UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #10

[Sweeper2000]

Neither were you, but that’s not stopped you from trying to dismantle anything any of these professionals have said that could possibly paint LL in even a vaguely negative light.

nobody has painted her in a bad light, apparently they can’t otherwise they would have. this Trial seems reliant on the med notes. Did it happe? is she the cause?

 

[MachinaCollecta]

nobody has painted her in a bad light, apparently they can’t otherwise they would have. this Trial seems reliant on the med notes. Did it happe? is she the cause?

This trial is, first and foremost, reliant on the fact that several babies died while in the care of or around LL. So you have to begin there, because that’s an important distinction. I’m not sure how you can say nobody’s painted her in a bad light. She’s on trial for allegedly being involved in the deaths of children.

No other nurses had as much access to these children in these specific situations, whether she was meant to have it or not. So you’ve got to go by medical notes and testimonies, because nobody had a camera on LL during the time she was working at the hospital.

There could be failings at the hospital, and I’ve no doubt that will be examined extensively, but we’re continuing to see a lot of information that focuses on LL and her involvement in these children’s lives, sometimes when she’s not supposed to be there. Sometimes she’s taken on a child she’s allegedly not supposed to have been looking after.

My point is, these things don’t just emerge from nowhere. There’s nothing I’ve seen that suggests they just decided to pick a nurse at random and hope for the best. There’s enough here that deserves scrutiny.

 

[Sweeper2000]

@MachinaCollecta

“There’s enough here that deserves scrutiny.”

defintely agree with that.

 

[katydid23]

A bit more context for Dr Evans comments about the monitor (from the prosecution's opening speech, not today)

Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans said he believed the apnoea monitor might have been switched off on October 13 for child I, and the deliberate administering of a large bolus of air into Child I's stomach via her NG tube on October 22/23.

In police interview, Letby said she could not remember the circumstances of September 30, and had taken over the care of Child I after the child had an "episode".

She said she had no recollection of the events surroudning Child I's death, and said the child had been returned from Arrowe Park Hospital too quickly.

In June 2019, she was asked about a sympathy card she had sent to the child's parents. She said it was not normal to do so - and this was the only time she had done so.

She accepted having an image of that card on her phone.

She was asked about the October 13 incident and challenged the nurse's account, adding: "Maybe I spotted something that [the nurse] wasn't able to spot", as she was "more experienced".

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

THE trial of former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of multiple baby murders, is due to finalise its jury and hear…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

"In June 2019, she was asked about a sympathy card she had sent to the child's parents. She said it was not normal to do so - and this was the only time she had done so.

She accepted having an image of that card on her phone."


I could possibly understand her sending a sympathy card----but why would she have an image of that card on her phone? I think that is potentially very creepy. JMO

 

[katydid23]

I’m confident if you put a piece of white paper at the back of the crib you could see it.

That is not the same thing as being able to tell if a child has gone pale or not. JMO

 

[katydid23]

Rigggght selective posting.

here’s the actual quote.


“Another nurse broke down in tears as she recalled Letby telling her a baby looked pale – even though she was standing six feet away and the infant's cot was in a darkened room with her top half covered by a canopy.
When Ashleigh Hudson went over to Baby I she found her in 'quite poor condition' and needing urgent care.
The infant had been 'very stable' 15 minutes earlier, when Miss Hudson stepped away from Nursery 2 to help a colleague in the high-dependency Nursery 1 of the Countess of Chester Hospital.
She diverted for only 'seconds' to get some expressed breast milk she planned to give Baby I a short time later.
Unaware that the infant was unwell, Nurse Hudson returned to the nursery but did not immediately examine her. Instead she began preparing the milk with her back to Baby I's cot.
'Lucy was in the doorway. We were talking, I don't remember the content of the conversation. (Then) she said she thought (Baby) I looked pale'.
She estimated that the neonatal nurse on trial for seven counts of murder – including that of Baby I – was standing five or six feet away.
'She was in the doorway and said something along the lines of "(Baby) I looks pale" or "Don't you think (Baby) I looks pale?"'”

Also

Baby I was making the gasping sounds 'maybe four to five times a minute'.

