Letby Case (part 2)

[OneFrenchEgg]

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4652340-lucy-letby-court-case?reply=121815754

follow up, remember rules around discussion of active cases

That is not the same situation at all. There are multiple experts in the Letby case, not all of them male. There are multiple eyewitnesses. She was there for all 24 incidents, and the next highest number of shifts of a staff member is 7. For almost all of the babies, she was proven to be there shortly before incidents, administering feeds or medicine.

Roy Meadow was the one who came up with his own scientific "law" about one cot death being a tragedy, two being suspicious and three murder. This ignored the possibility (and probability) of unknown genetic mutations. This is really not comparable.

One presumes she emptied her pockets before laundering her uniforms, thus they "survived" laundering...

Different places will have different ways of dealing with handovers/students/distributing info. Things can be very different between trusts and can easily change between years. I know of one place that had a particular policy that if followed in the neighbouring trust would trigger a Datix. Although, staff are generally discouraged from doing Datixes at all because of the way they are held against the ward and they take so very very long to do on cumbersome software.

The point was, she must have regularly removed these handover sheets in order to wash them. She would have had regular reminders of their existence, and regular opportunities to fix her "mistake" of always accidentally, forgetfully bringing them home.

I don't believe that her conduct (even if she was telling the complete truth) is acceptable in any trust. She has said herself their were supposed to be destroyed in confidential waste.

@slore I understand that, my point was that I know of others who make the same error and are remiss at rectifying it.

Just to be clear, my comment re. different trusts, different ways was in response to some students having HO sheets & some not. IA that no trust would accept improper disposal of confidential material (despite it being far from unheard of).

Ah ok, fair enough.

As for the student handover sheets, she brazenly stated in court that student nurses didn't get them, when she had 50 of them.

It's a completely needless, irrelevant lie! I don't understand why she would do that?

I can only imagine that she's trying to bamboozle the jury with tons of irrelevant lies, stated so confidently that she hopes they will think there must be an innocent explanation for all the confusion.

@slore

Didn’t say it was the same situation. But Prof Meadows was considered an expert on cot death nonetheless, gave evidence at multiple trials and was knighted. His erroneous claim was actually the 1 in 73 million number for 2 cot deaths in the same family.

In this case Dr Ravi Jayaram was apparently the first to suspect her (and subsequently formed a group of I think 3 other doctors). He claims to have walked in on her “attacking” a baby by dislodging a tube. The evidence for that from trial reports was not strong - he didn’t actually see her doing anything.

Equally, these incidents are self-selecting - being the ones LL was present at. It would be useful to compare other deaths and unexpected deteriorations when she wasn’t present.

From what other medical professionals have said it’s also the volume of deaths. Someone upthread said they’d expect around 3 deaths/year in that type of unit.

so not only was LL present for all the unexplained deaths, those deaths were the vast majority of deaths in the Countess so there isn’t really a good comparison population, because if LL wasn’t there, babies simply did not die at that rate.

Having said that I do agree we need to be careful of witch hunting.

I don’t think the notes are particularly incriminating for reasons already outlined on this thread, and it’s clear from text messages that LL was well liked by colleagues until her arrest.

its a sad case all round, there’s no good outcome here

@FurAndFeathers I completely agree with both your points. If anything I think the vast majority of her colleagues liked and respected her. She even seems very competent at her job. It is your first point that pretty much U-turned my original stance on this and the fact I do believe the babies were murdered. Someone did this and in 3+ years of police searching and probing this is the conclusion they have come to, babies simply didn't die when she wasn't present.... Whatever that amounts to.

Does anyone have any information on the charge she was cleared of a few years ago? Was it another baby in this case where the charges are how not murder but she is still accused of attacking? Or a completely different baby?

