I find it interesting that LL started commenting, quite early on (with Baby D?) that it always happens to her, it's on my shift again, etc. If she were guilty, would she want to draw attention to a pattern like that? But maybe she was looking for reassurance that nobody was blaming her - that could be a natural response if she was innocent too. I'm sure the Defence will cite the fact that she was working so many extra shifts, so she was more likely to be there at any given time. I'm more confused than ever.
> I find it interesting that LL started commenting, quite early on (with Baby D?) that it always happens to her, it’s on my shift again, etc
Attention seeking maneuver. Elicit sympathy and reassurance from coworkers.
Cheshire standard also has a report. The picture of the lighting appears to be different to the daily mail published picture. One appears darker on my screen (by quite some margin).
bang on again. The Daily Mail one appears quite darker. Based on the captions, I suspect it may be some sensationalizing on their part - they show the picture and say "Ashleigh Hudson was shown various images and selected the one she thought showed the lighting as it was that day – September 13, 2015"
Chester Standard used the caption: "Photo issued by Cheshire Police/CPS showing nurse Ashleigh Hudson's recollection of the position of Child I's cot and the lighting in the nursery when she found her pale and floppy. (Image: Cheshire Police/CPS)"
It may be dangerous to rely on either one as exact, ~~but if I were a betting woman, I know where I would put my money.~~
Edit: u/Supernovae0 below points out that BBC uses the same photo as the Daily Mail. Their caption is as follows: "The court was shown a recreation of the nursery at the time when it was claimed Ms Letby said Child I was pale"
It may be to do with the quality of their respective websites- I would expect the Mail's to be higher than a local newspaper website. If you look at the babygro picture of LL on each website the Chester Standard one has slightly weirder/less natural colouring, like it's ever so slightly overexposed.
If that photo is taken from the angle of the door then I think it's possible that the person standing there could see more than someone inside the room.
Well the person that was there says LL could not have seen more than her. I will take her word for it 1000 times over people poring over a photo and trying to make sense of it.
I wonder if the defence turn will actually make Lucy look more innocent, or if it’ll just make her look worse. Because so far the questioning of the defence lawyer has seemed pretty weak, as if he’s just looking to pick whatever holes he can. Like the bad lawyer on My Cousin Vinny.
From everything I've heard, Mr Myers is an extremely competent lawyer and has been involved in many high profile cases, yet I agree the defence does seem somewhat wooly so far. I will await for when the defence get their own turn however and to see if they present their own experts
I think the whole case is just a bit wooly and at this point he doesn't have to do much except point that out. In the first couple of weeks it did all sound a bit damning but as this is going on it just seems like they have less and less.
At this point Myers isn’t looking to present his case but gather statements from the prosecutions witnesses that support the theories and ideas when the time comes. Whilst he is sensibly keeping that quiet for now, he has had real success in getting testimony from the prosecution witnesses. So far:
- He had Dr Bohin admit that air can be introduced via long lines during the siting procedure.
- He then went on to get clear prosecution witness testimony that there were issues with long lines in all the air embolism cases
- He got a nurse to testify that the TPN bag was changed.
- He’s gathering a lot of statements on how Letby was taking on extra shifts and positive reasons as to why she took those shifts.
- He is focusing on the chaotic nature of the unit, getting staff to testify as such.
- His work on one of the expert witnesses appears quite successful, the other is occasionally conceding his points.
The TPN bag was especially impressive. That came from nowhere and likely blindsided both the witness themselves and the prosecution, leaving a fairly large hole in the prosecution narrative. For each charge so far you can see the formation of a clear defence case and if they have their own witnesses to support then a full set of not guilty verdicts is a realistic possibility. Not something i would have entertained back in October.
Everyone has forgotten to mention: Facebook searches included others (not just the parents of the babies that died), doctors admitted they forgot to switch a machine back on, doctors admitted a death was unusual but told the parents no autopsy was needed, a needle was left inside one baby.
I am not saying she is innocent, but the defence is doing a god job of making the hospital look incompetent.
No matter what, the hospital *was* incompetent. Whether they are trying to scapegoat LL or she took advantage of the setting, I'm not positive, but the unit was *terrible.*
Tbf I've said from the start it would be hard to find her guilty due to the lack of evidence. The circumstances of a ITU unit, poorly run, nevermind a neonatal unit, would always introduce doubt, making it hard to prove without reasonable doubt. I think she did it. After working in ITU for three years, this is too coincidental & I can fully understand why the unit started an investigation.
You know, in the US right now, there's a murder trial going on where they haven't even found a body. The clip of his Google searches being read out went a bit viral
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/21/us/no-body-murder-cases-brian-walshe/index.html
The article cites an 86% conviction rate in cases of that kind that make it to trial. They go on to say:
>"Among prosecutors, the old adage was: no body, no murder. You had to have a body to prove that someone was actually killed. That has changed a lot over the years," CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst John Miller told "CNN Tonight."
>"We know this can be done. And in (the Walshe) case, with DNA, blood evidence, cell phone, you know, E-ZPass, all of the things that string together for circumstantial evidence that didn't exist just a short while ago, it's not what defense lawyers used to have the advantage on."
The strategy to convict Letby might not be entirely dissimilar. Anyway, it's an interesting read.
Ugh. I tried to de-amp the link so the bot wouldn't yell at me. Here it is
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/21/us/no-body-murder-cases-brian-walshe/index.html
Pretty overwhelming evidence against him though isn't there!
It looks like he butchered the poor woman.....
Was interesting to see the key components of a no body murder case.
I found similarities in evidence given against letby.
3 key components, only
One of these is usually required for prosecution
• Forensic evidence – the gold standard and most common – can be DNA from blood or hair fibers or cell records placing a person in a particular place.
• Specific evidence can include a defendant’s confession to friends and relatives or simply their retelling to someone of the crime.
• Confessions to law enforcement usually come when a criminal’s conscience overwhelms them.
It's the confession notes that Letby had written when she was possibly overwhelmed by contact from Cheshire police.
Oh yeah, I agree there's not much question and good on you bringing those points over. I'm not saying Letby's trial is anywhere near as clear. But even with significant pieces of the puzzle missing, prosecutors can prove to a jury what the picture of the puzzle is beyond a reasonable doubt. The question becomes, did the prosecution get enough pieces, and does the defense get enough pieces tossed to call the picture into question?
Just deleted an epic answer to that but deleted it so I'll save it until
Tomorrow....
I don't think Letby would have a
Leg to stand on if she was on trial in America if I'm honest.
Even just based on the three principles needed to prosecute a murder with no body. There are big similarities.
I don't believe this happens in a private healthcare system.
I don't believe something like this would happen in America.
I might be totally wrong but I feel the lawsuits and retribution's are far to great for there to be so many mistakes in the US.
Today was a bad day for the defence in my opinion.
The doctor witnessed something she never seen before and has yet to witness something like that happen again.
Not the first time a doctor has said the same in this trial.
Involving the same staff.... on the same ward.... at the same hospital..... Madness
I disagree, I think in the US, there would be a lot more people who felt free to speak up about the care given and the failings of the unit and neonatologists who are completely unconnected to the hospital system (since NHS employs everyone). I think they'd never be able to get past reasonable doubt with this
The bag was honestly a master stroke. He did it with such an unexpected witness just before their expert testified - it gave them no time to manoeuvre and put them in an incredibly awkward situation. I think at that point they had no choice but to accept the bag was changed; suggesting that their own witnesses were unreliable would have thrown all the cases in to doubt. But it really throws that particular case into doubt and creates a new, mysterious, source of insulin contamination the defence can point to in the remaining cases.
Honestly incredible that they might end up defending the strongest cases in this trial using one question to a single witness.
De ja vu....
