Lucy Letby Case #16

[Daisydunn15]

The prosecution says it was the “process of attacking him that she interrupted” not directly attacking him, totally different meaning with the wording

she was at the work station and 'not near' the cot. How is that in the process of attacking him? They have no evidence that the mum interrupted anything.

 

[MmmB777]

So in regards to 'tolerance levels' - what I mean by that is if you are entrenched in a situation constantly, your threshold naturally moves depending on what you are dealing with. So for example, I work with people who can become very violent, very quickly. And by that I mean putting heads through windows, throwing chairs/desks, running into traffic etc. So in the course of my job if someone says that they have witnessed violence and then go on to say someone shoved someone, I almost disregard it because my tolerance level doesn't recognise that as violence. Does that make sense?

To me, this talk of 'unexpected crashes' is bordering on the tolerance level of what they would normally expect to happen to these babies. You can't know what you don't know.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is I wonder if they assumed the babies were better than they actually were, and didn't treat accordingly, so when they 'crashed' it was almost a bit like 'woah, what happened there', but actually, it had been happening all along and they didn't see it.

If Letby was very often the last one to give cares, only one in the room or the designated nurse, should she have been the one to notice more so than others? If the mums account is right, she didn’t make anyone know about the first lot of blood in this baby’s case.

 

[crumpets2]

I’ve just caught up and I don’t even have any words

 

[dottynotty]

Some new faces would be nice. Lately there's a lot of 'I'd be interested to hear...' then a bombard of people telling you why your opinion is wrong
I've only ever suggested my interpretation of certain pieces of evidence and tried to be objective, I believe in the right to a fair trial and I couldn't possibly say this far into a 6 month trial that I absolutely know what happened and anyone else must be wrong. It's arrogant, and honestly I'm not sure why you'd be on a forum for discussion if you can't hear what anyone else has to say.

Ugh. This. I stopped writing and skip pages. I write my thoughts and regret it.

 

[PeninsulaAndOriental]

I think the reason for it , is on Facebook , there is perhaps a more limited intellect. I mean this in no way, shape or form as being rude or condescending.

I never interact with the Facebook groups, I simply observe what’s being said.

but if ‘the insulin machine killed then’ is now the narrative, we’re well and truly scraping the barrel.

PAndO

 

[Tofino]

Just to say again the problem is not about a misunderstanding of timings between what the mother says happened at 9 or much later. What the mother describes happening at 9 - Letby says did not happen at all. She says she would not have said those things and if the baby had been bleeding she would have made someone aware. So you have to believe the mother and father invented the whole incident (not misremembering timings).

Yes I think this bit is being misunderstood. She didn’t write what happened with mum at 9pm at 10pm in error. She didn’t write anything of the 9pm incident at all, even retrospectively. She wrote something about mum and cares at 8pm which mum says didn’t happen.

 

[MmmB777]

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 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.

I agree with a lot of that but I’d say too that her mistake didn’t cause the babies decline and death. Imo it only meant the real reason of it couldn’t be proven sooner. That unfortunately has massive implications, deaths allowed to continue. If anyone thinks that a hospital is better off having a serial killer explain a rise in deaths instead of admitting negligence - here is the reason why that is totally illogical. I know she made a huge mistake, but she didn’t kill that baby or the others, I just also feel huge empathy for her. I hope she has support - I would be a suicide risk I think it’s such an awful thing to have to reconcile with for a lot of them that did miss signs.

 

[Tofino]

I'm really confused on why I have seen news articles focus on this like it's some horrible thing? Obviously if the parents did not get time alone it's not ideal and the policy should be reviewed - or LL straight up did not follow the policy but that's not the focus of the trial

It was reported she cut a lock of hair as well as the footprints. I’d be absolutely FURIOUS if someone cut my baby’s hair without my permission, even more so if my baby had died. I probably wouldn’t want them putting ink/paint on my dead baby without my permission either. What if it was something they wanted to do themselves or at least be present for. Lucy was lucky the parents seemed to take it well but that could have been horrific for them.

This also follows the previous baby where Lucy said she persuaded the parents to do the memory box thing.

Even if Lucy is innocent, it’s not her place to decide on behalf of the parents what memories they should have either now or in the future because she thinks they should have them.

