Lucy Letby Case #43

[Futtrit]

2:14pm

The trial is resuming following its lunch break.

The judge describes Prof Sally Kinsey's evidence, in which she had concluded, from the descriptions by dctors and nurses of skin discolouration, that Child A had had an air embolus.

The court had been told of how an air embolus affects the body.

She confirmed she had not seen one in her experience, but the descriptions provided were "pretty stark".

---
2:14pm

The judge turns to the case of Child B, and relays the care and events leading up to and the time of her collapse.

 

[MmmB777]

Omg Judge Goss babe xoxo

 

[Tofino]

It stands for Home Office Large Major Enquiry System so I think they'll all be on there.

There's a job description online for a HOLMES supervisor for op hummingbird

Quick Check Needed

oh and there I was thinking it was a nod to Sherlock

 

[Faith61]

Omg Judge Goss babe xoxo
View attachment 2281833

Loving it

 

[Tofino]

Hello from another newbie! I've been following along for months and am glad I can now comment. I'm in a couple of Facebook groups but only comment there when I really can't restrain myself. It particularly annoys me when people try to minimise, normalise and excuse the amount of confidential paperwork LL took home and stored. I just find the FB groups insane.

I'll admit I initially thought she couldn't possibly have done what she is accused of as it is too horrific and I did think she was being made a scapegoat, but my mind really changed after the pathologist evidence for baby A (I think) which described the "globules" inside the veins of brain and lung tissue. Then the insulin cases are pretty damning.

I was absolutely shocked that the only defence witness other than LL was a plumber. Just wow! And I've been surprised at what BM has been allowed to say without experts to back it up.

Anyway, the end is in sight and I have faith in the jury. I am looking forward to justice being served.

Long time lurker, FTP. Glad I got the chance to cast my guilty vote today! I think the thing that really sealed the deal for me was the number of babies attacked on their due dates or key milestones. That simply cannot be a coincidence, and it lends enormous weight to the motive of wanting to revel in the parents' distress. Hoping the jury see it the same way!

Been following this thread for a while and wanted to add my input. From the day of hearing about her arrest my gut feeling has been that she is guilty, as difficult as it is to comprehend somebody in the caring profession being capable of something like this. I am a healthcare professional myself and have been involved in numerous emergency situations in hospital with babies/children and cannot think of any that were unexplained and/or unexpected - normally during a resus situation it is either 'expected' due to the patients condition deteriorating or being unstable, or an explanation is found quite quickly following full assessment or further investigations (blood tests etc). The evidence the prosecution have presented has only solidified their case in my opinion and I can't see how she could be innocent.
I hope that the jury make the right decision so that the poor babies and their families get the justice they deserve, although it could never make up for what they have been through. I also hope that her colleagues are getting the support they need as this would undoubtedly be devastating for them to hear evidence that a colleague that they no doubt trusted was actually causing harm.
I think following this case there will be a lot of investigation at CoCH and changes in practice and policies to find out how this went on unnoticed for so long and to prevent this from happening again. I imagine the police will also have to investigate every patient that Letby has ever had direct contact with which will be a mammoth task in itself as during nurse training there are 9 or more placements in different clinical areas and can also be across different trusts depending on where the university uses for placements. Sadly I think there will be more cases to come.

YES. I've not been able to vote before because i've not been able to register. I AM IN. She's guilty guilty, very very guilty.

Thank you to all of you who have made following this case as easy as it could be, by laying out all of the information and for many of your astute reasonings.

I’m just so sorry you were not all able to join us sooner!!

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

Okay I think I'm officially back following this thread

Spoiler: Boring me rail

(I had a virus that left me with chronic fatigue, just what you need with a newborn and a rapid loss of vision in one eye . It's all settled now thankfully!! Although they have no idea what virus it was)

Is this week and next week the last of the trial? Sorry I have been dipping in and out to read at the least but still don't know where we are at!

 

[Slip slip knit]

I am wondering if it should be Twitter Three now Emma Kenny has joined in. Apparently neither of the bags can be related to Letby

View attachment 2281586

Bloody hell I can’t stand this woman! She was spouting off crazy covid conspiracies the last time I came across her

 

[Futtrit]

2:22pm

A nurse colleague said she had her gloves on, and was drawing up medication, when Child B collapsed at 12.30am.

Letby had said Child B was apnoeic [not breathing].

The nurse said Child B 'looked like Child A', with blotchy discolouration; a 'cyanosed appearance' was recorded in the nursing notes.

The notes added the colour changed rapidly, to "purple blotches with white patches."

Letby said she had accepted being in room 1 at the time of the collapse.

She said the colleague had alerted her to Child B's collapse.

Child B had a 'dark mottling', a 'general mottling'.

Child B was 'more purple' and she did not see what the nursing colleague had seen.

Letby had accepted she would have had access to the IV lines prior to the collapses of Child A and Child B, but said she did not do anything with them.

Letby, in police interview, said Child B's mottling 'purple, red, rash-like appearance' was more extensive than with Child A, but was "similar".

She recalled Child A and Child B's parents being very upset.

She said, in a 2019 police interview, she accepted she may have taken blood gas readings prior to the collapse, but did not do anything to harm Child B. In a 2020 police interview, she said she did not know how Child B collapsed.

