I’m sure there’s a joke/pun to be found in here somewhere
I'm with you on this - the answer seems to be that they took the attitude "Well, the child is okay now" and nothing further was done. I think that's very poor; essentially, they had evidence that a baby had been given insulin they shouldn't have had but decided to do nothing with that information. If two aircraft have a near miss, they still investigate why, otherwise how do you know it won't happen again?For me it’s absolutely impossible that whoever read these results didn’t understand the relationship between c peptide and insulin. I understand it’s an unusual test, but it’s not a difficult conclusion to reach, the results are described by the prosecution as there being no other conclusion. low c peptide and high insulin means the insulin is synthetic it doesn’t seem difficult to grasp especially for professionals. Why send off for a test that no one would understand the results of anyway?
As much as I agree with you there are so many drugs that can cause fatal overdoses with small quantities. Unfortunately the threshold for a CD is a drug deemed to cause potential addiction and abuse. All drugs are dangerous if taken incorrectly.I know nursing and medicine is a very trusting profession in general, but considering how lethal insulin can be, and how little it takes to do some real damage, it blows my mind that it's not a controlled drug.
They didSurely the specialist would know that these results could only happen if the baby was deliberately injected with insulin though and would highlight that in their report.
If you mean what does TPN stand for, it's Total Parenteral Nutrition. It is basically a liquid form of all the nutrients required, given via the parenteral route, ie via a vein, thus bypassing the gastrointestinal tract.I gotta agree. I’m dipping into most threads myself and caught all that, but even with a wiki we still have to tread over old ground sometimes. If there are 30 pages since I’ve last looked since the breakfast table, then I’ve defo not got the time to read 30 pages myself.
Well, i feel for that jury I tell you. They won’t want to hear the words embolus or tpn bag again after April.
Also is it too late to ask what a tpn bag even issomething something nutrients?
edit thanks to Google :Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) is a method of feeding that bypasses the gastrointestinal tract. Fluids are given into a vein to provide most of the nutrients the body needs. The method is used when a person cannot or should not receive feedings or fluids by mouth.
It’s hard to see how they could have taken that stance given we’ve got 4 deaths in the 60 days leading to this incident, surely when they knew about the results somethings got to click in your headI'm with you on this - the answer seems to be that they took the attitude "Well, the child is okay now" and nothing further was done. I think that's very poor; essentially, they had evidence that a baby had been given insulin they shouldn't have had but decided to do nothing with that information. If two aircraft have a near miss, they still investigate why, otherwise how do you know it won't happen again?
Yes, I would think so. Generally speaking, they should have reviewed every case where the child died or where there was a serious event, so I am really concerned by the fact that they seem to have shrugged and gone on their merry way, and that the insulin cases only came under consideration after the police got involvedIt’s hard to see how they could have taken that stance given we’ve got 4 deaths in the 60 days leading to this incident, surely when they knew about the results somethings got to click in your head
I think she contaminated the next one in line to be used, knowing he would need a second one. She wanted his sugar low a good long while in order to kill him.o wow. I’m not sure what this means if no other baby was receiving TPN bags that night, though it seems significant.
However, it still seems ‘off’ to me that she would have contaminated all the bags in the fridge. Not saying she wouldn’t, but what I can’t seem to ignore is if all bags were contaminated by letby prior to her leaving how come no other baby came into contact with these insulin contaminated bags in the following days ?
Or is it that these bags have a shelf life ? How long would they be stored for before they are thrown out ? Is it possible that Baby F was the only baby on the ward receiving TPN before they were disposed of? Anyone know if this is possible.
My little granddaughter was on NICU for nearly three weeks having been born several weeks premature and she didn't cry a lot. She slept a lot and when she went from feeding tube to bottle she seemed to feed ok when my daughter expressed milk but didn't appear very hungry. Even after coming home initially she wasn't very vocal.I think there is truth in that because my full term baby seemed the only one to be able to actually scream cry like a newborn. Every other baby in the same room were really tiny prem babies and you never heard them. Mine was on fluids etc and we used to have to set alarms to feed him so I’m not convinced they scream in hunger.
