Lucy Letby Case #9

[Tofino]

I don’t think it’s that she brushed it off - she said in response to ignore me I’m speculating by saying:

“ Ms Letby said: “Well (Child C) was tiny, obviously compromised in utero. (Child D) septic. It’s (Child A) I can’t get my head round.”

In my opinion, I don’t think that’s brushing it off. She came across like she felt she understood why C and D died but came across unsure as to why child A died from that text. I dunno why she would say that about child A if she was brushing it off.

Tbh I still see that as brushing off, or deflection if she is a murderer. She’s ignored her colleague trying to raise a concern with her and not taken it seriously. Which is why the colleague quickly backs off saying ‘ignore me’ because Lucy doesn’t want to entertain it.

I just see the final reply as her going that bit further to firmly plant in her colleague’s mind that there was nothing odd going on. Not having a reason for baby A doesn’t matter so much if she has two different reasons for the other two. She’s reaffirmed to her colleague they were all different.

In the context of her being a murder suspect and lots of other colleagues finding those collapses very unusual, I find it very suspicious that Lucy did not show any concern. (I appreciate that may change further down the line, but so far we don’t have any evidence of that).

 

[Windowtothewall]

Just saw your edit. So do you think she should have suspected someone injected the baby with air?!? If the medics couldn’t work out how the baby died why would she be able to spot it if she is innocent? Obviously if she is guilty she would know how he died but an innocent nurse wouldn’t think gosh that one’s had an air embolism.

No, but an innocent nurse would make the connection that maybe this could be an air embolism (given she's recently seen a programme talking about the risks associated with it, and it being plausible for Child A). And raise that accordingly with someone, including her friend.

So she's speculating on all the deaths so far except the one which most closely resembled a tv programme she watched. That is what I find suspicious - if she was genuinely trying to figure out what happened, she would have considered the possibility of an air embolism.

 

[Daisydunn15]

But I'm not talking about it as inspiration now.. You said the below.

Ms Letby said: “Well (Child C) was tiny, obviously compromised in utero. (Child D) septic. It’s (Child A) I can’t get my head round.”

In my opinion, I don’t think that’s brushing it off. She came across like she felt she understood why C and D died but came across unsure as to why child A died from that text. I dunno why she would say that about child A if she was brushing it off.

I'm asking wouldn't she think child A could have died from a possible air embolism when she'd watched a program about it by the time she and her friend are discussing it in these messages? She speculated on C and D, but not A even though she saw a program that depicted what child A went through. Surely on watching the programme a lightbulb should have gone off that this is similar to child A?

I thought the programme spoke about air in the stomach? I'll have to go back and find the link.

 

[Emmelina Ball]

Tbh I still see that as brushing off, or deflection if she is a murderer. She’s ignored her colleague trying to raise a concern with her and not taken it seriously. Which is why the colleague quickly backs off saying ‘ignore me’ because Lucy doesn’t want to entertain it.

I just see the final reply as her going that bit further to firmly plant in her colleague’s mind that there was nothing odd going on. Not having a reason for baby A doesn’t matter so much if she has two different reasons for the other two. She’s reaffirmed to her colleague they were all different.

In the context of her being a murder suspect and lots of other colleagues finding those collapses very unusual, I find it very suspicious that Lucy did not show any concern. (I appreciate that may change further down the line, but so far we don’t have any evidence of that).

If she was planting firmly that nothing odd was going on then I don’t think she would have said she can’t get her head round baby A. It comes across as odd if no one can understand why a baby died.

I thought the programme spoke about air in the stomach? I'll have to go back and find the link.

Yes I think it did actually? Or the bowel maybe?

 

[avabella]

The discussion re: programme that she watched is a moot point because there's no evidence that she watched it. Someone found the listing for the date/time she watched an actual programme and found that there was a trailer shown afterwards that has now been assumed that she watched. That's a real reach for me to be honest.