 

[Wellthisisinteresting]

When you breakdown the defence it’s a plumber confirming two leaks/ blockages on both days that no collapse happened and a barrister
(very clearly highly intelligent and well regarded)
That just disagrees with EXPERT witnesses, no medical examples, no experts to confirm what he is saying … says it was extra busy and LL her self confirmed that suboptimal care was not the cause of collapses deaths.

 

[craig84]

oh and there I was thinking it was a nod to Sherlock

You would be right to think that as it is named after him

Police call on Holmes the computer for help

How many times did police officers interview the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe? Often enough, you'd have thought, to make…

www.irishtimes.com

 

[Tofino]

Okay I think I'm officially back following this thread

Spoiler: Boring me rail

(I had a virus that left me with chronic fatigue, just what you need with a newborn and a rapid loss of vision in one eye . It's all settled now thankfully!! Although they have no idea what virus it was)

Is this week and next week the last of the trial? Sorry I have been dipping in and out to read at the least but still don't know where we are at!

Hope you are feeling much better!

This week is judges summing up. no court on Friday. And then that’s it!!! If we are still on schedule then jury should be sent out next week to deliberate.

i do wonder how long the judge will give them to deliberate.

don’t bother catching up on last week. It was a load of (bowel movements).

 

[Futtrit]

2:27pm

Dr Rachel Lambie said the most unusual observation for Child B was a 'dusky, pale grey colour - then developing widespread blotches of a purple/red colour - they would flush up, then disappear, then appear elsewhere - they were flitting all over'.

It took about 90 minutes for the grey colour to disappear and be replaced by pink, she added.

She said this "was a very unusual event" which she had not seen before or since, and Child B recovered quickly.

Blood gas results came back as normal.

Letby said she had been asked to get a camera to get a photo of Child B, but when she had returned, the discolouration had gone.

A female doctor recalled 'purple blotching to the mid-right abdomen and right hand', which she was "puzzled" by.

The rash was "so florid" and "so very unusual", she said, and its quick disappearance was not normal.

 

[Wellthisisinteresting]

Who opened the gates to all the newbies



Bloody big welcome to you all, so glad you can all finally comment and vote xx

 

[LittleMy]

2:27pm

Dr Rachel Lambie said the most unusual observation for Child B was a 'dusky, pale grey colour - then developing widespread blotches of a purple/red colour - they would flush up, then disappear, then appear elsewhere - they were flitting all over'.

It took about 90 minutes for the grey colour to disappear and be replaced by pink, she added.

She said this "was a very unusual event" which she had not seen before or since, and Child B recovered quickly.

Blood gas results came back as normal.

Letby said she had been asked to get a camera to get a photo of Child B, but when she had returned, the discolouration had gone.

A female doctor recalled 'purple blotching to the mid-right abdomen and right hand', which she was "puzzled" by.

The rash was "so florid" and "so very unusual", she said, and its quick disappearance was not normal.

So Letby herself said she was the one asked to get the camera? I must’ve missed this part. Convenient for her that the rash had gone by the time she found it and brought it to them.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

Hope you are feeling much better!

This week is judges summing up. no court on Friday. And then that’s it!!! If we are still on schedule then jury should be sent out next week to deliberate.

i do wonder how long the judge will give them to deliberate.

don’t bother catching up on last week. It was a load of (bowel movements).

Thank you!! Im feeling much better now, just slightly weirded out by what happened tbh
oh I managed to catch one day last week that made me very angry so I had a ranty post here and then swiftly left again!!

 

[MmmB777]

So Letby herself said she was the one asked to get the camera? I must’ve missed this part. Convenient for her that the rash had gone by the time she found it and brought it to them.

I do remember finding out during cross that it was her that didn’t get back with the camera in time! What are the chances eh

 

[KatieMorag]

Dragged her little heels (in her matalan shoes no doubt) getting that camera didn't she.

On another note - thanks for the warm welcome. I'm genuinely grateful to be able to talk about this at last. It's been on my mind a lot and my very chilled husband while agreeing she's guilty doesn't actually want to analyse each individual sentence of testimony for some reason.

 

[Futtrit]

2:33pm

Dr Evans said Child B was "stable" prior to the collapse, and prone to desaturations.

The collapse was either the result of smothering or air embolus.

He said if the cause was hypoxia or infection, the effects would stay.

He said the fact Child B survived meant it was likely less air was administered, or it was administered more slowly.

Dr Bohin said Child B was compromised at birth, but responded very well to resuscitation and breathing support measures.

The circumstances of the collapse was "very disturbing" and there were no other warning signs.

The disodging of the nasal prongs for Child B had been resolved.

She based her air embolus conclusion on 'florid' skin colour changes and ruling out other causes.
---
2:33pm

The defence say it cannot be excluded that Child B's collapse was a natural event.

 

[Thegirlwhouk]

Judge Goss you are MY HERO.

 

[Futtrit]

2:36pm

The judge refers to the case of Child C.

He says medical experts found it difficult to conclude the cause of death, but Dr Marnerides said it was air administered into his stomach via the naso-gastric tube.

Letby said she did nothing harmful to Child C, and a cause such as a gastrointestinal blockage cannot be excluded, that Child C should have been treated at a tertiary unit, and there was a failure to react to bile aspirates, vomiting, and an overall lack of care.