raspberryjuice
VIP Member
It’s world prematurity day today. Thinking of the families even more today as they should be celebrating their little miracles rather than sat in a court room listening to awful details about their precious babies 
- Notice
raspberryjuice
VIP Member
The last thing I want to do before a night shift is a salsa class.
Confirmed psychopath, for that alone.
Confirmed psychopath, for that alone.
absolutely this.
Inclined to move on from the thread with the bashing of individuals who are actually collateral damage from the effects of a SK, who are willing to hold their hands up and admit they are wrong unlike said SK. I did read the wiki @OldBlondie @MmmB777 and got as far as E/F where there is clearly the formation of a pattern alongside an increase in the deliberate harm - couldn’t read any more from there. They’re really well set out and I will work my way through the rest but I feel heartbroken for all involved; from the Angel babies to the families to anyone who ever had to liaise with her on a shift.
Anyway. I’ve resisted correcting the out of context comments thrown at the doctor all day but the poster above has perfectly explained why it was reasonable for the consultant to be off site. It’s normal within most specialities for the on call consultant to be at home from at least 10pm, and most trusts have a defined radius from which they need to be able to travel in case of emergency. Often this is around 20 minutes. It is known that the registrar on the shift can maintain an airway or lead resuscitation in the period it would take for the consultant to come in. Often there is a handover between the on call consultant and the registrar at the start of shift and the consultant would be resident in the event of a sick patient who didn’t stabilise, or if the registrar wasn’t of a standard to be able to ‘hold the fort’ safely overnight. This is the crux of the matter. Baby E wasn’t sick. They weren’t presenting abnormal observations which make up a trend to suggest they are brewing what could be the start of say sepsis, and could lead to a crash overnight. The baby - and the same with the other cases that I’ve read - crashed rapidly. Babies don’t do that typically. A consultant getting in in time when an air embolus has been administered would be impossible, and even if they had been in the room next door, resus for these cases is often futile. I urge people to read between the lines. ‘I wish I had pushed for a post mortem’ and ‘I wish I had come in sooner’ is not a reflection on the deterioration of baby E that night, it’s a reflection of the events that led baby E to be at risk and how the consultant perceived that they and their colleagues could have protected that baby and the others by being more suspicious, by being more present in general, by knowing then what they know now. They know how guilty she is, there is not a shred of doubt in my kind of that. These cases/phonecalls/incidents are the tip of the iceberg when they have collectively looked back. How the hell was she supposed to think that the nurse she trusted entirely with some of the sickest babies in the area was capable of sabotaging them so quickly that they couldn’t be saved and didn’t fit any pattern seen before or documented in medical literature. There are no papers on how patients with an air embolism would typically behave because they don’t happen and they can’t ethically be part of a randomised controlled group to practice because you’d kill them.
@OldBlondie the nature of the bleeds sound like she has somehow caused a trauma internally, most likely with the tube itself I would imagine - I don’t know neonatal medicine specifically but their anatomy would be more susceptible to this. The rapid crashes of the babies is most definitely the air embolism, in the night very cleverly when little could be done and it wasn’t expected. She is another level of evil and that’s after reading only a quarter of the wiki
PeninsulaAndOriental
Member
Spotted on Facebook this morning. This member appears to believe that the Government are behind it, framing Lucy to justify selling the NHS to ‘the Americas’.
that’s enough internet for me today…and tomorrow…and the rest of all time
Last edited:
Lucyxxxx
VIP Member
Kicking myself for being taken in by this woman. I will say I do think some of these charges she may not have done and it is easier for people to blame her for everything. But these 2 babies have done it for me. If I was a juror the fact baby E didn't have a PM would be enough reasonable doubt for me to say officially NG. Baby F would be my first G verdict if I was a juror. The wickedness is chilling. One of mine was born under 5lb and only cause he was surprisingly healthy he didn't have to go neo natal like I'd been pre warned before giving birth. I'd never seen anything so tiny, he was the size of my friends hand. To think someone could cause harm to something that tiny and innocent, little babies half the size he was. It is unbearable. Parents upstairs oblivious whilst their babies are being snuffed out downstairs. It is giving me the chills I have actual goosebumps typing this.
A couple of medical explanations - apologies if already understood, no intent to be patronising!
Where they are stating ‘use of a weapon’ it is within the realm of what we’ve discussed re the NG tube. NG tubes as well as some other likes such as long intravenous lines have a ‘guide wire’ that sits in the lumen and provides two main purposes. Firstly, they make the tube more rigid to ease insertion along a given path which can’t be seen (effectively being inserted blindly past a point). The wire encourages the path of insertion to be followed correctly and also to stop the tubes sticking and then curling up. Secondly, the wire is opaque on X-ray so it can be used as part of the procedure (alongside aspirating stomach contents) to with tube is far enough/not too far in the stomach, not sitting in the trachea, and therefore the wire can be removed and feed etc can be started. To have created the amount of bleeding reported, it was likely the tube was still reinforced with the wire. But let’s not forget, the clever manipulative **** would know that any trauma from the tube found retrospectively would be asserted to the person who had inserted the tube - once it’s in the correct place it is secured and not expected to move.