If I remember correctly the programme trailer was about a baby born with a hernia (or organs outside of its body) and the risk of air getting into the bowel. We don't know what the programme was about that she watched.

 

[Emmelina Ball]

No, but an innocent nurse would make the connection that maybe this could be an air embolism (given she's recently seen a programme talking about the risks associated with it, and it being plausible for Child A). And raise that accordingly with someone, including her friend.

So she's speculating on all the deaths so far except the one which most closely resembled a tv programme she watched. That is what I find suspicious - if she was genuinely trying to figure out what happened, she would have considered the possibility of an air embolism.

Would they? But no other medical staff could make the connection and any of them could of watched the programme too. I don’t think the tv programme is relevant tbh whether she’s a murderer or an unlucky nurse in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[Windowtothewall]

If she was planting firmly that nothing odd was going on then I don’t think she would have said she can’t get her head round baby A. It comes across as odd if no one can understand why a baby died.


Yes I think it did actually? Or the bowel maybe?

And she didn't consider this at all? Whether an air embolism or air in the stomach - the show talked about how too much air/not done correctly can cause suffocation.

And to your point the medics didn't even know - well, they didn't for child C and D either. But LL was confident in her response it was (a) born too small (b) septic. Why was she so confident these were the reasons for C and D when the medics aren't?

She didn't consider at all that child A's death could have been suffocation`from air - when you watch a tv programme talking about the risks of too much air and then realise 1 child has died with no explanation and another child B has collapsed with no explaination - you don't consider at all it could be what the tv show said (too much air or done incorrectly)?

The discussion re: programme that she watched is a moot point because there's no evidence that she watched it. Someone found the listing for the date/time she watched an actual programme and found that there was a trailer shown afterwards that has now been assumed that she watched. That's a real reach for me to be honest.

If I remember correctly the programme trailer was about a baby born with a hernia (or organs outside of its body) and the risk of air getting into the bowel. We don't know what the programme was about that she watched.

She did watch the show? Because she was texting her colleague about the show the day it aired on tv, saying she was watching it?

 

[Emmelina Ball]

And she didn't consider this at all? Whether an air embolism or air in the stomach - the show talked about how too much air/not done correctly can cause suffocation.

And to your point the medics didn't even know - well, they didn't for child C and D either. But LL was confident in her response it was (a) born too small (b) septic. Why was she so confident these were the reasons for C and D when the medics aren't?

She didn't consider at all that child A's death could have been suffocation`from air - when you watch a tv programme talking about the risks of too much air and then realise 1 child has died with no explanation and another child B has collapsed with no explaination - you don't consider at all it could be what the tv show said (too much air or done incorrectly)?

Well no I would hope she didn’t use a tv show to consider or inform her of how babies on her ward died - not that it’s her job to clarify how they died. She was a nurse.
I don’t know why she was confident to answer about c and d - we haven’t heard those cases discussed at length yet only briefly in the opening statements.

 

[friedeggontoast]

The tv show is irrelevant, we don’t even know which episode she was referencing in that message!

Besides she is a qualified nurse, I doubt she was learning about air embolisms for the first time from a tv show.

 

[Windowtothewall]

The point is she was happy to provide her own reasons for C and D, very confidently. Yet for A, she says she can't get her head around it - instead of providing possible reasons like "maybe too much air because I saw this show where it was highlighted as a risk recently".

 

[avabella]

And she didn't consider this at all? Whether an air embolism or air in the stomach - the show talked about how too much air/not done correctly can cause suffocation.

And to your point the medics didn't even know - well, they didn't for child C and D either. But LL was confident in her response it was (a) born too small (b) septic. Why was she so confident these were the reasons for C and D when the medics aren't?

She didn't consider at all that child A's death could have been suffocation`from air - when you watch a tv programme talking about the risks of too much air and then realise 1 child has died with no explanation and another child B has collapsed with no explaination - you don't consider at all it could be what the tv show said (too much air or done incorrectly)?