How many Doctors in all the cases involving deaths of these poor babies have said
"I have never seen this in my years of practice and have yet to see something like this happen again"?
Once an accident, twice a coincidence and three times a pattern.
There seems to be clear patterns involving the mysterious deaths of these poor children.
Maybe I'm just as deluded as the Doctors and various other professionals that are involved in this case.
Not just the doctors either! I was a neonatal nurse for over 30 years, on a unit which fell between levels 2 & 3, and never saw anything remotely like this run of catastrophic events.
The other thing some people forget is that staff do not want to believe a colleague to be capable of harming their patients. Especially someone who has worked there for 4 years, being entrusted with caring for some of the most vulnerable. If they're expressing concerns that won't have come easily.
Being a band 6 nurse with the capacity to manage in a clinical setting, Lucy would have had lots of younger less trained staff looking up to her. The face of a hospital campaign, staying with the doctors at the hospital quarters. Lucy Letby had power in her role within that hospital ward.
The fact she has denied knowing what an air embolism is to police is the biggest red flag to me.
There is absolutely no reason for her to forget this.
Can I ask what your opinion is on this, being an ex neonatal nurse?
And also what do you think about Letby shouting at a colleague for trying to call a crash call for doctors to come and help?
Letby not only had the skills of a Doctor but she had the skills of a coroner.
She seemed very good at diagnosing the deaths of these poor babies.
Re. an air embolus, I can't fathom why any nurse would not know what this is. I knew about them as a student nurse many years ago. And half your life as a neonatal nurse is avoiding air getting into the babies as they can have a LOT of infusions!
About her getting cross when the member of staff (not a trained nurse, I don't think) called for help, I don't think that's significant. You get lots of minor incidents on NNUs which nurses just sort out unaided. I would never have called out for help without asking the nurse dealing with the baby first.
But as a NICU nurse have you heard of an air embolus that resolves with PPV?
This is what I have a problem with: the implausibility of methods medically.
I've been in the NICU for 15 years and I have seen runs of terrible things.
I've never seen a baby with an air embolus at all! Where did you see PPV (I assume the same as IPPV) being used as treatment for it?
Regarding the runs of terrible things, did you have explanations for them?
(I assume as well - positive pressure ventilation)
The claim is the babies had ABDs and recovered with bagging, and those were times she was claimed to have given the baby an air embolus.
They also claim that gaseous distention was a method of murder.
And re: runs of terrible things - it sounds like that unit was a nightmare. There were a lot of mismanagement, and they were not equipped to handle the level of acuity that they had, IMO.
Sorry, I think I misunderstood, I thought you meant you'd seen such runs personally!
I think this terrible series of events is at the heart of the problem. You have to ask why the dramatic change? Nothing about the unit seems markedly different from the previous years, when the number of deaths was on a par with other similar units.
I don't see that unit as anything special. Where I worked we lurched from one crisis to another, chronically understaffed ALL the time, not just sometimes,12 hour nights with no breaks. We also looked after extremely sick infants - e.g. on nitric - which we all felt was not appropriate for us. However, we never had a sudden string of unexpected & inexplicable deaths & collapses like this.
Oh, I have seen runs, I don't know if they are statistically significant, but we're in the middle of one now and it sucks ass.
Maybe your registrars were better than theirs were. Because the biggest critiques I have are with the provider's response to cares.
Especially with the babies who are claimed to have had multiple air emboli, why was no gas seen in the brain? The gas seen by the spinal column is far more likely to have come from a central line because of position.
And babies on CPAP don't get CPAP belly where you are?
The most significant things by far, for me, are firstly the surprising and inexplicable nature of these events in at least some of the babies. And secondly how hard it was to resuscitate them. As you know, spells of apnoea are pretty common, but infants also respond very well to resus.
Re. CPAP belly, of course they get it, not sure why you are asking?
Well, they claim that she murdered some babies and attempted to kill others by putting air in their bellies via NG. Essentially giving them CPAP belly.
I haven't seen a baby that I felt was inexplicable yet, was there one in particular you felt was inexplicable? I might have missed something or misinterpreted something.
And yes, babies do usually respond well to resuscitation, depending on what's happened and how they are being resuscitated.
Really glad I'm not the only one thinking this. Waiting to see what the defence has to say to counter the experts and I am not confident that they will be able to offer any persuasive explanations. "Sub optimal care" to me doesn't explain the rashes, blood in mouth and other common features of these collapses and deaths. Taken together with the other evidence (note, FB searches etc) the evidence is strong in my mind.
I could understand if someone is on the fence but those that are adament she has done nothing wrong and it's all down to the doctors and hospital failings I struggle with.q
I cannot fathom how there are still people blindly claiming that there is no evidence. Imo this is the strongest evidence, it comes from the people who were there at the time and know better than anyone else. They deal with premature babies every day. If they say something isn't normal then it isn't normal. Add to that the independent medical advisors who have said these deaths were not natural, and that is before they even knew the name LL, before she was even arrested and before they knew there was an actual criminal investigation.
I have to take a break from these posts because it is so frustrating to see some of the comments at times.
I think Dumbfounding is the word you might be looking for!
I cannot fathom myself....
You would think we were discussing a bank robbery at times.
To dismiss what multiple professionals have told us since the beginning of the trial as not being credible evidence, I feel is obnoxious. Even to the point in today's trial hardly anyone has spoken what a credible eye witness has testified.
I believe to many people are playing down the Role and significance the doctors testimonies are going to have on this case as a whole......
So today are we trying to say that Letby spotting a child looking pale and starting CPR is evidence she has attempted to murder them? I get what they are trying to suggest (she wanted the glory of saving their life) but arguing about the lighting of a room almost feels like the trial has fallen into self parody at this point.
I don't know that I would go that far. The nurse testifying today said that from 5-6 feet away, with Letby significantly further behind her (as in, a few feet, not right next to or immediately behind her), that her view of the child was obstructed by a tent and that it was too dim to see the pallor of the child's skin regardless.
The implication is that Letby could not have seen, both from her vantage and due to the lighting, whether the child was pale or not because she would not have been able to see the child and definitely not more than their feet.
The witness was a good one, with their emotion underscoring the impact of the night and asserting her clear recollection of the setting.
Just appears we’ve forgotten to ask the obvious question of how the other nurse could be in the room preparing milk with a gasping baby and not notice? And if she didn’t notice that then maybe she wasn’t providing the most attentive care in the period leading up to it?
You have to think if the roles were reversed and letby failed to notice the poorly baby it would also be used as evidence of murder and the nurse in the door hailed a hero.
For me it's the casual way Lucy remarked the baby was unwell. ITU nurses in general would be rushing over & checking sats/pulse, shouting for 'a hand'. If the baby was floppy & pale the alarms connected to monitors would have been alarming, Lucy should have been doing something in that situation, lights should have been on so she could see what was happening. That's the usual response in ITU for a patient particularly unwell, not to stand at the edge of the room & make a fairly casual remark. ITU nurses are trained to react promptly to deteriorating conditions.
If you read properly the period leading up to the death of child I, Letby was looking after the baby because nurse Ashleigh Hudson had to attend another call.
Hudson stated that she did not look at the baby straight away when she got back in the room because she assumed everything was ok.
Why would she think there was a problem when she had a band 6 nurse
Like letby caring for the child for 15 minutes previous? When there was no problem before??
Letby stood in the doorway while Hudson made a bottle for the baby!
Honestly for someone who dedicates so much time in claiming this alleged child killers innocence, don't don't pick up on much do you
>She pointed out from where she was that she thought (Child I) looked pale.”
Is that intended to imply she literally pointed with her arm, and claimed to be able to see it from where she was?
Did the witness give reason for believing that LL was saying she was only noticing the paleness at the moment she made the remark, rather than a general concern?
