Lucy Letby Case #8

[MyWayOrTheHighway]

I really appreciated the person who a while ago who said how uncomfortable they were on following all this. I feel the same. I’ve been thinking about it a lot and the conclusion I’ve reached is that my life is a bit crappy atm (I’m sure it is for many people). Things have felt relentless out in the world since 2016. I really feel for the families of the babies, those poor babies themselves and for all the people having their lives disrupted in real life by all of this. But, hiding behind my screen, I really appreciate this thread. I’ve used my brain in ways I haven’t for ages and I feel connected to something when everything else feels so disconnected.

The whole idea of a nurse doing something like this is bonkers and isn’t how things shouldn’t be and just trying to make a little bit of sense of it, however much of a dubious coping mechanism for my life this may be, feels… I dont know… helpful to me at this moment in time. So thanks everyone. I really value hearing about peoples experiences and expertise. I like the different ways people think. Some of you are really funny too.

Nb. I do realise that this is a very real case and there is so much pain in what happened and what’s happening xx

I just want to say I totally relate to what you’ve said and you’re not alone! From reading through all of these threads over the last few days, it’s evident we’re all very caring people, many of us parents or working in the medical field so something this tragic feels very emotive to us. I agree as well, it’s nice to connect with others and to use our brains, just wish it was over something more positive and not so terribly sad.

I was also wondering whether there’s others on here who have OCD and / or ADHD?! I have OCD and suspect I also have ADHD and I tend to really zone in on things I feel strongly about - just wondered if anyone else on here can relate

 

[just_nicole]

I think the point with the insulin poisoning is that they *think* she tampered with the first bag, but they don’t have the first bag and it was never tested. So it seems like when something happens and Lucy is there, it was definitely her and not what anyone did before she arrived. When Lucy isn’t there, it was definitely what she did before the next nurse arrived. Almost like they’re moving the goalposts to ensure she’s always in the frame.

I get the confusion, I think it's due to some poor reporting again as the defence has mentioned a sample taken from the second bag, and stated that Lucy didn't have access to that bag, would give the impression something was found in that sample. On the other side prosecution are mentioning tainted giving sets.

Which makes the whole situation hard to follow or understand, for me at least.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

I wasn't expecting anyone to answer it. It was just a thought I was adding to the previous point.

It does seem shocking that nothing was done, in hindsight, but why will become clearer at some point, I should think.
I suspect that failure to report or follow up on suspicions might become a learning point and some might be reprimanded, or more, in the future. Especially as I think some of the later deaths could have been avoided.
That’s not what this trial is about though.

 

[Tofino]

I understand that she was on shift and had been involved in some capacity with the first bag but
Do you not think it’s relevant that she wasn’t actually present for the actual collapse? Especially as this charge stands out with the insulin being the cause?

No I don’t at the moment because in the prosecution opening statement there is a reasonable explanation how it occurred that includes Lucy. Prosecution say she signed for and hung up the first TPN bag. The problems started before that bag was changed and the experts have given an explanation as to how it could continue when the bag was changed (contamination).

The only thing the defence have said about it was that she wasn’t on shift for the second bag. That’s far too weak when the problems started before the second bag.

Obviously this needs scrutinising in evidence but people are just ignoring the explanation of how Lucy could have been involved before her shift ended, that the problems started when the baby was receiving the first TPN bag she had contact with, and clinging on to the defence saying she wasn’t there for the second bag. It’s not enough.

Letby and the designated nurse signed the prescription chart to record the TPN bag was started and administered via a long line at 12.25am.

Letby signed for the TPN bag to be used for 48 hours.

Following the conclusion of a Letby night-shift, after the administration of a TPN bag Letby had co-signed for, a doctor instructed the nursing staff to stop the TPN via the longline and provide dextrose (sugar to counteract the fall in blood sugar), and move the TPN to a peripheral line while a new long line was put in.

^ The bag was changed because there were already problems so it doesn’t rule Lucy out ^

Medical experts Dr Dewi Evans and Dr Sandie Bohin said the hormone levels were consistent with insulin being put into the TPN bag prior to Child F's hypoglycaemic episode.

"You know who was in the room, and you know who hung up the bag," Mr Johnson told the jury.

Professor Peter Hindmarsh said the insulin "had to have gone in through the TPN bag" as the the hypoglycaemia "persisted for such a long time" despite five injections of 10% dextrose.

Professor Hindmarsh said the following possibilities happened.

That the same bag was transferred over the line, that the replacement stock bag was contaminated, or that some part of the 'giving set' was contaminated by insulin fron the first TPN bag which had bound to the plastic, and therefore continued to flow through the hardware even after a non-contaminated bag was attached.

"There can be no doubt that somebody contaminated that original bag with insulin.

"Because of that...the problem continued through the day."

 

[MmmB777]

I think the point with the insulin poisoning is that they *think* she tampered with the first bag, but they don’t have the first bag and it was never tested. So it seems like when something happens and Lucy is there, it was definitely her and not what anyone did before she arrived. When Lucy isn’t there, it was definitely what she did before the next nurse arrived. Almost like they’re moving the goalposts to ensure she’s always in the frame.

