Reg Harkness attended. Blood gas satisfactory..." Child E was 'handling well'.
LL’s further note: 'Mum visited again approx. 10pm. Aware that we had obtained blood from his NG tube and were starting [treatment]...'

So the registrar definitely visited at around 10pm (confirmed by him I believe), and this is when Lucy says the bleeding started.

So that's why the defence are so adamant the 9pm visit from Mum didn't happen. As it would suggest Lucy delayed seeking help for the bleeding for an hour and then falsified her notes.

 

[friedeggontoast]

I don’t think it’s to do with ‘kicking up a stink’.

There are several posters who are completely *dominating* this whole thread and tone of conversation. Any deviation from the pitch fork *must be guilty* is met with sarcasm and distain, right away creating an unpleasant atmosphere.

It’s useless to say ‘it’s totally fine to think how you think’ and then proceed to type a huge explanation of all the reasons you’re *definitely* wrong.

I‘m not saying this to start anything fella, just my perspective.

From everything I’ve seen recently on the threads there’s good discussion back and forth from both sides, then suddenly there’s posts like “oh well I may as well not bother if I’m just going to get shut down for my opinion by the pitchforks”.

No one’s getting shut down, it’s just a discussion. If I believe X and you believe Y, we could discuss until the cows come home why we think those things. We’re not going to change each other’s opinion so we can either keep discussing or agree to disagree. Both are completely valid! But what doesn’t make sense is to debate for a bit and then throw your hands up and say “oh no ones listening to me!” We are listening to you, to everyone, but everyone also has their right to respond and explain their view.

Discussion and debate can get heated, but it doesn’t mean it becomes personal. But when the jibes come in that’s when the flame gets lit in here. Now fella I’m sure you’ll admit yourself that you are guilty (pardon the pun) of fuelling the fire with little jibes (pitchforks/ go get your 10k steps/ you all must have RSI etc). That is the only thing on here that’s unnecessary, why make those jibes when you know it’ll start arguments? I’m not saying you‘re the only person to do it but surely by now we can agree it’s not helpful.

On the whole these threads are really insightful and interesting to follow. I’m hoping it can stay that way. I also hope you take no offence to my message, I’m saying it with respect and I know we’ve had fisty cuffs in the past but I’m really not looking for anymore fella

 

[friedeggontoast]

Also we have the evidence of the phone call between mum and dad at 9:11pm shortly after mum saw baby with blood on him. She phoned him in distress and that’s corroborated by dad too.
They have no reason to lie about that.

 

[docmum]

A couple of things re last few pages of chat..

We all die of cardiac arrest. Death certificates have to qualify what led to that. A ‘failure’ such as respiratory failure, heart failure etc is not allowed, it must be qualified by something that caused it.
Having a post Mortem wouldn’t have necessarily stopped things. Firstly, from reporting to the coroner to the time of inquest is usually up to a year. Secondly, the consultant did speak to the coroners office. When someone dies it’s either expected or unexpected. If expected, certificates can be issued without hesitation to the best knowledge of the doctor - it should be to the knowledge of the overseeing consultant despite usually completed by the junior. If unexpected then it is presented to the coroners office with a timeline of events and what the likely cause of death is despite it being unknown. The doctor has to say whether they can reasonably determine to the best of their knowledge that that’s what the cause is. This is then ‘run past’ the coroner and if the story sounds reasonable with a cause of death that sounds reasonable, and if the next of kin has given no concern to the coroners office, then it will be ‘ok for doctor to issue certificate’. So it has been discussed to an extent, no further knowledge could have been gained unless a pm was done.
Lastly, it’s not a finger pointing exercise.
The pathologist may have seen no signs of NEC on pm but that would have then meant the inquest was based on going through the notes and calling relevant staff to inquest. By relevant staff, I mean those who have documented and been active at significant treatment times ie the consultant who ran the cardiac arrest. I doubt LL would have been called up as a witness at inquest but if so it would just be to go through her version of the deterioration under her care, and then they would likely have focussed on what medical causes could have led to death to get a verdict in order to close the case. I need to point out here that she was so horribly evil that most methods of torture were so subtle anyway, and at the point of likely inquest I think she had been suspended re other deaths.
My last point really is related to this and I find difficult to explain the extent of it. I am an experienced frontline worker and never - despite the sickest patients I have encountered - have I ever wondered if their health could have been sabotaged by a colleague. It’s just not something that’s ever considered. It’s never in the ‘list’ of causes of a problem. Yes we might not meet a standard of care each and every time, but 99.999999% are working their absolute hardest to provide the care, and working as a team, and these failings per se are more reflective of the numbers of staff rather than their abilities.

 

[OldBlondie]

“The mother explained she tried in vain to comfort her son and then noticed blood around his bottom lip and top of his chin.”

