Her very selective memory yet again
I think they’re suggesting it was a mixture of being over fed and air
and then suggesting that LL did something to cause bleeding in throat again, something that will be a common theme unfortunately 
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
and then suggesting that LL did something to cause bleeding in throat again, something that will be a common theme unfortunately Had taken a wee break from this case as was getting too invested and with a new job, that was not good! Was making me go a bit crazy. Also my bestie gave birth to a preemie and it was hitting too close to home. Luckily baby is happy, healthy and at home now - but I did tell her hubs to flag anything weird he noticed and question everything unsual. Eeek. Saw some of the convo and tried to follow along but only now getting back into the detail.
I find baby G interesting as if she did do this, it shows a sadistic side - to cause discomfort with over feeding and to kill with air embolus? Not sure why overfeed otherwise in all 3 attempted murder charges.
Seems like pros are trying to show that LL (or someone) overfed the baby after the designated nurse did the standard feed at 2am.
Based on the wiki and the live reporting so far - looks like
2am - Designated nurse fed baby, baby was fine. Notes shows nurse fed baby a certain amount.
2am - designated nurse goes on 1 hour break (no record of who was asked to look after baby in her absence)
2-2.15 - Someone feeds the baby again
2.15 - baby vomits a large amount. Amount not consistent with what baby was fed according to notes.
Just reposting the relevant bit from the wiki from pros' opening statement.
Count 7: Attempted murder (air embolus & excessive milk)
Count 8: Attempted murder (air embolus & excessive milk)
Count 9: Attempted murder (air embolus & excessive milk)
At 2am, a feed had shown minimal aspirated of partially digested milk. The nurse took her scheduled one-hour break.
"Nothing is recorded on who was asked to keep an eye on Child G," Mr Johnson said.
At 2.15am, the shift leader said she was sat with Lucy Letby when she heard Child G vomiting, along with Child G's monitor alarm going off. They ran into her nursery. Child G had vomited violently and suffered a collapse. The prosecution said medical records suggest the shift leader nurse's memory of being with Lucy Letby for a period of time before this event cannot be accurate.
The prosecution say despite Child G's stomach being 'pretty much empty' prior to her feed, 45mls of milk was aspirated from her NGT. But, the prosecution say, 45mls of milk had been administered for her feed, which then did not explain what accounted for the vomit. Subsequent x-rays showed air in the abdomen and intestines.
I find baby G interesting as if she did do this, it shows a sadistic side - to cause discomfort with over feeding and to kill with air embolus? Not sure why overfeed otherwise in all 3 attempted murder charges.
Seems like pros are trying to show that LL (or someone) overfed the baby after the designated nurse did the standard feed at 2am.
Based on the wiki and the live reporting so far - looks like
2am - Designated nurse fed baby, baby was fine. Notes shows nurse fed baby a certain amount.
2am - designated nurse goes on 1 hour break (no record of who was asked to look after baby in her absence)
2-2.15 - Someone feeds the baby again
2.15 - baby vomits a large amount. Amount not consistent with what baby was fed according to notes.
- The pros said there is no record of who was asked to look after the baby when the designated nurse was on break.
- The pros said the amount the baby vomited was not consistent with the amount she was fed and that was still found in her NGT tube. Means there's 45ml of milk that's in her system that is unaccounted for?
- The pros believe LL's 'alibi' is the shift leader who says they were together at 2.15 when the child was vomiting, but they believe the medical records contradict shift leader's memory of LL's whereabouts. Assume this will be from text messages and medical notes to be shown still?
- Which means LL COULD have gone to the baby once the nurse was on break (2-21.5) and fed her again which caused the vomit.
- OR the designated nurse fed the baby the wrong amount initially - assuming pros have a way to discredit this or they wouldn't bring overfeeding to the charges, and just leave it at air embolus.
Just reposting the relevant bit from the wiki from pros' opening statement.
Count 7: Attempted murder (air embolus & excessive milk)
Count 8: Attempted murder (air embolus & excessive milk)
Count 9: Attempted murder (air embolus & excessive milk)
At 2am, a feed had shown minimal aspirated of partially digested milk. The nurse took her scheduled one-hour break.
"Nothing is recorded on who was asked to keep an eye on Child G," Mr Johnson said.