Lucy Letby 'was in tears as she said 'it's always me when it happens'

Lucy Letby, 33, denies murdering seven babies and attempting to murder 10 others between June 2015 and June 2016.

www.dailymail.co.uk

you could easily determine the colour of a baby’s skin at six feet. That also means LL was in the room. The picture shown in the other post is more than six feet.

if the allegation is that LL was supposed to have turned off the monitor and attacked the baby in the few seconds this nurse was away, it’s ridiculous. Oh yeh and then there’s also that LL wouldn’t have known how long this nurse was supposed to be away for. Also no mention of the monitor and she had been in there for a while.

four to five times a minute means the alarm wouldn’t have sounded if it’s designed to beep if no breathe for twenty seconds.

it’s no wonder LL questions her account of things, doesn’t seem to add up at all.

jmo

"if the allegation is that LL was supposed to have turned off the monitor and attacked the baby in the few seconds this nurse was away, it’s ridiculous. Oh yeh and then there’s also that LL wouldn’t have known how long this nurse was supposed to be away for."


Not Really ridiculous, IMO... The nurse was away for 15 minutes, not just for a few seconds. And LL knew that because the nurse asked her to watch the baby during that time becAuse she was helping another nurse for a short procedure. So LL had plenty of time to mess with the monitor and the baby, imo.

From link in post above:
"The court also heard how Ms Letby had been asked to observe Child I before she collapsed in the early hours of 13 October 2015 as her designated nurse Ashleigh Hudson was required to help a colleague carry out a 15-minute procedure in a different nursery."

 

[Kemug]

I know we have discussed this a bit in the past, but I'd just like to expand on it.
* Was LL possibly an IVF baby herself?
* Was she a survivor of twins or triplets?
* Did she ever have a sibling who passed away?
* Was she perhaps adopted?

None of this may have the remotest relevance of course. Especially if she is totally innocent. As I hope she is. On the other hand, we all know from our experience here on WS, and life generally, that some people who commit murders have been greatly influenced by their past. Of course that should never be used against someone in an investigation or a trial, but it can be very interesting when looking back. JMO, MOO (where's a cow emoji when you need one?)

 

[Ruby12345]

What I don't understand is, she was supposed to observe the baby for 15 minutes but the room was dark and the baby was covered by a canopy. So how was she supposed to observe or was she supposed to turn the light on at intervals?

 

[Kemug]

I wonder if baby I or her parents had something in common with other parents in this case… was she an IVF baby? Were her parents considered older or younger? I just have this niggling feeling that, if guilty, these babies were ‘chosen’ for some reason, maybe dislike towards the parents, jealousy, belief that child I was just ‘not meant to be’. I understand identities in this case are protected so we are not likely to learn much about the families of the victims, however, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a common denominator when they are all compared. All MOO of course.

Yes, the Chosen Ones.

 

[MsBetsy]

I think in either of these photos it would have been impossible to see the baby's complexion

The canopy creates even more darkness where the baby's face would have been. It would be hard enough to tell whether a baby is pale standing right next to the cot in a darkened room, let alone from the hallway.

 

[bbsaz]

1) she had 15 minutes
2) the baby was under a blanket, therefore at best only her little face is exposed
3) her head was under a canopy
4) the room was dark, it was nighttime and the light off
5) she was 6ft away

Of course she couldnt see the pallor of a little bit of visible skin, in the dark, under a canopy, from 6ft away.

 

[JosieJo]

Regarding the 15 min versus a few seconds thing...
My take on the reporting was...the designated nurse was away for around 15 min ... the few seconds was how long it was between LL saying baby looks pale and the nurse going to look ...the few seconds being because she was finishing preparing the milk

 

[JosieJo]

1) she had 15 minutes
2) the baby was under a blanket, therefore at best only her little face is exposed
3) her head was under a canopy
4) the room was dark, it was nighttime and the light off
5) she was 6ft away

Of course she couldnt see the pallor of a little bit of visible skin, in the dark, under a canopy, from 6ft away.

Exactly...the nurse said she could see the baby was in the cot but nothing else about the child in that light

 

[bbsaz]

Her exposed skin would have measured about 10cm by 10cm

 

[JosieJo]

A big thing for me was ...imo . If LL looked over and some how miraculously thought the baby looked pale ...while the nurse was preparing milk. ...the natural concern would mean stepping closer or putting the light on to look ....natural reaction.. not stand there and wait for the nurse to finish

 

[DianaWW]

What I don't understand is, she was supposed to observe the baby for 15 minutes but the room was dark and the baby was covered by a canopy. So how was she supposed to observe or was she supposed to turn the light on at intervals?

