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

[katydid23]

These podcasts are much easier to follow and get a sense of the sequence of events. I was struck by the detail that after one of the morning collapses, the baby was put on a ventilator. Immediately, he became active again and began fighting the ventilator. They decided to sedate and paralyze him. Not long after, the baby had another collapse/desaturation. LL was at the bedside, alone, and said that the baby appeared to have dislodged his breathing tube. He was re-intubated.

Notes from of this podcast---part 1 :

From trial of Lucy Letby

Episode 24—suspicions 1st arose after death of child D, morning of June 22nd, 2015
She was 3rd baby to die on the unit in just over a fortnight. Died from air injection into her blood stream.


Dr Steven Breary, senior consultant and head of the unit, , decided to start his own investigation after the 3 recent deaths, babies A,C and D. [June 8th, 14th and 22nd]

He had noted that Lucy Letby had been on duty and looking after those babies, and he discussed his informal findings with Dr Ravi J. Four months later, they discussed these concerns with hospital administrators. That would be just after the death of baby I, who LL is accused of murdering by injecting air into her tummy and bloodstream.


On the afternoon of Baby I’s death, the hospital admins received an email about the increase in mortality rates on the unit, so consultants were wondering if these events, of babies becoming suddenly ill , developing unexplained rashes and dying , were linked in some way to Lucy Letby.

At this point their concerns about Nurse Letby were escalated and they communicated that with Alison Kelly, the director of nursing. She thought that conclusion was unlikely.

That was in Oct 2015—s it was another 4 months when another baby, Baby K, collapsed on the neonatal unit, less than 2 hours after her birth.

Prosecution say Lucy Letby tampered with Baby K's ventilator tube, and she collapsed. Dr Ravi J thought this was a pivotal case for him because he saw LL standing over baby K, as she had collapsed, and was doing nothing to help.


Also at this time, Dr Breary had enlisted the help of an Independent Neonatologist, Dr Nim Subadar, from Liverpool Women’s Hospital. He wanted Dr Subadar to analyse the unit and the increased death rate among babies.

Dr Subadar did not narrow down the exact cause, but he did flag Nurse Letby as a common factor during all the collapses and deaths.

Afterwards Dr Breary said he sent the finding to Mrs Kelly, sent it to the head of safety and quality , the medical director and Aaron Powell, the manager of the neonatal unit.

Dr Breary also demanded an urgent meeting to discuss the consultant’s concerns but his request was ignored for 3 more months, Dr J Ram said. He also said the pair faced pressure ’not to make a fuss.’

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

It's extremely rare to have surreptitious murders witnessed by anybody.

In this type of environment, there would be no point in collecting DNA because everyone's DNA is either expected to be there because they work there, or they are wearing sterile gloves. And everything would have been disposed of long ago in any case.

Most of these events, if they happened at the times alleged, happened when others had left the room. The few that are alleged to have happened with other nurses or doctors in the vicinity, there is evidence that they were engaged in other tasks.

The alleged perpetrator is fully in control of when they strike in every alleged instance and other people are not alert to the possibility of what even to be watching for because it wouldn't occur to them that a nurse is doing anything they shouldn't be doing. The alleged perpetrator can stop at any moment, and have their hands out of view in any case, and none of the acts involve weapons which no one would expect to see in the room. A syringe is needed to inject fluids, a bubble of air is not going to be visible across a nursery.

It's not necessary for the defence to prove innocence, but in this case it is very apparent that the defence has not once been able to demonstrate that she could not have done what is alleged because there is evidence of her being elsewhere or doing something else, like administering to another baby, or texting at the time, for instance.

JMO

I think they did prove it with baby F and the witnesses saying that the tpn bag would have been changed when LL was off shift and that the second bag was also poisoned?

 

[katydid23]

These jurors have the worst immune systems in the universe

I'd probably be calling in sick too, if I had to hear and see all of this horror every weekday.

 

[katydid23]

I think they did prove it with baby F and the witnesses saying that the tpn bag would have been changed when LL was off shift and that the second bag was also poisoned?