 

[Faith61]

I think at the time she is trying to account for the bleeding and give a plausible explanation when there really wasn’t one and at no point at all would she consider that a nurse had caused it. I agree that it is an utterly indefensible mistake on her part. If it is NEC - it’s another time when a baby dies of a condition that is not presenting as it usually would, more rapidly than usual and beginning when Letby takes care. That could happen in high risk babies but the statistical chances for me would be extremely slim to happen for Letby so often. I don’t think it is likely to happen so often and to one person. I can totally understand why somebody could have reasonable doubt after this though

I know, but she has just also said "his deterioration was well outside what we woukd expect"
Not saying she should have assumed there is a serial killer on the loose, but, as a consultant I would have thought, that as such she would not just write it off as NEC?
I know she has also said she didn't want to cause the parent's more distress...but blimey, it has freaked me out a little to think, that IF a p.m had been done then just maybe other babies could have been saved( If it could have been proved that the baby died by being intentionally harmed)

 

[friedeggontoast]

Is it just me that never has a chance to write much up at all before the end of the shift? 1:1 therapeutic sessions I come out and do straight away, but pretty much everything else...left until the end.

I jot my own personal notes as the shift progresses but never have a bum in seat moment to write them up and do the full shebang until the end 🫣

The writing notes up retrospectively isn’t the issue, it’s the fact the notes are false. The SHO has said they never told LL to omit feeds like she claimed. That’s not just a whoopsie small mistake that’s pretty serious.

 

[MmmB777]

Bloody hell that's absolutely heart rending and awful.

I do believe the parents regarding the times. And it does seem as if LL was at the very best negligent if not totally guilty of killing that poor baby.

The one thing I put zero weight on is the SHO not being able to remember whether they told LL to omit the feed.

They are running round like blue arsed flies and could have said something in passing and it immediately gone out of their head.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the SHO couldn't remember something if there was a chance it would make their practice look less than ideal. It's surprising the number of times medics "can't remember" something which could make them look a bit crap in hindsight.

I haven't read and can't think about any of this deeply, but those were just my initial thoughts from skimming that screenshot.

I think the problem lies in that the mum was there at 9 for said feed and was told to go away by Letby and that the registrar was coming. The SHO said their first knowledge of anything wrong with this baby was much later so why wasn’t the mum able to give her feed at 9? I’m sure we’ll hear more detail about this tomorrow and that the mums account and SHO account cannot work with Letby’s.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

For me I agree, that it’s pretty horrifying to see that the doctor just put down a cause of death that didn’t actually fit. However, I also completely understand why the parents wouldn’t have particularly wanted one, and why the Dr didn’t want to upset/distress them anymore.

From today, I also can see why a lot on the fence or leaning to NG, will see even more reason that the hospital failings are to blame.

But for me it’s actually strengthened the prosecutions case, because the doctor has held her hands up and admitted her (massive) mistake, and actually apologised to the parents. I think this just shows the absolute trust that these parents had in the hospital and the staff. So for me, that just continues to show just how easy it was for LL to abuse that trust, and pray on the hospitals weaknesses.

The no PM also maybe gave her more confidence to carry on. I think if this baby had a PM he would have been one of the stronger evidence wise against LL, so knowing she got away with something as obvious as this one, it made her more cocky, and feel unstoppable. As yet we still have no obvious cause for baby E’s collapse and death. If it was NEC, as on certificate then why did E show no real clinical signs of it this. For me this highlights how all these sudden and unexpected/unexplained collapses/deaths seemed to happen when LL was there. And no obvious other cause why a stable baby would suddenly just collapse right after involvement from LL again. So if NEC wasn’t the cause then what was is the big question? This leads me back to the LL coincidence again.

As awful as it was that the doctor didn’t push for PM, I hope the fact she at least apologised to the parents goes some way to show how sorry she is, and how much she now regrets it. But if LL has done this, we don’t know for sure if the PM would have further stopped LL at that point in time, and even with no PM if LL is guilty then it’s her to blame for E’s death, not this doctor. The hospital is not on trial, LL is. A terrible decision over a PM, was absolutely not the cause of E to die. Yes she should not have recorded it as that when no evidence for it, but that leads back to the question of if it wasn’t nec, what was it? Given that this baby was so stable that he was given a cause of death that seemed the most likely to fit, but didn’t actually fit clinically really at all, reinforces my opinion that it was completely unexplained and they didn’t actually know what else could have caused something as catastrophic as this. So for that part of blame, as in baby E dying, the doctor is not responsible for what happened to E before he died. Imo

I know there’s going to be loads of disagreement with this. It’s purely my opinion based on my interpretation of what I’ve heard today. Not trying to convince anyone of anything, just giving my thoughts

I feel the same, I think the incompetence of the Dr's in how they handled the situation is a separate case from this.