Just to outline a case that suggests caution in interpreting the evidence. Poor Rebecca Leighton’s life was destroyed when she was wrongly accused of the Stepping Hill Hospital murders https://www.channel4.com/news/nurse-scared-to-go-outside-after-saline-deaths-ordeal

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Stepping_Hill_Hospital_poisoning_incident

She wasn't cleared of causing this childs death

The prosecution ''offered no evidence'' in a pre-trial hearing and the charge against her was dropped

IIRC the baby died at a different hospital so don't know if this was a factor

Yes thats what I thought, it was the baby who died 3 days later then at a different location?

Sorry was for @HelensToenail

I have been eagerly following this for some time now. It will be massive whatever the verdict will be and I do not envy the job the jury have.

I have changed my mind on lucy Letby more times than I can count. What worries me is that the court seem to have ZERO idea of how a hospital and ward works. There seems to be zero evidence apart from circumstance, and I am disappointed by the lack of detail presented. Each case seems to be skimmed over, despite this running for 7 months. I would be very frustrated if I was sat in court and having to make a decision based on what has been presented.

In terms of lack of insight into the workings of a hospital ward- taking your handover notes home DOES NOT mean you are a murderer. It means you are the same as 80 % of staff working in the nhs. I know multiple colleagues who take theirs home on purpose as a record of their workload on any given day in case there are incidents. Individual patient notes never show how many other patients you are looking after- and so handover notes can provide a wealth of information in case you have to later write a statement. I agree this should not be done and goes against data protection and nursing standards but likewise staff have to protect themselves in poor and unsafe working conditions- and this case is evident of that!!

Likewise- texting at work. EVERYBODY has their phone on them. It's not right. Staff are told not to. But everyone does. Doctors have them also. They use them to look things up, such as drugs etc. It is not out of the usual. Its also not proof of a quiet shift. I think the general public don't understand how difficult this work and these shifts are, especially on a struggling unit where you are constantly being asked to work extras or you get a guilt trip. Life is a whirlwind in-between constant nightshifts. As one of the younger, childless nurses letby will have suffered the brunt of these requests and so been present a lot more than many other staff. She was also specially qualified in the area of intensive care and so more likely to be involved with those babies.

Likewise- Letby's signature will be on lots of babies notes who she may have hardly even cast eyes on. You need 2 people to sign for most drugs. Doesn't mean you have anything to do with that patient. Surely this is completely irrelevant to the case?

I would like to know more details such as- for the baby that had the liver injury, how where they delivered? They were premature, were they delivered by ambulance crew or into a toilet for eg or breech delivery? Happens a lot and some of these babies have birth injuries.

I'd like to know details such as- if murderer- would she not have anything incriminating on her phone? Googling methods or outcomes/symptoms? Will they talk about how she was as a student? Would there be noone from her past who could say anything incriminating about her at all?? What about her childhood. They have mentioned a room decorated like a nursery in her parents house- is this significant?

With the swipe card- they say Letby could have been let in by other members of staff and so no record of her entering the ward- are they suggesting she was there when the parent said she was and swipe data disputed that?

Why mention ibiza and salsa classes. Why is having a life outside work so incriminating? If she was a hermit and never left the house would that be more incriminating or less?

I feel like there is zero motive, and very little evidence she did anything. They need to investigate in more detail how the insulin came to be in the saline in my opinion as those babies are the only ones where there is solid evidence of fowl play.

but why start doing this in 2015. She was 25 with her whole life ahead of her. Did something happen? Was there a grievance before this? Would they not question her parents? I just don't get it and I don't get the lack of detail. Or is she a psychopath? Is there a psychological assessment??

I didn't know about Rebecca Leightons case- what happened with that? Why was she released and who was responsible? Again it was contamination with insulin- how can they drop charges in this case but prosecute Letby?

Really hope this comment doesn't get removed. My background is healthcare and i have no clue how the legal system works so I apologise if I sound like an idiot. I'm just frustrated by this case.

Agree with Prevmidwife that for such a lot of charges and long case there is a lot of seemingly irrelevant detail that grabs headlines and not as much medical as I would expect.

I know a lot can't be reported such as names and some medical details as they are identifying which makes it hard to know what the jury will have been told.