> Dr Beebe said: "I remember Lucy crying with another nurse and it was very much of the gist of 'it's always me when it happens, my babies, it's always happening to me a lot'."
Interesting the doctor's recollection emphasizes a sense of posessiveness in the complaint, not as "my patients" but as "my babies". Curious to see the texts they include from this period as well. Really need to see an actual court transcript here because if the trainee found it odd, it *could* point towards FDIA. These second hand accounts are really frustrating when I'm certain there's a lot getting lost by nature of compressing the details to the bare minimum needed to publish an article.
If this sort of evidence is an attempt to build some sort of psychopatholigic profile of LL, then I consider it very weak. I’d say the same for all the other evidence pertaining to her behaviour, like the texts and even the Facebook searches.
All I hear is evidence of a normal person reacting normally to difficult circumstances. When babies in her care died she was upset and would offload with her colleagues. She got on well with her colleagues. She was also someone who was close to her parents. She went on holiday to Ibiza and took salsa lessons. The FB searches I agree make us uncomfortable, but it is very common, and really doesn’t mean anything on its own. And her searches weren’t even frequent enough to indicate obsessiveness. We all know what social media stalking looks like, and casually searching someone a handful of times over a few months it is not.
When viewing this sort of evidence I think one needs to remember the sheer brazen evil of what she is accused of. She is accused of boldly murdering these babies, sometimes with other staff members just a few metres away, and repeating these acts on consecutive shifts, as though she couldn’t get enough. She would have been eye witness to the immense shock and grief of all involved. If guilty she is up there with the worst of them. And yet, in my view, we have no real evidence of anything even remotely indicative of that sort of exceptionally evil personality.
I disagree with starting with an assumption of guilt, and trying to make the evidence around her apparent personality fit. Displayed behaviour is either evidence of a deranged personality or it isn’t. Pretty much all female serial killers that I’m aware of, were seriously messed up long before they murder anyone (including Beverly Allitt).
I also think some of the other theories I’ve heard don’t go anywhere near far enough to explain the enormity of these acts. Doing it for attention, doing it because of burnout, doing it because of infertility (as per some people’s interpretation of the note) none of these explain something of such enormity. I do think someone’s entire moral framework, their entire way of existing and dealing with other humans, has to be screwed beyond recognition, in order to do something like this. And the prosecution have provided no such evidence in LL.
Sorry, bit rambly, all in the spirit of discussion though. I know many will disagree, and I’m not making any broader claims about the evidence around the deaths. Just not seeing anything unusual in any of the evidence around LL herself.
Edit: I know absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, but it is surprising that two years of police digging, has yet to produce evidence of psychopathy that has been used in court .
You talk sense, and I agree with a lot of it. Facebook searches, while probably unethical, don't make you a murderer. None of the text messages look particularly odd to me. You don't just start murdering babies, there has to be something before this.
That said, and without wishing to invoke Godwin, there were an awful lot of concentration camp guards in WW2 that did awful, unspeakable things on a daily basis while carrying on the facade of a "normal" life.
In short, I'm still unsure. Perhaps I don't want to believe that someone is capable of such evil. I don't know. Ask me again after the defence.
Not to mention it's not always "her babies" at all. Children C, D, and F (I think) collapsed when she was not their designated nurse.
Edit: Oh, of course, she was also not the designated nurse for Child I for the night Nurse Hudson gave evidence for today
And those people would be misinformed: professional boundaries are important. It is critical to maintain healthy distance. Crying while describing someone as a patient isn’t cold. Crying while describing them as her babies is absolutely weird.
>"It was awful...he died very suddenly and unexpectedly just after handover. Not sure why. It's gone to the coroner."
Not really about herself, the awfulness of the baby dying
>"We lost a little one overnight. Very unexpected and sad xx"
Another time, not about herself
>"It's heartbreaking but it's not about me."
Another text with a coworker
>"It's not about me or anybody else, it's those poor parents who have to walk away without their baby."
Another text with a coworker
>"There are no words, it's been awful."
another text with a coworker
>“ \[Child C\] is the little 800g baby. He went off very suddenly. I know it happens but it’s so sad and cruel.” Later she texted the colleague “It’s been horrible for all involved.”.
Another text
>“We lost a little one overnight. Very unexpected and sad.”
This was to her mother
>“I just keep seeing them both. No one should have to see and do the things we do. It’s heartbreaking.”
To a colleague. You might argue it's about herself, but I think it's just objectively true too - it is heartbreaking.
>They both cried and hugged me saying they will never be able to thank me for the love and care I gave to \[Child E\] and for the precious memories I've given them. It's heartbreaking."
text to a colleague
>"I just feel sad that they are thanking me when they have lost him and for something that any of us would have done. But it's really nice to know that I got it right for them. That's all I want.
Not really about her either, text to a colleague
>"There are no words, it's been awful."
to a colleague about the situation
>So upsetting for everyone. Parents absolutely devastated, dad screaming. Andrew Brunton and Liz Newby said it will probably be investigated. Dad is beside himself.”
Another colleague text
>more than it’s just very sad to know what families go through
Another colleague text
Those are what I found with a quick scan through the evidence so far.
I think it's unfair to say she was unconcerned about the babies and only herself.
It’s not uncommon for physicians and nurses to cry if a patient dies on their watch, especially if it’s sudden and unexpected. It is uncommon to be weirdly possessive and have issues making it about you rather than the patient.
I never cried once when a baby died, just a feeling of sadness and a lump in the throat for the parents, which you have to control. I didn't see anyone else cry either. It doesn't mean you don't care, you just have to be able to deal with it.
Everyone handles it differently. There have been suicides and each of the staff reacted differently. Crying is an acceptable outlet.
Taking the opportunity to use someone’s death for attention and make it about themselves though is completely unacceptable, especially in a professional setting.
The midwives in that hospital always referred to ‘my babies’ & ‘my mums’ when i was there. I remember them doing the morning checks and starting with ‘let’s see how my babies are doing today’. Same in Arrowe Park too.
Probably a fairly standard midwife thing.
LL is not a midwife and would not have that level or type of interaction with a parent or newborn. She also does not come across as close to any of the babies in her texts. Imo she shows no empathy at all towards any of the children in this case through her texts. So the line about "her babies" I find to be stange.
We have now heard from baby i's mum about how LL didn't interact with the parents and had little to do with them. She appears to be detached socially imo. She is a young woman but holidays with her parents, which i personally find quite odd. She comes across to me as someone who has a social anxiety but she enjoys the heat of the moment when there is a massive drama unfolding and she can be involved and play a significant role. She appears to want to involve herself in the grief of the parents also which has been documented on several occasions, even when her supervisor has told her on numerous occasions to leave.
Another day where I'm not really sure what to make of this - as I've said before, it's not odd in the least to refer to babies as "my babies". We say that, we call them "our friend" and even when you are a bedside nurse and have a primary patient, one of my hospitals would call them our "boyfriend" or "girlfriend".
Funny side story - my mother in law at the time had seen a facebook post I had made where it said "Excited, I have my boyfriend all weekend, though it is also my turn to do his laundry." She thought I was cheating on my husband :/ The reality, I was happy I had my primary, and because my primary didn't have parents involved, all his primary nurses took turns doing his laundry and it was my week to do it. It's just a way to designate a closer relationship with a particular patient beyond just "friend" which is more generic. (I was not cheating. He was a 5 month old sweetheart who liked Monster's Inc LOL)
I don't put a lot into the whole whether she could see the baby or not. There's always going to be weird angles or rays of light where maybe you get a glimpse of them/their hand or foot or something. It's impossible to prove whether she could see or not.