Secondly, there is a difference between the injecting of air in to the stomach and in to the vein. The air embolus is what has been injected in to a vein which would have been through an existing intravenous cannula or long line and is essentially untraceable. These signs etc are new to all medics as - as I said in my previous post - they are an unknown entity. If you imagine a loop of continuous fluid in a tube which is being circulated by a pump, what she has done is introduce an air bubble to this loop. The air bubble is likely traumatic in two possible ways - firstly, the ‘bubble’ can lodge in one of the heart chambers and be stuck, meaning blood can’t progress through the heart any more and circulation stops. Secondly, and depending on anatomy, the air bubble can travel to the brain essentially causing a type of stroke. The air in to the tummy via the tubes causes the tummy to inflate like a balloon meaning that the lungs can no longer expand as required. Obviously the discomfort causes distress too. I think it’s tedious to refer to it as ‘CPAP belly’ as actually the NG tube is there to aspirate air forced in to the tummy by the CPAP if there is any ironically. Another possible perspective where if she hasn’t harmed them but had allowed that amount of air to accumulate then she is once again guilty of manslaughter by negligence.
Where they are stating ‘use of a weapon’ it is within the realm of what we’ve discussed re the NG tube. NG tubes as well as some other likes such as long intravenous lines have a ‘guide wire’ that sits in the lumen and provides two main purposes. Firstly, they make the tube more rigid to ease insertion along a given path which can’t be seen (effectively being inserted blindly past a point). The wire encourages the path of insertion to be followed correctly and also to stop the tubes sticking and then curling up. Secondly, the wire is opaque on X-ray so it can be used as part of the procedure (alongside aspirating stomach contents) to with tube is far enough/not too far in the stomach, not sitting in the trachea, and therefore the wire can be removed and feed etc can be started. To have created the amount of bleeding reported, it was likely the tube was still reinforced with the wire. But let’s not forget, the clever manipulative **** would know that any trauma from the tube found retrospectively would be asserted to the person who had inserted the tube - once it’s in the correct place it is secured and not expected to move.
Secondly, there is a difference between the injecting of air in to the stomach and in to the vein. The air embolus is what has been injected in to a vein which would have been through an existing intravenous cannula or long line and is essentially untraceable. These signs etc are new to all medics as - as I said in my previous post - they are an unknown entity. If you imagine a loop of continuous fluid in a tube which is being circulated by a pump, what she has done is introduce an air bubble to this loop. The air bubble is likely traumatic in two possible ways - firstly, the ‘bubble’ can lodge in one of the heart chambers and be stuck, meaning blood can’t progress through the heart any more and circulation stops. Secondly, and depending on anatomy, the air bubble can travel to the brain essentially causing a type of stroke. The air in to the tummy via the tubes causes the tummy to inflate like a balloon meaning that the lungs can no longer expand as required. Obviously the discomfort causes distress too. I think it’s tedious to refer to it as ‘CPAP belly’ as actually the NG tube is there to aspirate air forced in to the tummy by the CPAP if there is any ironically. Another possible perspective where if she hasn’t harmed them but had allowed that amount of air to accumulate then she is once again guilty of manslaughter by negligence.
Lucyxxxx
VIP Member
I dunno guys. I think I might be ready to shift to G. This whole situation with E and F doesn't sit right with my spirit. The first 4 babies as a juror I couldn't confidently convict her and the case that prosecution have put forward for them just wasnt cutting it for me, but these 2 babies I think are a bit of a turning point in the way I'm looking at her. I still stand by everything I've said so far as it's what I've felt at the time and I have made some very good points, but I cant whole heartedly say I believe she is innocent now.
raspberryjuice
VIP Member
Considering if she is found guilty she would be one of the worst serial killers in British history it does make me a bit frustrated at some of the reporting - or lack of. We have medical experts up in court testifying that this could absolutely not have been an accident and suggesting how it could have happened and we get a few tweets from some journalists. But other days we get a couple of nurses giving a brief statement to set the scene of that shift and their every word is reported by the live reporter in court that day.
It baffles me that it’s such a huge case, that could very well be spoken about for the rest of our lives, and it’s getting barely any attention in the media. I also don’t really understand why the live reporting only happens 3, sometimes 4 days a week. The paper know it’s going to be in court 5 days a week can they not arrange another person to run the live feed it the other is only willing to do part time?
