Lucy Letby Case #10

[Appletiser]

I feel like I’ve been focusing so much on LL that I forget what this trial is about … those poor tiny babies I think I’ve just mentally detached from thinking about the babies.
What the hell was happening on that ward???

 

[slingo16]

From what I’m reading the defence are going to have to cast some serious doubt over the cause of death. Although personally think the machine not allowing it to be an accident needs explaining in more detail, the medical expert says the diagnosis is “one of exclusion” which makes me think it’s difficult to diagnose an air embolus so could get very subjective.

 

[Stiltoncheese]

From what I’m reading the defence are going to have to cast some serious doubt over the cause of death. Although personally think the machine not allowing it to be an accident needs explaining in more detail, the medical expert says the diagnosis is “one of exclusion” which makes me think it’s difficult to diagnose an air embolus so could get very subjective.

I think it was the defence who said it was one of exclusion and Dr Dewi said its more than that. He ruled it being air embolus even before he was made aware of the skin discolouration and said that knowing that afterwards just confirmed it as a definitive cause of death

 

[Wellthisisinteresting]

From what I’m reading the defence are going to have to cast some serious doubt over the cause of death. Although personally think the machine not allowing it to be an accident needs explaining in more detail, the medical expert says the diagnosis is “one of exclusion” which makes me think it’s difficult to diagnose an air embolus so could get very subjective.

Maybe for one sad death, but it being the main cause of nearly all of the babies makes it pretty clear to me … an invisible weapon

 

[Daisydunn15]

From what I’m reading the defence are going to have to cast some serious doubt over the cause of death. Although personally think the machine not allowing it to be an accident needs explaining in more detail, the medical expert says the diagnosis is “one of exclusion” which makes me think it’s difficult to diagnose an air embolus so could get very subjective.

The machine just means that any fluids coming through the tube of the bag which LL put up, couldn't have accidentally had a huge air bubble pass through it while it ran as the machine would have alarmed. I don't think the defence have even suggested that to be a possibility, so far all they seem to have alluded to is that placing of the lines could cause complications however this would be done before it was attached to the pump.

 

[SwizzleMalarkey]

Dr Dewy said that the fact they were unable to resuscitate adds to the confirmation of it being an air embolism - but they were able to resuscitate Baby B and several others - so is it less likely to be an air embolism in those cases?
"Resuscitating patients [for doctors] is part of our bread and butter, so resuscitating is well known. When that is unsuccessful, it adds to the confirmation [of an air embolus diagnosis]."

 

[Stiltoncheese]

For these first 2 cases, it was shown LL had opportunity but in a very limited time frame. Operating in plain sight if you believe she is guilty, but still only a small window to attack.

However, it seems like in later cases they will be able to show greater opportunity and times when she was alone for significantly longer and its going to become increasingly more difficult to defend.

I am remaining on the fence until we have heard more evidence just to try and be impartial and objective but if they can't counter the medical opinion that it was deliberate then I just can't see who the defence can pin it in order to get LL aquitted.

I know they don't have to show someone else is guilty, just that LL is innocent but if jury buy the prosecution theory that it's deliberate harm, then they will almost certainly follow that it was probably LL who did it.

 

[slingo16]

Maybe for one sad death, but it being the main cause of nearly all of the babies makes it pretty clear to me … an invisible weapon

I’m as close to guilty as I’ve been so far but a mistake that goes uncorrected is going to cause the same issue over and over again.

The machine just means that any fluids coming through the tube of the bag which LL put up, couldn't have accidentally had a huge air bubble pass through it while it ran as the machine would have alarmed. I don't think the defence have even suggested that to be a possibility, so far all they seem to have alluded to is that placing of the lines could cause complications however this would be done before it was attached to the pump.

You can by pass it to administer drugs so why can’t the mistake occur here, are they saying it could have but not 20 odd different times?

 

[bsh3113]

These doctors are experts who have been called by the prosecution, the defence will have experts later on who will also be cross examined. It will be interesting to hear their points of view

 

[slingo16]

I think it was the defence who said it was one of exclusion and Dr Dewi said its more than that. He ruled it being air embolus even before he was made aware of the skin discolouration and said that knowing that afterwards just confirmed it as a definitive cause of death

I get that, and he’s clearly saying that in his opinion there is no other option. Just to me it seems to read that, you don’t see something and say “air embolus” it’s more of a “i can’t see a clear cause, but I can rule some out but I can’t rule out air embolus so therefore that’s my conclusion”

 

[MrsDimSum]

I think for me when they said air embolus it sounded very medical and could possibly have been accidental, however the word smothering has sent shivers down me.

