Lucy Letby Case #17

[Lucyxxxx]

Baby C is the one whos stuck out to me so far. Little baby was absolutely determined to live. Even when dying he tried fighting it. Fiesty little boy who I bet would of grown up to be a proper little stubborn firecracker. Also I think baby I the little girl the staff had a celebration for. All are obviously really sad but those 2 stick out for me.

 

[OldBlondie]

Hmmmmmmmm was this part of the relevance of the salsa, her saying how getting out did her good, as in poor me me me again. She’s also suggesting the endocrine problem, sounds like she’s setting up another natural explanation. Also that reminds me she sent a text about E querying whether he might have had Down syndrome (I think we’re yet to hear about it), but that will be another possible natural explanation from her too. Her asking about the parents, and saying how good it is they felt they could leave him . Is that her checking whether they’re suspicious or not too

Interesting things coming out of court today.
Blood glucose kept crashing, LL then realises that they’re trying to find the source of the low sugars.

the attacks then stop and the baby leaves. LL probably realised she was close to being caught here, which is why the Baby survived.

I think it will be this case that seals her fate.

And checking what’s going on after her shift has finished too, definitely sounds like she could be realising she’s too close to being caught this time. Especially as she’s busy giving her next potential natural cause for F too. Seems like she definitely was fishing for info on what was going on after she left. The fake concern for parents though really gets meshe’s sick

 

[Rippedjeanmaybe]

I was listening to the podcast and they said that the babies were identical and that they had TTTS. Imagine your babies beating the odds and surviving TTTS, only for one to have their life stolen away. It’s just unreal.

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

Merail

Spoiler: Merail somewhat related should any one be interested. Just got back from being a birthing partner!

So yesterday/last night/ early hours of this morning I was a birthing partner. I’ve been awake now for 30 hours, not long home, baby is perfect , though the labour wasn’t without complications . This is probably the last thing I should be catching up on without any sleep, just getting into bed now.

Anyway in relation to the trial, for the first time in my life I analysed and scrutinised (silently) the medical staff. I didn’t instantly trust them. It is very sad really because I’ve realised that because of what letby has allegedly done people will absolutely be more wary of medical professionals. The midwife’s were all absolutely fantastic and by the end my wariness eased but I didn’t have that instant blind faith and trust like I’ve had before

 

[Tofino]

I’m sorry but hearing this just makes me want to vomit. Imagine that poor mum having to sit and listen to this, I couldn’t. If LL had done what she’s accused of by the prosecution she is beyond sick and beyond evil
View attachment 1751458

that message she sent to her colleague - who also looked after child F by the way! - is so self absorbed. Regardless of whether she is guilty or not she’s excellent at making all these situations about herself.

 

[candyland_]

Usually when you hear about a murder in the news the majority of the time they report how they killed someone then went to Asda and bought beers or they went and did XYZ like nothing had happened. It’s common for them to behave like it never happened.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

It's interesting that Baby E was one of the cases the prosecution focused on most heavily in their opening. When the testimony began a couple of days ago I saw a big swing of feelings towards guilty initially, but again it hasn't held up as I think BM did successfully cast doubt on the care received and muddled the issues of the timings just enough. I know from experience that care can be suboptimal and the outcome still be fine. The review has found that subpar care doesn't explain the deaths. The circumstantial evidence for Baby E is some of the strongest yet I still couldn't convict on this individual death, even though I think she's guilty, so actually IF you don't consider the patterns BM has done his job here. Unless of course the reporting is skewing everything which it could well be. This case does my head in.

The mothers evidence was very powerful and I think it would be more powerful to the Jury.
It also indicates that LL was lying and seemed to catch her harming, or at the very least, neglecting the baby.
She had no reason to send mum away, you would think she would want mum there to comfort and try to settle him. Unless she was orchestrating and trying to cover her tracks.

 

[DianaBanana]

I’m a bit puzzled by what the defence are going to come up with, as in, they’re not going to have time to do much at all?

We’re on week 7. We had a week of opening speeches, so have spent around a week on each baby. There’s 11 babies left, so 11 more weeks like this? Then presumably we’ll hear more about the investigation, house searches, interviews, ‘the note’ etc.

I’d guess a week for closing speeches, another week for judges summing up, a break for Christmas…which leaves very little time for the defence to do much at all. Does this mean they don’t have much?

 

[candyland_]

I find comments like this disrespectful. The doctors did what they thought was best at the time.

 

[raspberryjuice]

Thanks for the wiki.

Debrief around Child A's death on the Friday (30th July), with the last death (Child D) being a month and a half prior. LL allegedly kills Child E that Monday night (dying early tuesday morning), and attempts to murder Child F that same week.

Wonder if the debrief made her relive it and want to do it again.