If she poisoned a second bag it wouldn't have been given to any other baby as there were no others on TPN which she may have known and could she have placed it in a position in the fridge where the likelihood was it would be taken out next if needed (ie at the front). If another baby were to receive it later would she have been bothered as this might have been when she was off and therefore no blame would be attached to her.Ok so both the CS and the Dailymail are reporting the prosecution are suggesting there were infact two tpn bags contaminated with insulin, based on what Bohin said when giving evidence today; the practice for a long line replacement, is for the tpn also to be changed, so they believe there were two bags contaminated, one bespoke and one stock. The stock one was kept in fridge next to insulin. The only child on unit receiving tpn that night was F, so if LL also contaminated the stock bag, then she knew that F would definitely be the only baby to receive it that night. Link to full DM article here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/p...urse-received-two-bags-contaminated-feed.html
And the only baby receiving tpn that night:
View attachment 1772111
*ETA I do think there’s some confusion over the 2nd bag, whether a new one was actually given or the same one was rehung. I’m not sure whether this is down to the reporting or whether they (pros) can’t be sure which of the two scenarios is correct, they are going on the fact long line change should have also meant tpn change, but as we know just because that was procedure doesn’t necessarily mean it was followed. But the most important bit for me is it’s not really relevant about whether 2nd bag contaminated/used because if it had any significance, we can be absolutely sure BM would have definitely brought it up, the fact he didn’t means it’s not important. Both sides have had this evidence for years, so I doubt people on tattle are going to have discovered anything new, or relevant that both sides have potentially missedEither way we know for definite someone deliberately tampered with original tpn bag (and possibly 2nd stock), which meant a deliberate poisoning, and attempted murder on baby F
I happened upon the site for the Star Hobson case & wound up coming back for this one. I am also interested in statement analysis & behavioral analysis, as well as body language analysis. I would like to see her interrogation transcripts analyzed.Well basically I’m one of these people who loves murder documentaries and true crime, I saw this case on the news just before the start of the trial and I did a little search to see what details were available online and I stumbled upon tattle. So yeah I’m only here for this case, Although I haven’t really explored tattle so I don’t really know what else it has to offer lol
Where I work if a baby dies even from expected causes and non expected causes i.e. extreme prematurity, genetic reasons and stillbirth a team of people from Governance and Safeguarding investigate. Meetings are held and discussion eventually takes place with the parents. This is quite a lengthy process. Everything is thorough and there is a duty of candour. If the Trust is found to have made mistakes etc it 's not brushed under the carpet and the parents are given the full facts. Sometimes the hospital makes mistakes but these are admitted and the hospital tries to change processes so that it doesn't happen again.I’ve said what I think happened, I think they did ignore the results. Partly to avoid a scandal or an investigation and partly because baby F got better and went home. They were also dealing with a unusually high number of deaths, I bet they were all worried about how that looked on the unit. Even if the staff conceded they were of natural causes they would have still been worried.
Then they have a ‘accidental’ insulin poisoning occur, they probably thought fuck! But Baby F survived and they moved on. You have to remember only the night before baby E died. I don’t really know what goes on after a death on a ward but I can imagine it isn’t plain sailing lots of paper work some sort of investigation etc etc, the baby who survived insulin probably wasn’t that high on their list of priorities at the time, because of everything else going on. Of course it shouldn’t have happened, they should have looked into it more, but an underfunded, Understaffed, over stretched ward, really do have a lot to deal with. We already know best practice hasn’t always been followed, so why is this so surprising. There really can be a underachieving unit who cut corners and a murderer.
Exactly so they would have been doing what you have explained above for baby E at the time, when baby F became poorly then recovered, as it was only a day later. They must have somewhat brushed baby F’s near miss under the hypothetical carpet, otherwise we wouldn’t be here now.Where I work if a baby dies even from expected causes and non expected causes i.e. extreme prematurity, genetic reasons and stillbirth a team of people from Governance and Safeguarding investigate. Meetings are held and discussion eventually takes place with the parents. This is quite a lengthy process. Everything is thorough and there is a duty of candour. If the Trust is found to have made mistakes etc it 's not brushed under the carpet and the parents are given the full facts. Sometimes the hospital makes mistakes but these are admitted and the hospital tries to change processes so that it doesn't happen again.
side note to 24hipc - the detective said something that stuck with me and made me think of the LL case. He said ‘I don’t believe in coincidences’Lucy hung the bag and the baby deteriorated within an hour and then she took a keen interest in their updates.. That’s enough for me.