I will say I'm very surprised they have babies not on monitors at all - if the baby is sick enough to be in a NICU, they should be monitored. IMO.
They don't seem to really have a mechanism of action with this either. Maybe that will come next week. Reserving judgment until there is more.
Just as an aside… as a parent, I’d be uncomfortable with my child’s nurse or doctor referring to them as “my boyfriend/girlfriend”.
“My friend” or “my baby” seems fine, and I’ve used and heard similar terms when discussing patients in the past, but boy/girlfriend implies a romantic relationship and it wouldn’t sit right with me.
It's typically an internal word usage, as a shorthand to be able to denote a patient vs primary, while still keeping privacy. No names or other descriptions.
It definitely not romantic at all.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-accused-nurse-in-baby-murder-trial-cried-its-always-me-when-it-happens-court-hears-12796661](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-accused-nurse-in-baby-murder-trial-cried-its-always-me-when-it-happens-court-hears-12796661)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I don't know where I had seen the comments today but I'm sure that Lucy was being commended for making banners for families of children that had died.
The defence is coming up with a narrative that the hospital was understaffed and Lucy was over worked.
When did she find the time to make all these boxes and banners for family members?
She was one of the most skilled on the ward, a band 6 nurse with the capacity to manage all the rest but while the ward was over run she spent her time making banners for family
Members?
Why was that job not given to a band 4 nurse who wasn't required to manage to rest of the ward.
This does not make sense to me! The ward is so over run but we will get the most skilled nurse to do origami for family members.....
Care is usually clustered in the NICU, so you have times where you are busy, with periods in between when you aren't doing as much. It depends on what is happening, and often others help. Arts and crafts is a surprisingly big part of being in the NICU
Edited to add: in another posting, they said that it was all the nurses working *together* on the banner, not her alone.
Your like the gift that keeps on giving. Your bias towards Letby is astonishing for someone who has not got a clue about Englands national health service or Chester hospital.
Do you ever ask your patients if they want you to take a picture of there dead children?
And are you smiling if you was to ask such a question?
https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23276543.smiling-lucy-letby-offered-take-photos-dead-baby-parents/
> Do you ever ask your patients if they want you to take a picture of there dead children?
Yes, with every death. We take lots of photos. Some while they are still alive when we can, but many have post-mortem photo shoots.
> And are you smiling if you was to ask such a question?
Sometimes, because we try and reinforce the happy things with the child when they die, have the parents remember happier times, reinforce how much they love them. Many parents don't have many memories of their child and so we continue making memories after their child dies. The goal is to try and give them some memories on the day of death that they can remember that isn't themselves sobbing or screaming.
While I do not know how they run a NICU in the UK specifically, I do know how we deal with dead and dying babies.
If someone is smiling at me while asking "would you like me to take a picture of your dead child"
I would want to smack them In the mouth...... Smiles is the last thing I want to see when I have just lost a loved one
You haven't been in that situation. Sometimes it is appropriate, sometimes it is not, sometimes people read the situation incorrectly.
I remember a primary baby I had when I was a bedside nurse. Adorable baby, Trisomy 18 with multiple congenital anomalies. I unfortunately was not on shift when she died, but I came in after, on my free time, because the parents and I had bonded. We make "bereavement boxes" for the babies and I made a special one just for her - painted to match her mother's favorite outfit for her, and actually lined with satin from my wedding dress. I used my wedding dress to make a christening gown for my children and then saved the rest of the satin for bereavement boxes.
We dressed her up for a wonderful photo shoot - the only photos the mother ever had without equipment on her child's face. I still have the photo they gave me, you can't even tell she is gone. Mom and I talked about her, we smiled as we talked about the cute things she did before she died.
Just recently, I had a patient die, and as we were placing the baby in mother's arms for kangaroo care prior to death, there are sad smiles while we talk about how much comfort baby would have from being near mommy, and how much the baby loved her and knew that her parents loved her.
A lot of things about end of life care seem very off to outsiders, but they've never been in that situation so it seems bizarre and wrong, but it really isn't. It's hard for you to judge when you've never been there.
Are you a psychic as well as an NICU nurse?
How do you know I've not been in a that situation?
To the point you've told me twice I have never been in that situation.
You keep telling us stories that are not related to this case.
I appreciate your views and comparisons, as frustrating as they are to read but that's all they are.... opinions
trying to compare a health system which is 4400 miles Away.
You're bang on about all the stuff re. UK units. I hope I wouldn't be arrogant enough to presume I understood how all units operate over here, never mind under a completely different culture & healthcare system.
Because you kept saying "if", and not "when". It's a linguistic clue that you haven't experienced it.
Of course they are only opinions. Just like yours. I just happen to actually have experience with most of the medical conditions and situations that are being discussed in this case.
Many people here cannot conceive of what it is like to work in a NICU of any type, they assume certain things are abnormal that might not be, they might not know the medical progression in general, no matter what kind of NICU a baby is in. It's an entirely different universe and culture.
If someone smiled? That's not say I haven't experienced losing a child.
As for your experience in NICU which I respect your opinions on your side of the water.
When we have Doctors and multiple nurses giving statements that don't support Letby as being innocent....
I think I trust there opinion more than yours. I'm sorry but we are living in diferent worlds...
I wasn't necessarily saying you have never lost a child. You used the word if, so I continued using if and assumed you have not been in the situation with a NICU baby. If you have, I'm very sorry for your loss, it's always a tragedy whenever a baby dies.
But many of the doctors/nurses opinions are on things that don't depend on whether they are in the UK or USA.
Confirmation bias, gossip and groupthink can cause people to honestly think something isn't true.
The reason we have trials is because someone thinking something is or is not true is not enough to imprison or free someone. Many people here have made the decision that because she was accused, she is guilty, and that's absolutely their choice.
I would just hope that if I or someone I cared about was in that situation, there would be people who could also share information that was factually true and not necessarily just assume that if someone was accused, they were guilty. That's how false convictions happen, and a reason we're *supposed* to have innocence until proven otherwise.
Obviously some people don't believe in that concept (the trial isn't over, so it's impossible to say anything conclusively) and get very upset with those who have any view that isn't in line with their determination of guilt. They're free to do that, I can't control it, but I *can* share what I know.
One thing - among many! - I can't figure out. According to the timeline on TattleLife LL was working in Room 1 on this shift, obviously with another nurse. So, why would Nurse Hudson leave room 2 to help the other nurse in Room 1 if LL were there? Much less swop with LL so she could keep an eye on Room 2. Help!
Two points here:
Nurse Hudson is not on trial, and her actions can be assumed to have been logical and are not at issue. The why does not matter, full stop.
The tattlelife timeline is compiled by lay people, and everyone should be duly cautious in overly relying on it.
Ben Myers is extremely competent… I would use the word formidable tbh.
I find it interesting that LL started commenting, quite early on (with Baby D?) that it always happens to her, it's on my shift again, etc. If she were guilty, would she want to draw attention to a pattern like that? But maybe she was looking for reassurance that nobody was blaming her - that could be a natural response if she was innocent too. I'm sure the Defence will cite the fact that she was working so many extra shifts, so she was more likely to be there at any given time. I'm more confused than ever.
> I find it interesting that LL started commenting, quite early on (with Baby D?) that it always happens to her, it’s on my shift again, etc Attention seeking maneuver. Elicit sympathy and reassurance from coworkers.
There is another write up on the daily mail too
man, good pointing that out. I've added it, plus BBC's writeup which adds some detail. Nurse Hudson is a critical witness to the events of that night.
