Lucy Letby Case #10

[Emmelina Ball]

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!

Maybe it’s they are describing it different? Blotchy red is different to purple and white I think the dr and todays nurse said?

The issue for me (not that I matter at all in this case ) isn’t that the rash may or may not have been there (I think it most likely was with so many are mentioning it) but that it wasn’t in the notes of baby A. That really should have been recorded and it paints a picture of the types of routine errors happening day in and day out on that ward. It also looked bad on the nurse today who recalled it today in court but not at the police statement 4 years ago. That sort of fits with a theme what the defence said about was she saying this because others were saying it osomething to that tune.

 

[Tangerine Cat]

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 case
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

The doctor was a terrible witness for the prosecution and only helped her defence IMO

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

Maybe it’s they are describing it different? Blotchy red is different to purple and white I think the dr and todays nurse said?

The issue for me (not that I matter at all in this case ) isn’t that the rash may or may not have been there (I think it most likely was with so many are mentioning it) but that it wasn’t in the notes of baby A. That really should have been recorded and it paints a picture of the types of routine errors happening day in and day out on that ward. It also looked bad on the nurse today who recalled it today in court but not at the police statement 4 years ago. That sort of fits with a theme what the defence said about was she saying this because others were saying it osomething to that tune.

Very good point x

 

[Notworthy]

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!

I don't think they're questioning the validity of the rash but the fact it wasn't noted, therefore what else wasn't noted that could potentially determine a reason for any deaths.

 

[Tofino]

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!

WOAH!! Yes I totally missed this.

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

I don't think they're questioning the validity of the rash but the fact it wasn't noted, therefore what else wasn't noted that could potentially determine a reason for any deaths.

Perhaps, but this whole part below from the defence today suggest’s that the defence are trying to discredit that there ever was a rash. Might just be my interpretation of it.

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?'

 

[Tangerine Cat]

Maybe it’s they are describing it different? Blotchy red is different to purple and white I think the dr and todays nurse said?

The issue for me (not that I matter at all in this case ) isn’t that the rash may or may not have been there (I think it most likely was with so many are mentioning it) but that it wasn’t in the notes of baby A. That really should have been recorded and it paints a picture of the types of routine errors happening day in and day out on that ward. It also looked bad on the nurse today who recalled it today in court but not at the police statement 4 years ago. That sort of fits with a theme what the defence said about was she saying this because others were saying it osomething to that tune.

The doctor today called it a 'rash' but that’s something that appears ON the skin, I understood it was mottling that was IN or UNDER the skin….

I wish we could have some sort of continuity. Modern medicine knows what sort of side effects will be seen so I’m not sure she’s given them any medication to cause this mottling or rash because the doctors would know what they’d potentially been given.

The only thing I can think of that could cause the moving mottling ( and I’m no medic) is that she’s injected air into their veins, is that possible and could it be a cause of death that way?

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.

Valid point maybe trying to establish whether it was ‘normal’ or not?

But I think one doctor said they’d never seen it before in all their working life??

 

[strawberrylaces01]

First time commenting on this thread, but have been following the trial. What I don’t understand is Dr. Ravi is a paediatrician consultant, not a neonatologist, in my understanding they are two very different specialities and I’ve never known a paediatrician to be on the neonatal wards, does that differ between trusts?

 

[Tofino]

The doctor was a terrible witness for the prosecution and only helped her defence IMO

I disagree. I think the fact him and other senior colleagues had suspicions about Lucy strengthens the prosecution case. I know he and others were wrong to not take it further when none of the bosses acted on their concerns but I think it’s a stronger position than all her colleagues saying they didn’t notice anything unusual or have any suspicions.

If he’s lying to try and look the hero as a PP suggested, then that’s not working out very well for him is it? I see no reason for him to lie about it at all, he was only ever going to come out of this looking bad with this testimony and I’m sure he knows that.

 

[Emmelina Ball]

The doctor today called it a 'rash' but that’s something that appears ON the skin, I understood it was mottling that was IN or UNDER the skin….

