Lucy Letby Case #18

[mRsKbRoOkS]

Professor Sally Kinsey is going to give evidence for a and b aswell as F. I think this shows that even for the prosecution we’ve still not heard all the evidence for the first babies. It’s reminded me about the expert pathologist too, so presume they will give evidence for some of these first babies later in the trial

I’m guessing this is the 5th expert we were waiting for. Maybe she wasn’t available until now as she is discussing many of the babies at once.

That’s four medical experts now confirming symptoms of air embolus for baby A.

View attachment 1768945

Oh have we only heard from 4 experts ? I thought we had five. I’ll need to go back and check.

 

[Faith61]

There could be many reasons..
- She might enjoy reliving each case and causing further suffering to those involved.
- By going to trial it is giving her six months out of her cell plus all the time away from the wing with her solicitors in the build up to the case.
- The case brings her further attention. I imagine her parents fawned all over her during the past few years and basking in everyone talking about her.
- She knows they don’t have concrete proof it was her that did it so it was worth a shot at pleading not guilty.

I rewatched the BA/Trevor Mcdonald documentary last night and she/BA fits all the above...literally revelled in it all....thank the lord for that SIO who wouldn't give up and brought the evil " thing " to justice..even though she's prob loving life in Rampton and still getting off on her "fame"
Many similarities in the two cases...even though it came out that BA had shown weird behaviours over the years, still none of her colleagues believed she was capable!

 

[Nelly's mum]

It's just dangerous to trust that much, these procedures are in place for a reason. I've worked in some fantastic teams and trusted them absolutely, but I've never counter signed a drug without checking it with the other person and never written notes on someone else's behalf. I don't think you do those cos of trust, I think you do them because you're burnt out and run ragged and have started to let things slip. Either way it's not right, I hope the nurses involved have had access to some good supervision to improve their practice.

I see your point re supervision and good practice - they will protect staff to some degree. But I can't see that this would prevent LL or any other SK in a hospital setting. They have access to victims and plenty of ways to harm or kill, they can steal and replace drugs (liquids etc), not give medication and hoard to poison patients, hoard medication and say it has been destroyed, tamper with equipment etc etc.

Nursing is largely run on trust - all the guidelines and correct procedures in the world are not going to prevent a SK in a hospital setting. They are not following the rules.

Increased awareness and vigilance, tight procedures and stock control will not prevent a manipulative SK in a hospital setting

 

[candyland_]

I was reading about a nurse serial killer who killed over 200 people.. His colleagues gave him the nickname Resuscitation Rambo because they thought he was jinxed. Like Letby he was seen as a nice person so nobody suspected him.. He later admitted to it and apologised to his victims families.

'Resuscitation Rambo' who 'played' God may have killed 200 patients

Niels Hoegel was 'drunk on power' and picked victims at random 'out of boredom'

timesofmalta.com

 

[Tofino]

I’m guessing this is the 5th expert we were waiting for. Maybe she wasn’t available until now as she is discussing many of the babies at once.



Oh have we only heard from 4 experts ? I thought we had five. I’ll need to go back and check.

it’s meant to be 5 - but she is the 4th so far. The 5th is the expert pathologist we’ve not heard from yet.

 

[Blockedbyadmin]

Oooo it’s all going on in court about how child E died and why it was spontaneous etc.

 

[Faith61]

Oooo it’s all going on in court about how child E died and why it was spontaneous etc.

Was just thinking ...BM's questioning will be interesting!

 

[Blockedbyadmin]

Like someone said so it’s 4 experts now confirming the child died by unnatural causes. Will the defence have so many?

 

[OldBlondie]

Today seems to be a strong day in court so far for the prosecution. This professor seems to be explaining, and showing the jury in detail why she’s also come to conclusion of air.

And going back to poor E, no the bleeding was not spontaneous, he didn’t just bleed for no reason. It was the evil LL attacking him poor mum having to listen to this again today, knowing she walked in on it, but still listened to LL to leave as she completely trusted her

 

[crumpets2]

I’m post nights so forgive me if I’ve missed something, but at the bottom, for Baby E it says it was spontaneous and then above it says it was not spontaneous

 

[just_nicole]

View attachment 1769082
I’m post nights so forgive me if I’ve missed something, but at the bottom, for Baby E it says it was spontaneous and then above it says it was not spontaneous

Expert has used blood results of surviving twin child F to base their opinion on Child E who passed away as they were identical twins, you'd assume any disorders would be shared.

