Lucy Letby case #21

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Order Thread by Most Liked Posts

DellaC

Could we possibly do a case study on him?

Not to kill him in any way, just to errr shut him up for a bit
 
Reactions: 16
C

Chocolate2008

I haven’t followed the whole case so I’m not close enough to all the detail but the general gist I got from the bits of heard is I wouldn’t want my baby in that hospital. I’m not a medical person so it’s hard to be certain but it seems quite chaotic. Also, is it normal for nurses to make so many judgement calls i.e. a Lucy & another nurse decided a baby looked dehydrated so they gave fluids, so doctors not normally approve any drips?
The two hospitals different babies were transferred to Including Arrow Park seem so much better.

If she did it what on earth would motivate her to. Was it related to a fear she’s never marry & have kids so she was jealous,

As for the Facebook searches is it possible she s just nosey or was so upset that she looked up parents of babies that died accidentally in her care out of guilt? Did she Facebook search other parents because if she searches everyone she comes into contact with that seems less suspicious?
 
Reactions: 4
I

IGiveUp22

so the defence are saying they don’t believe the experts because they haven’t come up with enough to support their conclusions despite them explaining there wouldn’t be any research on A.E and they’ve ruled out other possible causes.

When he offers an explanation it’s just “some residual underlying issue" but what BM? What exact underlying issue? What evidence do you have to support that? Is there research to support that? If I was on the jury this is what I’d be asking myself right now and expecting the defence to cover these in their bit
 
Reactions: 9
A

Aberscot

Could be good for prosecution closing though, Ben you asked for more case reports/evidence of air embolism but we couldn’t provide that as there has been so little cases of it happening in children, however from this case we now have more than enough reports and sure if there is any trials in the future they will be used This shows how rare it is …
 
Reactions: 14

raspberryjuice

I can’t answer on what nurses can/can’t do as I’m not a neonatal nurse, however nobody has at any point questioned whether any of the nurses involved in the case are allowed to ‘make judgement calls’ on fluids etc so it must be normal practice. Otherwise either side would be bringing it up regularly with either the prosecution using it as evidence that Lucy wasn’t following basic protocol or the defence to claim the unit was so badly run the nurses were doing the job of the doctors. I would assume it would depend on their level of training whether they were able to make those calls. Medication would presumably still be signed off by the doctor or consultant before being administered.

We don’t know if Arrowe Park and Alder Hey were better run, only that babies recovered when transferred there. However AP and AH had the advantage that LL wasn’t there injecting babies with air, filling them with milk or sabotaging their drips with insulin, which would help.

The FB searches happen in clusters, they’re parents of babies involved in the case and usually she is searching for several of the parents within minutes of each other, including on Christmas Day and shortly after attacking babies. That’s no coincidence or nosiness.
 
Reactions: 11

gimmethattea

I'm only going off my recent experience, but during my son's stay in NICU for a week and then his 2 weeks on the children's ward a week later, the nurses seemed to be the ones we saw most and did a lot of things I never even realised.

Obviously, they didn't make decisions as these were done by the doctors/consultants, who we saw once a day. Sometimes, I think the nurses consulted with them, but the nurses were the ones administering fluids and antibiotics, making observations, seeing if he was tolerating the milk limit he was on, adjusting that limit when he wasn't after consulting with doctors, informing us of any procedure happening, like his lumbar punctures, chest x-ray, MRI etc...

And during his stay in the children's ward, they removed cannulas when they failed (happened every few days) and they decided not to administer antibiotics through the cannula when his hand got swollen until they had asked doctor to check to make the decision what to do next.

As for Facebook searches, the last thing I'd say want to know is that the nurse on the ward where my baby died was searching me.
Nosey or not, I don't think that's right at all.
 
Reactions: 11

Treesy19

Hey I think she is guilty as you know, but I think Ben is asking exactly the right questions. He just needs to. He’d be bonkers and a crap barrister not to. If you were up against this horror show you’d want your barrister asking what he does. He’s taken on one of the most heinous serial killer cases in the UK in decades. This is what I believe it is. It’s going down in history this.

The doctors are standing their ground during his cross examination really well by the sounds of it. Think there’s gonna be a lot of repetition with the talk of “there are no clinical trials on AE in babies” as they already touched on the absence of much AE data in an earlier baby, so I wonder whether Ben just needs to ask again just because it’s a separate baby/charge.
 
Reactions: 15
C

coffeeandwine

I get Ben is doing his job but the air embolism defence he's using is mad. Of course there aren't lots of studies into what happens when you inject babies with air - it kills them! I get he's defending his client and everyone is entitled to a fair trial, but the jurors don't need to be medical experts to know why studies of this kind don't exist so those questions will only serve to weaken Myers' defence IMO.
 
