UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #2

Status
Not open for further replies.

ShireChe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
47
Reaction score
287
The original reports from back in 2018 are not entirely clear, but seem to mention she had already been removed from clinical practice a year prior to the first arrest, but that she was training to work with high dependency babies at her time of arrest. It'd be certainly interesting to know what the reason for the suspension was (if true) and why she was then allowed to work with such vulnerable babies. It's obviously possible that the press have just got this wrong and presumably the police would have been keeping the hospital updated about the investigation which lead to her suspension.

I note one of the reports mention a 'man' (presumed boyfriend) seen entering and leaving her house with her. I'm amazed the press hadn't managed to at least get some quotes/info from him or even people he/she knew.

The fact that no one seems to have had, or prepared to put on record any suspicions about her suggests either an extremely carefully planned awful campaign against vulnerable children or something has gone horribly wrong with the investigation.
 
Last edited:

JosieJo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
2,389
Reaction score
15,575
I get what you're saying. However.....if the hospital had suspicions that she may have had a hand in patients dying then surely it's a massive risk even allowing her access to the premises? Surely you'd suspend someone pending the outcome of your investigations? The potential repercussions of not doing so may be absolutely horrendous if the person was indeed a serial murderer.

Absolutely they would but imo not solely based on her being on duty
 

Whitehall 1212

Former Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
7,185
I get what you're saying. However.....if the hospital had suspicions that she may have had a hand in patients dying then surely it's a massive risk even allowing her access to the premises? Surely you'd suspend someone pending the outcome of your investigations? The potential repercussions of not doing so may be absolutely horrendous if the person was indeed a serial murderer.

From personal experience of investigating allegations of criminal conduct in the NHS. As soon as my suspect was identified I spoke with the relevant departmental director to request immediate suspension....granted without a second thought and that was non-clinical white collar crime!

My gut feeling is that LL may have been exceeding her level of skill/experience without appropriate guidance/sign off, owing to the staffing issues. The immediate concerns may not have gone beyond this. I believe LL was transferred to non-clinical duties (I may be wrong), prior to her later arrest.
 

Supernovae

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
793
Reaction score
798
As LL was removed from Clinical duties before the police commenced their investigation I do feel there will be other factors here other than statistics.
I cannot see a nurse being put on admin duties and taken out of her role (even temporarily) "just" because they happened to be on duty for all the unusual collapses/deaths.
The flip side of that is that if they had anything concrete or indeed any real evidence of anything sinister she would surely have been escorted out of the building and/or arrested rather than simply being reassigned.
 

JosieJo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
2,389
Reaction score
15,575
The flip side of that is that if they had anything concrete or indeed any real evidence of anything sinister she would surely have been escorted out of the building and/or arrested rather than simply being reassigned.

Yes absolutely..its difficult to even try to guess exactly what evidence they have. I've not read anywhere how long she was on admin duties before she was suspended.
 

Whitehall 1212

Former Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
7,185
I cannot see a nurse being put on admin duties and taken out of her role (even temporarily) "just" because they happened to be on duty for all the unusual collapses/deaths.

I would respectfully disagree. It would be reasonable for a clinician to be assigned non-clinical duties as an interim measure, whilst the situation is reviewed. The employer has a duty of care to patients and the clinician.

I would liken it to a police firearms officer or graded driver being relieved of firearms/driving duties as a matter of course in the event of discharging their firearm/being involved directly in an accident, whilst an initial review takes place.
 

Whitehall 1212

Former Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
7,185
The flip side of that is that if they had anything concrete or indeed any real evidence of anything sinister she would surely have been escorted out of the building and/or arrested rather than simply being reassigned.

Absolutely. If there had been clear evidence of an offence having taken place, then the expectation is that the police would have been informed immediately and an arrest would have been quickly made, which would provide early opportunity to secure evidence from the suspect, victim, crime scene, locker, car, home etc. It all seems as though it was a great deal more nuanced though, if indeed there is any criminal act.

I don't know how familiar you are with the timeline of events. It may be worth checking out a couple of previous posts of mine to either refresh or get a feel for how it played out over the period from the first alleged incidents in 2015 to charge and remand in late 2020.


 

Whitehall 1212

Former Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
7,185
She certainly didn't have her nursing certificate suspended until such time as she was charged in November 2020.

The employers' actions regarding alternative duties/suspension etc are separate to any investigation/actions the NMC may set in motion/invoke.

Initially the employer took action in the context of LL's contract of employment/duty of care.

