Lucy Letby case #21

Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.
stardust1

stardust1

VIP Member
F1Grid said:
Quietened down now the evidence has been presented! There's no unluckiness about insulin poisoning, the trust didn't frame her when she was caught swiping in and out of the rooms on her break with babies going off shortly after.

Same happened with Idaho, it went from theories to 'lets dig into the murderer's background' when it came out how strong the evidence the police had was.
Click to expand...
I haven’t actually saw much about the idaho, I saw there was a program about it. Have you watched it?
 
avabella

avabella

VIP Member
How long was she in the house? The decor doesn’t look to have changed much. Computer system in the living room is a bit 1990’s
 
HappyGoss

HappyGoss

Member
raspberryjuice said:
Why would you think that? Daisy has been a big contributor to these threads from the start. She usually has opinions that go against the grain of the thread but she always contributes her own thoughts and backs them up when questioned. Not everyone is convinced of LL’s guilt, and a lot of others are waiting to hear the defence before making a decision. It’s good to get a strong mix of views otherwise we might as well just read the news articles and scrap the thread.
Click to expand...
She constantly deffends a baby killer like all the time??!!! Its really weird in my opinion sorrrrreeeee
 
Pulltheotherone

Pulltheotherone

VIP Member
I know we are discussing and dealing with very poorly babies in this case but are there any nurses on this thread ( I know there are a few ) who could say if the losses in this timeframe were even remotely “ normal “ ?
 
Daisydunn15

Daisydunn15

VIP Member
MmmB777 said:
Yep. And then look through the wiki, back at all the similarities and indeed forward too. The air by babies spines. The baby is blown up like a balloon. The feed time and what was aspirated do not add up. I’m sorry but the baby was looking around the room, mum could sit her up, she was smiling and having bottle feeds. You have to at least accept to go from that to dying of “extreme prematurity” after so long doing well, is at best an incredibly unlikely and unusual trajectory. Again. This is another baby that was going to live.
I don’t believe for a second this baby wasn’t harmed intentionally.

---


Yes I’ve heard people say perhaps she sent it to someone to check wording but presumably they’d have a record of that if she had ever sent it. Trophy. Same as the paperwork.
Click to expand...
I guess she could have taken the picture and then showed someone it on her phone rather than sending it? If that's what she's saying she did.
Do we know if the picture was of the inside or the front of the card?
 
T

tay65

Chatty Member
You've given a different angle which I can appreciate. What's your general view of whether she is guilty or innocent.
 
avabella

avabella

VIP Member
F1Grid said:
This baby was actively dead to the point they were asking the parents about stopping CPR. As soon as that happened, the rash went away. There was no time for pictures.

The notes for an arrest follow a specific structure - it has to be an automatic process in the scribe's head, just like everything in CPR that we try and make automatic.

You document how many rounds of CPR, when you're giving drugs (adrenaline), or shocking if appropriate. You document looking for your reversible causes - hypoxia, hypovolaemia, hypo or hyperkalaemia, hypothermia, thrombosis, cardiac tamponade, toxins, tension pneumothorax. This is why we get blood gases, a set of obs, and the heart and lungs are examined during compressions. These are recorded contemporaneously. You do expose the child, but you're looking for something BIG.

If there's none of these reversible causes present, and you don't have a pulse back, you start thinking about stopping. You have a discussion with family, or you ask the rest of the team do they have any objections to stopping. This is documented. Then you document when you stopped and why.

Issue is, the reason baby M arrested isn't one of those reversible causes. They were progressing down that specific structure from what we heard, then.... baby M suddenly got better for no apparent reason. The relevance of that rash was also only recognised once the consultants sat down in June - the art of note writing means down you're writing down relevant things only, I'm not going to write about my patient's 5 cats, or funny looking toe, or a bit of a rash when I don't think it's relevant. In an arrest situation, unless you think that rash is suggestive of anaphylaxis (gives hypoxia and hypovolaemia, which are reversible), or DIC (thrombus, which is reversible), or is due to a local reaction to a transdermal patch (toxins) or suggests surgical emphysema (tension pneumothorax) you're probably going to bypass it.
Click to expand...
Thank you - that’s a very thorough explanation as to how things work. Can I just check I am understanding though, if there are symptoms that present that don’t fit in with the ‘checklist’ of events that you note almost automatically, they more than likely don’t get noted? Ie because the rash wasn’t connected to what you would usually see for those conditions, it was left off? Have I understood that correctly?