This on the CS round up is so heartbreaking, that poor mum trying everything to comfort her baby and nothing working. That poor little baby must have been in so much pain to be screaming/crying like that, it’s truly awful

 

[MrsMigginsxx]

Flipping heck!!
If LL is guilty...why on earth did the CONSULTANT " agree with the coroner"/ she " thought he had NEC"..could LL have been stopped right here if that's the case?
I've been wondering all week why one wasn't carried out...she's a consultant for heaven's sake, I'm no expert but she's just said NEC wouldn't present in this way..surely a consultant wouldn't have needed to have to realise this later down the line?
It sounds pretty basic to me???
Am I missing something??

Ive just read that open mouthed, If she knew all that and that this little precious baby deteriorated very quickly and totally opposite to what a NEC would present as - then why the hell did she agree with the coroner to record the cause of death as a NEC. I’m sorry but this is literally in my opinion this is total negligence. There’s innocent mistakes in all jobs. This was a big cock up for a experienced consultant. A big cock up that prevented a murderer being stopped earlier.
You ain’t missing anything, This is shocking and it’s giving the defense now a hook through which to cast doubt in the minds of the jurors.

 

[avabella]

I’m hopeful over the next few months that new members join Tattle and we get an influx of some new fresh chat. It very much feels like some people’s lives are completely taken over by this case, there’s definitely some members not getting their daily 10k steps in I’m going to dip out for a few days for my own mental health (and step count).

I dare say tomorrow will be another hard read. To anyone affected by similar situations please do be kind to yourselves.

 

[avabella]

I'm not meaning this to be as simplistic as it's probably going to come across.

The consultant is presented with a baby who has sadly passed away. She discusses it with the Coroner and agrees to register the death as NEC (and has reasons for doing so). She shares this with the parents. She passively allows them to refuse a PM. This goes on record for however many years after that.

LL is revealed as a suspect and that this particular baby is potentially a murder victim. Only now the consultant changes her mind?

If that's not confirmation bias in a nutshell then....what is?

 

[MmmB777]

Trauma literally can make you remember stuff that didn’t happen, it’s a fact. Whether anyone doubts it or not

This is so far fetched it’s unreal. She was scheduled to take milk at 9. So she did. The call to the dad that the midwife also spoke on much later - the incident that followed is not anything like the one the mother described at 9. The mother would have had to invent the whole scenario of seeing blood round her babies mouth, hearing it scream, Letby telling her the blood was from irritation and to go. She then happens to call her husband just after this and he happens to remember it exactly like that too, that she described just what she did in court.
10:50ish call is with midwife and wife telling him to come quick. Baby by this point is near death.
It’s not misremembering with trauma it would be inventing totally new scenarios- together. It’s not possible. She was scheduled there at nine, that is fact, so you have to also believe she invented the scenario at nine AND she forgot to feed her baby and about her rock solid tits and breast milk and doing the one bit she could do for her baby.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

Also the mum says the blood was explained as irritation from the NG but Letby made nobody aware of the blood at 9pm and says she didn’t have this conversation with mum at all. She puts her and the SHO at a false meeting later and that mum was told feed was omitted as ordered by sho and about blood aspirated. Now you have to decide who you believe there as those two accounts cannot both be true. They are two separate accounts that are very different. Dad also ties in with mums version of event. Phone record proof also that fits. If you read the wiki for child E after today you can see why the timings are so significant and what the implications are for the two differing versions.

I know. I believe mum 100%. If I’d come in and my baby was screaming horrendously and had blood round it’s mouth I would not be forgetting it.
No offence to the poor mum (or any young person!, old bat here) but I get the feeling she might be quite young and obviously trusting, what a horrendous experience with your first children.

 

[MmmB777]

@Tofino
The thread closed before I had time to answer!
Mmm, I don’t know. There has been no mention of internal bleeding, which could pool and show on x-ray. All the blood seems, at this point to be coming out through vomiting or aspirate. It seems to have been fresh blood too. So no time to sit in the stomach and become darker. I’m surmising though. These babies have very delicate veins so easily damaged.
The horrendous crying seems suspect, and just heartbreaking too, and the baby had fresh and dried-in blood rounds it mouth, but while all this was happening she was sitting at the computer
I think she forgot, or didn’t realise mum was coming down at 9pm and she’s been caught out. In a normal situation, you’d want a patient to look nice and settled and care done if you knew a parent was coming, not in the sense of trying to hide something, but to reassure them.

Also the mum says the blood was explained as irritation from the NG but Letby made nobody aware of the blood at 9pm and says she didn’t have this conversation with mum at all. She puts her and the SHO at a false meeting later and that mum was told feed was omitted as ordered by sho and about blood aspirated. Now you have to decide who you believe there as those two accounts cannot both be true. They are two separate accounts that are very different. Dad also ties in with mums version of event. Phone record proof also that fits. If you read the wiki for child E after today you can see why the timings are so significant and what the implications are for the two differing versions.