LL's professional registration body, the NMC, could not conduct their own investigation once the police were conducting a criminal investigation. This is to prevent the criminal investigation from being compromised in any way. Once LL was charged by the police then the NMC were able to impose an interim suspension order pending the outcome of LL's trial.
 
Joined
Oct 7, 2022
Messages
7
Reaction score
43
The employers' actions regarding alternative duties/suspension etc are separate to any investigation/actions the NMC may set in motion/invoke.

Initially the employer took action in the context of LL's contract of employment/duty of care.

LL's professional registration body, the NMC, could not conduct their own investigation once the police were conducting a criminal investigation. This is to prevent the criminal investigation from being compromised in any way. Once LL was charged by the police then the NMC were able to impose an interim suspension order pending the outcome of LL's trial.
Thanks for that, I wasn't aware the cops could block NMC enquiries like that. I assume that's the same for all professional regulatory bodies?
 

Whitehall 1212

Former Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
7,185
Thanks for that, I wasn't aware the cops could block NMC enquiries like that. I assume that's the same for all professional regulatory bodies?

It's any criminal investigation, not just ones conducted by police, there are other organisations that do the same.

Essentially, a regulatory body or employer conducting an investigation in parallel with a criminal investigation would probably look to obtain documentary evidence, speak to witnesses and interview the individual concerned. This could undermine the progress and integrity of the police investigation.

Imagine if before a PACE (criminal investigation) interview an employer had obtained the evidence and interviewed the employee under investigation, revealing the evidence in the process! It would totally undermine the criminal investigation and the prospect of charge and court proceedings.

I have asked NHS personnel departments to hold off before now, whilst conducting a criminal investigation of NHS staff. They understand if you explain why and are happy to do so. If ever there was a refusal, then there a few criminal offences they could potentially commit by not holding off....I've never had to mention them!
 

gill1109

Former Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2022
Messages
38
Reaction score
288
An early news report said she had come into the picture when it was noticed that the death rate fell when she was on holiday. My understanding was that this happened long before police were brought in. She had also earlier been picked for nice photos on the hospital’s PR brochures. Had she been “nurse of the year” or something? Jealous colleagues, gossip? Colin Norris was gay. Ben Geen was in training to be an army nurse. Lucia de Berk had been a prostitute in her youth. Victorino Chua was a Filipino. Daniela Poggiali had a big mouth and a sharp tongue. Odd people get talked about.
 
Last edited:

JosieJo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
2,389
Reaction score
15,575
I would respectfully disagree. It would be reasonable for a clinician to be assigned non-clinical duties as an interim measure, whilst the situation is reviewed. The employer has a duty of care to patients and the clinician.

I would liken it to a police firearms officer or graded driver being relieved of firearms/driving duties as a matter of course in the event of discharging their firearm/being involved directly in an accident, whilst an initial review takes place.
I totally agree of course they have to take action but my point was I cannot invisage a situation where a nurse would be put on adin duties "just" and only based on her being on duty for each event ..imo there must have been some other factors.
I have worked in the NHS for 34 years the last 20 years as a nurse manager.
I have seen many situations of staff misconduct of varying degrees.
Some examples

A nurse carries out a single serious drug error....they would remain on clinical duties and be re assessed in relation to drug administration

An anaesthetist was taking drugs from the theatre and collapsed ...immediately suspended

Nurses often moved to admin duties either at their own request if struggling with their physical or mental health or for same reasons instigated by the Trust.

These of course are just examples of my experiences and who knows what happened at the COCH but to me removal from from clinical duties if not voluntary cannot be instigated lightly
 

Marantz4250b

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
4,192
The original reports from back in 2018 are not entirely clear, but seem to mention she had already been removed from clinical practice a year prior to the first arrest, but that she was training to work with high dependency babies at her time of arrest. It'd be certainly interesting to know what the reason for the suspension was (if true) and why she was then allowed to work with such vulnerable babies. It's obviously possible that the press have just got this wrong and presumably the police would have been keeping the hospital updated about the investigation which lead to her suspension.

I note one of the reports mention a 'man' (presumed boyfriend) seen entering and leaving her house with her.
I'm amazed the press hadn't managed to at least get some quotes/info from him or even people he/she knew.

The fact that no one seems to have had, or prepared to put on record any suspicions about her suggests either an extremely carefully planned awful campaign against vulnerable children or something has gone horribly wrong with the investigation.

I think that this is correct, although I can't recall where I actually read it.

On the second point, yes, I think I'd read similar but, again, I can't recall where. It was a passing remark though, made very early on, possibly a comment from one of her neighbours. On that point, I do have my suspicions but they are based on absolutely nothing other than my deeply cynical mind, are probably totally irrational so are most probably wong and highly defamatory so I won't air them here.