The symptoms began with the first bag and it is proven that the baby suffered insulin poisoning. Yes some people will believe it is then a massive leap to think that the symptoms of insulin poisoning BEGAN with the bag Letby hung but that that is unrelated to the confirmed insulin poisoning of this baby. Maybe some people will think it’s more evidence of multiple doctors coming together to frame it as the symptoms started then. I guess we’ll have to see but I agree it’s not the full picture to say “she wasn’t there for some of the deaths” if it makes out that’s some flaw in the prosecutions case.

 

[freaknasty]

I know we aren’t having thread titles for these but can we PLEASE have

Lucy Letby #9 READ THE WIKI

So many people are asking things we already know and it’s so much to trawl through

 

[Lucyxxxx]

I know we aren’t having thread titles for these but can we PLEASE have

Lucy Letby #9 READ THE WIKI

So many people are asking things we already know and it’s so much to trawl through

I did think of something yesterday but thought I best not lol.

 

[slingo16]

It appears that she was working

No I don’t at the moment because in the prosecution opening statement there is a reasonable explanation how it occurred that includes Lucy. Prosecution say she signed for and hung up the first TPN bag. The problems started before that bag was changed and the experts have given an explanation as to how it could continue when the bag was changed (contamination).

The only thing the defence have said about it was that she wasn’t on shift for the second bag. That’s far too weak when the problems started before the second bag.

Obviously this needs scrutinising in evidence but people are just ignoring the explanation of how Lucy could have been involved before her shift ended, that the problems started when the baby was receiving the first TPN bag she had contact with, and clinging on to the defence saying she wasn’t there for the second bag. It’s not enough.

Letby and the designated nurse signed the prescription chart to record the TPN bag was started and administered via a long line at 12.25am.

Letby signed for the TPN bag to be used for 48 hours.

Following the conclusion of a Letby night-shift, after the administration of a TPN bag Letby had co-signed for, a doctor instructed the nursing staff to stop the TPN via the longline and provide dextrose (sugar to counteract the fall in blood sugar), and move the TPN to a peripheral line while a new long line was put in.

^ The bag was changed because there were already problems so it doesn’t rule Lucy out ^

Medical experts Dr Dewi Evans and Dr Sandie Bohin said the hormone levels were consistent with insulin being put into the TPN bag prior to Child F's hypoglycaemic episode.
Medical experts Dr Dewi Evans and Dr Sandie Bohin said the hormone levels were consistent with insulin being put into the TPN bag prior to Child F's hypoglycaemic episode.

"You know who was in the room, and you know who hung up the bag," Mr Johnson told the jury.

Professor Peter Hindmarsh said the insulin "had to have gone in through the TPN bag" as the the hypoglycaemia "persisted for such a long time" despite five injections of 10% dextrose.

Professor Hindmarsh said the following possibilities happened.

That the same bag was transferred over the line, that the replacement stock bag was contaminated, or that some part of the 'giving set' was contaminated by insulin fron the first TPN bag which had bound to the plastic, and therefore continued to flow through the hardware even after a non-contaminated bag was attached.

"There can be no doubt that somebody contaminated that original bag with insulin.

"Because of that...the problem continued through the day."

To say “there can be no doubt that somebody contaminated that original bag with insulin” sounds very much like they have tested the first bag.

I mean that’s the only way you can make that statement surely

 

[Tofino]

I think the point with the insulin poisoning is that they *think* she tampered with the first bag, but they don’t have the first bag and it was never tested. So it seems like when something happens and Lucy is there, it was definitely her and not what anyone did before she arrived. When Lucy isn’t there, it was definitely what she did before the next nurse arrived. Almost like they’re moving the goalposts to ensure she’s always in the frame.

I hear what you are saying but from what they’ve said so far I don’t think it’s impossible for them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the first bag must have been tampered with. Then it’s looking at who had access to the bag and who had opportunity to tamper with it. That will get scrutinised in evidence. But also bearing in mind there are also two incidents of this happening so if it’s proven these are definitely insulin poisoning we either have one common denominator or two culprits.

Lucy and defence have not even denied these are insulin poisonings. So someone must have done it.

 

[candyland_]

But as mentioned earlier, three deaths in June alone and all completely surprised by each one, so why was nothing done sooner?

We’ve all been asking this since the beginning.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

I hear what you are saying but from what they’ve said so far I don’t think it’s impossible for them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the first bag must have been tampered with. Then it’s looking at who had access to the bag and who had opportunity to tamper with it. That will get scrutinised in evidence. But also bearing in mind there are also two incidents of this happening so if it’s proven these are definitely insulin poisoning we either have one common denominator or two culprits.

Lucy and defence have not even denied these are insulin poisonings. So someone must have done it.

Yes, isn't it one of the "agreed facts"?

 

[Nelly's mum]

I can imagine a scenario where LL was initially harming babies by tampering with equipment, then escalated to small tweaks of medication, this escalated to babies actually dying due to insulin poisoning or embolism/bolus.

Some people love the drama of an emergency situation, and enjoy the feeling of knowing what is happening and watching other people desperately trying to resolve an emergency - like arsonists/ pyromaniacs, hoax bomb threats etc.