She did watch the show? Because she was texting her colleague about the show the day it aired on tv, saying she was watching it?

That wasn't the show she watched though. Someone found the listing on demand or something and it showed a trailer for the following weeks programme that has now been assumed she watched.

 

[Emmelina Ball]

The point is she was happy to provide her own reasons for C and D, very confidently. Yet for A, she says she can't get her head around it - instead of providing possible reasons like "maybe too much air because I saw this show where it was highlighted as a risk recently".

She is a nurse. Her job isn’t to investigate how a baby died. If any doctor or nurse told me they think a patient has x condition because they saw it on a tv show I’d be concerned about their competency, knowledge and skills if they were relying on tv to consider diagnosis.

 

[Windowtothewall]

Well no I would hope she didn’t use a tv show to consider or inform her of how babies on her ward died - not that it’s her job to clarify how they died. She was a nurse.
I don’t know why she was confident to answer about c and d - we haven’t heard those cases discussed at length yet only briefly in the opening statements.

We are talking about her texts to her colleague as to the reasons she believes A, C and D died.

“ Ms Letby said: “Well (Child C) was tiny, obviously compromised in utero. (Child D) septic. It’s (Child A) I can’t get my head round.”

She has a reason/speculation for both C and D, yet not for A. She's happy to speculate for C and D. When she should be able to speculate on A as well because she's literally just seen a show warning about the risks of too much air.

Why wouldn't a nurse trying to get her head around a baby's death not make the connection with a show she's watched.

The episode of the show is correct because she texted that she was watching it the day it aired. Forget trailers and previews - the show aired, and the same day she texted a colleague she was watching it. And this was the show that was aired.

Well (Child C) was tiny, obviously compromised in utero.

The use of the word obviously shows she was confident in her assessment.

 

[Emmelina Ball]

We are talking about her texts to her colleague as to the reasons she believes A, C and D died.

“ Ms Letby said: “Well (Child C) was tiny, obviously compromised in utero. (Child D) septic. It’s (Child A) I can’t get my head round.”

She has a reason/speculation for both C and D, yet not for A. She's happy to speculate for C and D. When she should be able to speculate on A as well because she's literally just seen a show warning about the risks of too much air.

Why wouldn't a nurse trying to get her head around a baby's death not make the connection with a show she's watched.

The episode of the show is correct because she texted that she was watching it the day it aired. Forget trailers and previews - the show aired, and the same day she texted a colleague she was watching it. And this was the show that was aired.

Any professional would not refer to a tv show to inform their belief about a patients death. They would rely on their own knowledge and experience with the patient. She was with that patient for less that 90 minutes if memory serves me.

 

[Daisydunn15]

The point is she was happy to provide her own reasons for C and D, very confidently. Yet for A, she says she can't get her head around it - instead of providing possible reasons like "maybe too much air because I saw this show where it was highlighted as a risk recently".

We don't know that she'd provided her own reasons for C and D, for all we know it could have been the medics or another nurse who speculated first and she's picked it up.
If she started offering diagnosis based on specific episodes of TV shows she may or may not have watched then she's going to look an idiot. She also could have said 'maybe it's lupus' cos she watched an episode of House. It wouldn't take a TV show for a qualified nurse to know an air embolism could kill someone, most people medical or not know that.

 

[avabella]

We are talking about her texts to her colleague as to the reasons she believes A, C and D died.

“ Ms Letby said: “Well (Child C) was tiny, obviously compromised in utero. (Child D) septic. It’s (Child A) I can’t get my head round.”

She has a reason/speculation for both C and D, yet not for A. She's happy to speculate for C and D. When she should be able to speculate on A as well because she's literally just seen a show warning about the risks of too much air.

Why wouldn't a nurse trying to get her head around a baby's death not make the connection with a show she's watched.