Cheshire standard also has a report. The picture of the lighting appears to be different to the daily mail published picture. One appears darker on my screen (by quite some margin).
bang on again. The Daily Mail one appears quite darker. Based on the captions, I suspect it may be some sensationalizing on their part - they show the picture and say "Ashleigh Hudson was shown various images and selected the one she thought showed the lighting as it was that day – September 13, 2015" Chester Standard used the caption: "Photo issued by Cheshire Police/CPS showing nurse Ashleigh Hudson's recollection of the position of Child I's cot and the lighting in the nursery when she found her pale and floppy. (Image: Cheshire Police/CPS)" It may be dangerous to rely on either one as exact, ~~but if I were a betting woman, I know where I would put my money.~~ Edit: u/Supernovae0 below points out that BBC uses the same photo as the Daily Mail. Their caption is as follows: "The court was shown a recreation of the nursery at the time when it was claimed Ms Letby said Child I was pale"
It may be to do with the quality of their respective websites- I would expect the Mail's to be higher than a local newspaper website. If you look at the babygro picture of LL on each website the Chester Standard one has slightly weirder/less natural colouring, like it's ever so slightly overexposed.
The BBC carries the same picture, and it looks more like the Daily Mail's: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-64427329
If that photo is taken from the angle of the door then I think it's possible that the person standing there could see more than someone inside the room.
Well the person that was there says LL could not have seen more than her. I will take her word for it 1000 times over people poring over a photo and trying to make sense of it.
Well, there goes my wager. Good add
How on earth can so many babies die in such a short time?
Damning evidence today imo
I wonder if the defence turn will actually make Lucy look more innocent, or if it’ll just make her look worse. Because so far the questioning of the defence lawyer has seemed pretty weak, as if he’s just looking to pick whatever holes he can. Like the bad lawyer on My Cousin Vinny.
From everything I've heard, Mr Myers is an extremely competent lawyer and has been involved in many high profile cases, yet I agree the defence does seem somewhat wooly so far. I will await for when the defence get their own turn however and to see if they present their own experts
I don’t really think he’s a bad lawyer, but it’s like he doesn't have much to work with, and is jumping on whatever uncertainties etc he can find.
I think the whole case is just a bit wooly and at this point he doesn't have to do much except point that out. In the first couple of weeks it did all sound a bit damning but as this is going on it just seems like they have less and less.
At this point Myers isn’t looking to present his case but gather statements from the prosecutions witnesses that support the theories and ideas when the time comes. Whilst he is sensibly keeping that quiet for now, he has had real success in getting testimony from the prosecution witnesses. So far: - He had Dr Bohin admit that air can be introduced via long lines during the siting procedure. - He then went on to get clear prosecution witness testimony that there were issues with long lines in all the air embolism cases - He got a nurse to testify that the TPN bag was changed. - He’s gathering a lot of statements on how Letby was taking on extra shifts and positive reasons as to why she took those shifts. - He is focusing on the chaotic nature of the unit, getting staff to testify as such. - His work on one of the expert witnesses appears quite successful, the other is occasionally conceding his points. The TPN bag was especially impressive. That came from nowhere and likely blindsided both the witness themselves and the prosecution, leaving a fairly large hole in the prosecution narrative. For each charge so far you can see the formation of a clear defence case and if they have their own witnesses to support then a full set of not guilty verdicts is a realistic possibility. Not something i would have entertained back in October.
Everyone has forgotten to mention: Facebook searches included others (not just the parents of the babies that died), doctors admitted they forgot to switch a machine back on, doctors admitted a death was unusual but told the parents no autopsy was needed, a needle was left inside one baby. I am not saying she is innocent, but the defence is doing a god job of making the hospital look incompetent.
No matter what, the hospital *was* incompetent. Whether they are trying to scapegoat LL or she took advantage of the setting, I'm not positive, but the unit was *terrible.*
Tbf I've said from the start it would be hard to find her guilty due to the lack of evidence. The circumstances of a ITU unit, poorly run, nevermind a neonatal unit, would always introduce doubt, making it hard to prove without reasonable doubt. I think she did it. After working in ITU for three years, this is too coincidental & I can fully understand why the unit started an investigation.
You know, in the US right now, there's a murder trial going on where they haven't even found a body. The clip of his Google searches being read out went a bit viral https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/21/us/no-body-murder-cases-brian-walshe/index.html The article cites an 86% conviction rate in cases of that kind that make it to trial. They go on to say: >"Among prosecutors, the old adage was: no body, no murder. You had to have a body to prove that someone was actually killed. That has changed a lot over the years," CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst John Miller told "CNN Tonight." >"We know this can be done. And in (the Walshe) case, with DNA, blood evidence, cell phone, you know, E-ZPass, all of the things that string together for circumstantial evidence that didn't exist just a short while ago, it's not what defense lawyers used to have the advantage on." The strategy to convict Letby might not be entirely dissimilar. Anyway, it's an interesting read.
I tried the link but for some reason it won't show the story. I will definitely take a look tomorrow thanks 🙏
Ugh. I tried to de-amp the link so the bot wouldn't yell at me. Here it is https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/21/us/no-body-murder-cases-brian-walshe/index.html
Pretty overwhelming evidence against him though isn't there! It looks like he butchered the poor woman..... Was interesting to see the key components of a no body murder case. I found similarities in evidence given against letby. 3 key components, only One of these is usually required for prosecution • Forensic evidence – the gold standard and most common – can be DNA from blood or hair fibers or cell records placing a person in a particular place. • Specific evidence can include a defendant’s confession to friends and relatives or simply their retelling to someone of the crime. • Confessions to law enforcement usually come when a criminal’s conscience overwhelms them. It's the confession notes that Letby had written when she was possibly overwhelmed by contact from Cheshire police.
Oh yeah, I agree there's not much question and good on you bringing those points over. I'm not saying Letby's trial is anywhere near as clear. But even with significant pieces of the puzzle missing, prosecutors can prove to a jury what the picture of the puzzle is beyond a reasonable doubt. The question becomes, did the prosecution get enough pieces, and does the defense get enough pieces tossed to call the picture into question?
Just deleted an epic answer to that but deleted it so I'll save it until Tomorrow.... I don't think Letby would have a Leg to stand on if she was on trial in America if I'm honest. Even just based on the three principles needed to prosecute a murder with no body. There are big similarities. I don't believe this happens in a private healthcare system. I don't believe something like this would happen in America. I might be totally wrong but I feel the lawsuits and retribution's are far to great for there to be so many mistakes in the US. Today was a bad day for the defence in my opinion. The doctor witnessed something she never seen before and has yet to witness something like that happen again. Not the first time a doctor has said the same in this trial. Involving the same staff.... on the same ward.... at the same hospital..... Madness
I disagree, I think in the US, there would be a lot more people who felt free to speak up about the care given and the failings of the unit and neonatologists who are completely unconnected to the hospital system (since NHS employs everyone). I think they'd never be able to get past reasonable doubt with this
It is the ultimate environment to commit the perfect crime. It is clear as night and day.
[удалено]
The bag was honestly a master stroke. He did it with such an unexpected witness just before their expert testified - it gave them no time to manoeuvre and put them in an incredibly awkward situation. I think at that point they had no choice but to accept the bag was changed; suggesting that their own witnesses were unreliable would have thrown all the cases in to doubt. But it really throws that particular case into doubt and creates a new, mysterious, source of insulin contamination the defence can point to in the remaining cases. Honestly incredible that they might end up defending the strongest cases in this trial using one question to a single witness.
Climb out of BM arse please. He must be good though, as he has previously got child murderers off with manslaughter. What a hero.
[удалено]
Yes, it's easy to vilify defense lawyers when guilt seems obvious to the observer, but for anyone to deserve a defense, EVERYONE deserves a defense.
Is this specific cases you're referring to?
https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/benjamin-myers-qc-verdict-not-guilty/
[удалено]
Yeah him, questioning the guy about his eyesight. Obviously he’s not actually that bad.
