Lucy Letby Case #18

[PeninsulaAndOriental]

Dear Oh dear

 

[Wackie Jeaver]

I'm finding this thread the best - only? - place to get any idea of what is going on. Thanks to all for their expertise, opinions, debates.

 

[candyland_]

I’d also like to know if she was texting for updates for other babies or just the ones she’s accused of harming.

She wasn’t interested when her designated baby needed closer observations during Baby Cs collapses.

 

[Cheddar Chalpupa]

This thread is about the murder and harm of babies....

It's this for me, a picture of my daughter in the NICU came up on my facebook memories today, just looking at this little tiny vulnerable baby laying down full of tubes and wires and it just brought up such a vivid picture of those babies. They were human beings and so so defenceless.

In fact one of the babies in the charges (can't remember if it's a murder or attempted murder charge) was in there for the exact same reason as my daughter was, I had no waters, so she'd had no nutrition for the last few weeks of pregnancy so had low blood sugar and a mild infection, coupled with no sucking reflex. 3 days in NICU being tube fed, given some antibiotics and a very clever process of giving her a dummy whilst tube feeding breast milk so she would learn that sucking = full tummy and she was right as rain. It would never have crossed my mind that she would ever have been in any danger of not being fine, she was in the best place and those babies were too, but there was a murderer lurking at their cot.

It's all so horrendous.

 

[RinsedHoops]

I know this is an emotive subject but I've noticed a lot of tribalism about this case on all corners of the Internet. I think the insulin evidence is very strong but also wasn't 100% on the questions a PP raised about the multiple bags. It's good to ask questions and understand the evidence. It doesn't mean you secretly believe Letby is innocent and in fact it's fine to be undecided on her guilt or innocence when we're not yet halfway through the trial.

 

[crumpets2]

Do you not think the fact the first tpn bag was full of synthetic insulin is slightly more important?

I think honestly somebody should get in touch with the expert or Ben because they don’t seem to realise what a huge mistake they’ve made and how nothing makes sense!

I don’t think your appreciating posters are just discussing the evidence of the TPN and figuring out what could have happened with the bags I.e was it bag 1 or 2 or both. We know there’s insulin contaminating it, the reporting is just slightly confusing. No one is saying it isn’t in the insulin, just discussing how! Please stop jumping down people’s throats. The giving set is important because if it wasn’t changed it allowed for poisoning to continue.

 

[docmum]

Can any medical people help to clarify - the level of insulin in baby F was 4,657, and in the case of one of Beverly Allitts victims, it was recorded as 43,147 (and said to be a full adult syringe).

What volume of insulin would be needed to get a reading of the lower level? What syringe sizes/vial sizes does insulin come in?

the number of units aren’t relevant here ie not like saying she gave 10mg diamorphine.
insulin is either rapid acting or long acting in general. Diabetics get more specific. Neonatal units will only need to stock the rapid acting. This is the same type of insulin that diabetics tend to have with meals as it has a quick onset of action (and a quick clearance). Dose is very much trial and error for diabetics along with the specialist nurses. When it’s required in acute care such as here, you start with the lowest reasonable dose - neonates/children often calculate per kg for everything in medicine. The context around asking dr gibbs about the insulin that was given is clear - it was prescribed, jt was signed for, baby was given further doses of insulin and/or dextrose were given depending on the repeated feedback from testing their blood sugar at the bedside - because it is so rapid acting, you can stabilise things in only a few hours usually. This level of care for something such as insulin is why these patients have 1:1 nursing though. It’s constant monitoring. Insulin is incredibly dangerous.

The level in the blood is not something that has a meaning to me, sorry. What was overwhelming was the ratio of insulin and cpeptide. When the baby wasn’t responding to treatment with the incident once the tpn was started, the bloods sent to the specialist hospital showed that the baby had been exposed to so much insulin that their body had stopped producing insulin entirely in order to try to stay alive as part of the feedback from recognising their own sugars were low. Keep in mind that by this time, baby had repeated infusions of glucose and dextrose at this point - and they had basically no trace of their own insulin that was detectable. No one can ever say how much was in there. It’s the gravity of how that babies body was trying to survive at that time of the blood test; and then the (thankfully) rapid improvement again afterwards. The NICU team saved this babies life from one of their own. It’s unbelievable.

