Lucy Letby Case #18

[MrsHinchBarmyArmy]

no they haven’t countered it with three, they are just disputing the three explanations.

That is how I read it any way. Him saying professor Hindmarshe’s explanation’s don’t directly make letby culpable.

The three explanations being-

1. That the same bag was transferred over the line,

2.that the replacement stock bag was contaminated,

3.or that some part of the 'giving set' was contaminated by insulin fron the first TPN bag which had bound to the plastic, and therefore continued to flow through the hardware even after a non-contaminated bag was attached.

I might be asking a silly question here....
But say the giving set was contaminated as insulin has binded to the set, is the insulin not able to break down at all? Because its been commented that insulin is only present for 4 to 6 hours....am I right in assuming it will only be present in blood for 4 to 6 hours but if bound to a giving set, it cannot be broken down at all therefore a continuous flow of insulin? Surely there must be a point when there is no more insulin present in the giving set? Imagine if you will some food stuck to a pipe, but water trying to flush it out.... if the water is constant, it can break down the food and flush it away....if that makes sense? Please can someone help me process this?

 

[PeninsulaAndOriental]

Dear Oh dear

 

[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.

 

[FastAndTheCurious7]

For me personally I think she’s 100% guilty. I don’t think it’s a case of Ben fella proving her innocence. I just feel she has the right to a fair trial and he is doing his job to cast doubt and for me no matter what the defence throws at the jury it won’t change my mind. I’ve said it a few times now but Ben has never once said she’s innocent because he can’t lie. So it’s a good job I’m not on that jury because I’m as stubborn as a mule.

 

[MmmB777]

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.

I’m really sorry if I’ve annoyed people today. My pov is only that the unsureness and questioning seems to go one way all of the time, maybe I’ll be proved wrong and defence will get as much scrutiny. I’m not always sure it is about being unsure at all. If I’m wrong on that, then I’m really sorry and I am happy to drop it regardless but also if people do question, I think it’s ok to answer. I have however been really frustrated today and admit that. That’s because I’m not seeing anything that disputes the first bag is contaminated and I’m not sure how it can be anybody else, i respect that others may see how that’s possible. I think If I were to say I was unsure and then say “sorry have I understood this right has the baby got air in it that could only be explained by a car accident? did the baby have a car accident do we know?” Id be being a bit of a Wally and expect people to tell me so. In fact they do when I say she’s unlucky all the time which I’m trying not to but still maintain that’s factual if she is indeed innocent.
Not sure we will get clarification on exactly how it went down, just that the first bags are contaminated with intention to harm.

 

[avabella]

View attachment 1761509

Dear Oh dear

Why don’t you leave the groups if they’re not fulfilling any useful purpose for you?

 

[Faith61]

I’m really sorry if I’ve annoyed people today. My pov is only that the unsureness and questioning seems to go one way all of the time, maybe I’ll be proved wrong and defence will get as much scrutiny. I’m not always sure it is about being unsure at all. If I’m wrong on that, then I’m really sorry and I am happy to drop it regardless but also if people do question, I think it’s ok to answer. I have however been really frustrated today and admit that. That’s because I’m not seeing anything that disputes the first bag is contaminated and I’m not sure how it can be anybody else, i respect that others may see how that’s possible. I think If I were to say I was unsure and then say “sorry have I understood this right has the baby got air in it that could only be explained by a car accident? did the baby have a car accident do we know?” Id be being a bit of a Wally and expect people to tell me so. In fact they do when I say she’s unlucky all the time which I’m trying not to but still maintain that’s factual if she is indeed innocent.
Not sure we will get clarification on exactly how it went down, just that the first bags are contaminated with intention to harm.

I missed most of yesterday so, am only reading between the lines, so forgive me if I'm understanding it wrong?
Clearly she was around and hung the first TPN bag.
Is the "argument"/confusion not around the second bag and the fact she wasn't on duty?
As I say, I missed most of yesterday so it's more of a question than anything!

 

[IGiveUp22]

I’ve not followed 100% so may have missed things I do admit but I was under the impression from what I read that they didn’t change the bag until later. So the baby had the first one & when they noticed things weren’t quite right, they changed other things but not the bag as they didn’t think that was causing any issues? It wasn’t until they’d changed everything else, they then changed the bag? But I may have got that wrong. Doesn’t help with the minimal reporting. Let’s just hope the jury have a clearer understanding.

