UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #14

[marynnu]

The leaving here alive thing I don't really think anything of. LL interpreted him as sicker than the doctor did.

I think if LL did say the rest of it in that excited tone then it is very very weird. JMO

"he's not leaving here alive, is he" would be a very bizarre thing to say by any health professional IMO. I'd have been shocked and puzzled if one of my colleagues said this.

 

[LorriB]

It's clear you guys don't think it's the case she is remembering she was more shocked than she was at the time. That's fine, we all interpret what we read differently.

As I said, this is just my opinion based on my experience in my psychology studies of what we learnt can be the case with recall in court cases.

 

[LorriB]

"he's not leaving here alive, is he" would be a very bizarre thing to say by any health professional IMO. I'd have been shocked and puzzled if one of my colleagues said this.

Okay, I'd be wondering what signs I had missed!

 

[DinerMite]

Dr Stephen Brearey is now giving evidence about the death of Child P.

Dr Brearey said he carried out a review of the case, that highlighted 'some minor deficiencies in care but none of which would have effected the outcome of (Child P)'

The medic said the events of 24 June were 'horrific' and that they would have 'traumatised' even the most experienced members of staff

He said he would expect 99% of babies born at 33week gestation on fourth day of life to survive

Dr Brearey starts to make a broader point about the times at which the deaths had occurred in 2015 and 2016. Mr Myers raises objections, judge says broader conclusions can be made elsewhere in other means

Dan

 

[katydid23]

Dan O'Donoghue


Dr Stephen Brearey is now giving evidence about the death of Child P.

Dr Brearey said he carried out a review of the case, that highlighted 'some minor deficiencies in care but none of which would have effected the outcome of (Child P)'

The medic said the events of 24 June were 'horrific' and that they would have 'traumatised' even the most experienced members of staff

He said he would expect 99% of babies born at 33week gestation on fourth day of life to survive

Dr Brearey starts to make a broader point about the times at which the deaths had occurred in 2015 and 2016. Mr Myers raises objections, judge says broader conclusions can be made elsewhere in other means

 

[Dcflag]

'I found it absolutely shocking at the time. I turned round and said "Don't say that – he's had a good gas". In my mind he was very much alive. I said that and left the room.'

It's clear you guys don't think it's the case she is remembering she was more shocked than she was at the time. That's fine, we all interpret what we read differently.

As I said, this is just my opinion based on my experience in my psychology studies of what we learnt can be the case with recall in court cases.

While it’s very clear this interview was said in hindsight, long after the incident. Her reaction and subsequent reply, to me, suggests that she really was at that time shocked at LL saying it. She literally replied “don’t say that” opposed to something along the lines of “he’s very poorly” or “i hope he does go home healthy and alive” or even “yes he will go home alive”

She literally reacted by saying immediately “don’t say that, his last blood gas is good” that to me is a telling expression of shock.

So yes, she is recalling long after the event that what LL said shocked her (which is potentially unreliable as it’s after the fact, with hindsight or whatever) but her reply clearly supports that at the time was in fact genuinely shocked.

 

[Tortoise]

But isn't it kind of cheeky to tell a doctor, who was in charge of this child's care, that the child is not living through the night?
Even though the tests and readings had greatly improved and the child was healthy overall?

The doctor was shocked at the comment.


It is very very weird.

I think she gets so excited that she can't contain it, like when she was smiling and 'going on' while she was bathing baby I and the mother wanted her to stop going on.

Then I think, once the excitement dissipates, she either cries naturally or she can cry to manipulate others. No one would expect her to be as upset as the parents, upset yes, but able to compose herself in a professional sense when she's facing patients. She looked upbeat when Dr Brearey saw her later in the corridor. She also boasted of the parents' gratitude, and often made a big thing about telling everyone various parents thanked her. It seems she put in work to get words of gratitude out of the parents, the sympathy card, could all be part of a ritual. Like the bow on top of a package.

 

[marynnu]

Okay, I'd be wondering what signs I had missed!

I wouldn't. There is absolutely nothing LL would be aware of that the medical staff weren't IMO. And if you thought of something you'd just say, wouldn't you.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I don’t know for sure but that’s really strong testimony from that doctor. It’s not impossible for her to have misinterpreted the reactions. Say for instance if LL was genuinely upset she may have been trying to contain herself at the same time as doi her job. Almost in floods of tears but trying to hold it. That could give someone else the impression that she was excited when actually she is just overwhelmed and holding it. If there was no association between her and the units events the doc may have interpreted it differently. I’m not saying she did or didn’t only that that is a potential.

 

[DinerMite]

I don't understand the judges response, is he allowing it then or not?

"Mr Myers raises objections, judge says broader conclusions can be made elsewhere in other means"

 

[Dotta]

Mr Myers is wrong in his questioning imo. He’s asking why if there was suspicions did dr gibb (or others) not act on it. They DID act on them. Is mr Myers implying the only correct was to act is his way?

They all at one point or another raised concerns whether with colleagues, head of nursing, even higher up etc. it’s very clear they all acted on concerns.

No they didn’t go to the police, I’m not sure I would have either, in a medical setting you’d expect more support and action to protect the patients and to take all concerns seriously, but individual people (not as a collective) only have bits of the picture.

It’s very easy for mr Myers to say now, why didn’t they report to the police. It’s clear less senior staff members weren’t in the know, only hearing rumours and gossip, each person only has their own individual experience, those slightly higher up have a slightly better gauge but again, they don’t have all the collective information from the other nurses, care assistants, parents. Things that didn’t seem relevant as an individual piece of information so wasn’t discussed at the time.