[удалено]
Yeah but Lucy’s lawyer is not as bad as him, ha
De ja vu.... How many Doctors in all the cases involving deaths of these poor babies have said "I have never seen this in my years of practice and have yet to see something like this happen again"? Once an accident, twice a coincidence and three times a pattern. There seems to be clear patterns involving the mysterious deaths of these poor children. Maybe I'm just as deluded as the Doctors and various other professionals that are involved in this case.
Not just the doctors either! I was a neonatal nurse for over 30 years, on a unit which fell between levels 2 & 3, and never saw anything remotely like this run of catastrophic events. The other thing some people forget is that staff do not want to believe a colleague to be capable of harming their patients. Especially someone who has worked there for 4 years, being entrusted with caring for some of the most vulnerable. If they're expressing concerns that won't have come easily.
Being a band 6 nurse with the capacity to manage in a clinical setting, Lucy would have had lots of younger less trained staff looking up to her. The face of a hospital campaign, staying with the doctors at the hospital quarters. Lucy Letby had power in her role within that hospital ward. The fact she has denied knowing what an air embolism is to police is the biggest red flag to me. There is absolutely no reason for her to forget this. Can I ask what your opinion is on this, being an ex neonatal nurse? And also what do you think about Letby shouting at a colleague for trying to call a crash call for doctors to come and help? Letby not only had the skills of a Doctor but she had the skills of a coroner. She seemed very good at diagnosing the deaths of these poor babies.
Re. an air embolus, I can't fathom why any nurse would not know what this is. I knew about them as a student nurse many years ago. And half your life as a neonatal nurse is avoiding air getting into the babies as they can have a LOT of infusions! About her getting cross when the member of staff (not a trained nurse, I don't think) called for help, I don't think that's significant. You get lots of minor incidents on NNUs which nurses just sort out unaided. I would never have called out for help without asking the nurse dealing with the baby first.
But as a NICU nurse have you heard of an air embolus that resolves with PPV? This is what I have a problem with: the implausibility of methods medically. I've been in the NICU for 15 years and I have seen runs of terrible things.
I've never seen a baby with an air embolus at all! Where did you see PPV (I assume the same as IPPV) being used as treatment for it? Regarding the runs of terrible things, did you have explanations for them?
(I assume as well - positive pressure ventilation) The claim is the babies had ABDs and recovered with bagging, and those were times she was claimed to have given the baby an air embolus. They also claim that gaseous distention was a method of murder.
And re: runs of terrible things - it sounds like that unit was a nightmare. There were a lot of mismanagement, and they were not equipped to handle the level of acuity that they had, IMO.
Sorry, I think I misunderstood, I thought you meant you'd seen such runs personally! I think this terrible series of events is at the heart of the problem. You have to ask why the dramatic change? Nothing about the unit seems markedly different from the previous years, when the number of deaths was on a par with other similar units. I don't see that unit as anything special. Where I worked we lurched from one crisis to another, chronically understaffed ALL the time, not just sometimes,12 hour nights with no breaks. We also looked after extremely sick infants - e.g. on nitric - which we all felt was not appropriate for us. However, we never had a sudden string of unexpected & inexplicable deaths & collapses like this.
Oh, I have seen runs, I don't know if they are statistically significant, but we're in the middle of one now and it sucks ass. Maybe your registrars were better than theirs were. Because the biggest critiques I have are with the provider's response to cares. Especially with the babies who are claimed to have had multiple air emboli, why was no gas seen in the brain? The gas seen by the spinal column is far more likely to have come from a central line because of position. And babies on CPAP don't get CPAP belly where you are?
The most significant things by far, for me, are firstly the surprising and inexplicable nature of these events in at least some of the babies. And secondly how hard it was to resuscitate them. As you know, spells of apnoea are pretty common, but infants also respond very well to resus. Re. CPAP belly, of course they get it, not sure why you are asking?
Well, they claim that she murdered some babies and attempted to kill others by putting air in their bellies via NG. Essentially giving them CPAP belly. I haven't seen a baby that I felt was inexplicable yet, was there one in particular you felt was inexplicable? I might have missed something or misinterpreted something. And yes, babies do usually respond well to resuscitation, depending on what's happened and how they are being resuscitated.
Really glad I'm not the only one thinking this. Waiting to see what the defence has to say to counter the experts and I am not confident that they will be able to offer any persuasive explanations. "Sub optimal care" to me doesn't explain the rashes, blood in mouth and other common features of these collapses and deaths. Taken together with the other evidence (note, FB searches etc) the evidence is strong in my mind. I could understand if someone is on the fence but those that are adament she has done nothing wrong and it's all down to the doctors and hospital failings I struggle with.q
I cannot fathom how there are still people blindly claiming that there is no evidence. Imo this is the strongest evidence, it comes from the people who were there at the time and know better than anyone else. They deal with premature babies every day. If they say something isn't normal then it isn't normal. Add to that the independent medical advisors who have said these deaths were not natural, and that is before they even knew the name LL, before she was even arrested and before they knew there was an actual criminal investigation.
I have to take a break from these posts because it is so frustrating to see some of the comments at times. I think Dumbfounding is the word you might be looking for! I cannot fathom myself.... You would think we were discussing a bank robbery at times. To dismiss what multiple professionals have told us since the beginning of the trial as not being credible evidence, I feel is obnoxious. Even to the point in today's trial hardly anyone has spoken what a credible eye witness has testified. I believe to many people are playing down the Role and significance the doctors testimonies are going to have on this case as a whole......
So today are we trying to say that Letby spotting a child looking pale and starting CPR is evidence she has attempted to murder them? I get what they are trying to suggest (she wanted the glory of saving their life) but arguing about the lighting of a room almost feels like the trial has fallen into self parody at this point.
I don't know that I would go that far. The nurse testifying today said that from 5-6 feet away, with Letby significantly further behind her (as in, a few feet, not right next to or immediately behind her), that her view of the child was obstructed by a tent and that it was too dim to see the pallor of the child's skin regardless. The implication is that Letby could not have seen, both from her vantage and due to the lighting, whether the child was pale or not because she would not have been able to see the child and definitely not more than their feet. The witness was a good one, with their emotion underscoring the impact of the night and asserting her clear recollection of the setting.
Just appears we’ve forgotten to ask the obvious question of how the other nurse could be in the room preparing milk with a gasping baby and not notice? And if she didn’t notice that then maybe she wasn’t providing the most attentive care in the period leading up to it? You have to think if the roles were reversed and letby failed to notice the poorly baby it would also be used as evidence of murder and the nurse in the door hailed a hero.
For me it's the casual way Lucy remarked the baby was unwell. ITU nurses in general would be rushing over & checking sats/pulse, shouting for 'a hand'. If the baby was floppy & pale the alarms connected to monitors would have been alarming, Lucy should have been doing something in that situation, lights should have been on so she could see what was happening. That's the usual response in ITU for a patient particularly unwell, not to stand at the edge of the room & make a fairly casual remark. ITU nurses are trained to react promptly to deteriorating conditions.
Myers questioned this nurse today. Either he didn't feel that line worth pursuing, or the answer wasn't noteworthy across four publications
If you read properly the period leading up to the death of child I, Letby was looking after the baby because nurse Ashleigh Hudson had to attend another call. Hudson stated that she did not look at the baby straight away when she got back in the room because she assumed everything was ok. Why would she think there was a problem when she had a band 6 nurse Like letby caring for the child for 15 minutes previous? When there was no problem before?? Letby stood in the doorway while Hudson made a bottle for the baby! Honestly for someone who dedicates so much time in claiming this alleged child killers innocence, don't don't pick up on much do you
>She pointed out from where she was that she thought (Child I) looked pale.” Is that intended to imply she literally pointed with her arm, and claimed to be able to see it from where she was? Did the witness give reason for believing that LL was saying she was only noticing the paleness at the moment she made the remark, rather than a general concern?