The episode of the show is correct because she texted that she was watching it the day it aired. Forget trailers and previews - the show aired, and the same day she texted a colleague she was watching it. And this was the show that was aired.

Well (Child C) was tiny, obviously compromised in utero.

The use of the word obviously shows she was confident in her assessment.

Do you have a link and date to the show that was aired please? Because I'm trying to find it and can't anywhere. Someone posted the trailer and I watched it, it was a preview of the following weeks show where they were showing a baby with a hernia.

 

[Emmelina Ball]

Do you have a link and date to the show that was aired please? Because I'm trying to find it and can't anywhere. Someone posted the trailer and I watched it, it was a preview of the following weeks show where they were showing a baby with a hernia.

I think it’s possibly this one but don’t know dates it was aired this was shared on a different group


Found this link too - 2/6/15

BBC Two - An Hour To Save Your Life, Series 2, Surviving Birth, Neonatal surgery

Laura gives birth to a baby girl who has been diagnosed with CDH during the pregnancy.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Notworthy]

We are talking about her texts to her colleague as to the reasons she believes A, C and D died.

“ Ms Letby said: “Well (Child C) was tiny, obviously compromised in utero. (Child D) septic. It’s (Child A) I can’t get my head round.”

She has a reason/speculation for both C and D, yet not for A. She's happy to speculate for C and D. When she should be able to speculate on A as well because she's literally just seen a show warning about the risks of too much air.

Why wouldn't a nurse trying to get her head around a baby's death not make the connection with a show she's watched.

The episode of the show is correct because she texted that she was watching it the day it aired. Forget trailers and previews - the show aired, and the same day she texted a colleague she was watching it. And this was the show that was aired.

Well (Child C) was tiny, obviously compromised in utero.

The use of the word obviously shows she was confident in her assessment.

Nowhere is she saying that she knows how any of those babies died just that some of them had other complex health issues that would compromise them and that baby A didn't appear to.

 

[Windowtothewall]

Any professional would not refer to a tv show to inform their belief about a patients death. They would rely on their own knowledge and experience with the patient. She was with that patient for less that 90 minutes if memory serves me.

Yet she was happy to speculate on C and D's death without much time with them either? C wasn't even her patient! It didn't stop her speculating.

Also, i thought you said she didn't learn about too much air from a tv show - that is common knowledge for a nurse? So the TV show wouldn't have informed her opinion. It would have provided her with inspiration for a possible hypotheses. Especially since she couldn't "wrap her head around it". You'd think any thing that triggered an idea for a cause would be considered and speculated on.

This entire conversation is about your point to a previous poster saying you think her not speculating on A's death means it wasn't a brush off.

I'm saying she was happy to speculate on all the other cases except the only one where "too much air" would have been the only reasonable speculation.

Nowhere is she saying that she knows how any of those babies died just that some of them had other complex health issues that would compromise them and that baby A didn't appear to.

Letby replied: "What do you mean? Odd that we lost three and in different circumstances?"

Letby's colleague responded: "I don't know, were they that different?"

It's very clear that they are talking about the circumstances in which they lost 3 patients.

Her responses are her speculation about what those circumstances are. Circumstances that lost them 3 patients i.e circumstances that caused 3 patients to die.

More clearly - speculation on what caused 3 patients to die.

“ Ms Letby said: “Well (Child C) was tiny, obviously compromised in utero. (Child D) septic. It’s (Child A) I can’t get my head round.”

 

[avabella]

I think it’s possibly this one but don’t know dates it was aired this was shared on a different group


Found this link too - 2/6/15

BBC Two - An Hour To Save Your Life, Series 2, Surviving Birth, Neonatal surgery

Laura gives birth to a baby girl who has been diagnosed with CDH during the pregnancy.

www.bbc.co.uk

That's definitely not the one that someone linked before. I watched the trailer and it was a tiny baby with herniated organs. It was a preview of the following weeks show. I'm really perplexed with how much leaning into this tv programme is occurring.