There have been quotes in the press from people who knew her, all of which have been nothing other than positive towards her. It's possible that the press have lots of other quotes from people who know her saying that she's an absolute psychopath who gave them the creeps but if so they'd never be printed as they would be highly prejudicial to the legal process. I very much doubt they do though. If there were people out there with these opinions of her then I'm sure that we would have heard something on the various discussion sites, FB hate groups which dress themselves up as legitimate discussion forums, or the other places we aren't allowed to mention on here. This has been going on for over four years now (since her name was released, at least) and there is absolutely no one out there saying anything remotely bad about her so I doubt the press have any "dirt" on her at all. The closest I've come to hearing anything from anyone who claims to know her directly was a couple of posts on the forum we aren't allowed to mention on here (starts with the letter "R") by someone who was on the same course at uni as her. This person said that they socialised with her so presumably knows her fairly well. Again, no negative comments from this person. They said that they hoped this was some sort of scapegoating (and mentioned that other people from the same course held similar views) so, presumably, isn't of the opinion that she's some raging psychopath. If anyone wants links feel free to PM me.

If she's convicted and these types of opinion start to be aired it will be very interesting to see whether they were quotes which were put on record before or after conviction. People are very good indeed about being wise after the event.
 

Marantz4250b

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
4,192
The flip side of that is that if they had anything concrete or indeed any real evidence of anything sinister she would surely have been escorted out of the building and/or arrested rather than simply being reassigned.
These are my feelings too. Yes, as WH1212 has said, if they just felt that she had been making mistakes or even had been a bit negligent then I can understand the being reassigned to other duties decision. If there were the slightest suspicion that she had been acting nefariously then surely she'd be out of the building and the police informed? To keep a nurse, presumably in uniform, on the premises when you suspect them of harming patients just sounds too implausible to me. If she had been killing and attempting to kill patients then taking her off clinical duties may have been the trigger for a final massive killing spree by someone who thought their time was going to be up soon.
 

Marantz4250b

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
4,192
An early news report said she had come into the picture when it was noticed that the death rate fell when she was on holiday. My understanding was that this happened long before police were brought in. She had also earlier been picked for nice photos on the hospital’s PR brochures. Had she been “nurse of the year” or something? Jealous colleagues, gossip? Colin Norris was gay. Ben Geen was in training to be an army nurse. Lucia de Berk had been a prostitute in her youth. Victorino Chua was a Filipino. Daniela Poggiali had a big mouth and a sharp tongue. Odd people get talked about.
I've oft heard that mentioned but I don't think it's correct. It can't be, when you think about it. As you rightly say, the number of deaths wasn't that high - 8 at most in one year. 2016? That's not enough to be noticed over the course of a couple of weeks holiday.

This, I think, has been repeatedly mentioned because people have read the various reports, remembered them out of sequence and have then have put two and two together in their minds and come up with six, possibly willingly. Yes, there were reports of her going on holiday with her parents but I'm sure that that was after her arrests when she was on police bail. I recall wondering at the time as to whether it was a case of her parents taking her away for a change of scenery; she was suspended, was on police bail for a string of unspeakable alleged crimes, probably wasn't getting out much and quite possibly wasn't interacting with her friends and family much and was likely deeply depressed about it all? All speculation obviously and perhaps I'm remembering it incorrectly? I'm sure this thing about the death rates falling has been consistently misrepresented and over hyped, especially on the Lucy Letby Facebook hate groups and suchlike by people who want her to be guilty.

The photos she did were for the local paper when she was picked to front a fund-raising appeal for a new maternity unit or something. So, yes, she was already the "face" of the unit/hospital in one sense. Perhaps that in itself may have something to do with any bias inherent in the investigation, if indeed there has been any?

Chua was actually guilty but I think there is concern about the others and Lucia De-Burk was definitely not guilty. Rebecca Leighton, who was initially arrested for Chua's crimes and who came perilously close to going away for life, was convicted of stealing drugs but I don't recall whether that was related to her arrest for the murders or whether it was earlier. If earlier then that may certainly have instilled some sort of bias in the investigation, I would have thought?
 

gill1109

Former Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2022
Messages
38
Reaction score
288
I've oft heard that mentioned but I don't think it's correct. It can't be, when you think about it. As you rightly say, the number of deaths wasn't that high - 8 at most in one year. 2016? That's not enough to be noticed over the course of a couple of weeks holiday.

