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

Some have been given anonymity so that they can freely give evidence - or something along those lines. It's thought that some of the staff still work in the unit so it wouldn't be appropriate to name them.

Her Facebook searches have been discussed in evidence recently. Yes she did a lot of searches including for people not mentioned in this case.

There's no debating the understaffing, it was damning in one of the independent reports: both nurse and consultant staffing was inadequate.

I think the concurrent rise in stillbirths at the hospital during this period is interesting. I doubt it will be submitted as evidence though.

one of the mothers have said Lucy was on the ward when her text showed that she text her friend saying I’m in my way to work now. The badge swipe shows her going in around 7:15 whereas the mother said she seen her on the ward 30 mins earlier

I don’t think there’s any other disputes about whether she was there or not it’s this specific incident

Would it not be the case that most hospitals are understaffed though?

genuine question

Yes that seemed strange to me as well

That also really surprised me I think there was 12 stillborn deaths in the same year which compared to previous years was v high.

But I think what has raised suspicion here is that the babies were not ill as such but just required caring for, and that continuous collapses, then successful resuscitations were really odd.

I mean if you had missed a feed would it cause a collapse?

The prosecution said last week for example that even though a child was not given antibiotics when they were born it would not cause them to collapse and require resuscitation

Most likely, but the unit was not covered by enough nursing or consultant staff for the level of need it was caring for. The report highlighted the high use of locum dr's as well as agency nurses. I'm sure some level of this is inevitable, but it wouldn't have been remarked upon if it wasn't atypical and/or problematic. I recall specific concern over the experience/skill level of the locums was highlighted.

But it can be problematic and also not have anything to do with these deaths IYSWIM.

Literally thousands of people are dying each week because of delayed care - ambulance delays, ED delays. The delayed care leads to worse outcomes. But I would be very surprised if most of the deaths were in patients who were stable and/improving and were of a sudden and medically unexplained cause. I can guarantee you the staff will know exactly how their patients died and what part understaffing or delayed treatment due to the collapsed healthcare system played.

In the CoC case it seems to have been a case of a) what the hell is this I’ve never seem anything like this b) why is this happening a lot c) (in some staff cases) why is that nurse always there when this happens. If this was something that occurred in understaffed and busy NICU units somebody would know what they were looking at. And presumably it would be happening a lot more now than it was in 2015/16 so it’s probably easier to find an expert that can explain them.

All very good points Rafaisthekingofclay

Ahhh that makes sense now. Thank you!

It’s a point I keep getting stuck on and unless the defence come up with something amazing in terms of medical evidence I can’t get my head round it.

I think it would be different if the babies had declined slowly or they’d had overwhelming infections which had been missed due to missed obs or antibiotics that weren’t given or any other conditions common in prem babies that had been missed or treated wrongly. But it doesn’t seem to be the case.

It's strange though isn't it. What gives this so much weight is the number of baby death/collapses, but that accusations will be looked at on a case by case basis won't they? So each accusation will have it's own verdict, is that right? In isolation many of them could be dismissed but collectively it's quite a strong case (I think given what we have heard so far, I know many disagree) but will the jury be able to look at the big picture or will they be limited to only looking at evidence of one accusation at a time?

@GemmaN17 the jury were told at the beginning of the trial that they can consider each allegation in the wider context of the whole case.
I still think the evidence is shaky on some of the allegations and I'll be surprised if she gets convicted on all. However we only get to see what is reported by the media, the jury will be privy to more information.

@fairgame84
Thank you for clarifying. I just hope the parents get some justice whatever the outcome in this case.

Yes.

and the police and prosecution were convinced they had the right (innocent) person based on shift patterns

they were wrong

Says it took 6 weeks for an investigator to realise they had the wrong person. She's been a suspect for 6 years solid, I'm not sure it's the same. Plus somebody did this, if the defence highlight a suspect that is credible and had the opportunity to do it then fair enough.

What I find really interesting with LL is that a lot of her behaviours don't seem that odd to me - I can see how you could end up with loads of handover sheets in a hectic staffing situation and I can see why you'd be texting at work - but the way she's then spoken about them subsequently is inconsistent or just weird, which makes her look shifty. Forgetting that you own a shredder when you've literally written 'keep' on the box? Saying that you can't text in clinical areas because it'd be inappropriate but there being records of you doing loads of texting? It comes across so much worse to me than just 'Yes - I hadn't got round to shredding the handover sheets because I had a bit of a panic about it' or 'I did text in clinical areas if it was quiet, yes - I had my phone with me for drug calculations, etc.'. I can't work her out.

I also wonder whether she was advised to testify in her own defence or whether she's gone against her barrister's recommendation because I'm not convinced she's doing herself many favours.

I completely agree, she's obviously lying. Which is odd given the severity of the case, if she didn't murder those babies then you'd think you'd just be completely warts and all honest, even if it is against policy etc.... With so much at stake for her. For me it's also the I can't recall things to shut down the lines of questioning, it's frustrating, it would be easier to hear her say I was in love with doctor whoever and so I wanted to be around him and that's why is called in the wards are 11pm etc... (not saying that is the case but would add some logic to the situation).

It’s not the same, no. That’s the point. That case had cast iron evidence of intentional tampering with a number of saline bags and ultimately hard evidence that it was Chua.

The police realised they had the wrong person only because another incident occurred while she was on remand. If Chua had stopped when she was arrested, who knows what the outcome would have been.

Wasn’t there a bit in the last case where she allegedly amended another child’s notes to make it appear that she was somewhere else and place the blame on another staff member? If that’s true it would go with the lying to cover up. She might not be guilty but she really doesn’t help herself at all.

What’s odd is that it isn’t something you’d lie about, if you had any sense, whether innocent or guilty. If guilty - you’d want to show the jury you’re honest and truthful on the small things so they’re more likely to believe you on the big; if innocent because it supports your general honesty.

My guess is that she feared the shredder could seem incriminating in some way, and she denied texting because she didn’t want to look slack. But anyone with half a brain would know the police have her texts.

Any parallel can only be drawn with the 2 insulin cases though can’t it. Because if they are spiked before hand then it becomes anybody’s guess as to who gives the spiked bags and the person responsible does’t have to be on shift.

With air embolism, far more milk being aspirated than was recorded being given or bleeding mouths and hugely swollen throats with bleeding from the mouth, the result is more immediate so shift pattern is more relevant. Unless all the incidents happened just after shift change, which we know they didn’t.

Equally they may have realised that they were wrong. We can't assume the outcome would have been a miscarriage of justice.

If there is anyone else with even the slightest credible possibility that they are the one responsible then that's the defences job now if it isn't LL. I'm sure if the police haven't investigate all leads then they will be letting us know soon.

I didn’t suggest it would have been, we’ve no idea how it may have played out.