Lucy Letby Case #20

[DianaBanana]

I don’t think it’s fair to describe somebody as snappy or arrogant just from reading written text either, unless any of us were actually there listening to him we have no idea of the tone in which he spoke.

I do understand we will all interpret things differently though.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

Im sure this will come as a surprise to everyone but I disagree that the prosecution had a good day ersonally don’t think dr evans did himself any favours today, I’m obviously not in court and it’s all paraphrased but he seemed to be moody af and pretty snappy he was also dismissive of any questions. He didn’t really explain anything just seemed to be offended that his mighty opinion was being challenged. “I don’t deal in ifs and buts I use evidence” yet his main point, about the amount of vomit was never actually recorded. So it would seem he deals in what ever suits his opinion and ifs and buts can be used when it points to LL being guilty. This isn’t the first time either where he’s added things to his opinion that weren’t in his reports (the plunger), which is odd to me anyway, he seems to like giving extra speculative details which he’s not written down anywhere and aren’t based off evidence they want me to believe he’s done multiple reports and is only realising important details now? Also the whole “I’ve not seen unexpected collapses happening regularly since so I’ve changed my opinion” seems reasonable until you realise the hospital was downgraded following these incidents, he’s contradicting what he’s said in to police with everything more fresh in his mind, If LL was out here changing her opinions on things it would be fishy behaviour, but the expert does it and no one bats an eye lid

From the questions BM asked today, there seems to be plenty of room for other causes, I’m speculating but given these questions I’d say it’s likely there’s a defence expert willing to disagree with mr evans conclusion here.

and just to add my NICU son had a milk protein intolerance ( something like that anyway I can’t remember exactly ) he would regularly projectile vomit right from birth. We were told it wasn’t unusual and his “allergy” wasn’t even noticed until he was maybe 6 months. Often he’d be given extra feeds to replace the milk that he had lost and it wasn’t documented. I don’t think my son was anywhere near as poorly as the children in these cases though so it may be totally irrelevant.

Dr Evans wasn’t the only Doctor in court today. I think all the Doctors evidence, taken together, would be pretty impressive.
The first vomit/aspirate episode. A large forcefully projectile vomit, right out of the cot, plus 45mls of aspirated milk stomach contents. Obviously more than the 45ml volume Baby G was given.
It’s stated that Dr Evans 2018 report mentioned a ‘forceful’ feed. As he explained forceful would mean the use of a plunger. If a feeding pump is not being used then that leaves a syringe feed using gravity (no force) or a plunger (can be forceful). I don’t think there’s anything contentious there, just a little more explanation.
The further 100ml aspirate. Air or milk. It’s still 100mls out of the baby’s stomach, which was only tolerating 45mls.

 

[OldBlondie]

Just catching up after being away from thread since last week. Glad we are back this week. Still need to catch up on court today aswell as thread, but just listened to podcast for part one of Baby G and it’s deffo worth a listen if anyone has time, I’d highly recommend!

 

[Parsnipface]

We've had so many possible reasons, we've delved into the note, her personality etc and we've tried mostly respectfully and with kindness to really consider the idea she didn't do this or if she did why.

The reality is I don't give a duck if she was abandoned in the wilderness to be raised by wolves and a life of deep chaos then made her who she is.

I have zero doubt, I'm not one of coincidences and the cover up theory is too large, people only keep secrets if they're too involved in the lie, it's too much.

Shes killed the most vulnerable humans in the world and caused pain, grief and trauma to not just the families, her colleagues, her family etc and anyone normal who hears about this.
She'll no doubt have created some other psycho bleep to try and out do her like she has BA and unless there is a thread on how you feel she should be treated in the depths of hell, I'm not sure I'm able to contribute much x

 

[OldBlondie]

john Grisham books if you like reading/audiobooks!

i had also booked a west end show based in a court room (near Waterloo) before Covid arrived.. did any one see that?

@OldBlondie and @MmmB777 - hope you’re ok

Hi Docmum, I took a break (got caught up in another thread) most of last week while nothing was happening over here. Glad we are all back now though. Just catching up on thread and court today, but it’s looking like another strong prosecution day (for me anyway) especially after listening to podcast for G so far too

Also I hope now we are all back we fly through this thread, so that we can move onto new one with a poll back on it again. Really curious to see what the voting is going to be like at this stage

 

[slingo16]

Bsbsnsnsnsnns

Dr Evans wasn’t the only Doctor in court today. I think all the Doctors evidence, taken together, would be pretty impressive.
The first vomit/aspirate episode. A large forcefully projectile vomit, right out of the cot, plus 45mls of aspirated milk stomach contents. Obviously more than the 45ml volume Baby G was given.
It’s stated that Dr Evans 2018 report mentioned a ‘forceful’ feed. As he explained forceful would mean the use of a plunger. If a feeding pump is not being used then that leaves a syringe feed using gravity (no force) or a plunger (can be forceful). I don’t think there’s anything contentious there, just a little more explanation.
The further 100ml aspirate. Air or milk. It’s still 100mls out of the baby’s stomach, which was only tolerating 45mls.