Just because their incompetence allowed Letby to continue killing doesn't somehow absolve her of the guilt of having killed them.

At this moment in time, with all the mud slinging from defence, they haven't created reasonable doubt for me.

They have simply highlighted the other issues that coexisted at the same time as her killing sprees, in what feels like to me anyway, hopes of distracting the jury.

 

[docmum]

I also have worked in NHS for many many years and understand and respect all that you've said...I just can't get beyond...the consultant saying openly today that she didn't think the events fitted with NEC, but still put this as cause of death anyway...I'm not saying it points to LL's innocence.
We never think we will be in the unfortunate position she and the other members of staff involved are in right now, giving evidence in such a horrific case as this, but they are and she is now having to explain her decisions and apologise to those poor parents.

reading between the lines, the consultant felt to the best of their knowledge that it was the most reasonable cause of death, not completely unreasonable to occur in a patient of this background and would be the most reasonable cause to give to avoid post mortem. I expect the reason why they’re saying they don’t think it was the right thing on reflection is because they want to convict the utter evil being in the dock and because with new information, there is a more clear ‘beyond all doubt’ cause of death. It would be taking a huge amount out of those doctors and the wider trust to say that, which if you know the nhs then you probably understand what I mean when I say that there is no ‘not guilty’ possible in this case to those who have been through the notes and seen/lived the pattern of event over LLs spree. People may see that there are failings, which undoubtedly there were, but I can say that the sheer balls it takes to stand up there and say ‘we were wrong’ to testify against LL, each member of staff is contributing to a life saved in future by ensuring she never does see the light of day again.

Additionally if LL didn’t murder the babies then she’s just an exceptionally bad nurse and should be punished for death by medical negligence.

yes; I did mention this on an earlier thread that with insulin etc, it would be manslaughter to be negligent to that extent for sure.

 

[wideningperspective]

totally agree, if my patients vomited I might say to the ward doctor blabla has had a vomit shall I hold the next feed and they’d say yes and I’d document that not them. I wouldnt imagine they would remember that conversation years later.


One thing confusing for me is a tiny little baby losing large volumes of blood and nothing is done? Transfusion is not until baby has already crashed

I was thinking the exact same thing. 9:40pm the Dr was asked to see the child due to gatric bleed. He himself recorded this. By this time there had been two seperate approx 15mls blood aspirates between then and just before 11pm. Fresh blood. Why then did it ake until the back of midnight to have this baby x-rayed? A Gastric bleed is an emergency.

 

[Rippedjeanmaybe]

Taken from Wikipedia -

Letby was still working at the hospital at the time of her arrest in July 2018, though she had been moved from the neonatal ward in June 2016 to clerical duties where she would not come into contact with children, after consultants from the hospital suspected the high infant mortality rates between 2015 and 2016 were "not medically explicable” and were "the result of the actions of Lucy Letby.”

I find it interesting that she was still on clerical duties at the time of her arrest despite staff having concerns about her.

Friends and co-workers were said to have been shocked by her arrest, many of whom claimed that Letby was "devoted to the job and the infants in her care."

Are her colleagues really shocked when they are the same people that suspected her? They would wonder why she had been moved, the deaths would have stopped and gossip would have been rife.

She apparently knew what people were saying about her in the note so it makes me think it must have been written after her arrest or she had some balls to turn up to work everyday knowing what was being said.


She often searched for parents as soon as her shift finished. Also, she was arrested three times - she had opportunities to think of valid reasons.

Yeah I think this is weird as well. If someone accused me of that there’s no way I could sit in the hospital doing clerical duties while being suspected of murder.

It’s difficult because if I had done it, I’d want to run away and quit the job, but obviously that might show guilt. If I hadn’t done it, I think I’d also probably want to leave just because I couldn’t face it?

I don’t know, I guess everyone thinks differently. Totally different, but in my last job I got accused of call avoidance (call centre) and I was suspended with pay and was asked to attend a disciplinary, I declined and I quit my job even though I knew I was innocent because I felt like no one would believe me.

It’s a weird one.

 

[Deeznutslol]

There is no doubt there were many faults in that unit, but I still think the doctor not doing a PM (terrible decision) does not change how E died, yes it may have changed other things, but no PM makes no difference to E’s death happening.