I wish we could have some sort of continuity. Modern medicine knows what sort of side effects will be seen so I’m not sure she’s given them any medication to cause this mottling or rash because the doctors would know what they’d potentially been given.

The only thing I can think of that could cause the moving mottling ( and I’m no medic) is that she’s injected air into their veins, is that possible and could it be a cause of death that way?




But I think one doctor said they’d never seen it before in all their working life??

Yea the inconsistency in how it’s being talked about is soooo frustrating. They might also argue it was a rash and not a mottling if LL described it as red blotching (which sounds like a skin rash rather than under skin?) and the nurse describing it as white and purple (which sounds under skin) and dr describing it as bright pink against a background of blue grey (as if we weren’t confused enough!!) - I think whatever was going on with the skin it must have been very unusual for so many to describe it differently (rash, mottling, colour of it) it’s so frustrating that it wasn’t documented because then we could of been more certain what was presenting rather than relying on the info of a) a potential murderer who may be swaying the truth b) a dr who didn’t record it at the time in babies notes c) a nurse who didn’t record it in police statement but relies on it in court 4 years later as significant.

This is where nurse calls it white & purple

 

[Lucyxxxx]

Who’s not guilty in the poll can I ask?

Me lol.

 

[slingo16]

I disagree. I think the fact him and other senior colleagues had suspicions about Lucy strengthens the prosecution case. I know he and others were wrong to not take it further when none of the bosses acted on their concerns but I think it’s a stronger position than all her colleagues saying they didn’t notice anything unusual or have any suspicions.

If he’s lying to try and look the hero as a PP suggested, then that’s not working out very well for him is it? I see no reason for him to lie about it at all, he was only ever going to come out of this looking bad with this testimony and I’m sure he knows that.

I know I said earlier I thought the doctor was lying and maybe I wasnt clear that’s kinda irrelevant. It’s more it’s difficult to trust someone given he didn’t push harder after he baby k incident. Like I said he was clearly suspicious already, and I struggle to trust someone who didn’t say anything given the circumstances

 

[I’mThankyou_]

First time commenting on this thread, but have been following the trial. What I don’t understand is Dr. Ravi is a paediatrician consultant, not a neonatologist, in my understanding they are two very different specialities and I’ve never known a paediatrician to be on the neonatal wards, does that differ between trusts?

Pediatricians can cover level 2 beds and work along side neonatalogists.

 

[just_nicole]

Still unsure, I think the prosecution may have undermined their own case slightly, by adding in additional charges that aren't as solid evidence wise.
Have a feeling I may be split between guilty and not guilty on some charges

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

Continue here.

No live updates today but the Chester standard should be back tomorrow! Hopefully decent reporting

Hope so, I was so lost today. Not that I matter in the grand scheme of things I suppose

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!

Thank you for sharing that, I , like many others I assume, totally missed the original post!

That's what happens when the threads move so fast I guess!

 

[candyland_]

I sway back and forward but overall I think guilty.

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

I sway back and forward but overall I think guilty.

I feel exactly the same as you!

 

[strawberrylaces01]

Pediatricians can cover level 2 beds and work along side neonatalogists.

Thank you for clearing that up for me, wherever I’ve worked they’ve been very separate, so was slightly confused that a paediatric consultant was on the neonatal wards.

 

[candyland_]

I think we need to remember that we only hear a tiny snippet from court so it seems a waste of energy to pull apart one snippet of a witness testimony.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

I think we need to remember that we only hear a tiny snippet from court so it seems a waste of energy to pull apart one snippet of a witness testimony.

Yup, it's hard because I really do feel like with the limited information we get we can't make any accurate judgements but I can't seem to leave this case alone.

I don't think it's healthy for me tbh but it just doesn't feel right how it's getting so little coverage and I don't want to be yet another person to turn a blind eye to what happened to these babies but it's a emotionally difficult case to follow.