Lucy Letby Case #78

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

Sunraged

Active member
Exactly the response I expected.

Can someone direct me to the "objective discussions about the Lucy Letby case" thread, please? ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
W

Whythough

VIP Member
King Seagull said:
@Whythough re the insulin - is it your contention that there wasn't a way to poison the babies with insulin because of the safeguards you mention or that there was no evidence that anyone was harmed by insulin in the first place? Just because you can't believe safeguarding potentially dangerous drugs can be eluded, doesn't negate the fact that even the defence during the trial accepted that there were at least one (it's been a while, I haven't doubled checked the wiki/trial reporting to see if more than one was acknowledged by the defence) baby who had been harmed by having massive doses of insulin administered. So how did whoever did it circumvent the safety protocols? And some of that safeguarding is around miscalculating amounts rather than preventing deliberate harm, so it had failed regardless on your view on Letby.

What are your thoughts on the rate of tube dislodgments during her earlier placements? Genuinely interested!
Click to expand...
I'm saying it would be very difficult to do so from my experience.
There are many reasons babies have low blood sugars. Some are caused by medications given during labour, sepsis, metabolic issues.
As for the tube dislodging babies when ventilated aren't always sedated and if you take your eyes of them tubes can be dislodged as they are essentially awake and uncomfortable and want the tube out!
Of course this could be done deliberately but I've known vented babies who's tubes have moved despite having a 1-1 nursing ratio as it only take a second.
Also if you have a nurse who's not competent in caring for vented babies tubes can also move.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
W

Whythough

VIP Member
IGiveUp22 said:
I’m assuming you’re suggesting this isn’t true if the doctors caused the deaths ?
Despite the current noise in the media, there is no evidence this is the case.

The consultants who tried to raise their concern regarding the unexplained and unexpected deaths and the potential of LL being the caused were not treated as they should have been by the hospital. They were not covered under the whistleblowing policy which they should have been and they were also threatened by higher management with losing their own licences/being reported by the GMC if they didn’t stop raising their concerns and asking for management to complete investigations.

If they were responsible they wouldn’t have been fighting for there to be an investigation.

The higher management themselves didn’t even want to do an investigation into the deaths either so again, the fact the consultants were pushing for this speaks volumes and rubbish’s the claim she is a scapegoat. As said before, the enquiry actually shows just how much the hospital tried to keep her employed and attempted to remove the consultants which disproves the conspiracy it was all a cover up - you can read all the enquiry documents online
Click to expand...
I'm suggesting there is more to this case. As a neonatal nurse some of the 'evidence' doesn't add up and again from experience i just cannot see how she had the chance to do what she was accused of. She was either a criminal mastermind and her colleagues were turning a blind eye or she was a scapegoat for systematic failings.
I have read the documents and the evidence multiple times.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: 1
B

barber23

New member
Apostate said:
If you're trying to go down the "oh the doctors are covering up" line you can forget it. This conspiracy theory disintegrates under the gentlest of scrutiny. Professionally, financially, legally or otherwise the doctors were under no jeopardy as a result of the unit deaths.
Click to expand...
the poster was not suggesting this at all !
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
E

elevatordomino

VIP Member
Whythough said:
Yes the unit was downgraded so all sick babies would have been transfered straight out
Click to expand...
The babies that died- were they ones that would have been on that unit if the unit wasn’t downgraded? Would they have been born elsewhere or transferred? Or where they babies that weren’t high dependency and wouldn’t have needed transferring. I’m just trying to figure if the deaths stopped coz there were no sick or very prem babies - but then they could have easily died at the transferred hospital I guess, or because she was suspended and that’s why

Just to say I think you sound like an excellent and confident NICU nurse. So sorry if anyone has suggested otherwise.
 
  • Heart
Reactions: 1
Ghostranch

Ghostranch

Well-known member
I feel really confused about which deaths Letby was present at due to different reports. Do we actually know for sure now and if so, is there a credible source for this information?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
W

Whythough

VIP Member
elevatordomino said:
The babies that died- were they ones that would have been on that unit if the unit wasn’t downgraded? Would they have been born elsewhere or transferred? Or where they babies that weren’t high dependency and wouldn’t have needed transferring. I’m just trying to figure if the deaths stopped coz there were no sick or very prem babies - but then they could have easily died at the transferred hospital I guess, or because she was suspended and that’s why

Just to say I think you sound like an excellent and confident NICU nurse. So sorry if anyone has suggested otherwise.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
The 25 weeker should have been stabilised and transfered out.
Babies A, C, E, O and P would not be treated in a level 1 and needed transferring.
The twins should have been born and cared for in a tertiary centre too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
W

Whythough

VIP Member
I've listened to you all and am reading further evidence/transcripts. I stated I wasn't convinced when I joined the thread, not that I'm a letby supporter/sympathetiser.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Tui

Tui

VIP Member
Tofino said:
Stole this from Reddit so can’t take credit.

Baby K - assertions from the panel it was the undersized tube that caused the collapse View attachment 3400587

Myers raised this question in trial so proves he had expert advice on this at the time but chose not to call it.

View attachment 3400588

I would be really surprised if CCRC refer this one back. I don’t know if the decision has to be all of them or none of them. Or whether some could get referred and not others (theoretically of course).
Click to expand...
How can 94% air leak equate to ventilating well? They’re not ventilating anything except the space around the bed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
W

Whythough

VIP Member
Tofino said:
There are not other explanations. You do realise a press conference and news articles is not the same as testifying under oath in court? And being cross examined by the opposite legal team? Something which has already happened over a ten month trial with hundreds of witnesses and multiple experts of different professions.
Click to expand...
The air embolisms could have been introduced when the line was inserted. Clots can form in lines and when flushed they break off.
Air in the stomach can be caused by respiratory support, Resuscitation attemps or happen post mortem.
Babies on respiratory support, for example on cpap end up with distended stomachs and loops of air in the bowel when xrayed.
I'm not disputing the causes of death just there are other explanations.
 
E

elevatordomino

VIP Member
I think she’s guilty. But people keep saying the deaths stopped once she was suspended, but is it true that at the same time she was suspended they no longer took high dependency babies and were down graded? So this is why? Just wanting to clarify.