I don't think the defense proved anything about that TPN bag. They did muddy up the waters but did not show it was impossible or even improbable. I think it just showed that she began trying to deflect and make it look less obvious than previous alleged attacks. JMO

Also, there are 22 charges. So even if 1 or 2 look confusing it does not negate the other 20 of the remaining ones. JMO

 

[katydid23]

Part 2:

Now we are up to June 2016
And we are up to baby O. One of three identical triplets [which are 1 in 200 million chances to be identical triplets]

They were born 7 weeks early at COC. Two of the brothers collapsed and died within 23 hours of each other. [ on the very day that LL returned from her 10 day vacation]

Prosecution say they were both murdered by Lucy Letby

Dr Breary said aspects of Baby O’s collapse and death were so unusual so out of the blue that doctors could find no natural reason for it that he was planning to escalate his concerns to hospital managers again the following day—

But before he had the chance, Baby O’s brother , baby P began to deteriorate and he died the day after his brother.


Dr Breary decided something had to be done immediately. It was hospital practice to hold a debrief when a baby died and the sudden death of the 2 brothers on successive shifts had left many of them distressed ——


But Dr Breary claimed Lucy Letby did not seem upset to distressed at all in the meeting, she also rejected his suggestion to take the weekend off to recover.


He said he did not want her on the unit the following day which was a Saturday. So he telephoned Karen Reese, who was a senior nurse in Urgent Care Division, and the executive on call on Friday evening, ——






But Karen Reece said No and that there was no evidence ===Dr B asked her if she was happy to take responsibility for her abuse of the fact that himself and his colleagues wouldn’t be happy with her going to the unit on the following day—
Karen Reece said ‘she was happy to take that responsibility.’

“ I said, If anything happens to any of the babies tomorrow——and she said she would be able to take that responsibility, that’s where the conversation finished.

So LL came to work as usual the following day, Saturday June 25th.

The prosecution say she struck again that same day. They say she tried to murder the final baby in this case—baby Q—more coming in that case next week


Meyers went into a lengthy discussion with Dr B, calling him biased ——he asked him exactly when staff began becoming suspicious of her.

And Meyers reminded jurors that Dr B and his colleagues began suspecting her of the collapses and deaths back in June of 2015


But Dr Breary strenuously denied any bias and told the court that in the 1st meeting he commented “it can’t be Lucy, not nice Lucy.”


My Meyers said if Dr B had suspected someone of harming babies he could have gone to the police himself—Dr B insisted that he had repeatedly try to flag concerns thru the correct t channels at the hospital, pressed why he didn’t make a formal complaint or go to the police, Dr B said “ You’re making it more simplistic than it was. It was not something that anyone wanted to consider—that a member of staff was harming babies—

Actually the senior nursing staff on the unit didn’t believe this could be true up until the point and beyond when the triplets died.


That year was spent with myself and colleagues with increasing suspicion after every episode—none of us wanted to believe it either.


It took a step back to think about the unexpected nature of these collapses, the lack of response to resuscitation, the unusual rash noted on a number of occasions, and EACH TIME the association with Nurse Letby.


A few days after the triplets died and LL was removed from the unit, there were no more events

It was the same staff doing the same job and there were no more sudden collapses


So LL was removed from the floor and given alternative clerical duties


Dr John Gibbs called the triplets deaths as the Tipping Point in court but even after she was removed from the unit, Dr Gibbs said the managers remained reluctant to get the police involved


In the 11 months after we raised concerns about the triplets deaths, senior managers were extremely reluctant to discuss with police what had happened—we had to keep insisting the police be involved


Dr Gibbs even said that senior managers tried to get Lucy back to work on the unit against the wishes of the neonatal team——he said doctors told management they would only agree to that if CCTV cameras were installed in every nursery


After the tipping point of the triplets deaths, consultants demanded some safety measures be applied.


One main demand was that Letby be removed from the neonatal unit —but that was not a simple straight forward decision.


A month later senior managers wanted Letby to be returned to the unit. We stuck to our demands that CCTV be installed first—for 11 months we had to resist and deny their pressure to have her return to the floor.

But she didn’t return and she was eventually arrested in July 2018.


Lucy Letby denies that she harmed any babies in this case.