Maybe she loved the drama, the excitement, watching it all unfold, watching the grief - and she created situations so she could do that. Maybe her motivation was not to kill the babies, she was more interested in creating emergency situations.

By her own admission, LL said she wasn't interested in just feeding and caring for babies, she wanted to be in amongst the action with the more poorly babies.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

It appears that she was working

To say “there can be no doubt that somebody contaminated that original bag with insulin” sounds very much like they have tested the first bag.

I mean that’s the only way you can make that statement surely

I don’t think so. I think it’s related to the prolonged exposure to insulin causing the symptoms displayed by the baby and these symptoms not being resolved by counter measures, that is, the administration of dextrose.
The prolonged symptoms could only have been caused by prolonged exposure and, probably, the only thing being given continuously over time was the TPN.
I’m not sure if there’s no doubt but very little doubt. LL herself agreed that the baby was poisoned by insulin by someone though not incriminating herself, obviously.

 

[Tofino]

Yes, isn't it one if the "agreed facts"?

They haven’t got into agreed facts yet for those babies but this is what Lucy said in police interviews:

She agreed the insulin could not have been administered accidentally, but denied being responsible.

Her explanation was it must have been in one of the bags already being received.


And this is what the defence say about it.


For Child F and Child L, the children allegedly poisoned with insulin, the defence "cannot say what has happened".

"It is difficult to say if you don't know," Mr Myers said.

"So much has been said about these. These are not simple allegations which can automatically lead to a conviction."

The defence say Child F's TPN bag was put up by Letby in August 2015 and hours later there were blood sugar problems. That bag was replaced, in the absence of Letby, but the problems continued.

The sample taken came from "the second bag", the defence say.

A professor had given "three possible explanations", none of which identified Letby as a culprit.

For Child L, there were issues with the documentation provided, so those are challenged, the defence say.

There is "nothing to say" Letby was directly involved in the acts.

 

[IdeletedbutI'mbackagain]

They haven’t got into agreed facts yet for those babies but this is what Lucy said in police interviews:

She agreed the insulin could not have been administered accidentally, but denied being responsible.

Her explanation was it must have been in one of the bags already being received.


And this is what the defence say about it.


For Child F and Child L, the children allegedly poisoned with insulin, the defence "cannot say what has happened".

"It is difficult to say if you don't know," Mr Myers said.

"So much has been said about these. These are not simple allegations which can automatically lead to a conviction."

The defence say Child F's TPN bag was put up by Letby in August 2015 and hours later there were blood sugar problems. That bag was replaced, in the absence of Letby, but the problems continued.

The sample taken came from "the second bag", the defence say.

A professor had given "three possible explanations", none of which identified Letby as a culprit.

For Child L, there were issues with the documentation provided, so those are challenged, the defence say.

There is "nothing to say" Letby was directly involved in the acts.

Thank you this trial has me so confused, there is just so much information!! Too much for my brain to handle!

 

[Tofino]

And I’ll just remind everyone that the babies who were poisoned by insulin both had a twin who had symptoms of being injected with air. (Can’t recall if via IV or NG).

 

[jackolantern]

By her own admission, LL said she wasn't interested in just feeding and caring for babies, she wanted to be in amongst the action with the more poorly babies.

Tbh even that makes my skin crawl. Imagine wanting babies to be sick so you aren't bored. bleep.

 

[Wellthisisinteresting]

Good morning Tatlers

I speak to you lot more than my friends and family

 

[Emmelina Ball]

Tbh even that makes my skin crawl. Imagine wanting babies to be sick so you aren't bored. bleep.

I don’t read it as her wanting babies to be sick - I read it as her wanting to use the skills and knowledge she’s learned to be a neonatal nurse. I think because she’s on trial it can feel iffy and wrong that she’s said it, but if she is innocent it can read harmless.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

They haven’t got into agreed facts yet for those babies but this is what Lucy said in police interviews:

She agreed the insulin could not have been administered accidentally, but denied being responsible.

Her explanation was it must have been in one of the bags already being received.


And this is what the defence say about it.


For Child F and Child L, the children allegedly poisoned with insulin, the defence "cannot say what has happened".

"It is difficult to say if you don't know," Mr Myers said.

"So much has been said about these. These are not simple allegations which can automatically lead to a conviction."

The defence say Child F's TPN bag was put up by Letby in August 2015 and hours later there were blood sugar problems. That bag was replaced, in the absence of Letby, but the problems continued.

The sample taken came from "the second bag", the defence say.

A professor had given "three possible explanations", none of which identified Letby as a culprit.

For Child L, there were issues with the documentation provided, so those are challenged, the defence say.

There is "nothing to say" Letby was directly involved in the acts.

To be honest, I’m thinking ‘the sample taken’ could mean the blood sample taken to check the insulin levels of the baby was taken when the second bag was insitu. We know a sample was taken from the baby and the insulin levels were sky high.
I just can’t see how a positive insulin sample taken from a TPN bag would not be thoroughly investigated, with police called in, at the time as that would be a very serious obviously deliberate act.
I could be wrong though.