Reactions: 7
I

I love Lasagne

You make a very good point. I would want Ben to try anything, if he was defending me. One of the things I love about learning, is feeling your brain evolve to adapt to new ways of perceiving - something that is slowly happening for me whilst learning how court really works!
 
Reactions: 6
M

musiclover90

docmum said:
(there’s nothing ugly about it )
Click to expand...
Thank you! I remember a kid once saying "why do you have road-mappy legs?" and that always stuck with me

It's interesting you have autoimmune disease-I reckon I probably do as well, if not APS then maybe thyroid problems or Raynauds. I think the mottling is more common in childhood and then gradually fades, but mine didn't unfortunately. I did make it much worse by sitting too close to fires and putting hot water bottles on my skin for a time, but I don't do that anymore and I still have it.

So no comment from Letby on the rashes?
 
Reactions: 3

Haveyouanywool

I suppose BM may bring in a medical diving expert in an attempt to bamboozle as he’s mentioned the 70% nitrogen in air.
Obviously we’ve no idea how much air was injected, or other variables, but BM might try to use the fact that this baby didn’t die (or more realistically was brought back from death, suffering brain damage) while others have died, to muddy the waters.
 
Reactions: 6

Daisydunn15

What other defence does he have though? Its not the time for him to be bringing in his own experts with their own opinions. All he can do is find holes in what they're saying. If there's no clear cause of death and they're concluding AE then the best thing he can do is question their decision making and evidence base. It's a way of creating reasonable doubt, that they have very little actual evidence to back up the allegation and that some of their evidence isn't even documented, or there's a lot of guesswork. These things can't be avoided if they're right in what they're saying, but a good lawyer is going to question it.
 
Reactions: 8

MmmB777

Lots to suggest it’s a very similar collapse to other air embolism incidents in this case and large amounts of air found in their bodies in places with no natural explanation though.
Do you think it’s significant that his twin was poisoned at the same time? And that it’s really similar situation to the other twins.
There is lots of detail actual for the early babies with AE on the wiki. I do remember quite a few unsure camp were busy and away from the thread during those babies, do recommend having a look as similarities are very strong.
 
Reactions: 10

Daisydunn15

Yeah I've kept up with all of them and some babies have more compelling evidence of AE than others, but I suppose you can't really use one baby as evidence for another as nothing has been proven at this stage.
The babies with xrays showing air are probably more likely to get a G verdict, but M doesn't have much actual evidence, so it makes sense that BM Will focus on that. I also think the delayed collapse is harder to prove, as it is just pure guesswork by the medics as to how there were a delay, why that would be and what happened to the air. Their guesses are based on extensive knowledge and experience, but they're still guesses and may be easier for BM to contradict when he presents his defence. I reckon most people inc the jury would link AE with the immediate collapse and death, so he's going to use that difference in this case. I actually think he's being really clever, as if he can bring enough doubt into the cases with less clear evidence, he's got a better chance of making them doubt some of the other evidence.
 
Reactions: 5
W

Weeder

Not getting involved again but where's the head to toe ? We had them in A&E and minors and ICU, all for different trusts. I can literally visualise, even this many years later the chart attached to the arrest trolley. Obviously some arrests come with rashes, tamponade I think can carry skin changes, toxins and hypoxia certainly does. I'd always documented them as course. It's a shame that chart doesn't seem to exist because you'd have like an unconscious (innocent of any bias), contemporaneous record. Even more shambles making the jury's job difficult
 
Reactions: 3

MmmB777

One thing that stuck out from me from Dr E when Ben was quizzing him regarding the first air embolism cases was something along the lines of “you have to appreciate how incredibly rare it is for a baby in full medical care to cardiac arrest in such an unexpected and sudden way”
Why is that happening frequently when she has just been there or is even found on her own in with them.
There is no natural explanation for Ms collapse it just doesn’t happen. The baby was as well and stable as it could be, in nursery 1, preparing to go home.

And his twin had been poisoned, there is no debate on that!
---
Letby mentions the rash on baby A.
She describes it just as Dr J has really. Said it was unusual etc. Then interestingly, she says she wondered whether the bag that was hung “was what we thought it was” and she claims that she ordered for the bag contents to be checked but there is no record of that at all and no memory of her saying that from any witnesses. Very very odd thing to claim imo
 
Last edited:
Reactions: 12

avabella

I don’t fully understand it, but then I don’t work in that industry so I guess procedures that may be standard protocol might seem strange to me. There was a consultant I think that saw the rash a couple of times wasn’t there? So surely the second time, knowing how transient it was the first, you’d be straight out with your camera/phone to get a picture.
 
Reactions: 2
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Menu
Log in
Register