 

[Tortoise]

I think they did prove it with baby F and the witnesses saying that the tpn bag would have been changed when LL was off shift and that the second bag was also poisoned?

The poisoning started during the night shift when LL hung the bag, when those day shift staff weren't on duty.

Clearly, poisoning doesn't require the presence of the poisoner, it only requires the availability of a pre-poisoned substance.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I definitely agree with this. The most striking ones to me are the insulin cases; I think it's fair to say that there is little doubt that those bags were indeed adulterated with insulin but I can't recall them presenting any evidence at all demonstrating that she adulterated them, when she did it or how, specifically, she did it.

Same with so much of the other stuff; in some cases there were people very nearby or even in the same room with their backs turned, allegedly. Yet not once have the prosecution claimed that she was seen actually doing anything unlawful.

The prosecution did note that ll had the opportunity to with the first case but the second case nothing if I remember correctly. bith cases had more questions than answers. I remember people were really thrown by the first one with the question of one tpn bag or two. Then we had the second case and that I think demonstrated that more than one bag was definitely contaminated so again more questions than answers.

I can remember posting that there was a potential that all the tpn had Insulin in them I think that makes sense considering how many glucose bags were also contaminated. I think it says something more than muddying the waters. That’s allot of bags to poison and not be noticed doin it. To me that has the potential to have been done off of the unit.

there are other things too, for instance the cases where the prosecution have alleged she falsified notes. It’s piecemeal placement of certain indicatory events that I noticed. I think There are three instances of falsified documents what I don’t see is the reason why? excepting baby e as that’s easy to see why she would if guilty. Has anyone else spotted any potential reason for why she would falsify the other notes?

 

[Sweeper2000]

Yeh got one for baby q and I’m working with the dates of the last three events. Two deaths in a very short space of time, the third one being an alleged attempt. Three in a week I think? Three in a week is a seriously conspicuous sequence of events so if guilty the third one in the mind of someone like that might create the precedent to try and elude negative attention by making it out they weren’t near the scene.

 

[ColourPurple]

Yeh got one for baby q and I’m working with the dates of the last three events. Two deaths in a very short space of time, the third one being an alleged attempt. Three in a week I think? Three in a week is a seriously conspicuous sequence of events so if guilty the third one in the mind of someone like that might create the precedent to try and elude negative attention by making it out they weren’t near the scene.

Got one what for Baby Q?

Also what does this sentence mean "Three in a week is a seriously conspicuous sequence of events so if guilty the third one in the mind of someone like that might create the precedent to try and elude negative attention by making it out they weren’t near the scene."

 

[Sweeper2000]

Got one what for Baby Q?

Also what does this sentence mean "Three in a week is a seriously conspicuous sequence of events so if guilty the third one in the mind of someone like that might create the precedent to try and elude negative attention by making it out they weren’t near the scene."

A reason why if guilty ll would falsify the notes for baby q. Three in a week is conspicuous so if guilty a reason to falsify the notes is that three in a week is too blatant so reduce possible negative attention through falsifying the notes. Making it out you were nowhere near baby q.

elude was the wrong word, I meant to “evade”.

I was wondering why if guilty there was a perceived reason to falsify the notes in those specific cases and not others. Just seems strange to me that those particular events would be accompanied by falsified notes but not others. Must be a reason why.

 

[ColourPurple]

A reason why if guilty ll would falsify the notes for baby q. Three in a week is conspicuous so if guilty a reason to falsify the notes is that three in a week is too blatant so reduce possible negative attention through falsifying the notes. Making it out you were nowhere near baby q.

elude was the wrong word, I meant to “evade”.

Ah ok, yes that makes sense, if guilty IMO

 

[Dotta]

A reason why if guilty ll would falsify the notes for baby q. Three in a week is conspicuous so if guilty a reason to falsify the notes is that three in a week is too blatant so reduce possible negative attention through falsifying the notes. Making it out you were nowhere near baby q.

elude was the wrong word, I meant to “evade”.

After Baby Q she (allegedly) felt fear for the 1st time.

Didn't she ask her fav doctor if she "need to worry"?
B/c a Consultant (Dr G) (as far as I can remember) was investigating among staff who was present with Baby Q when collapse happened.