I would have liked to have heard details of what she said in the police interview. Far what it’s worth she seems fairly cooperative.
When I was watching 24 Hours in Police Custody they showed the officers forming opinions about their suspects after their interviews - I’d like to know what they thought of Letby because they didn’t stop pursuing her until they were able to charge her.
It probably never entered anyone's head there was a murderer in their midst even though it was soon glaringly obvious. They probably all got on nicely, it was a small unit and only later did the penny start to drop. I watched the BA programme recently and that was a small, friendly, understaffed unit and nobody suspected her. She seemed very dedicated and caring at the time and people were reluctant to believe she was involved and that she was a scapegoat. Mistakes made by the hospital staff cannot be reasons to allow a murderer to walk free. If she did this the hospitals failings are a separate matter.Clearly their first thought wasn’t that one of their own was trying to murder babies
Its a huge fuck up on their part but doesn’t absolve LL of guilt
Just playing catch up but this is the bit I can't get my head around. The TPN was supposed to run for another 40hr, why would she contaminate the stock bag? And if she did was it just 1, and that happened to be the one they used or was it all of them and lots of babies had insulin? I know he was the only baby on TPN that night but they seem to be used frequently otherwise they wouldn't need so many in stock, I'm sure there's been a few babies in this case on TPN at various points.o wow. I’m not sure what this means if no other baby was receiving TPN bags that night, though it seems significant.
However, it still seems ‘off’ to me that she would have contaminated all the bags in the fridge. Not saying she wouldn’t, but what I can’t seem to ignore is if all bags were contaminated by letby prior to her leaving how come no other baby came into contact with these insulin contaminated bags in the following days ?
Or is it that these bags have a shelf life ? How long would they be stored for before they are thrown out ? Is it possible that Baby F was the only baby on the ward receiving TPN before they were disposed of? Anyone know if this is possible.
She would probably have been able to predict they’d change the bag at some point. It would have been a process of elimination to work out what was causing the low blood sugar and at some point you’d probably change the TPN to rule out that being the cause.Just playing catch up but this is the bit I can't get my head around. The TPN was supposed to run for another 40hr, why would she contaminate the stock bag? And if she did was it just 1, and that happened to be the one they used or was it all of them and lots of babies had insulin? I know he was the only baby on TPN that night but they seem to be used frequently otherwise they wouldn't need so many in stock, I'm sure there's been a few babies in this case on TPN at various points.
They didn't change the bag due to the low blood sugar, they changed it because the line had tissued. There's no way you can predict that.She would probably have been able to predict they’d change the bag at some point. It would have been a process of elimination to work out what was causing the low blood sugar and at some point you’d probably change the TPN to rule out that being the cause.
Its a head f*ck but I don’t doubt it happened. One way or another. Anyone know how long they keep stock bags in a fridge before they are disposed of and replaced with fresh ones ? What’s the time frame rule on them how long do they keep? Because if they are thrown out within say 48 hours it is not beyond the realms of possibility that letby did contaminated all five or maybe less, and no other baby did receive any.Just playing catch up but this is the bit I can't get my head around. The TPN was supposed to run for another 40hr, why would she contaminate the stock bag? And if she did was it just 1, and that happened to be the one they used or was it all of them and lots of babies had insulin? I know he was the only baby on TPN that night but they seem to be used frequently otherwise they wouldn't need so many in stock, I'm sure there's been a few babies in this case on TPN at various points.
I don't know, but we all do know, even the defence have conceded on this, that the first bag, which was hung by Letby, was deliberately contaminated.Just playing catch up but this is the bit I can't get my head around. The TPN was supposed to run for another 40hr, why would she contaminate the stock bag? And if she did was it just 1, and that happened to be the one they used or was it all of them and lots of babies had insulin? I know he was the only baby on TPN that night but they seem to be used frequently otherwise they wouldn't need so many in stock, I'm sure there's been a few babies in this case on TPN at various points.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?