 

[Daisydunn15]

I’m as close to guilty as I’ve been so far but a mistake that goes uncorrected is going to cause the same issue over and over again.


You can by pass it to administer drugs so why can’t the mistake occur here, are they saying it could have but not 20 odd different times?

You just administer the drugs further down the line away from the pump, you'd have to draw up the medication into a syringe and then push it through the line. For it to be an accident a qualified nurse would need to draw up enough air within the syringe alongside the meds and administer it all together. I mentioned earlier but it's almost automatic, muscle memory to tap out air, and you choose the right size syringe for the medication for example you wouldn't use a 10ml syringe for 3ml medication, you'd use a 5ml one (unless you don't have decent stock but if anything it would make you more careful and the air more obvious). The medical expert estimates around 5ml air was needed.

 

[Faith61]

Dr Evans appears to be giving as good as he gets this afternoon and handling himself very well......!!

 

[Daisydunn15]

Dr Evans appears to be giving as good as he gets this afternoon and handling himself very well......!!

Yes he's holding up really well against cross examination! Much better than the other witnesses.

 

[slingo16]

You just administer the drugs further down the line away from the pump, you'd have to draw up the medication into a syringe and then push it through the line. For it to be an accident a qualified nurse would need to draw up enough air within the syringe alongside the meds and administer it all together. I mentioned earlier but it's almost automatic, muscle memory to tap out air, and you choose the right size syringe for the medication for example you wouldn't use a 10ml syringe for 3ml medication, you'd use a 5ml one (unless you don't have decent stock but if anything it would make you more careful and the air more obvious). The medical expert estimates around 5ml air was needed.

Is it also drummed in to you about the danger of injecting air?

I’d like to hear what the defence come back with before fully going guilty. But to me hearing what I’ve heard and seeing what people have wrote here it seems pretty clear the defence cannot entertain air embolus as a cause of death, too many instances to justify accidents or faults with equipment.

 

[crumpets2]

Is it also drummed in to you about the danger of injecting air?

I’d like to hear what the defence come back with before fully going guilty. But to me hearing what I’ve heard and seeing what people have wrote here it seems pretty clear the defence cannot entertain air embolus as a cause of death, too many instances to justify accidents or faults with equipment.

It’s forced into you very early days that you have to be careful of air bubbles when drawing meds up or giving IV fluids. I agree with the Drs today that said nurses are meticulous in making sure this doesn’t happen

 

[MoveBtchGetOutTheWay]

From what I’m reading the defence are going to have to cast some serious doubt over the cause of death. Although personally think the machine not allowing it to be an accident needs explaining in more detail, the medical expert says the diagnosis is “one of exclusion” which makes me think it’s difficult to diagnose an air embolus so could get very subjective.

Yes he's holding up really well against cross examination! Much better than the other witnesses.

Agreed, I was really expecting more of the defense barrister I think?! I find his questioning to be a little pedantic ? I don't see the point in it? Can someone indicate what hes trying to do? Disprove the cause of death?

 

[I’mThankyou_]

I'm just catching up on todays report.
I knew this was going to be hard to listen too as we did a NICU stint this time last year pretty much.
But I'm gonna have to dip out.
We almost lost twin 2 due to complications in utero, we then almost lost her due to complications due to prematurity & NEC & earlier this year she was placed back onto life support due to massive duck ups made by a NICU oversight that missed a genetic condition that no one picked up on.
To now hear evidence from two well trained and esteemed Dr's? I can't fathom how someone can stand there and do such satanic things to these beautiful tiny harmless babies.

Keep well guys xx

 

[Daisydunn15]

Is it also drummed in to you about the danger of injecting air?

I’d like to hear what the defence come back with before fully going guilty. But to me hearing what I’ve heard and seeing what people have wrote here it seems pretty clear the defence cannot entertain air embolus as a cause of death, too many instances to justify accidents or faults with equipment.

Yeah, even as a student, and I'm not even a general nurse. You even need to get the air out to properly measure the medication using the measurements on the side of the syringe. With 5ml of air in there it would be sloshing around inside.

 

[Lackofimagination]

Screenshot including charities offering support to those who may need it.