Lucy Letby Case #13

[StatusWoe]

Eh matalan do some good holiday clothes & cheap cushions, don’t knock it until you try it

This thread has taken an unexpected turn. I like it.

Firstly I'm probably old enough to be some of your mothers and I don't shop in Bon Marche, and secondly I have the double leather Pandora I got for my 40 th.. And I only wear like 4 things on it from our travels.. So yah boo sucks fellas.....

*Makes mental note to update court drawing*

''A nice fella with Pandora (4 things on it). No Bon Marche. Old enough to be your mother.''

Listens to...Fela?

 

[gmf21]

I know nothing about NICU, but with adults who need that level of care, they very rarely “suddenly crash” because you’ve got all that monitoring telling you if they’re deteriorating.

So stable or in good condition is in context (although it seems as if all those babies had an ok prognosis) but you wouldn’t be expecting those babies to just go off like they did, which I am guessing is what rang alarm bells, along with the statistics. I think she did it now but will be very interested to hear the defence.

Doesn’t seem we know much about her demeanour in court but I do think the description of her just looking at one of the parents is odd. She can’t be on a tonne of meds that affect her functioning or she’d not be fit to attend I wouldn’t think, so one assumes that’s not influencing her reactions.

 

[Daisydunn15]

I don't really understand how people can dispute the many doctors and medical experts who have said that these babies should not have died when they did.
If they say the babies could only have died by someone causing their death deliberately, I don't get how someone can question that.

One question: if LL is found guilty of this, does anyone know if the police may then advise other parents that they think LL murdered their baby too, but there isn't enough evidence for the CPS to prosecute, or would the police keep quiet?


That's hilarious!

Night fellas x

I'm just holding off until we hear any medical experts for the defence, because then its a case of which Dr's do we believe

Does anyone who has worked with neonates know how insulin is normally administered or stored? Our patients all just had insulin pens that they or we would administer subcut, I'm assuming it's different?

 

[PenelopeTitsDrop]

I'm just holding off until we hear any medical experts for the defence, because then its a case of which Dr's do we believe

Does anyone who has worked with neonates know how insulin is normally administered or stored? Our patients all just had insulin pens that they or we would administer subcut, I'm assuming it's different?

Ah right, I thought it was just the one lot of medical experts that testify for both sides. I'm confused now (that's pretty common with my addled brain though). Will the defence call their own medical experts too? Are the prosecution ones not impartial? I don't understand what will happen in that case.

 

[MmmB777]

I'm just holding off until we hear any medical experts for the defence, because then its a case of which Dr's do we believe

Does anyone who has worked with neonates know how insulin is normally administered or stored? Our patients all just had insulin pens that they or we would administer subcut, I'm assuming it's different?

Can I ask a genuine question.. do you think though that when you hear the defence experts give evidence you’ll do the same kind of thing you’ve been doing for the prosecution and think of what ifs like what if Lucy really did xyz..what if it does matter that she had given an intervention 10 minutes before on loads of occasions etc. I’m genuinely not criticising or anything like that! I just wonder if for those that haven’t found this evidence compelling, experts believable, witnesses believable, think there’s possible natural or other causes, asked a lot of possible what ifs, will that be the same approach to stay open minded when the defence come on? Obvs I’ve totally shown I’m the picture of open mindedness

 

[Daisydunn15]

Ah right, I thought it was just the one lot of medical experts that testify for both sides. I'm confused now (that's pretty common with my addled brain though). Will the defence call their own medical experts too? Are the prosecution ones not impartial? I don't understand what will happen in that case.

We don't know who their witnesses are at the moment but everyone we've heard from so far have been prosecution witnesses who have been cross examined by the defence, later on we'll get defence witnesses cross examined by the prosecution.
If there are no medical experts then it'll be a pretty poor defence but then if the cause of death is undoubtedly air embolism they may not find a medic who will testify otherwise. It's a lot of opinions rather than absolute fact and because they're using differential diagnosis you will probably have other medics who disagree - it'll be different with the insulin but we're yet to hear the defence on that too.

