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

[ColourPurple]

With each case been separate would it not be better doing them 1 at a time as not to confuse the jury ?

It is interesting the way they have constructed it isn't it? I suppose at least this way we get to hear how the whole year ties together from both perspectives, does get super confusing though!

The prosecution is going through each baby one at a time. It's the people on here who aren't lol

The Daily Mail podcasts are a good place to start for anybody new to following the case, to hear some of what the jury has heard so far about each baby.

The Trial on Apple Podcasts

True Crime · 2024

podcasts.apple.com

ETA Sorry, I've just realised you may have meant have a separate trial for each baby . The Daily Mail podcast is still good though lol

 

[Tortoise]

With each case been separate would it not be better doing them 1 at a time as not to confuse the jury ?

I thought about that myself at one time but I think it's really important to see all the cases in relation to each other, to look at consistencies, deviations, patterns - like two sets of twins with insulin/air embolus - things that happened after texts were exchanged, monitoring equipment not alarming, collapses happening when the designated nurse was on a break, etc.

They have all the information stored in their iPads, and at the end there will be a summing up to help the jury remember and organise everything they've heard. JMO

 

[esther43]

The prosecution is going through each baby one at a time. It's the people on here who aren't lol

The Daily Mail podcasts are a good place to start for anybody new to following the case, to hear some of what the jury has heard so far about each baby.

The Trial on Apple Podcasts

True Crime · 2024

podcasts.apple.com

ETA Sorry, I've just realised you may have meant have a separate trial for each baby . The Daily Mail podcast is still good though. Lol.

I wonder how common it is for nurses to request that staff save and check the bags after they've been used? Wouldn't that be something a Doctor or Supervisor would do?

I have no idea why they would? The only department that could do that with any certainty would be a lab. I can not see lab resources being used for this reason unless a formal complaint had been raised.

 

[Dcflag]

A lot of the differing opinions on here seem to be very much geared towards the idea that someone on the ward wanted to kill babies.

I’ve been reading back a bit and I wonder.. all the conflicting discussions re the note (sorry for bringing this up again!) or the conversation where she talks about it happening to her babies (paraphrasing) the pale baby in the doorway. there’s talk about whether these indicate guilt or not (ie did she write the note as a confession as per the potential prosecution position) did she really feel victimised or discriminated against (the my babies interaction) I mean, why draw so much attention that it’s just “her babies” dying?

What if you consider the possibility that whoever is harming babies, is doing so for attention, accolades or sympathy, some form of self validation or generally just to be the centre of the discussion regardless of the reason?

Perhaps the death of babies is a byproduct of the intention to make herself feel more.. central and important. Add in lots of “I wasn’t supposed to be working as I’ve done xtra shifts but I’ve been put on anyway” and “I’m considering a move to a different hospital” it drives that narrative that it’s the reaction that’s most important.

This is all just a thought that’s popped into my head and of course, my own opinion. Hopefully with a fresh perspective on the current case facts.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

With each case been separate would it not be better doing them 1 at a time as not to confuse the jury ?

I think part of the reason they are doing them all together is that some of the evidence in some cases is quite weak compared to others (either in terms of the medical evidence or in terms of showing that LL committed the act). They are relying on the stronger cases hopefully pulling up the weaker cases towards a guilty verdict. If they can persuade the jury of guilt on some of the strong cases, then it is easier for a jury to conclude that LL is also guilty of other cases which are proved to be murder or AM where she also had the opportunity and where some of the same patterns or features are present .

IMO , some of these cases would be too weak to stand on their own in their own trial, so the prosecution wouldn’t be likely to bring the case to trial on the basis that a conviction was unlikely to be secured. But then there are other cases which are much stronger and which I think could have been tried as individual cases (but seeing all the strong cases together so you can see the patterns then further strengthens the already strong cases).

I wonder if the defence tried to sever the charges from one another at any point so that the prosecution would have been forced to have separate trials?

 

[Dcflag]

If nothing else, I’d really love to see a more sophiscated system in place after this trial. Not cctv in the nurseries per se, but certainly around the ward, hallways covering the doors etc

A system so they can see who has opened a door and at what time, so they can know who’s letting who in and when.

Just little things would make this case far easier to piece together and help keep the staff and babies safer. I certainly think the trial has opened up a real need for something.

Although my baby days are over, I wouldn’t personally be adverse to cctv actually in nurseries but I accept why that might be challenging for some.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I would say it is never appropriate for a nurse to diagnose the cause of an internal bleed or to decide if it constitutes an emergency whatever she thinks. The fact she told the mum, according to the mum's testimony, that she'd already notified the doctor and he was on his way shows she was aware of what she was meant to do, but didn't. JMO

What you say may well be true, and a nurse should never decide whether a case of internal bleeding constitutes an emergency or not.