At 2.15am, the shift leader said she was sat with Lucy Letby when she heard Child G vomiting, along with Child G's monitor alarm going off. They ran into her nursery. Child G had vomited violently and suffered a collapse. The prosecution said medical records suggest the shift leader nurse's memory of being with Lucy Letby for a period of time before this event cannot be accurate.
The prosecution say despite Child G's stomach being 'pretty much empty' prior to her feed, 45mls of milk was aspirated from her NGT. But, the prosecution say, 45mls of milk had been administered for her feed, which then did not explain what accounted for the vomit. Subsequent x-rays showed air in the abdomen and intestines.
This is honestly so heartbreaking, the poor parents. It’s as if she thrives off the parents misery. She was searching them on FB, and then just a few minutes later was searching mum of E&F, although at this point they shouldn’t have been linked unless…..Parents saw the cake and tried to see how well she’d done at 100 days
Interesting read :- https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/193432/risk-brain-damage-premature-babies-reduce/amp/
that quote gave me chills …
that quote gave me chills …
Attachments
Glad to hear you’re all sorted with job and ready to come back to thread, and ofc the wee baby you mentioned is all ok now. Scary to think how many people will be nervous when having babies/on nicu units in the future as a result of this, isn’t it?
Yes and in one of her further police interviews LL even conceded herself that there could only be one of two possibilities happened with the initial incident of baby G:
I agree it does come across as confusing, it's hard though I bet with reporting restrictions. The jury will recieve all of the info which is the important thing.
Would they be able to know if the baby wasn’t digesting her feeds? And what things would cause this? Is this something that the nurses would be aware of & could identify or not? Could this be plausible?
Yeah they obtain the fluids from baby to check if the feed has been digested. Which from the trial today that looks like that was done. So the only explanation is she was over fed.
Oh gosh I wouldn’t even try to answer this, but maybe @docmum could answer when she gets chance?
*ETA just seen this has already been answered above
thank you, I had a feeling there Would be a way to know this but I just wanted to get it straight in my own head
If she’s done this her methods are getting worse, it’s almost like she wants to get found or else she’s getting cocky and thinks she won’t. Because if shes harmed/ killed the other babies by injecting air she could have got away with it as difficult to prove but adding in insulin, overfeeding , brutal force shes making it more likely to be caught or she thinks she’s unstoppable
I think she used different methods to attempt to avoid detection. All part of the MO. Unlike other killers she can’t change locations, her crime scene is set to be in one corridor. Other killers would get used to one method but easily move about. She’s constrained in locations so that part of her thrill is fixed.
Another clear set of evidence that a poor tiny vulnerable baby collapsed within minutes of her going near them AND when she’s not even their designated nurse and still there’s unsure/NG opinions…………
and here we go again with her wanting to know who had informed the colleagues about what had happened.
She’s fishing to find out whether her own name is coming up in conversations about these collapses isn’t she. All part of trying to test the waters about how “well” she’s doing in continuing her assaults.
I think she’s definitely becoming more sadistic as time is going on. Causing them to bleed and over feeding is leaving them in physical pain. I can’t believe any human could deliberately want to hurt premature/tiny babies, and enjoy seeing them in pain, it makes me feel sick even typing that
. To enjoy watching them (and the parents) in pain is something I just can’t comprehend. I agree she’s limited in what she can do within the hospital as her hunting ground. But I think she’s deliberately targeting certain babies as she knows she’ll be able to get away with it more easily with them, and use their underlying conditions to explain them naturally, just as she has given natural causes so far for babies A-F. I think baby N will really show this, due to her txting about his bleeding condition and then attacking him using a method to make him bleed and blaming it on that. I agree she’s switching up her methods to help her go unnoticed, especially after the “something odd” text. I think she thinks she’s being very clever by choosing these babies, and takes full advantage of problems on unit and the pre existing conditions that these babies had.It’s like we are already seeing BM’s defence is going to be that baby G was so premature, it’s playing on the fact that some people write these babies off as they think they have no hope, when that’s not the case at all. As many others have said what can be done for preemies these days is incredible, and they should never just be written off just because of being born early. If LL deliberately did this then she has to be brought to justice, or else what is to stop potential murderers in future deliberately targeting preemies just because people will automatically write them off as having no chance. It’s crazy that BM is going to use this as defence, I know it’s his job and he has to do it but it’s like saying oh well they were premature so therefore had no chance and doesn’t matter cos you can’t prove that LL is actually responsible for causing this. And that’s crazy to think after G doing so well and hitting this big milestone before LL got her evil hands on her
Yet more repeated patterns, all starting to sound very familiar again already isn’t it
Later in the afternoon, the nurse messaged Letby that Child G's condition was still very poor.
