Continue here.
No live updates today but the Chester standard should be back tomorrow! Hopefully decent reporting
No live updates today but the Chester standard should be back tomorrow! Hopefully decent reporting
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Still firmly not sure. Lots of things keeping me from NG however no evidence which would make me convict yet.
Still guilty for me, obviously not 100% but close enough to make that my general assumption. Although I will say, the rash debacle has made me more sceptical of the witnesses.
I've gone from guilty, to unsure when defence gave their opening statement but teetering between unsure and guilty constantly.
However, I just can't see Not Guilty in my head
However, I just can't see Not Guilty in my head
From the RCPCH report. The timeline is consistent, they say this started in June 2015, and they did the visits for this early September 2016.
This struck me. There was clearly some suspicion right from 2016, given they wanted to bring CCTV in.
I also wonder if anyone thinks innocent, not just not guilty.
I put guilty again, for same reasons I wrote on last thread.
I put guilty again, for same reasons I wrote on last thread.
I mean… shall I bother 
I’m still thinking guilty. To many coincidences for me.
I'm still unsure. The numbers don't make sense to me. I need to know more stats.
The unit sounds (to the lay person) like an absolute shambles with staff run ragged. Something was going on across the hospital it seems on a deeper level, maybe staffing or skill level. The stillbirth increase, although not seeming relevant, also strangely seems like another red flag.
The unit sounds (to the lay person) like an absolute shambles with staff run ragged. Something was going on across the hospital it seems on a deeper level, maybe staffing or skill level. The stillbirth increase, although not seeming relevant, also strangely seems like another red flag.
I’m still unsure.
Not sure if I believe the doctor from today..
This is about Child B who suddenly collapsed.. “A medical note of the incident read: 'Shut down, limp, apnoeic…Colour changed rapidly to purple blotchiness with white patches. Started to become bradycardic (slow heart rate).
A breathing tube was inserted and Child B 'started to stabilise quite quickly', said the witness giving evidence screened from the public gallery and the defendant.”
——-
So once Child B was given air via a breathing tube she began to stabilise quite quickly. If we're led to believe she’d been injected with an air bubble or some other medication she wouldn’t stabilise so quickly and easily would she?
www.dailymail.co.uk
ALSO: I don’t believe what he’s saying here…. He had concerns and raised them but who told him to keep quiet? He never mentioned the mottling yet now thinks it’s relevant?? sorry but it doesn’t wash with mek something isn’t ringing true here
Dr Ravi Jayaram, lead paediatrician at the hospital, told Letby's trial that he had noticed the series of unusual and sometimes fatal collapses of babies in the neonatal unit.
But he said that, at the time, he and colleagues were being told they 'shouldn’t be saying such things' and instead told 'not to make a fuss'.
The paediatrician, who has featured on health shows on Channel 4, also agreed during cross-examination that he had failed to mention unusual patterns of purple blotching at the inquest into the first infant said to have died at her hands.
It was only during a police interview in the aftermath of Letby's arrest that he finally gave a detailed description of mottling effects he had never previously seen in his 30-year career.
Dr Jayaram told Ben Myers KC, representing Letby, that he and his colleagues had become increasingly worried about a run of 'very unusual and seemingly inexplicable' collapses in the neonatal unit from June 2015.
The first of these resulted in the death of Baby A, who collapsed and died suddenly around 24 hours after being born prematurely on June 8.
Dr Jayaram gave evidence to the local coroner at the time, but agreed that he had failed to mention details of an apparent rash on the infant’s body that 'appeared, vanished, reappeared and flitted about' as medics tried desperately to save him.
During questioning from Mr Myers today, he acknowledged that detail of the discolouration – a 'bright pinkness against a background of blue-grey' - would have been 'plainly relevant' to the coroner as he tried to determine a cause of death.
Following half an hour of intense cross-examination, he told the barrister: 'At the time of the coroner’s report, we as a group of clinicians had already begun to raise concern about the association that we’d seen with an individual being present in these situations.
'And at the time we were being told that really we shouldn’t be saying such things and not to make a fuss. BY WHOM??
'My concern is that had I suggested this - that this could have been happening – I didn’t have any hard evidence.'
Dr Jayaram denied being influenced by a research paper he had read some time before his police interview on September 18, 2017. This referred to 'blanching and migrating areas of cutaneous pallor'.
Mr Myers put it to him that there would have been no reason to hold back his observations of the blotching on Baby A’s body from the coroner investigating his death.