 

[docmum]

If she got the stock bag out to warm up and primed it again with insulin then it would explain her texts, as she would have been home once it was put up. So she might have been texting to know if things were continuing as she had manipulated.
There’s too many loose ends here so think I’ll wait for Monday before I speculate any more around bags and pumps. There seems to be a relevant chunk of detail to come imo.

 

[Treesy19]

I too am very puzzled by this and I have been back and forth over the reports to no avail. The indication is that the TPN bag was changed at 10am when the line tissued. As you say, this would have meant a new giving set and should have also meant a new TPN bag, and the reports seem to indicate that this is what happened and a stock bag was used. This would be long after LL's shift had ended, I assume? In which case, how did a random stock bag also contain insulin? I am not buying the line contamination for a minute, especially as they also state that the quantity of insulin required to produce those readings would have been around 0.58ml/hr. That could not be accounted for by a trace contamination. This second bag issue is very important in my opinion, as far from pointing to her guilt, the apparent contamination of another bag resulting in the same low glucose readings at a time when she wasn't there, could establish her innocence.


I think your meaning was quite clear. As I think I said before, never do jury service. You have only heard a fraction of the evidence, all from the Prosecution and none from the Defence.
If this case is so clear cut why were no cases flagged as suspicious at the time and why did it take so long to bring charges against her?
The fact that someone has been charged with a crime does not mean they have been found guilty; everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence. I may believe her to be guilty after I have heard all the evidence - but not on the basis that there is "no smoke without fire"

This again. I feel I need to point out the bloody obvious. So I'm going to. I’m sorry but as this is a thread on the internet there are many of us that have arrived at guilty, thus far. This does not mean that if we were on a jury that we would have cloth ears for the rest of a given case.

 

[Deeznutslol]

Honestly guys, I’ve got a year and a half left until I qualify as a pharmacist and I’ve got no clue about the insulin either . I think it’s extremely difficult to even begin to try to draw conclusions about how much insulin was given to those babies when we have such little information to go on, I presume the jury will have more though . It’s a shame about the reporting but I suppose it comes down to what they can and can’t release to the public.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

The poll is very interesting - how a combined ~30% of people can still say they’re unsure if she’s guilty or that she’s not guilty, is unbelievable.

Are the Facebook mob starting to infiltrate here?

Well that was my worry when we started bringing them when we started bringing them up if I'm honest.

Also I'm really disappointed at the carry on of some people on this thread, some serious gaslighting going on.

This thread is about the murder and harm of babies, the insulin is pretty much irrefutable that it was deliberate and it happened. If you wanna play mind game with posters here for shits and giggles you need to have a good introspective look at yourself.

 

[Rippedjeanmaybe]

I don’t doubt in my mind that someone did it. I do not believe these deaths were natural or the cause of negligence. I do 100% believe that these deaths were murder.

At first I couldn’t say whether I totally believed it was her, but now im pretty sure. Even though we haven’t heard everything and obviously we haven’t heard the defence.

I just think there are too many coincidences for me, too much pointing to her and too many times were she’s injecting herself into the situation. Plus the random normal blood sugar level that happened to have been recorded by her. It’s too much for me.

if she is guilty as I think she is, I hope she rots. Anyone who could hurt these babies is vile and evil.

 

[riddleme89]

So Facebook people are saying it is foul play but not Lucy . A nurse has mixed it up but not Lucy .
seems it’s everybody else’s fault but Lucy

let’s just say she didn’t kill the babies then why are people blaming everybody else but Lucy ?

 

[housebythesea]

I’m just trying to think about if she didn’t do this what I think happened. So if you accept none of these deaths were murder, surely they’re still down to negligence? And potentially LL’s negligence as you can’t get away from her being involved with everyone one of these babies before their collapses.
so in my mind, they’d have covered a charge of unlawful manslaughter as well if it was such an “unknown/grey” area evidence wise. As these babies shouldn’t have died.