I disagree, I think the fact there was no PM is huge considering the lack of hard evidence in this case and it’s the exact reason why Letby could get off even if she’s guilty.
Regardless of whether letby killed them or not, these babies have been failed massively by the hospital and staff. I appreciate that they’re not on trial here but they should hang their heads in fucking shame, I’m honestly appalled by it all

 

[Tofino]

It doesn't make sense to me at all to form a decision based on one side of a whole picture? It's literally the prosecutions case for the taking at the moment. Everything they present will be to fit their Guilty narrative. I can't get my head around writing a whole story off based on a very biased, one sided argument?

If, after the defence have weighed in, on the balance of probability it seems she did do it, I'd be more than happy to say that. As it stands right this second, I just couldn't say that, as I don't have all the pieces of the puzzle.

Edit: 'more than happy' sounds awful. What I mean is, I'd feel more comfortable in myself that I'd listened to all arguments, weighed up the info, took into consideration everything etc before making a decision.


Can someone be so kind as to screenshot this - 10pm feels vverryy late for me tonight

Footage of the room is on the video in this article. It actually shows more than what they showed on tv news so I won’t screen shot it because it won’t be as clear as the video.

Mum says she 'completely trusted' nurse when she left son in her care | ITV News

Mum says she "completely trusted" nurse Lucy Letby when she left "screaming" son in her care. Warning - this article contains distressing content. | ITV News Granada

www.itv.com

 

[Tofino]

The reg wouldn't need to be busy, if the SHO was knocking about and I bumped into them first I'd ask them, they should seek support from the reg if it's out of their competence or I might if I didn't like the decision. Something like omitting a feed tends to not be documented by the SHO, if he's saying he would then that's fine but in my experience it wouldn't be unusual for the nurse to just document that they've discussed with sho and that's the decision.

I understand about the SHO now. It was because the SHO said he was assigned to paediatrics and the Reg was on neonates so logistically I was wondering if she would have usually gone to whoever was on her actual unit first, but with everything I’ve heard since I know it’s a non-issue either way.

I think this is another one of those minor incidents that is unfortunate for Lucy that her one ‘alibi’ here can’t recall and never made a note when he said he usually does.

He has no reason to lie either. Lucy does have a reason to lie in her notes, to cover up the incident with mum walking in on her and all the other issues surrounding that event.

judging by the white top frog I’m saying 17p

astounding tattle investigation there! I’m impressed!

 

[MrsMigginsxx]

Someone posted this (sorry I can’t remember who and I’m trying to multitask and probably failing ), but I don’t see many indicators on this of LL?

Potentially number 7, and 10 (although I don’t know how hospitals manage shifts).

New member here, Ive followed all the threads on this trial from the beginning and I want to say a big thank you to everyone, especially to the ones that break all the evidence down into simpler terms for people like me who get very confused easily. However before I go back to lurking again I want to say about this picture above. I hope to god I don’t have a visit from the police as my whole book shelf is serial murders, criminal profiling books so I’d be screwed. However LL does fit most of them. Anyway just wanted to come out of hibernation to say your all lovely fellas and thank you x

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

It isn’t misremembering, it would be inventing an incident and conversation and set of events that according to Letby did not happen at all. Not placing them somewhere else or at the wrong time. One is telling the truth and one isn’t. Sorry two on the family’s side as both parents back up the mother’s version. She would not invent seeing blood round her child’s mouth, Letby’s explanation for the blood, hearing the screams and being told to leave, phoning her husband afterwards and relaying it to him - a version of which he can also describe in this way. I’m guessing that once they mentioned the phone call and the timings- there was the call records to fit! Poor Luce again what are the chances her innocent version doesn't look likely again.
Is this the first time parents are misremembering the deaths of their child in this case? These parents have misremembered their shock at the memory box and photo too- forgetful pair! I guess it works well if you like a good conspiracy theory and think police walked in with a big picture of Letby and said your babies were murdered, tell us how weird this person was please. I mean you’d have thought that would have sped up the investigation a bit!

Honestly the two versions simpy CAN'T coexist together. It really is either a case that Letby is telling the truth OR the parents.

I understand people wanting to sit on the fence in an attempt to be balanced but in certain incidents you have to decide yourself which you think is the correct/real version.

That means admitting in scenarios like we have been presented with today that one side (be it the defence or prosecution) is CLEARLY lying.