Or maybe after the debrief she thought “I’ve got away with it, nobody is suspicious so I can do it again”

 

[riddleme89]

I am holding me hands up here to say I could be 100% wrong, (and I’m not medical) but I think it’s in a similar way to what she is supposed to have done to N, when she’s caused actual trauma somehow that’s resulted in them bleeding. But the prosecution seem to be suggesting that her giving him the embolism has resulted in death, but I think they are possibly also going down the road that she was inflicting trauma to cause bleeding too. Please no one jump on me, I’m just giving my opinion based on other stuff I’ve read about N, and the suggestion of trauma causing bleeding, and saying I know it very well may be wrong. @docmum sorry to tag you again, but would it be possible LL did inflict trauma on E that caused bleeding too, not sure if you got chance to read N, but if you did you may see what I mean about the bleeding trauma being what caused bleeding, or whether it’s purely air embolism. I know we will be hearing medical expert witnesses probably soon so they may well answer it in court shortly, it’s just if you had any ideas on it in meantime


Very good point I think, definitely something to consider


I really do understand this, I do, but yesterday docmum wrote a great post that explained why a PM wouldn’t have prob made that much of a difference at the time. I do think though it’s hurt the prosecution for the same reasons you’ve said about how it could have really helped this case. I feel E would have been a stronger case than some we’ve heard so far, but there’s been a few posters that have suggested that a PM could have resulted in same findings as A, and therefore still inconclusive and both sides could have argued it didn’t actually prove air embolism (if that’s what it was). I do the think the doctor really regrets it now, hindsight is a wonderful thing. The doctor was very emotional in court and she apologised to parents and admitted her mistake. I guess it’s too late now cos it’s done, but at least she did apologise and hold her hands up. Whether or not the parents feel this is enough is something that we’ll probably never know though

I agree I think it’s trauma caused by letby
the Dr said a baby doesn’t loose that much blood . The mum is adamant child E was screaming badly .

 

[MmmB777]

Guilty and everybody probably knows that and why! If the crimes accused have taken place, this is exactly the kind of evidence I would expect to hear and see, no big glaring serial killer wringing their hands and laughing manically moments. Big picture has already formed for me and we are only at E. Will take a lot from the defence to show that it could have been down to her luck, chance (both that the docs are covering up and it all happened on her shift or her chance at constantly being on for rare, unexpected, unusual deaths and near deaths) or a bias/cover up. Again all the icing on the cake type evidence fits what I would expect for the crime and probably motive.

 

[candyland_]

I’m recapping over the upcoming babies.

It’s so sad to read that Child G had a little celebration the night of her first collapse. We’re also seeing a pattern of blood and at a later collapse her monitor had been switched off and she was left with irreversible brain damage Again - Letby has no recollection of her Facebook searches on the parents.

It’s another coincidence that many of these babies collapsed while their designated nurses went for their breaks.

 

[docmum]

I've not posted in a while, but I've been following along. Just wanted to add some info to questions asked on this thread...

Doctors intubate babies, however passing NG tubes is a nursing task. Select parents are also taught how to pass NG tubes (if baby is expected to go home tube feeding).

The wired NG tubes are not used in neonates. Neonatal NG tubes are extremely soft, flexible and thin (they range between 4mm and 6mm). Despite this, it's not unusual to get a little bit of trauma from passing one. A tiny amount of bleeding. Blood flecks. Very, very small. Usually when the stomach is empty or the baby has required multiple tubes passed in a small time frame (because they often pull them out).

However, I personally believe the suggestion of an NG tube as the cause of such a blood loss from Baby E to be far fetched. I just can't wrap my brain around it. Or maybe my brain just doesn't work that way. Because I can't fathom the force that would be required.

An introducer is a long, thin, plastic-coated metal rod. Very sturdy, but can be bent into shape. It is inserted into an ET tube, and used to hold the shape of the ET tube while it is inserted. It is then instantly removed and ventilator/neopuff attached. If this was used as a weapon (makes me sick to my stomach even speaking of it in such a way), it could absolutely cause that amount of trauma and bleeding. Having that piece of equipment on her person, in the incubator, near the baby, is extremely risky. Nothing could explain that away. Not like a syringe.

I don't know how to hide text or add spoilers, but avoid the next paragraph if triggered by talk surrounding NEC.

I have cared for babies with huge gastric bleeds before. These babies had confirmed NEC, either by x-ray or PM. The bleeding happens when the bowel perforates. There is usually rectal bleeding as well. I think the defence will argue Baby E had NEC.

lots of good info worded much better than I could manage here!

a couple of things to add re discussion since yesterday. A simple bowel perforation is spotted on X-ray not by looking at the bowel but by positioning the patient (in adults) with the chest more upright so that gas which has escaped from the hole in the bowel in to the abdomen rises up and is seen as a pocket of air sitting ‘freely’ beneath the abdomen. With NEC, where the bowel is still intact you can’t always see it on X-ray - so a normal X-ray doesn’t rule out NEC completely which is why I assume discussion with the coroner allowed them to put it as cause of death, since other pieces of clinical evidence could point toward NEC. Typically in NEC you would see very dilated bowel loops, and thickening of the bowel wall might be visible depending on how the bowel is sitting etc, but effectively depends on position, opacity and contrast within the X-ray between air and more dense matter.

i have done a little bit of reading around air emboli and a couple of things of note - they can cause blood stained froth from the mouth and they can also cause an inflammatory response in the body which causes a cascade of reactions including clotting factors going haywire etc. so would be reasonable to see these bleed more for another reason as well. Please just use this as side info as none of it has been introduced by either legal sides yet as far as I know.