He asked: 'It’s a straightforward clinical observation, and yet you didn’t report it, did you? Has what you read in that paper influenced what you later told the police?'
Dr Jayaram replied: 'No. Absolutely not. Categorically.'
Not sure if I believe the doctor from today..
This is about Child B who suddenly collapsed.. “A medical note of the incident read: 'Shut down, limp, apnoeic…Colour changed rapidly to purple blotchiness with white patches. Started to become bradycardic (slow heart rate).
A breathing tube was inserted and Child B 'started to stabilise quite quickly', said the witness giving evidence screened from the public gallery and the defendant.”
——-
So once Child B was given air via a breathing tube she began to stabilise quite quickly. If we're led to believe she’d been injected with an air bubble or some other medication she wouldn’t stabilise so quickly and easily would she?
Lucy Letby trial hears TV doctor and his colleagues 'raised concerns'
The neonatal nurse, 32, is standing trial charged with killing seven babies and the attempted murder of a further 10 at the Countess of Chester Hospital between between June 2015 and June 2016.
ALSO: I don’t believe what he’s saying here…. He had concerns and raised them but who told him to keep quiet? He never mentioned the mottling yet now thinks it’s relevant?? sorry but it doesn’t wash with mek something isn’t ringing true here
Dr Ravi Jayaram, lead paediatrician at the hospital, told Letby's trial that he had noticed the series of unusual and sometimes fatal collapses of babies in the neonatal unit.
But he said that, at the time, he and colleagues were being told they 'shouldn’t be saying such things' and instead told 'not to make a fuss'.
The paediatrician, who has featured on health shows on Channel 4, also agreed during cross-examination that he had failed to mention unusual patterns of purple blotching at the inquest into the first infant said to have died at her hands.
It was only during a police interview in the aftermath of Letby's arrest that he finally gave a detailed description of mottling effects he had never previously seen in his 30-year career.
Dr Jayaram told Ben Myers KC, representing Letby, that he and his colleagues had become increasingly worried about a run of 'very unusual and seemingly inexplicable' collapses in the neonatal unit from June 2015.
The first of these resulted in the death of Baby A, who collapsed and died suddenly around 24 hours after being born prematurely on June 8.
Dr Jayaram gave evidence to the local coroner at the time, but agreed that he had failed to mention details of an apparent rash on the infant’s body that 'appeared, vanished, reappeared and flitted about' as medics tried desperately to save him.
During questioning from Mr Myers today, he acknowledged that detail of the discolouration – a 'bright pinkness against a background of blue-grey' - would have been 'plainly relevant' to the coroner as he tried to determine a cause of death.
Following half an hour of intense cross-examination, he told the barrister: 'At the time of the coroner’s report, we as a group of clinicians had already begun to raise concern about the association that we’d seen with an individual being present in these situations.
'And at the time we were being told that really we shouldn’t be saying such things and not to make a fuss. BY WHOM??
'My concern is that had I suggested this - that this could have been happening – I didn’t have any hard evidence.'
Dr Jayaram denied being influenced by a research paper he had read some time before his police interview on September 18, 2017. This referred to 'blanching and migrating areas of cutaneous pallor'.
Mr Myers put it to him that there would have been no reason to hold back his observations of the blotching on Baby A’s body from the coroner investigating his death.
He asked: 'It’s a straightforward clinical observation, and yet you didn’t report it, did you? Has what you read in that paper influenced what you later told the police?'
Dr Jayaram replied: 'No. Absolutely not. Categorically.'
Last edited:
I thinks she’s guilty. There are just too many coincidences for me,
I’m not sure. At this stage I haven’t seen anything that convinces me she murdered them but I am doubting her on a number of things so I feel more unsure than I do innocent but not enough to throw the book at her yet. I suspect the further we get through the cases the more I’ll sway to and fro. One things for certain there are no winners in this case. It’s so traumatic for all involved. I really hope the jury are getting good support it must be so difficult to hear and see every detail about each case while seeing their parents and families 
People questioning the occurrence of the rash on child A and why it wasn’t noted down by the doctor, or why the nurse only is now mentioning it and not in her previous statement etc etc. A poster shared this in the last thread - sorry can’t remember who it was (I think it got missed among all the debating, but feel it’s a really valid point)
Police interviews (child a)
When interviewed by police regarding the circumstances over Child A's death, Letby said she had given fluids to Child A at the time of the change of shifts. She said within "maybe" five minutes, Child A developed 'almost a rash appearance, like a blotchy red marks on the skin'. She said she had wondered whether the bag of fluid "was not what we thought it was".