Letby responds: "any idea what's caused in [sic]?"
The nurse responds, at 6.06pm, "Nope. Just seems to be a circulation collapse. Chest sounds clear."
Letby: "Hmm, what can cause that.
"Is it that she is an extreme premature who had long-term inotrope and vent dependency and now she is older and doing more for herself...it just takes a little...something to tip her over."
The nurse responds: "We are going with sepsis..."
________________________________________________
LL providing reasons why baby G might’ve deteriorated
Letby responds: "any idea what's caused in [sic]?"
The nurse responds, at 6.06pm, "Nope. Just seems to be a circulation collapse. Chest sounds clear."
Letby: "Hmm, what can cause that.
"Is it that she is an extreme premature who had long-term inotrope and vent dependency and now she is older and doing more for herself...it just takes a little...something to tip her over."
The nurse responds: "We are going with sepsis..."
________________________________________________
LL providing reasons why baby G might’ve deteriorated
And another colleague not been sleeping after another event. Seems her colleagues really were traumatised by what was going on. Everyone but her again hey
She’s great with all these natural causes that’s she now diagnosed every single baby A-G with, isn’t she. At this rate I’m amazed she hadn’t decided to train further and become a consultant seeing as she seems to know so much, and diagnose so many of these babies better than what the actual doctors haveLater in the afternoon, the nurse messaged Letby that Child G's condition was still very poor.
Letby responds: "any idea what's caused in [sic]?"
The nurse responds, at 6.06pm, "Nope. Just seems to be a circulation collapse. Chest sounds clear."
Letby: "Hmm, what can cause that.
"Is it that she is an extreme premature who had long-term inotrope and vent dependency and now she is older and doing more for herself...it just takes a little...something to tip her over."
The nurse responds: "We are going with sepsis..."
________________________________________________
LL providing reasons why baby G might’ve deteriorated
Would she ever duck off. Honestly she's such a dose. Nobody asked her for her hypothesisLater in the afternoon, the nurse messaged Letby that Child G's condition was still very poor.
Letby responds: "any idea what's caused in [sic]?"
The nurse responds, at 6.06pm, "Nope. Just seems to be a circulation collapse. Chest sounds clear."
Letby: "Hmm, what can cause that.
"Is it that she is an extreme premature who had long-term inotrope and vent dependency and now she is older and doing more for herself...it just takes a little...something to tip her over."
The nurse responds: "We are going with sepsis..."
________________________________________________
LL providing reasons why baby G might’ve deteriorated
"Is it that she is an extreme premature who had long-term inotrope and vent dependency and now she is older and doing more for herself...it just takes a little...something to tip her over."
I find this is an odd diagnosis for any clinical or medical profession to just assume a premature baby on support is going to just tip over when unsupported. Surely you'd assume that getting to be older and doing more for herself means she's getting healthier and a fighter and so less likely to just randomly be tipped over by something.
It really bothers me that a neo natal professional has just gotten to the point of assuming prematurity or being a tiny baby equals death. She said this about the tiny 800lb baby (C) too, that their death was because they were so premature. Along with the comments on fate, seems more a religious type stance than one that is scientific or clinical. Interestingly the defence BM is going with as well.
I find this is an odd diagnosis for any clinical or medical profession to just assume a premature baby on support is going to just tip over when unsupported. Surely you'd assume that getting to be older and doing more for herself means she's getting healthier and a fighter and so less likely to just randomly be tipped over by something.
It really bothers me that a neo natal professional has just gotten to the point of assuming prematurity or being a tiny baby equals death. She said this about the tiny 800lb baby (C) too, that their death was because they were so premature. Along with the comments on fate, seems more a religious type stance than one that is scientific or clinical. Interestingly the defence BM is going with as well.
- Status