From the bits posted from the wiki by a PP, I think the defence are basically saying none of the evidence 100% points to the fact it was definitely LL that contaminated the bag/bags. Which realistically is her only defence for these cases when they’ve accepted it was deliberate. I think this is where the jury will have to consider all the evidence as a whole…how likely is it that this was just another coincidence along with all the rest. I think this is what the prosecution meant when talking about patterns

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

I might be asking a silly question here....
But say the giving set was contaminated as insulin has binded to the set, is the insulin not able to break down at all? Because its been commented that insulin is only present for 4 to 6 hours....am I right in assuming it will only be present in blood for 4 to 6 hours but if bound to a giving set, it cannot be broken down at all therefore a continuous flow of insulin? Surely there must be a point when there is no more insulin present in the giving set? Imagine if you will some food stuck to a pipe, but water trying to flush it out.... if the water is constant, it can break down the food and flush it away....if that makes sense? Please can someone help me process this?

Ahh I’m not really sure. I’m assuming that for as long as the contaminated TPN bag is connected to baby F he will have been receiving insulin. These bags can last for a 48hours (? I think), slowly giving him a continual flow of insulin. I wouldn’t t have thought it would run out until the bag had run out.
But if you are referring to explanation three, where one bag has inadvertently contaminated a ‘second bag’ then this is probably the only explanation I don’t fully by, and kind of for reasons you are suggesting (but it could because I’m not grasping it properly). I do just think Letby contaminated bag one and bag one was also the ‘second bag’.

 

[just_nicole]

Can you point to this evidence please, I’ve asked a few times but no one has yet , about the bag change. I think I missed it in between working and being a birthing partner this week.

Think this might be what daisy is referring to. Sorry if I am wrong daisy, hoping to save you a job of scrolling back to Thursdays reporting
Also included the bag change over at 10am just in case I've gotten it confused (screenshot taken from Fridays live feed)

 

[mRsKbRoOkS]

Think this might be what daisy is referring to. Sorry if I am wrong daisy, hoping to save you a job of scrolling back to Thursdays reporting
Also included the bag change over at 10am just in case I've gotten it confused (screenshot taken from Fridays live feed)

Thank you !!! I did read that now you show me but I was very tired at the time . I guess it doesn’t prove either way if it was changed.

 

[housebythesea]

I can’t get my head around it if she did it of course. I can understand maybe being triggered by anger at particular parents about an incident/complaint. But multiple babies & seemingly targeting twins, I don’t understand it. The twins thing is really upsetting.

Without seeing data to put it into context I can't be sure, but is the twin thing relevant? Multiple babies are often low birth weight and often premature so it may not be all that significant. If you just look at the number of multiple births which had been through the unit, it's very much higher than you would see in a general labour ward.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

View attachment 1761207

I thought he said both bags were contaminated? Letby signed for them.

Okay I thought it was just the 1st bag Letby hung. Was the second contaminated bag specifically assigned to that baby?
Surly if two contaminated bags were assigned to the same baby by the same person it's obvious that they are guilty no?

I’d forgotten about the 4 hour rule so you’re right she could have put insulin in the next bag once she got it out the fridge

That makes more sense.

She can't have just contaminated all the bags because because then it would have happened to too many babies.

She couldn't have just done one and left it with the rest because there was not a strong enough chance that the baby she had already begun to poison would get it.

Either the second nurse didn't change the line like she was supposed to

OR

Letby had this bag ready and waiting beside that baby for use next before she finished her shift.

It seems like a massive failing on defence to not question this and a failing on prosecution to have not made this crystal clear.

For me, it does not change the fact the I believe Letby was responsible for this but it just causes unnecessary confusion in my eyes.

Yeah, looks like there were two separate bags, expert witness said both would have needed to be contaminated.

Ignore my reply to you earlier. I was also confused and I think I only added to your confusion!!! Sorry!!!

I’d like to think guys that the jury have access to more than we do. All we can go on is the live reporting that isn’t always detailed. Unless we’re in the court then we need to trust that the jury are getting the full
Picture. They get to ask questions so it might be next week they ask for clarification but if not then they clearly understand something we don’t know

Good point!!

 

[RinsedHoops]

I’m really sorry if I’ve annoyed people today. My pov is only that the unsureness and questioning seems to go one way all of the time, maybe I’ll be proved wrong and defence will get as much scrutiny. I’m not always sure it is about being unsure at all. If I’m wrong on that, then I’m really sorry and I am happy to drop it regardless but also if people do question, I think it’s ok to answer. I have however been really frustrated today and admit that. That’s because I’m not seeing anything that disputes the first bag is contaminated and I’m not sure how it can be anybody else, i respect that others may see how that’s possible. I think If I were to say I was unsure and then say “sorry have I understood this right has the baby got air in it that could only be explained by a car accident? did the baby have a car accident do we know?” Id be being a bit of a Wally and expect people to tell me so. In fact they do when I say she’s unlucky all the time which I’m trying not to but still maintain that’s factual if she is indeed innocent.
Not sure we will get clarification on exactly how it went down, just that the first bags are contaminated with intention to harm.