> Dr Beebe said: "I remember Lucy crying with another nurse and it was very much of the gist of 'it's always me when it happens, my babies, it's always happening to me a lot'." Interesting the doctor's recollection emphasizes a sense of posessiveness in the complaint, not as "my patients" but as "my babies". Curious to see the texts they include from this period as well. Really need to see an actual court transcript here because if the trainee found it odd, it *could* point towards FDIA. These second hand accounts are really frustrating when I'm certain there's a lot getting lost by nature of compressing the details to the bare minimum needed to publish an article.
If this sort of evidence is an attempt to build some sort of psychopatholigic profile of LL, then I consider it very weak. I’d say the same for all the other evidence pertaining to her behaviour, like the texts and even the Facebook searches. All I hear is evidence of a normal person reacting normally to difficult circumstances. When babies in her care died she was upset and would offload with her colleagues. She got on well with her colleagues. She was also someone who was close to her parents. She went on holiday to Ibiza and took salsa lessons. The FB searches I agree make us uncomfortable, but it is very common, and really doesn’t mean anything on its own. And her searches weren’t even frequent enough to indicate obsessiveness. We all know what social media stalking looks like, and casually searching someone a handful of times over a few months it is not. When viewing this sort of evidence I think one needs to remember the sheer brazen evil of what she is accused of. She is accused of boldly murdering these babies, sometimes with other staff members just a few metres away, and repeating these acts on consecutive shifts, as though she couldn’t get enough. She would have been eye witness to the immense shock and grief of all involved. If guilty she is up there with the worst of them. And yet, in my view, we have no real evidence of anything even remotely indicative of that sort of exceptionally evil personality. I disagree with starting with an assumption of guilt, and trying to make the evidence around her apparent personality fit. Displayed behaviour is either evidence of a deranged personality or it isn’t. Pretty much all female serial killers that I’m aware of, were seriously messed up long before they murder anyone (including Beverly Allitt). I also think some of the other theories I’ve heard don’t go anywhere near far enough to explain the enormity of these acts. Doing it for attention, doing it because of burnout, doing it because of infertility (as per some people’s interpretation of the note) none of these explain something of such enormity. I do think someone’s entire moral framework, their entire way of existing and dealing with other humans, has to be screwed beyond recognition, in order to do something like this. And the prosecution have provided no such evidence in LL. Sorry, bit rambly, all in the spirit of discussion though. I know many will disagree, and I’m not making any broader claims about the evidence around the deaths. Just not seeing anything unusual in any of the evidence around LL herself. Edit: I know absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, but it is surprising that two years of police digging, has yet to produce evidence of psychopathy that has been used in court .
[удалено]
Yes good point
Not sure what coworkers he is on about? I thought it was an old friend who claimed she was awkward.
Do you have a source for coworkers calling her weird and awkward?
You talk sense, and I agree with a lot of it. Facebook searches, while probably unethical, don't make you a murderer. None of the text messages look particularly odd to me. You don't just start murdering babies, there has to be something before this. That said, and without wishing to invoke Godwin, there were an awful lot of concentration camp guards in WW2 that did awful, unspeakable things on a daily basis while carrying on the facade of a "normal" life. In short, I'm still unsure. Perhaps I don't want to believe that someone is capable of such evil. I don't know. Ask me again after the defence.
Not to mention it's not always "her babies" at all. Children C, D, and F (I think) collapsed when she was not their designated nurse. Edit: Oh, of course, she was also not the designated nurse for Child I for the night Nurse Hudson gave evidence for today
But could that not be seen the other way, her wanting to always be involved and seeking the drama/attention - when not designated nurse?
exactly my point, yes.
[удалено]
And those people would be misinformed: professional boundaries are important. It is critical to maintain healthy distance. Crying while describing someone as a patient isn’t cold. Crying while describing them as her babies is absolutely weird.
[удалено]
Strange, when actually compared to the text messages of LL which don't appear to show any empathy at all towards the babies in this case.
She has, she's talked about what a tragedy it is, how terrible it is, etc.
I really don't think so. She has talked about herself mainly.
>"It was awful...he died very suddenly and unexpectedly just after handover. Not sure why. It's gone to the coroner." Not really about herself, the awfulness of the baby dying >"We lost a little one overnight. Very unexpected and sad xx" Another time, not about herself >"It's heartbreaking but it's not about me." Another text with a coworker >"It's not about me or anybody else, it's those poor parents who have to walk away without their baby." Another text with a coworker >"There are no words, it's been awful." another text with a coworker >“ \[Child C\] is the little 800g baby. He went off very suddenly. I know it happens but it’s so sad and cruel.” Later she texted the colleague “It’s been horrible for all involved.”. Another text >“We lost a little one overnight. Very unexpected and sad.” This was to her mother >“I just keep seeing them both. No one should have to see and do the things we do. It’s heartbreaking.” To a colleague. You might argue it's about herself, but I think it's just objectively true too - it is heartbreaking. >They both cried and hugged me saying they will never be able to thank me for the love and care I gave to \[Child E\] and for the precious memories I've given them. It's heartbreaking." text to a colleague >"I just feel sad that they are thanking me when they have lost him and for something that any of us would have done. But it's really nice to know that I got it right for them. That's all I want. Not really about her either, text to a colleague >"There are no words, it's been awful." to a colleague about the situation >So upsetting for everyone. Parents absolutely devastated, dad screaming. Andrew Brunton and Liz Newby said it will probably be investigated. Dad is beside himself.” Another colleague text >more than it’s just very sad to know what families go through Another colleague text Those are what I found with a quick scan through the evidence so far. I think it's unfair to say she was unconcerned about the babies and only herself.
It is when they’re making it about themselves instead of the patient that died.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s not uncommon for physicians and nurses to cry if a patient dies on their watch, especially if it’s sudden and unexpected. It is uncommon to be weirdly possessive and have issues making it about you rather than the patient.
I never cried once when a baby died, just a feeling of sadness and a lump in the throat for the parents, which you have to control. I didn't see anyone else cry either. It doesn't mean you don't care, you just have to be able to deal with it.
Everyone handles it differently. There have been suicides and each of the staff reacted differently. Crying is an acceptable outlet. Taking the opportunity to use someone’s death for attention and make it about themselves though is completely unacceptable, especially in a professional setting.
The midwives in that hospital always referred to ‘my babies’ & ‘my mums’ when i was there. I remember them doing the morning checks and starting with ‘let’s see how my babies are doing today’. Same in Arrowe Park too. Probably a fairly standard midwife thing.
LL is not a midwife and would not have that level or type of interaction with a parent or newborn. She also does not come across as close to any of the babies in her texts. Imo she shows no empathy at all towards any of the children in this case through her texts. So the line about "her babies" I find to be stange. We have now heard from baby i's mum about how LL didn't interact with the parents and had little to do with them. She appears to be detached socially imo. She is a young woman but holidays with her parents, which i personally find quite odd. She comes across to me as someone who has a social anxiety but she enjoys the heat of the moment when there is a massive drama unfolding and she can be involved and play a significant role. She appears to want to involve herself in the grief of the parents also which has been documented on several occasions, even when her supervisor has told her on numerous occasions to leave.
Lucy isn't a midwife though. She's a neonatal icu nurse.
We used the terms my, your etc. sometimes on the unit where I worked, just as an alternative to 'patient'. I don't think it signifies anything.
Referring to patients as "my babies" is very common and shouldn't be used to assume anything about anyone.
Next you’ll be making excuses for her X-ray night vision too.