Therefore, I can’t go around to that thinking because there MUST be more to it, evidentially, for them to have gone for murder & attempt murder charges. I appreciate they still need to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.

I’m just musing my own thoughts here. Sorry if this doesn’t make sense haha

The thing is, a lot is down to how evidence is presented, and how reliable the evidence was in the first place. Does anyone remember the case of Sally Clark? She was found guilty of the murder of her two baby sons and served three years of her sentence before the verdict was overturned. Following that I think it was three medical experts who were struck off as a result. The most damning was a professor who claimed that the chances of her having had two cot deaths was many millions to one. His figures were so wrong that the Royal Statistical Society even wrote to the authorities to say so. The prosecution's pathologist was also struck off for failing to disclose that the second child had actually died of a massive bacterial infection - I mean, he actually hid the results from the police, never mind the defence! So I think it's a good thing that the evidence is subjected to a very close examination, and that people shouldn't assume that something is beyond question simply because a professor said so.

 

[docmum]

And just to give people an idea for those that think NICU is a death sentence…

A 24 week prem baby has about a 60% chance of surviving

A 27 week prem baby has about 89%

A 31 week prem baby has about 95%

This is from Tommy’s if anyone wants to look, but it just gives people an idea for those who don’t know much about premature babies. Most of the babies at the countess were 30 weeks+

just because they were premature, it does not mean they were going to die.

this post is very relflective of how I felt musing over things with my cuppa first thing, thank you for these stats. I said last night about how much yesterday floored me and I realised this morning it’s because I have changed my ‘vision’ of someone sneakily harming very sick babies, to someone having a premeditated mission to murder resilient little miracles during a 12 hour window no matter what.

 

[candyland_]

‘Yes, she looks normal. She looks friendly, she looks very average. You would not think she could hurt a fly is you met her as a nurse.’


It’s often said that she looks a certain way but she did make parents feel uncomfortable and she said things to cause them upset - one told her to go away, she said to another that they had said their goodbyes now, she told another that they would die when it wasn’t her place to say. She was also disobedient and didn’t do as the senior staff asked.

All of these things have been said and we are still early into the case. It paints a picture of a cunt to me.

 

[docmum]

Don’t know if it’s posted on here but she’s (LL) is on an interim suspension order. It’s concurrent but annoyingly I can’t see when it started as that would give us an idea of when she was found out theoretically. I maintain though they won’t let her back on the register if she’s found
Not guilty due to her bringing the profession into such disrepute and that’s a huge thing to them. Also so is honesty. And it’s clear she’s lied etc
So it’s all over for her moving forwards. If she’s found not guilty she’ll need a new life and new name as no one will
Leave her alone. Like someone said I think she may take her own life. Unless she’s really unhinged that she thrives off drama ‍

i have huge suspicions that these babies are not the only ones she will face charges for, and I hope to God that I am wrong about this.

 

[PeninsulaAndOriental]

I’m married to a Pharmacist, who also works in a hospital aseptic unit which makes TPN both for babies and adults.

Insulin is NEVER added to TPN.

 

[MmmB777]

Seriously, if it does annoy people so much that opinions are being formed before all the evidence (presumably all the defence evidence also) why wouldn’t you come back in April? Everyone has the right to post here but to keep saying you haven’t heard it all (which generally seems to translate as you aren’t finding every way for Letby to be innocent) and get angry just seems a bit pointless If you’re here, you’re a shit jury member too

 

[crumpets2]

I’m just questioning how whatever they’re clarifying changes much? Ok I’ll stop! I realise I’m getting extremely frustrated and it’s coming across in my posts, it’s not personal. Question away but it would be nice to see less gaslighting and more honesty when people raise these questions

It sadly doesn’t change anything. But posters like to make sense of all the evidence, it’s a discussion forum and that’s what we’re all here for. If someone needs clarification on something doesn’t mean they are protesting her innocence. Or alternatively think she’s guilty.