Bear in mind the questioning is one way because the defence hasn't yet presented their case. I genuinely don't mean this to sound patronising but if people asking questions in order to fully understand the evidence is frustrating and upsetting you, maybe take a few days away from the case. I can't think of any way to say that without sounding like a twit but doing the same thing helped me when the case was consuming me a bit.
I should clarify I believe she did it.

 

[MmmB777]

Bear in mind the questioning is one way because the defence hasn't yet presented their case. I genuinely don't mean this to sound patronising but if people asking questions in order to fully understand the evidence is frustrating and upsetting you, maybe take a few days away from the case. I can't think of any way to say that without sounding like a twit but doing the same thing helped me when the case was consuming me a bit.
I should clarify I believe she did it.

I’m not negatively impacted, I can see how you could be but I’m not, thank you. I don’t need to do anything and I guess I’m only here as much as people that are here getting annoyed by me I’m frustrated that there seems to be a lack of focus on the fact that indisputably somebody poisoned the babies, that’s all
Edited to add I’m more than happy to drop the subject of whether people are questioning because they want to stir up a debate that minimises the fact the babies were poisoned. Genuinely!

 

[housebythesea]

The professor's evidence made no sense if there was one bag contaminated then a whole new bag, long line and giving set used later that morning, as he said the rate of infusion would have been the same right up until the evening. However he's saying that he believes the second bag was also contaminated, therefore it now makes perfect sense to me. I'm sure it's more clearly to the jury, the judge seems to be asking for clarification a lot when needed.

The evidence seems to concede that a new giving set and a new bag - a stock bag - was started at 10am when the first line tissued. LL was gone by then, and I can't see that she could have poisoned a stock bag on the off chance because it was anticipated that the first, bespoke TPN bag would be in use for 48 hours, so it was only by sheer chance that a second bag was put up. The evidence suggests that the level of contamination was the same. I think what has happened is that he has presented a number of scenarios, which include:
1. first long line tissues, long line is changed but giving set reused with new bag, thus contaminating new stock bag
(Problem with this scenario - he also said the amount of insulin would have had to be the same, and that was calculated at 0.58ml/hour. That is not consistent with a trace contamination)
2. first long line tissues, new line, giving set and stock bag used.
(problem with this scenario - that can only mean the stock bag was also contaminated, and to the same concentration, yet the use of a stock bag had not been anticipated, and when the need for it arose, LL had already finished her shift so wouldn't have been there to contaminate it)

For me, neither scenario points to her, and if the second scenario is correct, far from pointing to her, it would exclude her.

 

[Daisydunn15]

Can you point to this evidence please, I’ve asked a few times but no one has yet , about the bag change. I think I missed it in between working and being a birthing partner this week.

and no we don’t. I just think out of everything and looking at the pattern of things and the likely hood of everything it is the most plausible explanation. I struggle with the contamination through the lines due to the readings being similar throughout and that the level of insulin poisoning is suggested to stay relatively the same, when ignoring the dextrose.

Yes the second bag could have been contaminated, but I can see how easy it would to dispute that this was letby if she didn’t hang it. Yes she could have contaminated it previously, but I just don’t know there’s a lot of holes in this scenario imo. Not impossible but just doesn’t fit.

I think the most plausible thing would be the bag not being changed. It just fits, from the readings and logistically. yes I’m looking at it as letby being guilty but if for a minute let’s say she 100 percent is for arguments sake (I mean some is here and it is likely her) , this seems the most plausible to me of the three.

Ah sorry it was on Thursdays live reporting during the nurse's evidence.

 

[Blockedbyadmin]

I don't think so, she was on the nightshit and signed for the 12.25am bag but I haven't seen anything to say she signed for the one on the day shift. There was evidence that they'll counter sign meds for the following shift which is mind-blowing but I don't think that would have happened when the bag was planned to run for much longer.

ahhhh ok sorry I thought she’d signed for the next bag. Sorry!

 

[dual2099]

View attachment 1761509

Dear Oh dear

Do you think these people know her? How could you be so sure of her innocence? Are they listening to the trial!

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

Do you think these people know her? How could you be so sure of her innocence? Are they listening to the trial!

Look I sorta feel sorry for these people as there is something obviously very wrong there. There is thinking someone is NG and then there is that Facebook seems to be a beacon to the mentally unwell and lonely.