So nothing flagged to cause spontaneous bleeding that was seen in Child E
Confusing when they swap children mid evidence so could be wrong
Edited to add ignore me am wrong missed the not spontaneous

 

[raspberryjuice]

View attachment 1769082
I’m post nights so forgive me if I’ve missed something, but at the bottom, for Baby E it says it was spontaneous and then above it says it was not spontaneous

I noticed this. I was assuming it was just a typo as it goes on to explain it can’t have been spontaneous

 

[mich81]

I’m more of a lurker but this case is intriguing.

Re the insulin - I had gestational diabetes and took a photo of the planned insulin needed during delivery - obviously bear in mind this was for me not the baby but it shows what is needed when blood sugars drop below a certain level.

In my experience, none of the midwives had great knowledge of insulin. I had a sliding scale setup when I had steroid injections prior to birth, and all only went off the charts when knowing what to administer and when my sugars dropped low unexpectedly suggested chocolate to bring them back up quickly (which my diabetic consultant said not to do) so I’d be surprised if a neo natal nurse had in depth knowledge

 

[OldBlondie]

View attachment 1769082
I’m post nights so forgive me if I’ve missed something, but at the bottom, for Baby E it says it was spontaneous and then above it says it was not spontaneous

I think the Professor was saying it had to have been spontaneous bleeding at first to have caused so much unexpected blood loss (when she first looked at it). But then after further investigation, and also looking at F’s results since, she’s now concluded that it couldn’t just be spontaneous bleeding after all, something had to have caused it ie LL. It’s a massive unexplained blood loss, that’s not just spontaneous. That’s how I read it anyway

I’m more of a lurker but this case is intriguing.

Re the insulin - I had gestational diabetes and took a photo of the planned insulin needed during delivery - obviously bear in mind this was for me not the baby but it shows what is needed when blood sugars drop below a certain level.

In my experience, none of the midwives had great knowledge of insulin. I had a sliding scale setup when I had steroid injections prior to birth, and all only went off the charts when knowing what to administer and when my sugars dropped low unexpectedly suggested chocolate to bring them back up quickly (which my diabetic consultant said not to do) so I’d be surprised if a neo natal nurse had in depth knowledge

Yea, I’m pretty sure yesterday it was said that the nurses aren’t responsible for any insulin, it would be solely down to the doctor?

 

[docmum]

It’s the meanings of spontaneous. So the bleeding was spontaneous in that the bloods showed normal Hb ie hadn’t bled before, and normal platelets ie clotting was normal - it hadn’t happened before and had no reason to happen according to the bloods. But it wasn’t spontaneous bleeding as it was caused by an external force.

 

[Justacatindisguise]

View attachment 1769082
I’m post nights so forgive me if I’ve missed something, but at the bottom, for Baby E it says it was spontaneous and then above it says it was not spontaneous

Looking at E's notes, the bleeding appears to be spontaneous as there's no clear explanation. After looking at F's medical records from the next two and a half years they've come to the conclusion that it wasn't spontaneous, as in someone caused it. That's how I read it anyway.

ETA lol whoops got distracted typing and everyone beat me to it

 

[dual2099]

I often think if she’s done this, why would she take it as far as a trial? Why would you want all these details aired?

However, then it occurred to me that when you’re on remand awaiting a trial, you’re in a remand prison. You have more privileges than a lifer for example, including additional visits and money to spend. If you’re aware you’re guilty, but if you plead guilty you’re straight to your sentence, why wouldn’t you just wait for the backlog to clear and be held in a remand jail for 2+ years? 🥹

She has nothing to lose from pleading not guilty, I suppose.

She may as well try, because if it can’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt she has the potential to walk free, having says that I think they would try her on other charges. I think the chance of her walking free, is slim to none.

 

[crumpets2]

Thanks guys who replied! Makes more sense now

 

[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.

 

[Faith61]

Here we are again questioning cause of death of baby E
It's scary to think.if she did physically harm.him, she could get away with it...