 

[BigBrenda]

I don’t even know what to say anymore. Just find it so shocking someone could look at a newborn baby and think oh I’d love to hurt that? It’s like squashing a kitten. Just lowest of the low. I was unsure about her being guilty and thought we’ll it must be failings from other staff and the hospital etc. but it’s not is it. It’s the same person time and time again. Doing things and seemingly getting away with it.

 

[OldBlondie]

More of BM from today. Job or not, to accuse the mum outright of being a liar, plus all the other awful things he said/suggested is just horrible. And in my opinion goes completely in the prosecution’s favour. Hope the jury think the same, especially as they are there seeing it, which im sure was distressing to see/hear

That poor mum, not only everything she went through at the time but having to relive it now, with plenty of regrets I’m sure. Plus having this shit from BM, and hearing about the trust she’d put in to LL only to be completely betrayed. And also having to hear and think again about things such as the bath, memory box etc. Imagine the shock this mum must have had when the police showed up with this investigation, especially after (allegedly) thanking LL for everything she’d done for them and E as she was leaving hospital with F plus having to hear about LLs searches on Fb. That mum must be in a right state tonight and my heart goes totally out to her

 

[friedeggontoast]

We can’t just write off all the parents testimonies because of trauma. The mother and father both gave very clear statements both in police interviews and today under questioning. Their stories have never changed.

Lucy Letby’s stories have changed.

 

[Lucyxxxx]

Was thinking if she is guilty imagine being baby Es parents. Can't even enjoy the babys memory box without it being tainted cause she put it together. Things like that do make me look at her and go hmmmmm.

 

[riddleme89]

Can anybody explain to me why on these Facebook groups everybody is a 100 percent she is NOT GUILTY

im just interested to see what makes them think that . A post uploaded before said including baby E that she’s not guilty . To me it seems obvious she’s guilty and today has definitely made me think she is . Anybody here not guilty and have any reasons why ?? Just interested to see why as them Facebook groups are adamant she’s not guilty

 

[MmmB777]

For me I'm still not seeing anything bad about the messages or the Facebook searching.

The timings thing I just don't understand. What does she have to gain from it being 10pm rather than 9pm? When you're documenting things retrospectively your timings probably are slightly out, why are the doubling down so hard on the timings? If someone does something at say 2.30pm and documents it as 3pm, that's not falsifying notes, I couldn't even tell you how many times I've gone to populate my electronic diary and found my timings have been out, sometimes by hours.

I'm not saying I don't believe the mother but if we look at the last mother to give evidence she was sure she saw LL by her child at 7 - she looked at the clock and saw the time, but LL wasn't there until like half past... but lots of people here responded by saying half 7 is basically the same as 7. Here when LL has documented something as 10 and the mothers saying 9 then the mother must be correct to the minute because apparently you'd 100% remember what time you visited your baby

I don't know anything about GI bleeds in babies so I'll wait to hear medical experts, prosecution and defence.

It’s not that the incident happened at 9 or 10 though. Letby is saying the 9pm incident did not happen at all. There is no record of that blood the mother talks about and Letby says she never told the mother it was from irritation. The later time the mum went to the ward is a totally different incident and has multiple witnesses and the midwife spoke to the dad too. By this point the baby was in terminal decline. It is confusing but if you look at it in the wiki you can see it’s not whether the mum had this convo with Letby at a certain time or not at all. It’s much more than that.

 

[Notworthy]

I’m glad others are explaining it better than me, I’m on the verge of giving up at this point. I sometimes think people are so desperate to believe LL didn’t do this (as in kill all the babies), that they will just keep making up all kinds of reasons and excuses rather than just accept LL is lying I mean it’s fine for people to do that and believe that, but it’s just coming across as bizarre sometimes and doesn’t make sense at all to me

Why is it so important to you that you get all the NGs and Unsures to switch to Guilty. Just leave off trying to change peoples minds.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

Goodnight everyone!!! I meant to light a candle tonight for these babies like another poster in the last thread said they were going to do, a very sweet idea and I think a positive act. I will do it tomorrow.

I see a few posters saying they need a break and I don't think it's a bad idea, this was a tough day and it's not going to get better this week... I spent a good deal of the morning crying (pregnancy hormones don't help) but it's not healthy.... Taking tomorrow off and lighting that candle might be a better use of my energy

 

[PeninsulaAndOriental]

Ok the latest narrative on Facebook is a lot of them died in room one.

So, now the room has done it???????

God forgive me, but this is entertainment with their stupidity