I agree with the poster, why are the defence questioning the validity of the rash and using it as part of their defence, when letby her self acknowledge it in her interview for baby A ? I think we can all assume the rash was present!
Police interviews (child a)
When interviewed by police regarding the circumstances over Child A's death, Letby said she had given fluids to Child A at the time of the change of shifts. She said within "maybe" five minutes, Child A developed 'almost a rash appearance, like a blotchy red marks on the skin'. She said she had wondered whether the bag of fluid "was not what we thought it was".
I agree with the poster, why are the defence questioning the validity of the rash and using it as part of their defence, when letby her self acknowledge it in her interview for baby A ? I think we can all assume the rash was present!
Still unsure. We still haven't really heard much actual evidence at this stage. I may change my mind in either direction as we get further into the trial and the evidence is more accumulative across the cases. Baby A and B evidence feels very flimsy to me. However, I still believe that the burden of proof threshold for persuading CPS to take to trial is high, so expect the prosecution to try and bring something a lot more solid in the coming weeks.
I’m with you the doctor seems a bit confused in all of this.I don’t believe what he has said so far But I’ve concluded ultimately that he’s not the be all and end all of this caseI’m still unsure.
Not sure if I believe the doctor from today..
This is about Child B who suddenly collapsed.. “A medical note of the incident read: 'Shut down, limp, apnoeic…Colour changed rapidly to purple blotchiness with white patches. Started to become bradycardic (slow heart rate).
A breathing tube was inserted and Child B 'started to stabilise quite quickly', said the witness giving evidence screened from the public gallery and the defendant.”
——-
So once Child B was given air via a breathing tube she began to stabilise quite quickly. If we're led to believe she’d been injected with an air bubble or some other medication she wouldn’t stabilise so quickly and easily would she?
Lucy Letby trial hears TV doctor and his colleagues 'raised concerns'
The neonatal nurse, 32, is standing trial charged with killing seven babies and the attempted murder of a further 10 at the Countess of Chester Hospital between between June 2015 and June 2016.
ALSO:
Dr Ravi Jayaram, lead paediatrician at the hospital, told Letby's trial that he had noticed the series of unusual and sometimes fatal collapses of babies in the neonatal unit.
But he said that, at the time, he and colleagues were being told they 'shouldn’t be saying such things' and instead told 'not to make a fuss'.
The paediatrician, who has featured on health shows on Channel 4, also agreed during cross-examination that he had failed to mention unusual patterns of purple blotching at the inquest into the first infant said to have died at her hands.
It was only during a police interview in the aftermath of Letby's arrest that he finally gave a detailed description of mottling effects he had never previously seen in his 30-year career.
Dr Jayaram told Ben Myers KC, representing Letby, that he and his colleagues had become increasingly worried about a run of 'very unusual and seemingly inexplicable' collapses in the neonatal unit from June 2015.
The first of these resulted in the death of Baby A, who collapsed and died suddenly around 24 hours after being born prematurely on June 8.
Dr Jayaram gave evidence to the local coroner at the time, but agreed that he had failed to mention details of an apparent rash on the infant’s body that 'appeared, vanished, reappeared and flitted about' as medics tried desperately to save him.
During questioning from Mr Myers today, he acknowledged that detail of the discolouration – a 'bright pinkness against a background of blue-grey' - would have been 'plainly relevant' to the coroner as he tried to determine a cause of death.
Following half an hour of intense cross-examination, he told the barrister: 'At the time of the coroner’s report, we as a group of clinicians had already begun to raise concern about the association that we’d seen with an individual being present in these situations.
'And at the time we were being told that really we shouldn’t be saying such things and not to make a fuss.
'My concern is that had I suggested this - that this could have been happening – I didn’t have any hard evidence.'
Dr Jayaram denied being influenced by a research paper he had read some time before his police interview on September 18, 2017. This referred to 'blanching and migrating areas of cutaneous pallor'.
Mr Myers put it to him that there would have been no reason to hold back his observations of the blotching on Baby A’s body from the coroner investigating his death.
He asked: 'It’s a straightforward clinical observation, and yet you didn’t report it, did you? Has what you read in that paper influenced what you later told the police?'
Dr Jayaram replied: 'No. Absolutely not. Categorically.'
there will be plenty of other witnesses to back up what he’s saying if she’s guilty. If he was the only witness I’d be worried though lol
Ooooof.
Valid point
maybe trying to establish whether it was ‘normal’ or not?- Status