Lucy Letby Case #8

[Tofino]

Sorry, I’m getting confused about the terms used in this forum.
To me an air embolus (or any embolus, eg fat, clotted blood) is air (or other substance) in the blood stream which is pumped around the system and can cause damage wherever it ends up and gets trapped.
I wouldn’t call air in the stomach, eg from air introduced via ng tube or just ‘gas’ or burps, an embolus.
Introducing air into the blood stream or into the stomach are to different methods with different consequences.
Am I the only one who is confused here?
A feed or drug can be given as a bolus (one off not by pump), but a bolus and embolus are different things.

That’s probably my fault if bolus and embolus are different things! In the allegation list I’ve put air embolus in brackets for all the air ones, I realise now I’ve probably misunderstood the definition. I can see the reporting calls it bolus of air in the NG tube ones and thought it was the same thing! (Bubble of air)

 

[MyWayOrTheHighway]

That’s probably my fault if bolus and embolus are different things! In the allegation list I’ve put air embolus in brackets for all the air ones, I realise now I’ve probably misunderstood the definition. I can see the reporting calls it bolus of air in the NG tube ones and thought it was the same thing! (Bubble of air)

Don’t be too hard on yourself! I thought the same! And thanks again for all the work on the wiki

 

[slingo16]

With regards to more compelling evidence coming out.
after asking this yesterday. I’m under the impression that the evidence we have for cases other than a and b is purely based on the agreed facts, meaning any evidence that the defence dispute we won’t hear until we get to the cases that the disputed evidence concerns. I think that’s right?

 

[Daisydunn15]

That’s probably my fault if bolus and embolus are different things! In the allegation list I’ve put air embolus in brackets for all the air ones, I realise now I’ve probably misunderstood the definition. I can see the reporting calls it bolus of air in the NG tube ones and thought it was the same thing! (Bubble of air)

When I worked in eating disorders, a bolus feed was a feed given all at once via syringe into the NG. I assumed it only referred to feeding but must be anything going in via syringe?

 

[slingo16]

That’s probably my fault if bolus and embolus are different things! In the allegation list I’ve put air embolus in brackets for all the air ones, I realise now I’ve probably misunderstood the definition. I can see the reporting calls it bolus of air in the NG tube ones and thought it was the same thing! (Bubble of air)

you mean I’ve been staying up until 3am researching air embolus for nothing

 

[Tofino]

Because if now, looking back, it's clear to these medical professionals that air embolism killed this child, why wouldn't they come to that conclusion at the time? Whether it was accidental or intention, the clinical presentation would be the same.
Lots of people have offered the explanation that they never would have considered the child was murdered so wouldn't have been looking for it, but an air embolism can happen accidentally with these procedures, even if they are rare.
It makes me question the medical experts who are sure this was the cause of death when there were medics involved in the resus and post mortem who didn't come to this conclusion.

Those medical professionals didn’t review it at the time, they are reviewing it as part of the investigation. For child A there are at least five medics from different professions. The question about why they are saying different to the original pathologist is a valid one and I’m sure they will have to explain it. It doesn’t mean they are not credible. Why aren’t you questioning if the original pathologist made a mistake? Given how negligent the hospital was in everything else they did?

But regardless, it doesn’t mean these witness experts haven’t considered accidental causes which is what you said. Why wouldn’t they consider it given they have got to testify under oath and be cross examined? I assume they have ruled it out for some reason and we need to hear why.

 

[Daisydunn15]

Those medical professionals didn’t review it at the time, they are reviewing it as part of the investigation. For child A there are at least five medics from different professions. The question about why they are saying different to the original pathologist is a valid one and I’m sure they will have to explain it. It doesn’t mean they are not credible. Why aren’t you questioning if the original pathologist made a mistake? Given how negligent the hospital was in everything else they did?

But regardless, it doesn’t mean these witness experts haven’t considered accidental causes which is what you said. Why wouldn’t they consider it given they have got to testify under oath and be cross examined? I assume they have ruled it out for some reason and we need to hear why.

Maybe I worded that wrong. I meant why wouldn't the original doctors including the pathologist consider accidental air embolism. I'd assume that if that the cause of death is evident to all of these experts years later then surely at the time it should have been too. And yes they could have considered it at the time and ruled it out, which just makes it even more confusing that they're saying it now.

 

[Tofino]

you mean I’ve been staying up until 3am researching air embolus for nothing

Not for nothing but you need to add bolus of air via NG tube to your research now too!

 

[Haveyouanywool]

you mean I’ve been staying up until 3am researching air embolus for nothing

No, because some were air embolus (into bloodstream) and some were air bolus (into stomach).
If that makes you feel better
It’s confusing. A bolus is a description for anything given as a quick on off.
You can have a food bolus (meaning not using a pump) or an IV bolus, meaning something injected quickly as a one off as opposed to dripping slowly from a bag through a line.
Embolus or embolism, yip, different thing.
Sorry for stating the obvious for those who know this already!