I have tried to put this last paragraph behind a spoiler but it won’t, so please don’t read on if reading re resuscitation is distressing for you. Sorry.

Circling back to a question re the amount of blood during resuscitation, it’s quite common to have this in any resuscitation. You have the regurgitation of stomach contents, there can be some minor trauma from trying to intubate, you have adrenaline which is used in resuscitation attempting to increase blood pressure; and compressions forcing blood around the body meaning any open wounds will bleed. Lastly if she had caused trauma internally as suspected, I imagine any healing of these areas would be dislodged from the compressions.

 

[MmmB777]

This is an extremely emotive case and I don’t really get the need for petty comments or bitchy remarks over me saying something as innocuous as ‘she deserves to have her defense listened to’ lmao.

There thread was a really nice place to be a few weeks ago but it has just degenerated again to the point where people are getting insulted and it’s pointless.

No it really hasn’t. It’s been absolutely fine for days on end now. People are not even really disagreeing with you. I too think she should have a fair trial. When people say lock the bitch up now I can also see why because it’s an emotive case, it doesn’t mean anything to the outcome of the trial. I don’t think that anybody, if they were on the jury, would be saying or acting that way so it’s not really a problem. What is snide is coming on just to say “urgh you haven’t even heard the defence you morons” as if it matters at all, when it truly doesn’t. Coming on and saying ‘I’m still unsure because I haven’t heard the other side yet’ is a different thing to acting like everybody is causing her a mistrial or haven’t got the intelligence to notice it’s still prosecution.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

As I understand it, the only evidence presented so far is that a blood test showed low levels of a metabolite which is normally present with endogenous insulin, but absent in exogenous insulin. However, in my opinion it has not been conclusively shown that this was something administered with intent to harm rather than a prescribing or other error, nor has it been linked to her. If my understanding is correct, it wasn't a case where insulin poisoning was suspected at the time, so suppositions have been made long after the event based on tests which were not specifically looking for insulin. All I'm suggesting is that even without the defence case being heard, I can see where reasonable doubt could well exist.


As I understand it, the only evidence presented so far is that a blood test showed low levels of a metabolite which is normally present with endogenous insulin, but absent in exogenous insulin. However, in my opinion it has not been conclusively shown that this was something administered with intent to harm rather than a prescribing or other error, nor has it been linked to her. If my understanding is correct, it wasn't a case where insulin poisoning was suspected at the time, so suppositions have been made long after the event based on tests which were not specifically looking for insulin. All I'm suggesting is that even without the defence case being heard, I can see where reasonable doubt could well exist.

Both the Defence and LL have admitted, in agreed evidence, that this poisoning, and Baby L’s, were foul play.
Baby F, and every other baby on the unit, were not prescribed insulin at this time.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

Also supports the mothers account of her baby screaming, not a normal cry, but as trauma has been inflicted

So cruel. LL wasn’t even comforting the baby when mum entered the room and then sent mum away. I don’t get that. How can you listen to a baby suffer like that? I’m imagining mum was distraught when she phoned her husband.

 

[docmum]

Thinking about it, BMs parting comment about ‘returning to it later’ makes me think that when the next baby who presented in the same way, he will hammer Dr Gibbs as to why it wasn’t picked up if they had reason to suspect poisoning with the bloods available. So likely we’ll find out then.

 

[Hannah_204]

The daily mail podcasts are good but it’s so awful to hear, half of me doesn’t want it to be true and the other half is like burn the bitch!
Why the hell would anyone do it.
I just really hope everyone gets justice here

 

[od12839]

The insulin is far too damning to ignore.

the defence accept it was foul play, but it wasn’t Lucy. So we just happen to have another killer on the ward, who wanted to frame Lucy

I think I mentioned this in an older thread a while ago, but the insulin is what i've been waiting for. If you accept foul play here then the defence goes from "no crime took place" to "crime took place, but it wasn't Lucy". That's such a massive loss defence-wise.

I'm struggling to think how you defend this properly. I'd argue we don't KNOW insulin was in the TPN bag, but if you can't provide a believable alternative then you're conceding that one. So the only other obvious angle is to say okay, it was foul play via insulin in the TPN bag, but here's why it could have been another nurse and not Lucy. Which is not an accusation you can make without some strong evidence backing it up...