Baby I is going to be tough going today everybody xx
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Lucy Letby being a potential murderer must have the talk of the staff room at the time. There is no way Dr NN can have missed that all his colleagues were terrified by her murdering babies and desperate for her to be removed, however he dismisses and plays down baby O, P and Q events so he can have an affair with her.I wholeheartedly agree and I think he's personally learnt a very big lesson. He can't just park his car in anyone's garage, especially if the garage owner has a penchant for storing medical aids
Having said that I hope there has been some implication on his career in terms of all the texting and messaging, I hope he's been reprimanded because he was very unprofessional and very shortsighted.
Sounds like they feel like because she didn’t succeed with G and H she turned her attention to Baby I 
just awful. She was hurting so many then that I remember baby I’s evidence was that her and maybe G’s mum both thought there could be a mystery virus. She was really causing absolute havoc at this time of the case. Hence why she’s able to say everybody was strained etc. Yes because of you. Evil witch.
just awful. She was hurting so many then that I remember baby I’s evidence was that her and maybe G’s mum both thought there could be a mystery virus. She was really causing absolute havoc at this time of the case. Hence why she’s able to say everybody was strained etc. Yes because of you. Evil witch.
It's going to be heartbreaking.Sounds like they feel like because she didn’t succeed with G and H she turned her attention to Baby I
Hopefully, heartbreaking as it is, this could be the case that erases any possible shreds of doubt that could be lingering in the minds of any members of the jury and hopefully seal her fate, once and for all...
She needs to rot in eternal hell
Lucy is my daughter's middle name, it's a beautiful name and I love the meaning. I hadn't put her name together with LL, and as the previous poster said about other murderers, I know people with most of those names she listed and never connected them. If you love it then don't let LL ruin it for you. We've all been hyper focused on this trial but most people I know aren't really following it and I don't think they'd associate it with her.I hope Lucy doesn’t become synonymous with murder - it’s the name we’ve chosen for this baby (I think mine is a boy though.)
Lucy Maud Montgomery (Anne of Green gables writer) and Lucy from The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe are two ‘good’ Lucy’s! But I’ve always liked it from one of the St Claire’s books. But in all honesty the timing might not be great as I’m due around the trial ending. Anyone got any name suggestions?
Maybe if it was a really unusual name but I think you're okay with this one!
Gaslighting the poor mum, making her think there’s a problem when the baby is doing well. She’s bleeping good at that isn’t she?
10:37am
Mr Johnson says Child I's first collapse was marked with a desaturation to the 30s and had vomited, on September 30.
He says the day before, Dr Lucy Beebe had reviewed Child I. She remembered seeing Child I from memory, as the girl became unwell, was shipped out and recovered well, and came back, which she said was unusual, for her short time at the unit.
Dr Beebe had said she was shocked and frustrated by Child I's death, as she felt there was something going on which they [the staff] were not aware of.
Dr Beebe said the aim for Child I, after the September 29 review, was to continue feeding and growing the baby girl.
---
10:39am
The day rota for September 30 had Letby as designated nurse for Child I and two other babies in room 3. Mr Johnson says Letby "did not like" being in room 3.
The plan was to give Child I immunisations, as was the case for Child G.
He says there was nothing wrong with Child I, who was receiving cares from the mother and a feed.
Mr Johnson says Child I produced a small stool at the 10am feed.
The 10am feeding chart note is signed by Letby.
"The doctors were very happy with [Child I]," Mr Johnson says.
---
10:43am
Dr Beebe's note is shown to the court for September 30.
Mr Johnson says it is important to note the reason for the review.
It was 'asked to review as reduced temperature'.
Mr Johnson says Child I was taking full bottles, gaining weight, and Dr Beebe recorded that Child I was handling well.
Child I, during the examination, produced a yellow, seedy stool, which indicated good gut health, he tells the court.
Dr Beebe said this was not a sign of NEC.
Mr Johnson says Child I was "not in distress", the abdomen was the same as yesterday, and the plan was to monitor Child I closely, raise the cot temperature, but Child I appeared clinically well.
Mr Johnson asks what was going on at this stage.
Child I's mother, in evidence, said Lucy Letby raised the issue with her about Child I's stomach.
Mr Johnson says that was not the same reason Letby gave to Dr Beebe.
NJ: "So what was going on here?"
Mr Johnson says Child I's first collapse was marked with a desaturation to the 30s and had vomited, on September 30.
He says the day before, Dr Lucy Beebe had reviewed Child I. She remembered seeing Child I from memory, as the girl became unwell, was shipped out and recovered well, and came back, which she said was unusual, for her short time at the unit.
Dr Beebe had said she was shocked and frustrated by Child I's death, as she felt there was something going on which they [the staff] were not aware of.
Dr Beebe said the aim for Child I, after the September 29 review, was to continue feeding and growing the baby girl.
---
10:39am
The day rota for September 30 had Letby as designated nurse for Child I and two other babies in room 3. Mr Johnson says Letby "did not like" being in room 3.
The plan was to give Child I immunisations, as was the case for Child G.
He says there was nothing wrong with Child I, who was receiving cares from the mother and a feed.