My point is that if I were on the jury, questions which would occur to me would be in relation to what a nurse of that level would normally be expected to be able to diagnose, and what would be the appropriate action in relation to certain events (such as, as you say, immediately calling for a doctor to urgently attend if you find a baby with blood on its chin and mouth of the levels described by baby E’s mother). And before just reading your post, I had no idea as to what would be expected from a band 6 nurse in terms of ability to correcting identify a tube which was rubbing.

I would describe myself as a well educated person, and I am someone who asks a lot of questions and turns things over to explore all possibilities before reaching a conclusion : but my knowledge of medicine is pretty non existent. I would therefore be totally dependent on the experts spoon-feeding me testimony aboit medicine and medical practices in order to properly evaluate the evidence in this case. I would be frustrated if I were a juror because IMO, questions are not being asked by the barristers to elicit answers to some of the more obvious questions which have occurred to me when reading the evidence .

 

[Sweeper2000]

If nothing else, I’d really love to see a more sophiscated system in place after this trial. Not cctv in the nurseries per se, but certainly around the ward, hallways covering the doors etc

A system so they can see who has opened a door and at what time, so they can know who’s letting who in and when.

Just little things would make this case far easier to piece together and help keep the staff and babies safer. I certainly think the trial has opened up a real need for something.

Although my baby days are over, I wouldn’t personally be adverse to cctv actually in nurseries but I accept why that might be challenging for some.

Agreed. Child E really points to it. Mother says she turned up at 9 but no staff have testified that they let her in at that time and someone must have. gutwrenching to be in her shoes.

the doors would probably have no record on them at all if opened by buzzer. The cardswiper will be a separate thing IMO. Kind of strange, there is a strong precedent for making sure a unit like that is watertight.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

If nothing else, I’d really love to see a more sophiscated system in place after this trial. Not cctv in the nurseries per se, but certainly around the ward, hallways covering the doors etc

A system so they can see who has opened a door and at what time, so they can know who’s letting who in and when.

Just little things would make this case far easier to piece together and help keep the staff and babies safer. I certainly think the trial has opened up a real need for something.

Although my baby days are over, I wouldn’t personally be adverse to cctv actually in nurseries but I accept why that might be challenging for some.

I don’t think cctv in nurseries is such an outlandish idea . My youngest child attends a nursery operated by a well known national chain of nurseries . They have cctv in each of the nursery rooms (covering the baby room right up to the 4 year olds in the preschool room). It actually reassures me . If there is an accident, then they can look back at the feed and see exactly what happened , and there’s no prospect of nursery teachers being rough with, or otherwise mistreating the children (there were some horrible cases reported in the news a few years ago).

 

[Parker Knoll]

I would not be adverse to cctv being everywhere in hospitals tbh.

 

[ColourPurple]

A lot of the differing opinions on here seem to be very much geared towards the idea that someone on the ward wanted to kill babies.

I’ve been reading back a bit and I wonder.. all the conflicting discussions re the note (sorry for bringing this up again!) or the conversation where she talks about it happening to her babies (paraphrasing) the pale baby in the doorway. there’s talk about whether these indicate guilt or not (ie did she write the note as a confession as per the potential prosecution position) did she really feel victimised or discriminated against (the my babies interaction) I mean, why draw so much attention that it’s just “her babies” dying?

What if you consider the possibility that whoever is harming babies, is doing so for attention, accolades or sympathy, some form of self validation or generally just to be the centre of the discussion regardless of the reason?

Perhaps the death of babies is a byproduct of the intention to make herself feel more.. central and important. Add in lots of “I wasn’t supposed to be working as I’ve done xtra shifts but I’ve been put on anyway” and “I’m considering a move to a different hospital” it drives that narrative that it’s the reaction that’s most important.

This is all just a thought that’s popped into my head and of course, my own opinion. Hopefully with a fresh perspective on the current case facts.

You mean the alleged motive was attention ,sympathy validation and the killing babies was just a means to an end that she didn't particularly "enjoy"? I guess anything is possble and the frustrating thing is, if guilty, I doubt we'll ever know the motive anyway . It's not like other cases I've followed where it was pretty obvious that the motive was a common one, maybe financial or sexual or motivated by jealousy, and I think the average person can understand those motives on some level. But with this case, whoever was accused, the motive would still be a big question mark I think. No reason justifies or explains why somebody would decide to allegedly kill tiny defenceless, premature babies, and allegedly often in ways that physically hurt them too.

 

[ColourPurple]

What you say may well be true, and a nurse should never decide whether a case of internal bleeding constitutes an emergency or not.

My point is that if I were on the jury, questions which would occur to me would be in relation to what a nurse of that level would normally be expected to be able to diagnose, and what would be the appropriate action in relation to certain events (such as, as you say, immediately calling for a doctor to urgently attend if you find a baby with blood on its chin and mouth of the levels described by baby E’s mother). And before just reading your post, I had no idea as to what would be expected from a band 6 nurse in terms of ability to correcting identify a tube which was rubbing.