 

[Tofino]

Maybe I worded that wrong. I meant why wouldn't the original doctors including the pathologist consider accidental air embolism. I'd assume that if that the cause of death is evident to all of these experts years later then surely at the time it should have been too. And yes they could have considered it at the time and ruled it out, which just makes it even more confusing that they're saying it now.

oh yes I see what you are saying, sorry if I misunderstood.

There is probably going to be conflicting information on the medical side. I have wondered if the original pathologist has had to make a statement and will be a witness? He might have to say if he thinks he could have been wrong or not.

The prosecution medical experts will get cross examined by defence. And I’m assuming the defence may have their own expert witnesses. And they would also get cross examined by prosecution.

So it might be quite conflicting and come down to who is most credible / believable. And no doubt that will be subjective!

 

[abelleza]

When I worked in eating disorders, a bolus feed was a feed given all at once via syringe into the NG. I assumed it only referred to feeding but must be anything going in via syringe?

Bolus = a dose of something, could be food, could be medicine.

 

[slingo16]

Maybe I worded that wrong. I meant why wouldn't the original doctors including the pathologist consider accidental air embolism. I'd assume that if that the cause of death is evident to all of these experts years later then surely at the time it should have been too. And yes they could have considered it at the time and ruled it out, which just makes it even more confusing that they're saying it now.

I’ve read that it’s very rarely recorded as a cause of death in neonatal care across the board.

Could be a subconscious thing from post-mortem person to think the best of there colleges and often look for other things to attribute the death to?

I’d assume that this being recorded as cause of death would lead to some sort of investigation whether internally or a police matter

so it must take the pressure off your judgement and your subconscious idea that look for something else once you know it’s part of a murder case

 

[Ibrokethegoddamnwheel]

Gosh, I’m already starting to feel a bit fatigued from following this trial. This thread is also incredibly hard to keep up with (not a criticism, discussion is good). I’ve skipped a fair few pages otherwise I’d never catch up. I cannot imagine how it feels to be on the jury. Just so much to take in, someone’s life is literally in their hands. They have a huge responsibility to get this right.

Goes without saying that it must be so gruelling for the parents of those poor babies as well. Having to relive all this trauma again. My heart goes out to them it really does. Hearing their babies being discussed in court like this, it’s not something any parent should have to go through.

Part of me hopes LL is guilty because if she truly is innocent then that’s awful too. Her life will never be the same, it is essentially ruined. I’m still very much in the I don’t know camp, I just feel there’s so much more to come I can’t possibly decide yet. Not that what I think matters. But I’m certainly not convinced about baby A & B at this point. Still a very long way to go.

 

[Daisydunn15]

Bolus = a dose of something, could be food, could be medicine.

This is why they say mental health nurses aren't proper nurses we used to just refer to the feed as 'the bolus' even though meds went down there too, I thought it was specific to feeds

 

[Tofino]

I’ll correct the wiki tomorrow. But any that say air embolus currently were a dose of air administered somewhere, not all IV, some NG.

 

[slingo16]

No, because some were air embolus (into bloodstream) and some were air bolus (into stomach).
If that makes you feel better

That’s kinda comforting

although it does confuse things slightly do we know if when the air went into the stomach there was access to the blood? And when it went into the blood was there access to the stomach?

 

[Nelly's mum]

Makes absolutely zero difference what gender you are? Just don’t claim that all judges are men when they’re not? Problem solved!!!

I see your point EllsBells and I agree with you - but it makes zero difference what SEX judges are, not GENDER.
Sex is what is between your legs, gender is what is in your head

 

[Haveyouanywool]

That’s kinda comforting

although it does confuse things slightly do we know if when the air went into the stomach there was access to the blood? And when it went into the blood was there access to the stomach?

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Air wouldn’t normally go from the blood to the stomach or from the stomach to the blood. If that’s what you mean.
Two separate methods of killing.
Of course, both could be used at one time but I don’t think that’s been claimed.

 

[candyland_]

Maybe I worded that wrong. I meant why wouldn't the original doctors including the pathologist consider accidental air embolism. I'd assume that if that the cause of death is evident to all of these experts years later then surely at the time it should have been too. And yes they could have considered it at the time and ruled it out, which just makes it even more confusing that they're saying it now.

Didn’t some of the professionals say at the very beginning of the trial that they had never saw an air embolism in their entire careers?

 

[slingo16]

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Air wouldn’t normally go from the blood to the stomach or from the stomach to the blood. If that’s what you mean.
Two separate methods of killing.
Of course, both could be used at one time but I don’t think that’s been claimed.

I get that it’s two methods ones injected into the bloodstream directly and one is into the stomach via a feeding tube.
Im asking if there was any access to a feeding tube when she used the blood stream method?

And was there any access to the bloodstream when she used the stomach method? If that makes more sense?