Mr Johnson says Child I produced a small stool at the 10am feed.
The 10am feeding chart note is signed by Letby.
"The doctors were very happy with [Child I]," Mr Johnson says.
---
10:43am
Dr Beebe's note is shown to the court for September 30.
Mr Johnson says it is important to note the reason for the review.
It was 'asked to review as reduced temperature'.
Mr Johnson says Child I was taking full bottles, gaining weight, and Dr Beebe recorded that Child I was handling well.
Child I, during the examination, produced a yellow, seedy stool, which indicated good gut health, he tells the court.
Dr Beebe said this was not a sign of NEC.
Mr Johnson says Child I was "not in distress", the abdomen was the same as yesterday, and the plan was to monitor Child I closely, raise the cot temperature, but Child I appeared clinically well.
Mr Johnson asks what was going on at this stage.
Child I's mother, in evidence, said Lucy Letby raised the issue with her about Child I's stomach.
Mr Johnson says that was not the same reason Letby gave to Dr Beebe.
NJ: "So what was going on here?"
'Good God in Govan' hahahaha - we say this too
10:45am
Mr Johnson says no concern was expressed to medical staff about Child I's abdomen by Letby.
"Why was Lucy Letby expressing concern to [Child I's mother] about the abdomen?
Why did Lucy Letby not raise the issue with Dr Beebe?"
Mr Johnson says Letby was gaslighting the mother by suggesting a problem with Child I that didn't exist, until she caused the problem.
10:53am
Mr Johnson says "everything was unremarkable" for Child I until 1pm when she was asleep, and fed via a NGT.
The mother said she had gone to meet the family in the canteen at this time.
The feed chart shows a 35ml feed for Child I, which Mr Johnson says would take some time - "about 15 minutes", taking until 1.15pm.
He says the nursing notes are accurate as they are time-stamped by the computer automatically.
The note is written between 1.36pm-1.48pm - it was "at most" 20 minutes after the feed ended.
Mr Johnson says the details of the feed and review recorded are not correct.
He says the addendum, of a '1500' 'Drs' examination of Child I, is "a complete fabrication".
A male doctor's note records examining Child I at 4.30pm.
Mr Johnson asks who these doctors were who examined Child I at 3pm.
He adds the '3pm note' contains: '[Child I] appeared mottled in colour with distended abdomen and more prominent veins.'
Mr Johnson says there is no corresponding doctor's note for this examination of 'mottling'.
Letby's note: 'Full monitoring recommenced'.
An observation note records this was done from 3pm.
Mr Johnson says Dr Beebe had advised it at 11.40am.
He asks why did Letby only recommence full monitoring after Child I's mother had left the unit.
Mr Johnson says Letby is transposing events, including a note of a yellow seedy stool, from 11.40am to 3pm to an examination - "which never actually happened".
Mr Johnson says no concern was expressed to medical staff about Child I's abdomen by Letby.
"Why was Lucy Letby expressing concern to [Child I's mother] about the abdomen?
Why did Lucy Letby not raise the issue with Dr Beebe?"
Mr Johnson says Letby was gaslighting the mother by suggesting a problem with Child I that didn't exist, until she caused the problem.
10:53am
Mr Johnson says "everything was unremarkable" for Child I until 1pm when she was asleep, and fed via a NGT.
The mother said she had gone to meet the family in the canteen at this time.
The feed chart shows a 35ml feed for Child I, which Mr Johnson says would take some time - "about 15 minutes", taking until 1.15pm.
He says the nursing notes are accurate as they are time-stamped by the computer automatically.
The note is written between 1.36pm-1.48pm - it was "at most" 20 minutes after the feed ended.
Mr Johnson says the details of the feed and review recorded are not correct.
He says the addendum, of a '1500' 'Drs' examination of Child I, is "a complete fabrication".
A male doctor's note records examining Child I at 4.30pm.
Mr Johnson asks who these doctors were who examined Child I at 3pm.
He adds the '3pm note' contains: '[Child I] appeared mottled in colour with distended abdomen and more prominent veins.'
Mr Johnson says there is no corresponding doctor's note for this examination of 'mottling'.
Letby's note: 'Full monitoring recommenced'.
An observation note records this was done from 3pm.
Mr Johnson says Dr Beebe had advised it at 11.40am.
He asks why did Letby only recommence full monitoring after Child I's mother had left the unit.
Mr Johnson says Letby is transposing events, including a note of a yellow seedy stool, from 11.40am to 3pm to an examination - "which never actually happened".
His entire department’s consultant will know because they’ve had to cover his days in court. Also gossip spreads bleeping fast in a hospital!I wholeheartedly agree and I think he's personally learnt a very big lesson. He can't just park his car in anyone's garage, especially if the garage owner has a penchant for storing medical aids
Having said that I hope there has been some implication on his career in terms of all the texting and messaging, I hope he's been reprimanded because he was very unprofessional and very shortsighted.
So do we
BM waiting to stand up and mention the logs backing up in the sinks
Attachments
10:59am
Mr Johnson says it is a "very calculated way" of giving the impression a child who had no problem at all, "had a problem".