I would describe myself as a well educated person, and I am someone who asks a lot of questions and turns things over to explore all possibilities before reaching a conclusion : but my knowledge of medicine is pretty non existent. I would therefore be totally dependent on the experts spoon-feeding me testimony aboit medicine and medical practices in order to properly evaluate the evidence in this case. I would be frustrated if I were a juror because IMO, questions are not being asked by the barristers to elicit answers to some of the more obvious questions which have occurred to me when reading the evidence .

I believe the jurors can ask questions if they think something hasn't been fully explained. Pretty sure one of them did earlier in the trial though I can't remember the details.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Come to think of it, we actually haven’t heard from staff that they remember letting the mom in around ten either. No time at all aside from mums POV.

 

[Dcflag]

You mean the alleged motive was attention ,sympathy validation and the killing babies was just a means to an end that she didn't particularly "enjoy"? I guess anything is possble and the frustrating thing is, if guilty, I doubt we'll ever know the motive anyway . It's not like other cases I've followed where it was pretty obvious that the motive was a common one, maybe financial or sexual or motivated by jealousy, and I think the average person can understand those motives on some level. But with this case, whoever was accused, the motive would still be a big question mark I think. No reason justifies or explains why somebody would decide to allegedly kill tiny defenceless, premature babies, and allegedly often in ways that physically hurt them too.

Or even that a potential motive wasn’t to kill, but to cause desats and other serious medical issues with the idea that some babies will survive, and some won’t. What’s the phrase… it’s fate? It’s weird how some babies survive I guess.. (my memory is terrible so take this as a poor attempt at a quote)

In any case, I found it interesting that when you switch the perspective, it makes some of the other parts of the case, the notes and some of the interactions and the text conversations, have a potential different vibe.

The difficulty I suppose would be that the prosecution need to prove an intent to murder for a murder charge, and they’re very much going for a murder charge.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Do we know anything at all about the time of the supposed visit by mum of child E at all by staff? Just think it’s strange that it’s LL vs mum at this point. No staff testimony at nine or ten including the place she came from. Tbh I am surprised that she came alone and at all. If she was just delivering milk I might think staff would do this assuming there is no other benefit to her attending either for her or baby. Ie night cares like skin contact and maybe for mum the feelings and bonding. Considering she must have been feeling very fragile and tired at that point one might think staff would be there for support or care.

jmo though

might be difficult to get the funding.

 

[Dcflag]

Having to activate the buzzer at the desk by using a swipe card at the desk would eliminate the doubt on who is buzzing people in and when.

Granted I had my youngest in a London hospital, but there was genuinely a security guard on the doors of the maternity ward. The only way in and out for anyone was to be buzzed in by him. Compared to my Norfolk born babies, where people would hold the door open if you’re heading into the wards and you were encouraged to leave your baby at your bed if you needed the toilet or a shower!

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I believe the jurors can ask questions if they think something hasn't been fully explained. Pretty sure one of them did earlier in the trial though I can't remember the details.

Yes, you’re right . A juror asked a question about how one of the machines worked.

Jurors pass questions to the judge who either asks the question of the witness or has a discussion with the barristers about how they can present evidence to address the question . I think I would be sending the judge quite a few questions !

 

[Sweeper2000]

I’m sure a juror asked if the equipment could have delivered a air embolism by mistake. The response was I think that the machine has an inbuilt sensor to test for it and will immediately stop the intravenous delivery, if detected.

 

[katydid23]

I don't think there was a significant amount of blood loss at 10:00 pm. The bleeding occurred over a period of two and a half hours but at what point did they diagnose the internal injury?

Good question.
I wonder if she, allegedly, got caught before she was finished with the attack on the baby/ Mom may have interrupted her.

And perhaps later, allegedly, she finished up the assault.

 

[katydid23]

A cursory search of the interwebs suggests Heparin is a common ingredient in TPN bags. If there are already previous instances of insulin being put in TPN bags by accident instead of Heparin and causing the hypoglycaemia we see in this case, then I feel less certain that it couldn’t have been an error by the pharmacy. JMO.

It could possibly happen once, IF the bag was ordered with Heparin.

Baby F and L both died from Insulin poisoning. Did that pharmacy accidentally poison bags twice, both times to babies in LL's care?

Did either of these babies require Heparin in their nutrient bags?
https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz
Judith Moritz

·
Oct 12, 2022

Court is now hearing about the case of twin baby brothers, babies L & M. Lucy Letby is charged with attempting to murder both boys.


Jury told that it is the prosecution case that Letby attacked baby L first (with insulin) and then, whilst that attack was underway also attacked baby M.


Pros say "By this time Letby was supposed only to be working day shifts because the consultants were concerned about the correlation between her presence and unexpected deaths / life-threatening episodes on the night-shifts"

https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz
Jury told that Lucy Letby added insulin to baby L's nutrient feed. Prosecution say "It was a deliberate act of sabotage done with the intention of killing (him). She had failed to kill baby F (in the same way) and she increased the dose"