Well
Defence does what it can.
Not much to work upon IMO

 

[katydid23]

I don't understand the judges response, is he allowing it then or not?

"Mr Myers raises objections, judge says broader conclusions can be made elsewhere in other means"

IDK for sure---but I think the judge might be saying, don't testify to that here and now, there are other ways to bring in those broader conclusions----like during re-direct or in closing arguments or ?

 

[Imogenia]

"he's not leaving here alive, is he" would be a very bizarre thing to say by any health professional IMO. I'd have been shocked and puzzled if one of my colleagues said this.

I myself would have been very intrigued by a staff nurse asking a consultant paediatrician this question, and it is a question, as a riposte to the said consultant looking at the clock, and somewhat absently stating that the transport team would soon be there.

Asking such a contradictory question, of such a shocking nature, of a senior professional, implying that they too are in ‘the know’ of the transport team being superfluous to this baby’s needs, is very alarming. It would have startled the consultant out of the mental state of just ‘thinking aloud’.

Such uncomfortable experiences would have added to the strength of the consultant’s exhortations to the transport team doctor, thus giving safe passage to the other little baby.

 

[esther43]

IDK for sure---but I think the judge might be saying, don't testify to that here and now, there are other ways to bring in those broader conclusions----like during re-direct or in closing arguments or ?

 

[katydid23]

I myself would have been very intrigued by a staff nurse asking a consultant paediatrician this question, and it is a question, as a riposte to the said consultant looking at the lock, and somewhat absently stating that the transport team would soon be there.

Asking such a contradictory question, of such a shocking nature, of a senior professional, implying that they too are in ‘the know’ of the transport team being superfluous to this baby’s needs, is very alarming. It would have startled the consultant out of the mental state of just ‘thinking aloud’.

Such uncomfortable experiences would have added to the strength of the consultant’s exhortations to the transport team doctor, thus giving safe passage to the other little baby.

"Such uncomfortable experiences would have added to the strength of the consultant’s exhortations to the transport team doctor, thus giving safe passage to the other little baby."


So maybe LL ultimately saved the surviving triplet by blurting out that shocking prediction?

 

[Dcflag]

It certainly comes across to me that the remaining baby was transferred out of Coch BECAUSE of this dr, and that had she not expressed to the transfer team in the most professional manner possible that she wanted them to take the remaining baby as she believed it was in his best interests, is huge.

The transfer team are taking sick babies to a higher level of care facility. The remaining baby wasn’t sick enough that it couldn’t be cared for at coch. It doesn’t appear medically there was any reason the transfer team would have wanted to take the surviving baby. They took him purely because this dr wanted them to.

Her genuine shock at LL, coupled with the shock of these two seemingly healthy on their way home babies dying consecutively, whether she knew LL was the one or whether she just had some gut inuition, she is the reason there is a surviving baby. In her testimony she mentioned she had to put it in the most professional manner possible which to me suggests it wasn’t fear of maybe a genetic component they weren’t aware it, it was fear the baby would unexplainable die on the ward if it wasn’t removed. That’s huge.

 

[Jazmania]

Shocking evidence we're hearing. Clearly the strongest evidence was always going to be for these last 3 cases, as it was so strong that it resulted in LL being taken off duty even though management were clearly very much not wanting to do this. If guilty, the thrill she got from attacking these babies must have been intense to override the obvious risk to herself in being so brazen as to attack 3 babies in 3 nights, and healthy ones at that. Comparatively speaking, if guilty, she was more careful in the months before, varying the methods, spacing them out more, attacking babies that were more unwell. I think if she hadn't been so brazen as to kill 2/3 triplets and attack another baby on successive nights, then she would have remained on the unit for a lot longer.

 

[Imogenia]

"Such uncomfortable experiences would have added to the strength of the consultant’s exhortations to the transport team doctor, thus giving safe passage to the other little baby."


So maybe LL ultimately saved the surviving triplet by blurting out that shocking prediction?

Yes

 

[Tortoise]

I think there was something at a very primal level going on with the consultant, and perhaps not even a conscious recognition, just stemming from her shock responses to LL, a jarring in her brain, when she agreed with the parents that the third triplet would only be safe if he was taken out of the unit.

 

[Imogenia]

It certainly comes across to me that the remaining baby was transferred out of Coch BECAUSE of this dr, and that had she not expressed to the transfer team in the most professional manner possible that she wanted them to take the remaining baby as she believed it was in his best interests, is huge.

The transfer team are taking sick babies to a higher level of care facility. The remaining baby wasn’t sick enough that it couldn’t be cared for at coch. It doesn’t appear medically there was any reason the transfer team would have wanted to take the surviving baby. They took him purely because this dr wanted them to.

Her genuine shock at LL, coupled with the shock of these two seemingly healthy on their way home babies dying consecutively, whether she knew LL was the one or whether she just had some gut inuition, she is the reason there is a surviving baby. In her testimony she mentioned she had to put it in the most professional manner possible which to me suggests it wasn’t fear of maybe a genetic component they weren’t aware it, it was fear the baby would unexplainable die on the ward if it wasn’t removed. That’s huge.

Her speech would have been most professional.

Her eyes would have conveyed her terror to the transporting doctor.

The sobbing begging father clinched it.