As always I don’t claim to know it all so correct anything I’m saying here that’s wrong

firstly, if the defence don’t have an expert that’s willing to atleast disagree with some of what the prosecutions experts are saying then they’re not going to get very far, my opinion is firmly based on the fact you can’t necessarily take anything as gospel until we’ve heard both sides

But anyway 100ml aspirate so that’s more than double what the child should have had in her stomach? and previous to that we’ve got the old “never before seen” projectile vomit (“large amount” whatever that means) and we’ve got no action being taken yet again. Would it not seem obvious that this child was over fed given she had double the amount of milk in her stomach? It seems very coincidental that in so many of these cases we hear “I’ve never seen a baby have this and that, before or after these events” in so many of the cases and yet trained professionals at the time don’t seem particularly shocked by what’s happening, which is proven to me by their lack of action/documentation when these odd things happen.

There’s definitely a pattern emerging just like the prosecution promised although maybe not the one they were trying to highlight

 

[Tofino]

I think today was very compelling, which I wasn’t expecting actually.

I think BM is clutching at straws with the infection and only because baby developed one later. Just because he says ‘what if’ doesn’t mean it’s a reasonable doubt or explanation. He needs to back it up with expert evidence later if he wants me to believe it as a possibility. Even if baby had an infection though, it still doesn’t explain the severity of the projectile and volume of vomit and aspirates when baby had only 45ml feed. (If it’s the kind of reaction infection can cause then surely it would be seen more often).

Lucy has also given herself away saying babies can 'take on a lot of air when vomiting' which has been discredited by two experts. Strikes me as another example of her offering alternative explanations to deflect. I suspect this means she did force air as well as excess milk.

I thought this was interesting from the judge in Stephen Bear’s trial today (directions to jury).

The judge said that it’s like “a jigsaw puzzle”, continuing: “A single piece of the jigsaw does not take you much further, two or three pieces may give you an idea. It’s only when all the pieces you have painted a picture that you can be sure.”

I know there is often debate here on small bits of evidence like Facebook, the post it note, interactions with family, messages to colleagues etc. Each on their own may not seem much but piecing everything together paints a somewhat different picture IMO.

 

[slingo16]

Nah, I refreshed the Chester page at the end of day just now.


When you’re giving evidence in the witness box, you should answer the question asked - more often than not, that means a short reply. It may sound snappy when written down on a reporting website like that, but Dr E answered what was asked. To carry on needlessly isn’t good and a witness should only really answer questions that they’re asked. It means those listening get the answer rather than the answer being lost amongst them going on and on.

I don’t know he seems very happy to compliment the parents which has zero relevance to the trial. None of the other witnesses or experts come across like him. The “I don’t do ifs I do evidence” was an answer to a question why not just clarify why what BM suggested was incorrect? Why be rude and righteous? It’s defensive and defective in my eyes from somebody who should be professional. I mean the man’s not on trial he should be able to justify his opinion calmly and answer questions politely, it would look a lot better imo anyway

 

[Haveyouanywool]

Bsbsnsnsnsnns

As always I don’t claim to know it all so correct anything I’m saying here that’s wrong

firstly, if the defence don’t have an expert that’s willing to atleast disagree with some of what the prosecutions experts are saying then they’re not going to get very far, my opinion is firmly based on the fact you can’t necessarily take anything as gospel until we’ve heard both sides

But anyway 100ml aspirate so that’s more than double what the child should have had in her stomach? and previous to that we’ve got the old “never before seen” projectile vomit (“large amount” whatever that means) and we’ve got no action being taken yet again. Would it not seem obvious that this child was over fed given she had double the amount of milk in her stomach? It seems very coincidental that in so many of these cases we hear “I’ve never seen a baby have this and that, before or after these events” in so many of the cases and yet trained professionals at the time don’t seem particularly shocked by what’s happening, which is proven to me by their lack of action/documentation when these odd things happen.

There’s definitely a pattern emerging just like the prosecution promised although maybe not the one they were trying to highlight

I don’t know what you mean, no action being taken. Baby G was intubated, x-rayed, commenced on antibiotics and other drugs. Medical action was taken, which, funnily enough, would be appropriate as they are medics. Not policemen.
With the power of hindsight, police investigations, expert testimony, yes, now it all becomes clear.
I’m sure most of us, at some point, will have vomited rings round ourselves so know what a large forceful vomit looks like. Imagine you’re lying in bed and vomit so forcefully that it splatters off the wall which is 3 feet away. That would be from an adult, but a 4lb baby?
Large, forceful. Not exclusively medical terms.

 

[IGiveUp22]

IMO, I don’t think the hospital not doing anything means LL is innocent & it’s all down to negligence .

i 100% believe the they should have done some further investigations but I honestly don’t believe they actually thought anyone working there was deliberately harming the babies. At all. I think they accepted these things weren’t normal but assumed there was some medical explanation however, we’re currently hearing that for these babies in this trial, there was no medical explanation other than foul play. Or like other work places, they assumed higher up would be looking into the higher than average deaths when it sounds like they weren’t.