Can I ask a genuine question.. do you think though that when you hear the defence experts give evidence you’ll do the same kind of thing you’ve been doing for the prosecution and think of what ifs like what if Lucy really did xyz..what if it does matter that she had given an intervention 10 minutes before on loads of occasions etc. I’m genuinely not criticising or anything like that! I just wonder if for those that haven’t found this evidence compelling, experts believable, witnesses believable, think there’s possible natural or other causes, asked a lot of possible what ifs, will that be the same approach to stay open minded when the defence come on? Obvs I’ve totally shown I’m the picture of open mindedness

Yeah I will. The prosecution medical experts seem to be credible fellas and its not that I don't find them believable or think they're lying, there's just almost always another opinion in medicine and we should hear those too. There is still a question of bias from the Dr's who worked at that hospital which is unavoidable and we'll never know whether it's influencing their answers. They are all consultants though and experts in their field, so the defence need to produce the same or I'll believe the opinion of the prosecution medics.

 

[anotheronebitesthedust.1]

I'm confused about why the doctors were so shocked that 800g seriously premature babies that can't feed or breath properly would suddenly deteriorate and die. Is that not why they were in ICU in the first place because they are at high risk of complications and death? They seem oddly determined in their evidence that this simply can't happen and the only explanation is murder. As a lay person this seems odd. If I was on the jury I would need a bit more convincing about the cause of death being deliberate and not a consequence of prematurity and/or negative effects of treatment efforts which has been suggested.

Baby and adult ICCUs are probably the same , you don’t have to be really I’ll and close to death to be a patient there. There’s machines that are only available in these departments so some will only be there to use them I.e airway support

 

[I’mThankyou_]

I'm just holding off until we hear any medical experts for the defence, because then its a case of which Dr's do we believe

Does anyone who has worked with neonates know how insulin is normally administered or stored? Our patients all just had insulin pens that they or we would administer subcut, I'm assuming it's different?

It's done via IV, well ours was anyway, never saw anyone give them a subcut injection they were just on a sliding scale and pump adjusted when necessary

 

[MmmB777]

We don't know who their witnesses are at the moment but everyone we've heard from so far have been prosecution witnesses who have been cross examined by the defence, later on we'll get defence witnesses cross examined by the prosecution.
If there are no medical experts then it'll be a pretty poor defence but then if the cause of death is undoubtedly air embolism they may not find a medic who will testify otherwise. It's a lot of opinions rather than absolute fact and because they're using differential diagnosis you will probably have other medics who disagree - it'll be different with the insulin but we're yet to hear the defence on that too.



Yeah I will. The prosecution medical experts seem to be credible fellas and its not that I don't find them believable or think they're lying, there's just almost always another opinion in medicine and we should hear those too. There is still a question of bias from the Dr's who worked at that hospital which is unavoidable and we'll never know whether it's influencing their answers. They are all consultants though and experts in their field, so the defence need to produce the same or I'll believe the opinion of the prosecution medics.

Thanks fella and fair dos. I think from the opening statement the defence will just float “but air can get in the line and it can get there in PM” but the prosecution are saying more concretely ‘it’s only possible in this case that it was air administration’. I could be wrong!
I mean their opening about the insulin is the biggest load of guff I’ve ever read tbh!

 

[Daisydunn15]

It's done via IV, well ours was anyway, never saw anyone give them a subcut injection they were just on a sliding scale and pump adjusted when necessary

Ah OK, what does the actual insulin come in? Is it like a bottle that gets prepped into a syringe like a syringe driver or is it in a bag?

 

[Faith61]

Thanks fella and fair dos. I think from the opening statement the defence will just float “but air can get in the line and it can get there in PM” but the prosecution are saying more concretely ‘it’s only possible in this case that it was air administration’. I could be wrong!
I mean their opening about the insulin is the biggest load of guff I’ve ever read tbh!
View attachment 1708213

" it is difficult to say if you don't know"
What a stupid statement that is...or is it just me?

 

[MmmB777]

" it is difficult to say if you don't know"
What a stupid statement that is...or is it just me?

‘So much has been said about these’ U ok Ben fella?