Outside of this thread I don’t know anyone talking about it. I mentioned it to someone a few days ago and they had no idea what I was going on about.
It baffles me that it’s such a huge case, that could very well be spoken about for the rest of our lives, and it’s getting barely any attention in the media. I also don’t really understand why the live reporting only happens 3, sometimes 4 days a week. The paper know it’s going to be in court 5 days a week can they not arrange another person to run the live feed it the other is only willing to do part time?
Outside of this thread I don’t know anyone talking about it. I mentioned it to someone a few days ago and they had no idea what I was going on about.
raspberryjuice
VIP Member
Sorry for the me-rail, and I’m going to spoiler it as it’s sensitive and discussing baby PM’s but hopefully it will give some insight in to why they’d maybe try to avoid a PM if possible.
When my nephew died (he was also a baby, but born at full term), he went in to cardiac arrest at home, received CPR immediately and paramedics on scene within 5 minutes. He was pronounced dead over an hour later in hospital. Because he had been born with a heart condition he had had many, many tests/scans and surgery 3 months before he died. He had only recently come home from hospital after being in since his surgery. He was still very small and although his surgery was successful he was still unwell. The consultant in the hospital that night, his consultant, the consultant at the children’s hospital where he’d had his surgery and everyone else involved that night tried to identify a cause of death to avoid a PM because of how traumatic it is for the family. In our case, my nephew had to be taken 250 miles away to GOSH for his PM, and he was there for 2 weeks before coming ‘home’. Because he was having a PM we were only allowed an hour with him the day after he died because they had to preserve him. When he came back he had deteriorated so much we still couldn’t handle him and the condition of his body was awful to see. Even though the funeral directors tried their best to hide it, you can’t hide all the cuts and discolouration that naturally comes when a baby is on a PM table. He was just so fragile when he came back. And he was, although tiny for his age, bigger than these precious babies so I imagine the effect on their bodies would be even more drastic.
If a PM can be avoided you can keep baby in a cold cot, spend time with them, hold them etc. We couldn’t have that because of the PM. So I really do get why the doctors, consultants and coroner would try their best to avoid it if they could. Although that decision in this case has had absolutely horrific consequences, they probably did feel at the time it was much kinder for everyone involved if they could find a cause of death and avoid more unnecessary trauma.
If a PM can be avoided you can keep baby in a cold cot, spend time with them, hold them etc. We couldn’t have that because of the PM. So I really do get why the doctors, consultants and coroner would try their best to avoid it if they could. Although that decision in this case has had absolutely horrific consequences, they probably did feel at the time it was much kinder for everyone involved if they could find a cause of death and avoid more unnecessary trauma.
mRsKbRoOkS
VIP Member
The nursing colleague, who cannot be identified, later messaged Letby from the hospital to say Child F was "a bit more stable" and medics were "trying various tests to try to find answers".
Letby replied: "Oh dear. Thanks for letting me know."
Her colleague said: "He's defo better tho. Looks well, handling fine."
Letby later asked: "Wonder if he has an endocrine problem then. Hope they can get to bottom of it.
Hey all, been following but not as closely as have been super busy of late.
Anyway I know this has already been mentioned but ‘oh dear’ ???! That really is standing out to me! Why would you reply oh dear to the above message ? Some thing along the lines of ‘that’s great, thanks for letting me know” would have been way more fitting and appropriate. I mean the colleague said the baby was more stable, that is great news given the circumstances not an oh dear moment at all!!
And notice the suggested diagnosis again in the following message! Our letby seems to do this quite often. Perhaps an endocrine problem
shut the f*ck up 
Letby replied: "Oh dear. Thanks for letting me know."
Her colleague said: "He's defo better tho. Looks well, handling fine."
Letby later asked: "Wonder if he has an endocrine problem then. Hope they can get to bottom of it.
Hey all, been following but not as closely as have been super busy of late.
Anyway I know this has already been mentioned but ‘oh dear’ ???! That really is standing out to me! Why would you reply oh dear to the above message ? Some thing along the lines of ‘that’s great, thanks for letting me know” would have been way more fitting and appropriate. I mean the colleague said the baby was more stable, that is great news given the circumstances not an oh dear moment at all!!
And notice the suggested diagnosis again in the following message! Our letby seems to do this quite often. Perhaps an endocrine problem
shut the f*ck up I've gone back to unsure after one guilty last time.
I am an NHS manager and I will be the first to say the NHS is in huge trouble. In my experience, things were a lot better in 2015-16.
I support NHS staff the vast majority of whom go above and beyond every day, which is the only reason it's not already gone.
However I don't think you can discuss this case without discussing hospital failings.