I sadly think them not trying to investigate more at the time has allowed her to get away with things.

again, I’ll add the disclaimer that I’m still interested in what the defence experts have to say, assuming they will be some

 

[Tofino]

Yeah I think we can all agree the hospital missed opportunities to stop her sooner.

Just because the hospital didn’t recognise foul play at the time doesn’t mean foul play didn’t happen.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

Yeah I think we can all agree the hospital missed opportunities to stop her sooner.

Just because the hospital didn’t recognise foul play at the time doesn’t mean foul play didn’t happen.

Exactly, it doesn't mean Letby should be let off the hook.

 

[DianaBanana]

Baby allegedly attacked by Lucy Letby was force fed massive amounts of milk - Banbury FM

A baby girl allegedly attacked by nurse Lucy Letby was force-fed “massive additional amounts of milk”, a court has heard. Letby, 32, is accused of overfeeding the infant just hours after she helped put up a banner at the Countess of Chester Hospital to mark the youngster’s 100th day of life. The...

banburyfm.com

This write up has the picture shown in court today. It shows the cot the baby was in, and the black circles are where the vomit landed.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

Baby allegedly attacked by Lucy Letby was force fed massive amounts of milk - Banbury FM

A baby girl allegedly attacked by nurse Lucy Letby was force-fed “massive additional amounts of milk”, a court has heard. Letby, 32, is accused of overfeeding the infant just hours after she helped put up a banner at the Countess of Chester Hospital to mark the youngster’s 100th day of life. The...

banburyfm.com

This write up has the picture shown in court today. It shows the cot the baby was in, and the black circles are where the vomit landed.

That poor baby

 

[crumpets2]

Baby allegedly attacked by Lucy Letby was force fed massive amounts of milk - Banbury FM

A baby girl allegedly attacked by nurse Lucy Letby was force-fed “massive additional amounts of milk”, a court has heard. Letby, 32, is accused of overfeeding the infant just hours after she helped put up a banner at the Countess of Chester Hospital to mark the youngster’s 100th day of life. The...

banburyfm.com

This write up has the picture shown in court today. It shows the cot the baby was in, and the black circles are where the vomit landed.

Heartbreaking.

 

[Tofino]

Baby allegedly attacked by Lucy Letby was force fed massive amounts of milk - Banbury FM

A baby girl allegedly attacked by nurse Lucy Letby was force-fed “massive additional amounts of milk”, a court has heard. Letby, 32, is accused of overfeeding the infant just hours after she helped put up a banner at the Countess of Chester Hospital to mark the youngster’s 100th day of life. The...

banburyfm.com

This write up has the picture shown in court today. It shows the cot the baby was in, and the black circles are where the vomit landed.

I just can’t imagine the force!! The distance on the chair must be something like 5 times the length of the baby - imagine that relative to an adult!!

 

[raspberryjuice]

I think the hospital obviously had many failings, nobody is denying that. But not one nurse, doctor, consultant etc would have suspected one of their own was causing harm to all these babies. For a lot of them they’re seeing these events as a one off unexplained event. They’re not present for all of the collapses, they’re not seeing the similarities because they can’t and they’re not all seeing LL’s constant presence at all of these events. A look through the notes for each collapse doesn’t even make it clear that she was the connection because she was often not the designated nurse for these babies. It’s only when you can step back and look at it all laid out that the dots start joining up. That’s why the police investigation lead to LL.
None of her colleagues would have even considered she was to blame at the stage we’re currently at (Baby G) because it’s unthinkable somebody would be doing all of this intentionally.

 

[betchyhin]

I can't help but feel the first baby to die under Lucy's care wasn't murdered by her, but died as a consequence of being premature.

But then Lucy fed off everyone's sympathies and condolences for her so much, it made her crave more to the point where she started to "accidentally on purpose" cause babies' deaths to garner more sympathy as the "unlucky midwife". Utterly twisted mind.

 

[slingo16]

I don’t think it’s fair to describe somebody as snappy or arrogant just from reading written text either, unless any of us were actually there listening to him we have no idea of the tone in which he spoke.

I do understand we will all interpret things differently though.

I did say I’m not in court and it is paraphrased, But it’s abit like LLs texts. It’s hard to gauge because it’s only written. And I accept I could be wrong but You’ve also got the other experts not coming across at all like him. And some of the things he said are difficult for me to take any other way than him being the way I described, again I could be wrong but I stand by the fact he was rude and snappy today. Besides is it not equally unfair to assume somebody is a baby killer without hearing all the evidence?

 

[DianaBanana]

I just can’t imagine the force!! The distance on the chair must be something like 5 times the length of the baby - imagine that relative to an adult!!

I know, it’s blown my mind seeing like this to be honest. Horrific!