For example one baby's blood disorder can't be reported and that could be any number of things from mild / every day to something very serious and seems significant as that baby had bleeds.
Of course I completely understand why that and other details can't be reported but it makes it hard to know what the evidence actually is and isn't.

It's also hard to unpick who was where as staff do hold doors open, share codes and sign for each other. I'd say that neither points to innocence or guilt as it seems to be common practice on that ward and they were all doing it.

It's also all so long ago I can see why it's unclear who remembers what. I had one premature and sick baby, and one with a rare blood disorder and sick around the same years of this case. I can't remember most of the staff let alone who was stood where. So again, it could be lying or it could be simply no one remembers who did what feed 8 years ago.

That was a ramble. In short all very difficult to unpick. Very difficult job for the jury.

Agreed.

I’m surprised that it seems cause of death hasn’t actually been ascertained for many babies. If they don’t know how they died then how can they know it was malicious?

the insulin cases are definitely the ones that need most interrogation and I feel like the detail is lacking.

@Prevmidwife there are a couple of links to the Rebecca Leighton case above. In the end another nurse was convicted, but Rebecca spent time in prison whilst charged and her life was ruined.

this is a good podcast episode on it https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/seeing-red-a-true-crime-podcast/id1420191569?i=1000578605198

It's also hard to unpick who was where as staff do hold doors open, share codes and sign for each other. I'd say that neither points to innocence or guilt as it seems to be common practice on that ward and they were all doing it.

I'm pretty sure I read something that said that trying to establish who was actually present at any given time was next to impossible because of things like the above, and also because the shift records weren't accurate as they weren't completed properly. So, saying LL was the only one present at all of the instances may not be accurate.

I think it's also worth remembering that inspectors found various failings in the maternity unit at the hospital not that long ago: Staff morale was said to be the lowest at any NHS trust in the country, with some staff saying there was a culture of bullying and discrimination, while not all staff felt respected, supported and valued, inspectors said. (from BBC News)

I've no view on this case, I don't have enough information, but maybe problems were more widespread throughout maternity as a whole, and these deaths were part of that.

Didn't Rebecca Leighton get charged with stealing codeine or something, I seem to recall that being splashed about as "proof" she was a bad person?

Thank you I've read them now! So realistically these two cases COULD have been as a result of the actions of someone else.

To compare with the Victorino Chua case (Rebecca Leighton):

There were multiple cases of patients with no blood glucose issues experiencing a sudden onset hypoglycemic episode. A number of saline drips were found to be leaking. They tested positive for insulin contamination and some showed signs of tampering.

There was thus very clear, hard evidence that crimes had been committed - it was just a question figuring out who.

Yeah this is what I feel. There are failings in units with excess deaths all over the country. Usually put down to the culture within a unit which as a whole creates an unsafe working environment and practices. How was this any different? I accept it could be very different- I accept that she could be guilty. But they are not presenting anything to prove otherwise in my opinion. I mean, if there was bullying on the ward, what impact did that have on the outcomes and what if any impact did this have on/or go towards a motive for a suspected crime?

I also haven't the foggiest idea who I was working with in 2015 and 2016. I would wholly expect that if I had tried to remember I may be inconsistent with my answers if questioned.

Does anyone know what will happen now as the case goes on? Is there much longer to go and can we expect anything more?

Yes and he was found with one of the drugs actually on his person as he was arrested. Couldn't be any more clear.

I mean if someone had said "we noticed her hanging around the drugs cupboard and acting wierd. or wanting to draw up IVs always on her own... or "I saw her with a syringe of far too much milk" or SOMETHING. ANYTHING. but there is nothing.

I think after this case going forward they should install cctv on wards. I feel it would protect staff and patients. It would be awful environment to work in but maybe its what the nhs needs.

It does make me feel uneasy about a parent saying she was in the unit, she disputes it and door data shows she hadn’t swiped in and wasn’t there . Surely that is the fact - to then take it to a new level of speculation that perhaps someone else let her in (when I assume all other staff have been asked if they ever recall doing this) seems to be really forcing the assumption that no matter what the facts are she was there and making the jury question fact?