This, I think, has been repeatedly mentioned because people have read the various reports, remembered them out of sequence and have then have put two and two together in their minds and come up with six, possibly willingly. Yes, there were reports of her going on holiday with her parents but I'm sure that that was after her arrests when she was on police bail. I recall wondering at the time as to whether it was a case of her parents taking her away for a change of scenery; she was suspended, was on police bail for a string of unspeakable alleged crimes, probably wasn't getting out much and quite possibly wasn't interacting with her friends and family much and was likely deeply depressed about it all? All speculation obviously and perhaps I'm remembering it incorrectly? I'm sure this thing about the death rates falling has been consistently misrepresented and over hyped, especially on the Lucy Letby Facebook hate groups and suchlike by people who want her to be guilty.

The photos she did were for the local paper when she was picked to front a fund-raising appeal for a new maternity unit or something. So, yes, she was already the "face" of the unit/hospital in one sense. Perhaps that in itself may have something to do with any bias inherent in the investigation, if indeed there has been any?

Chua was actually guilty but I think there is concern about the others and Lucia De-Burk was definitely not guilty. Rebecca Leighton, who was initially arrested for Chua's crimes and who came perilously close to going away for life, was convicted of stealing drugs but I don't recall whether that was related to her arrest for the murders or whether it was earlier. If earlier then that may certainly have instilled some sort of bias in the investigation, I would have thought?
Chua was found guilty. That’s not to say that he was guilty. It is true that he did also confess to the crimes he was accused of, though as far as I know he didn’t provide any “perpetrator knowledge” as to how he did them. Personally I’m unsure about his case. To be honest, I have my doubts about Bev Allitt too. Both of these persons were vulnerable individuals. Both were subjected to horrendous police interrogation. By confessing, Bev Allitt was sent to a psychiatric hospital; a lot safer place for an alleged baby killer than a regular prison.

According to this early report in The Sun, the death rate at the unit was only 10% higher than expected.
I could not find the info about holiday dip in number of deaths. Will search some more, in the earliest tabloid publications.


But how was 10% calculated? If correct, it means that the real surprise would be that for a number of years there were only 2 or 3 per year. 5 or 8 would not be more than 1 above expected. These rates are extremely sensitive to changes in definitions, and to changes in hospital policy.

Lucia de Berk experienced a huge rise in deaths in her medium care unit following a secret hospital policy change on transfer of babies with serious birth defects from intensive to medium care. The hope was that more of such babies would die at home, after a short stay on medium care. This policy backfired. Doctors had told the parents of baby Amber, the trigger case, that they could take it home in a few days. They did not say why. The chief paediatrician (Chef-de-Clinique of a specialist children's hospital in The Hague) was surprised. She was working half time, doctors orders, under psychiatric treatment for depression. At Lucia’s final trial (after a 9 year ordeal) the board of judges stated that the miracle was that baby Amber was still alive, 6 months after birth. Nurses had fought valiantly and professionally to save lives in the face of numerous medical errors by the doctors in charge of their care.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 7, 2022
Messages
7
Reaction score
43
I've oft heard that mentioned but I don't think it's correct. It can't be, when you think about it. As you rightly say, the number of deaths wasn't that high - 8 at most in one year. 2016? That's not enough to be noticed over the course of a couple of weeks holiday.

This, I think, has been repeatedly mentioned because people have read the various reports, remembered them out of sequence and have then have put two and two together in their minds and come up with six, possibly willingly. Yes, there were reports of her going on holiday with her parents but I'm sure that that was after her arrests when she was on police bail. I recall wondering at the time as to whether it was a case of her parents taking her away for a change of scenery; she was suspended, was on police bail for a string of unspeakable alleged crimes, probably wasn't getting out much and quite possibly wasn't interacting with her friends and family much and was likely deeply depressed about it all? All speculation obviously and perhaps I'm remembering it incorrectly? I'm sure this thing about the death rates falling has been consistently misrepresented and over hyped, especially on the Lucy Letby Facebook hate groups and suchlike by people who want her to be guilty.

The photos she did were for the local paper when she was picked to front a fund-raising appeal for a new maternity unit or something. So, yes, she was already the "face" of the unit/hospital in one sense. Perhaps that in itself may have something to do with any bias inherent in the investigation, if indeed there has been any?

Chua was actually guilty but I think there is concern about the others and Lucia De-Burk was definitely not guilty. Rebecca Leighton, who was initially arrested for Chua's crimes and who came perilously close to going away for life, was convicted of stealing drugs but I don't recall whether that was related to her arrest for the murders or whether it was earlier. If earlier then that may certainly have instilled some sort of bias in the investigation, I would have thought?
Is there any sort of accurate, referenced timeline floating around, do you know?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top