Her fav doctor comforted her.

But her career as a nurse ended then.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

After Baby Q she (allegedly) felt fear for the 1st time.

Didn't she ask her fav doctor if she "need to worry"?
B/c a Consultant (Dr G) (as far as I can remember) was investigating among staff who was present with Baby Q when collapse happened.

Her fav doctor comforted her.

But her career as a nurse ended then.

JMO

That’s an interesting point actually Dotta, something clicked when you said that. I’m not sure we know but if those notes were written retrospectively she would be thinking of that interaction. A “can’t ignore“ reason to falsify the notes.

 

[Tortoise]

Has anyone else spotted any potential reason for why she would falsify the other notes?

Baby O, to cover an alleged liver trauma


8.30am - LL records observations within normal range. O was fed by the student nurse.

9.30am - O was checked by Dr Cooke on her ward round and noted no nursing concerns, observations normal. he was moved onto a lighter form of breathing support and antibiotics had been stopped.

10.30am - O was fed by LL.

LL was messaging doc choc asking if he would be back in the nnu in the afternoon. He says yes after clinic.

12.10pm O had a brain scan with normal observations.

12.30pm - O was fed by LL.

Around midday the shift-leader saw O and had a gut instinct he wasn't as well as he was earlier and suggested he be moved to room 1. LL said no.

1.15pm - LL called a doctor to see O. he had vomited and his abdomen was distended and he had poor blood gas. he was put back on antibiotics and placed nil by mouth. The doctor recorded it was not normal for a baby breathing on their own. An x-ray showed moderate amount of gas in bowel. the radiologist wrote NEC or mid gut volvulus cannot be excluded.

2.30pm - LL was on Facebook messenger. She recorded O's observations as 100% oxygen saturation and normal breathing rates.

2.39pm - door swipe showing LL entering the unit

Around 2.40pm - O's heart rate dropped and saturations dropped to 30s. His abdomen was swelling and he was mottled all over with purple blotches and red rash. He was resuscitated and moved to room 1 by doc choc and placed on a ventilator.

That evening LL texted a colleague that O had a big tummy overnight but just ballooned after lunch and went from there.

Doc Choc said her notes must have taken a long time to write up and asked if she had documented anything from the morning. She didn't answer his question.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Ok here’s another confusing aspect of baby Q. So the previous posts gives a reason why ll would falsify the notes only thing is they found the handover sheet for baby q. If she thinks that baby q is a really suspect event, why on earth would she take that home knowingly?

 

[Anxala]

To quote Lewis Carroll "We're all a little mad here".

Well we're certainly down a rabbit hole.

 

[Tortoise]

Ok here’s another confusing aspect of baby Q. So the previous posts gives a reason why ll would falsify the notes only thing is they found the handover sheet for baby q. If she thinks that baby q is a really suspect event, why on earth would she take that home knowingly?

interesting fact - as far as I know, of the babies in the charges, she only had paperwork related to B, M and Q, who all survived their near-death collapses.

 

[Sweeper2000]

interesting fact - as far as I know, of the babies in the charges, she only had paperwork related to B, M and Q, who all survived their near-death collapses.

That’s definitely interesting, what it isn’t is helpful in coming to an conclusion xd

that was another piecemeal aspect of the evidence Imo. Why those cases in particular if guilty? Difficult to see what weight that has, so three instances of paperwork being found but what about the notes in her diary? I remember the twin resus note.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think this question is worth asking. See if we can’t figure out about baby P pneumothorax. It may have been covered already but not sure. I’m just wondering if there would be noticeable symptoms of an pneumo? If the x ray showed it and there was no sign beforehand it makes sense IMO for it to have been caused by the resus as suggested by others so not a potential cause of the Collapse?

 

[marynnu]

Yeh got one for baby q and I’m working with the dates of the last three events. Two deaths in a very short space of time, the third one being an alleged attempt. Three in a week I think? Three in a week is a seriously conspicuous sequence of events so if guilty the third one in the mind of someone like that might create the precedent to try and elude negative attention by making it out they weren’t near the scene.

I think it's worse, 3 incidents in 3 days if I'm understanding it correctly.