If I had to give a view, it would be that she is guilty but could well get away with it because of the jury's perception of the unit.
I am an NHS manager and I will be the first to say the NHS is in huge trouble. In my experience, things were a lot better in 2015-16.
I support NHS staff the vast majority of whom go above and beyond every day, which is the only reason it's not already gone.
However I don't think you can discuss this case without discussing hospital failings.
If I had to give a view, it would be that she is guilty but could well get away with it because of the jury's perception of the unit.
friedeggontoast
VIP Member
Disclaimer: I know this is how I feel because of my own viewpoint so do not come for me, it’s my personal opinion
I just feel sad that there’s a fair chance LL could be found not guilty and get away with this. In the scenario that she did do this, but won’t be found guilty as the evidence is not strong enough, it’s awful. She might walk away and live the rest of her life free while all those families will have to live theirs without their precious babies because of what she did.
I just feel sad that there’s a fair chance LL could be found not guilty and get away with this. In the scenario that she did do this, but won’t be found guilty as the evidence is not strong enough, it’s awful. She might walk away and live the rest of her life free while all those families will have to live theirs without their precious babies because of what she did.
MmmB777
VIP Member
I have just listened to the mail online podcast for baby D and it sounds a lot more compelling for prosecution than was reported. More detail. They actively investigated what could have gone wrong for her because they knew it wasn’t expected even despite the start they had (yes terrible failures but should no way have resulted in death- no infection in mum’s placenta or blood, pneumonia getting better, baby crying around her collapses e.g not a baby being overwhelmed by infection and about to die) and alder hey were involved too and also could not say the death was a result of pneumonia. The parents speak of seeing everybody in utter shock and Dr Brunton had to be told by another Dr to give up CPR because he was trying for so long and didn’t want to stop this case is truly harrowing.
this case is truly harrowing.Can we just have a few hours where we can all be friends first please 
I’m starting to feel really angry at her today.. very weird emotion for someone I have seen only a photo of?!
eta - thanks for lovely comments, it’s no trouble at all especially when it’s something I’ve had to explain to myself in order to understand it anyway. And refreshing things in my mind has probably led to why I’m feeling so upset and angry today as it’s led to beyond reasonable doubt here that it was someone in there, and needs adding together with the investigation/patterns.
I’m starting to feel really angry at her today.. very weird emotion for someone I have seen only a photo of?!
eta - thanks for lovely comments, it’s no trouble at all especially when it’s something I’ve had to explain to myself in order to understand it anyway. And refreshing things in my mind has probably led to why I’m feeling so upset and angry today as it’s led to beyond reasonable doubt here that it was someone in there, and needs adding together with the investigation/patterns.
Last edited:
Wellthisisinteresting
VIP Member
I do hope that this shows the people that believe she is NG that they can at LEAST now see that “someone” on that ward tried to murder that baby … there is a murderer on that ward.
For me the evidence is just getting stronger for that person being LL and LL only.
For me the evidence is just getting stronger for that person being LL and LL only.
one thing that stands out reassuringly to me is that the babies are people, the families are people in the eyes of the jury. We are hearing protected reports so probably some details are omitted in support of protecting identity. All we can imagine is teeny humans and distraught parents but they’re faceless and nameless.. the jury are much more invested and once the reactions of witnesses/LL, plus the patterns etc are clearer, I have every faith in them
OoglyBoogly
Chatty Member
I am privy to a lot of these on call phone conversations in my job so I can probably shed some light on this. The consultant being on call basically means they are still working but just not on the unit. The registrar / SHO and the consultant all have many many years of medical training so they know their onions. When the call is placed to the consultant, if they don't already know the baby, the medical staff give them a full history, so they have the whole picture, including any relevant obs, blood gases etc etc. Even if the consultant knows the baby, they will still run through everything that has happened on the shift. Then the consultant is making very informed medical decisions, it isn't unusual for them not to come in, in fact I rarely see it happen. The registrar is also extremely well trained and 99% of them are able to confidently carry out the consultant's plan and they will question if they don't agree. On call can be for anything really, not just extreme emergencies, ie if the reg is unsure of what they are doing, it's common for them to check. So it's not bad of the consultant not to have come in, as she wouldn't have suspected foul play. Once the medical interventions she recommended were not working and the reg called to update her, that's when she came in. Nothing out of the ordinary, imo.
Haveyouanywool
VIP Member
She’s getting her fair trial. There’s not even that much media coverage. No press, or public, running after the van she’s arriving in. No tell all exposè (yet).
There have been pages of speculation on here about her relationships, social life, personality, because we don’t actually know.
It really does not matter if anyone on here thinks she’s guilty, or innocent, we literally don’t count.
Last edited:
I’mThankyou_
VIP Member
Left & right Kitten heel, I believe.