Child I's mother had a routine for each day, visiting Child I at regular times, and the father would come in from after 5pm.
Mr Johnson said the time between 3pm and 5pm was "her window of opportunity" to attack Child I.
NJ: "What are the chances of these things happening at precisely this point?"
Letby had written: 'Mummy present when reviewed by Drs. Had left unit when [Child I] had large vomit and transferred to nursery 1.'
Mr Johnson says Letby had tried to give the impression the Neopuff caused the inflated stomach for Child I.
He says "remarkably", Child I improved, and there were 'minimal aspitrates'.
"Yet another miraculous recovery...all good once Lucy Letby had left."
Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans ruled out infection and said the only explanation was a dose of air administered through the NG Tube.
Dr Sandie Bohin agreed, and the effect would have been to splint the diaphragm.
She discounted the possibility of NEC.
Professor Owen Arthurs said the stomach and almost all of the gut had been distended.
Mr Johnson says that was from administered air.
---
11:01am
The second incident for Child I, on October 13, 2015 at 3.20am, is now detailed by Mr Johnson - the 'see in the dark' incident, he calls it.
He says Child I had been progressing well
Mr Johnson says it is a "very calculated way" of giving the impression a child who had no problem at all, "had a problem".
Child I's mother had a routine for each day, visiting Child I at regular times, and the father would come in from after 5pm.
Mr Johnson said the time between 3pm and 5pm was "her window of opportunity" to attack Child I.
NJ: "What are the chances of these things happening at precisely this point?"
Letby had written: 'Mummy present when reviewed by Drs. Had left unit when [Child I] had large vomit and transferred to nursery 1.'
Mr Johnson says Letby had tried to give the impression the Neopuff caused the inflated stomach for Child I.
He says "remarkably", Child I improved, and there were 'minimal aspitrates'.
"Yet another miraculous recovery...all good once Lucy Letby had left."
Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans ruled out infection and said the only explanation was a dose of air administered through the NG Tube.
Dr Sandie Bohin agreed, and the effect would have been to splint the diaphragm.
She discounted the possibility of NEC.
Professor Owen Arthurs said the stomach and almost all of the gut had been distended.
Mr Johnson says that was from administered air.
---
11:01am
The second incident for Child I, on October 13, 2015 at 3.20am, is now detailed by Mr Johnson - the 'see in the dark' incident, he calls it.
He says Child I had been progressing well
I read Baby Is mum is a GP - wonder if that’s why she drew this one out and was determined to kill her
Have you got a link please x
The summing up feels even more horrifying then the cross exam and the other evidence put together. NJ is doing a fantastic job at setting the scene and relaying the events as they unfold but it's like watching a car crash in slow motion, you know what's going to happen and its so unfathomably awful.
“The ‘see in the dark’ incident.
11:06am
The first part of the night shift had Child I being fed normally.
Mr Johnson says the second event was much more serious than the first.
Before it, Child I had been in a good clinical condition, Mr Johnson says.
He says it was expected she was coming up for discharge from the hospital in a couple of weeks.
Letby was the designated nurse for a baby in room 1.
Nurse Ashleigh Hudson was the designated nurse for Child G, Child I and one other baby in room 2.
She left room 2 to tend to another baby in room 1, assisting colleague Laura Eagles, and asked a colleague to monitor Child I - either Caroline Oakley or Lucy Letby.
Caroline Oakley had no recollection of being called.
Ms Hudson said she had been in room 1, and some milk needed defrosting for Child I's feed, and when she got back, there were no adults in the room.
She started to prepare the milk, with her back to Child I.
The next thing she remembered was Lucy Letby in the doorway, who pointed out that Child I 'looked pale' - she was 'about 5ft-6ft away' from Child I.
She said something along the lines of 'Don't you think [Child I] looks pale?"
Ms Hudson said the light in room 2 was low, and the lights were on in the corridor outside room 2.
Mr Johnson reminds the jury what Lucy Letby said about this in interview.
The first part of the night shift had Child I being fed normally.
Mr Johnson says the second event was much more serious than the first.
Before it, Child I had been in a good clinical condition, Mr Johnson says.
He says it was expected she was coming up for discharge from the hospital in a couple of weeks.
Letby was the designated nurse for a baby in room 1.
Nurse Ashleigh Hudson was the designated nurse for Child G, Child I and one other baby in room 2.
She left room 2 to tend to another baby in room 1, assisting colleague Laura Eagles, and asked a colleague to monitor Child I - either Caroline Oakley or Lucy Letby.
Caroline Oakley had no recollection of being called.
Ms Hudson said she had been in room 1, and some milk needed defrosting for Child I's feed, and when she got back, there were no adults in the room.
She started to prepare the milk, with her back to Child I.
The next thing she remembered was Lucy Letby in the doorway, who pointed out that Child I 'looked pale' - she was 'about 5ft-6ft away' from Child I.
She said something along the lines of 'Don't you think [Child I] looks pale?"
Ms Hudson said the light in room 2 was low, and the lights were on in the corridor outside room 2.
Mr Johnson reminds the jury what Lucy Letby said about this in interview.
The tide wouldn't even take that out
- Status