 

[I’mThankyou_]

Ah OK, what does the actual insulin come in? Is it like a bottle that gets prepped into a syringe like a syringe driver or is it in a bag?

It was never prepped at the bedside, it was always done in the treatment room with 2 nurses then they'd come out with it in a saline bag with 5% glucose (yes I did go back and check one of my photos of the twins as I took as it was in full view) and put on what looks like a baxter pump
I'll have to dig our NICU diary out because I know I wrote down everything whilst we were there Yes I am that fella, HCPs make the worst parents and they're even worse when it's their children who are ill

 

[avabella]

Can I clarify - was it found that the insulin in the babies bodies was synthetic and not as a result of a condition like hyperinsulinism?

 

[Daisydunn15]

Thanks fella and fair dos. I think from the opening statement the defence will just float “but air can get in the line and it can get there in PM” but the prosecution are saying more concretely ‘it’s only possible in this case that it was air administration’. I could be wrong!
I mean their opening about the insulin is the biggest load of guff I’ve ever read tbh!
View attachment 1708213

Well this is it, the defence experts would have to say 'I believe the cause of death to not be air embolism because xyz' or 'I believe the cause of death to be something else because abc'. It wouldn't be enough for me if they just said ah it could be that the baby was just small or something.
Yeah doesn't sound like they have much for the insulin but maybe they're saving it? They can't dispute that it was insulin so they need to find a different explanation.

I also think the defence can use the poor documentation to cast reasonable doubt, if LL is placed near the babies soon before their death or collapse due to notes and we know that the notes were often wrong it could sway the jury. I'd be surprised if they didn't lean into that for their argument.

I also think it's different for us to say G/NG, even if by the end I personally think she's G, there may be enough doubt that a jury can't convict which is really worrying.

Can I clarify - was it found that the insulin in the babies bodies was synthetic and not as a result of a condition like hyperinsulinism?

Yeah it was synthetic.

 

[MmmB777]

Can I clarify - was it found that the insulin in the babies bodies was synthetic and not as a result of a condition like hyperinsulinism?

100% has to be yep because of the c-peptide levels (possibly made that up but it rings a bell )

 

[Deeznutslol]

Can I clarify - was it found that the insulin in the babies bodies was synthetic and not as a result of a condition like hyperinsulinism?

I thought it was that they’d found insulin in the TPN bags which proved it wasn’t hyperinsulinism. Can anyone clarify?

 

[Faith61]

‘So much has been said about these’ U ok Ben fella?

The fella is not ok

 

[stardust1]

I'm just holding off until we hear any medical experts for the defence, because then its a case of which Dr's do we believe

Does anyone who has worked with neonates know how insulin is normally administered or stored? Our patients all just had insulin pens that they or we would administer subcut, I'm assuming it's different?

my sons was in like a bag and they had this sliding thing that they would adjust the dose (not explaining well but no injections for us)

 

[MmmB777]

Well this is it, the defence experts would have to say 'I believe the cause of death to not be air embolism because xyz' or 'I believe the cause of death to be something else because abc'. It wouldn't be enough for me if they just said ah it could be that the baby was just small or something.
Yeah doesn't sound like they have much for the insulin but maybe they're saving it? They can't dispute that it was insulin so they need to find a different explanation.

I also think the defence can use the poor documentation to cast reasonable doubt, if LL is placed near the babies soon before their death or collapse due to notes and we know that the notes were often wrong it could sway the jury. I'd be surprised if they didn't lean into that for their argument.

I also think it's different for us to say G/NG, even if by the end I personally think she's G, there may be enough doubt that a jury can't convict which is really worrying.



Yeah it was synthetic.

I hear you. I think on lots of occasions Letby herself has confirmed she was the one to administer things too though and then you can corroborate with notes, witnesses and I would conclude she was. She does appear to give herself false alibis in different notes as we go along so that will be hard I guess which is why getting an idea of her behaving oddly to parents, searching these children’s parents sometimes as much as two years later and in sets and anniversaries etc, ‘I’m evil’ note become helpful to get the picture of what she was up to. X