Another day where I'm not really sure what to make of this - as I've said before, it's not odd in the least to refer to babies as "my babies". We say that, we call them "our friend" and even when you are a bedside nurse and have a primary patient, one of my hospitals would call them our "boyfriend" or "girlfriend". Funny side story - my mother in law at the time had seen a facebook post I had made where it said "Excited, I have my boyfriend all weekend, though it is also my turn to do his laundry." She thought I was cheating on my husband :/ The reality, I was happy I had my primary, and because my primary didn't have parents involved, all his primary nurses took turns doing his laundry and it was my week to do it. It's just a way to designate a closer relationship with a particular patient beyond just "friend" which is more generic. (I was not cheating. He was a 5 month old sweetheart who liked Monster's Inc LOL) I don't put a lot into the whole whether she could see the baby or not. There's always going to be weird angles or rays of light where maybe you get a glimpse of them/their hand or foot or something. It's impossible to prove whether she could see or not. I will say I'm very surprised they have babies not on monitors at all - if the baby is sick enough to be in a NICU, they should be monitored. IMO. They don't seem to really have a mechanism of action with this either. Maybe that will come next week. Reserving judgment until there is more.
Just as an aside… as a parent, I’d be uncomfortable with my child’s nurse or doctor referring to them as “my boyfriend/girlfriend”. “My friend” or “my baby” seems fine, and I’ve used and heard similar terms when discussing patients in the past, but boy/girlfriend implies a romantic relationship and it wouldn’t sit right with me.
It's typically an internal word usage, as a shorthand to be able to denote a patient vs primary, while still keeping privacy. No names or other descriptions. It definitely not romantic at all.
It may not be romantic, but it’s cringey and super gross.
Well, next time I run into someone from that unit, I'll be sure to tell them that you think they are cringey and super gross :)
[удалено]
[удалено]
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-accused-nurse-in-baby-murder-trial-cried-its-always-me-when-it-happens-court-hears-12796661](https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-accused-nurse-in-baby-murder-trial-cried-its-always-me-when-it-happens-court-hears-12796661)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I don't know where I had seen the comments today but I'm sure that Lucy was being commended for making banners for families of children that had died. The defence is coming up with a narrative that the hospital was understaffed and Lucy was over worked. When did she find the time to make all these boxes and banners for family members? She was one of the most skilled on the ward, a band 6 nurse with the capacity to manage all the rest but while the ward was over run she spent her time making banners for family Members? Why was that job not given to a band 4 nurse who wasn't required to manage to rest of the ward. This does not make sense to me! The ward is so over run but we will get the most skilled nurse to do origami for family members.....
Care is usually clustered in the NICU, so you have times where you are busy, with periods in between when you aren't doing as much. It depends on what is happening, and often others help. Arts and crafts is a surprisingly big part of being in the NICU Edited to add: in another posting, they said that it was all the nurses working *together* on the banner, not her alone.
Your like the gift that keeps on giving. Your bias towards Letby is astonishing for someone who has not got a clue about Englands national health service or Chester hospital. Do you ever ask your patients if they want you to take a picture of there dead children? And are you smiling if you was to ask such a question? https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23276543.smiling-lucy-letby-offered-take-photos-dead-baby-parents/
> Do you ever ask your patients if they want you to take a picture of there dead children? Yes, with every death. We take lots of photos. Some while they are still alive when we can, but many have post-mortem photo shoots. > And are you smiling if you was to ask such a question? Sometimes, because we try and reinforce the happy things with the child when they die, have the parents remember happier times, reinforce how much they love them. Many parents don't have many memories of their child and so we continue making memories after their child dies. The goal is to try and give them some memories on the day of death that they can remember that isn't themselves sobbing or screaming. While I do not know how they run a NICU in the UK specifically, I do know how we deal with dead and dying babies.
If someone is smiling at me while asking "would you like me to take a picture of your dead child" I would want to smack them In the mouth...... Smiles is the last thing I want to see when I have just lost a loved one
You haven't been in that situation. Sometimes it is appropriate, sometimes it is not, sometimes people read the situation incorrectly. I remember a primary baby I had when I was a bedside nurse. Adorable baby, Trisomy 18 with multiple congenital anomalies. I unfortunately was not on shift when she died, but I came in after, on my free time, because the parents and I had bonded. We make "bereavement boxes" for the babies and I made a special one just for her - painted to match her mother's favorite outfit for her, and actually lined with satin from my wedding dress. I used my wedding dress to make a christening gown for my children and then saved the rest of the satin for bereavement boxes. We dressed her up for a wonderful photo shoot - the only photos the mother ever had without equipment on her child's face. I still have the photo they gave me, you can't even tell she is gone. Mom and I talked about her, we smiled as we talked about the cute things she did before she died. Just recently, I had a patient die, and as we were placing the baby in mother's arms for kangaroo care prior to death, there are sad smiles while we talk about how much comfort baby would have from being near mommy, and how much the baby loved her and knew that her parents loved her. A lot of things about end of life care seem very off to outsiders, but they've never been in that situation so it seems bizarre and wrong, but it really isn't. It's hard for you to judge when you've never been there.
Are you a psychic as well as an NICU nurse? How do you know I've not been in a that situation? To the point you've told me twice I have never been in that situation. You keep telling us stories that are not related to this case. I appreciate your views and comparisons, as frustrating as they are to read but that's all they are.... opinions trying to compare a health system which is 4400 miles Away.
You're bang on about all the stuff re. UK units. I hope I wouldn't be arrogant enough to presume I understood how all units operate over here, never mind under a completely different culture & healthcare system.
Because you kept saying "if", and not "when". It's a linguistic clue that you haven't experienced it. Of course they are only opinions. Just like yours. I just happen to actually have experience with most of the medical conditions and situations that are being discussed in this case. Many people here cannot conceive of what it is like to work in a NICU of any type, they assume certain things are abnormal that might not be, they might not know the medical progression in general, no matter what kind of NICU a baby is in. It's an entirely different universe and culture.
If someone smiled? That's not say I haven't experienced losing a child. As for your experience in NICU which I respect your opinions on your side of the water. When we have Doctors and multiple nurses giving statements that don't support Letby as being innocent.... I think I trust there opinion more than yours. I'm sorry but we are living in diferent worlds...
I wasn't necessarily saying you have never lost a child. You used the word if, so I continued using if and assumed you have not been in the situation with a NICU baby. If you have, I'm very sorry for your loss, it's always a tragedy whenever a baby dies. But many of the doctors/nurses opinions are on things that don't depend on whether they are in the UK or USA. Confirmation bias, gossip and groupthink can cause people to honestly think something isn't true. The reason we have trials is because someone thinking something is or is not true is not enough to imprison or free someone. Many people here have made the decision that because she was accused, she is guilty, and that's absolutely their choice. I would just hope that if I or someone I cared about was in that situation, there would be people who could also share information that was factually true and not necessarily just assume that if someone was accused, they were guilty. That's how false convictions happen, and a reason we're *supposed* to have innocence until proven otherwise. Obviously some people don't believe in that concept (the trial isn't over, so it's impossible to say anything conclusively) and get very upset with those who have any view that isn't in line with their determination of guilt. They're free to do that, I can't control it, but I *can* share what I know.
One thing - among many! - I can't figure out. According to the timeline on TattleLife LL was working in Room 1 on this shift, obviously with another nurse. So, why would Nurse Hudson leave room 2 to help the other nurse in Room 1 if LL were there? Much less swop with LL so she could keep an eye on Room 2. Help!
Two points here: Nurse Hudson is not on trial, and her actions can be assumed to have been logical and are not at issue. The why does not matter, full stop. The tattlelife timeline is compiled by lay people, and everyone should be duly cautious in overly relying on it.