I think, by ‘observe’, it’s meant that she should have been in the room, keeping an eye on the monitor to ensure no change in the stats etc. But I may be wrong. MOO.

 

[MsBetsy]

That is not the same thing as being able to tell if a child has gone pale or not. JMO

We'd have to put about 6 shades of white paper there to see if we can tell the difference. One child's "pale" may be different than another's.

 

[katydid23]

What I don't understand is, she was supposed to observe the baby for 15 minutes but the room was dark and the baby was covered by a canopy. So how was she supposed to observe or was she supposed to turn the light on at intervals?

Apparently the baby had been stable and healthy for awhile, and the designated nurse had no serious concerns at the time. So it was just supposed to be a matter of checking in on her a few times just to make sure.

One could probably just take several steps into the darkened room and take a close look and see if the baby was sleeping comfortably or not. Or one could flip the light on and check as well. JMO

Ms Hudson said Child I was in a "good clinical condition" when she left the nursery and there had been discussions regarding her discharge from the hospital in the coming weeks.

 

[Tortoise]

There's white sheets or blankets on the mattress in the photo and you can't see it at the canopy end. That tells you that you wouldn't be able to see her skin tone, or a white object of any sort, IMO. Perhaps police dressed the bed in white blankets with padding inside it to raise its profile for that very purpose, as demonstrated in the earlier photo of the cot which just contained a bare mattress. It would be a simple matter of holding back the side flap of the canopy to allow the light from the corridor to shine on the baby briefly when doing an observation.




both photos from same link
Lucy Letby 'was in tears as she said 'it's always me when it happens'

I don't think you'd even have been able to tell if an adult sitting in that chair was notably pale, and that's without a canopy shading them from the light.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I’m not sure about the 15 mins to secs thing. It could read she diverted from her return to room 2 for seconds to get the milk.

If you look at the picture in the article without that degree of picture distortion but still not as good as the real pic presumably and zoom in you can actually determine the sheets underneath. The pixelation is Terrible, will make any shade of dark darker. You can barely determine the shape of the pictures on the canopy. Any suggestion that it was pitch black under the canopy is inaccurate IMO. If you could see the blue of the chair you could determine any lighter colour. said in FULL RESPECT of others.

The second picture in tortoises post looks much closer to the six feet quoted by the DN. It’s annoying that we don’t know exactly which picture was chosen. By way of reference though there are white objects in the room giving at least some indication as to how light reflects depending on colour, for instance the monitor. Are we able to determine if the picture is of room 2 or the hdu. really would be useful if we had the video shown in court of the layout. that was a ten minute vid as well, plenty of detail. That picture doesn’t seem to be of room 2 though, I think I read there was a number of beds in each room, only seems to be one or room for one in that picture.

I think, by ‘observe’, it’s meant that she should have been in the room, keeping an eye on the monitor to ensure no change in the stats etc. But I may be wrong. MOO.

I would think visual inspection would be routine in checking a baby, can’t determine the pallor otherwise.

You absolutely could not determine subtle variations in a baby's skin colour 6 inches away in that darkened room, let alone 5-6 foot.

It says it all that the nurse needed to turn the light on in order to see. She wouldn't have disturbed the baby like that for no reason.

You would not have to. It’s the difference in light reflectivity between pink/red and white or close to white. Red/pink would actually blend in within a darker room.I might argue that there is more light Than moonlight bouncing around in that room especially with white walls and you can determine light colours in moonlight. I can understand judging by that picture how people think that but I’m not convinced. Difference being the canopy is in place to shield the child from any direct light. The baby being in the dark Wouldn’t negate light reflection from the skin in fact it would highlight it, an applicable phrase IMO is “ghostly white“ relative to the low oxygen in the blood which is what gives white skin it’s hue. Blood is red due to the iron content and oxygen is pink. if the babs skin colour matched the white sheets as well I think that would be concerning, again many shades of difference between red and white. Doesn’t make sense to have a treatment room without light for staff to see by.

On examination [Child I] centrally white, any ideas on what is meant by this? Centrally is the focused word.

i Would have thought any babe on the hdu would be hooked up to a heart monitor, the paleness suggests lack of blood flow I think? Presumably caused by a slow heartbeat but I have no med experience.

I think this makes sense and is my humble opinion. Full respect to others.