UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #10

[Dotta]

By the way,
I joined WS 1,5 years ago (so I'm not even a toddler sleuth haha)
but
I try to recall a single trial case I followed on WS when a defendant was found NOT GUILTY by the Jury.
And I fail to remember even one.

Granted,
I haven't followed all trials here, but those I have - well, the Prosecution lawyers were usually so well prepared that the verdicts seemed obvious.

Who knows - maybe this case will prove to be different?

JMO

 

[marynnu]

The staffing being above average doesn’t seem to correspond with their apparent reliance of people picking up overtime though. Is it commonplace/expected for staff to be regularly asked to do extra?

Staff commonly do a lot of extra shifts (nurses don't get overtime pay, they're paid either flat rate or an enhanced amount). It's not expected but a lot of people need the money! Or they just run on too few staff, very common.
By above average, I meant their shortage was below that! 21% compared to the national average of 25% at the time if the report.

 

[Sundial]

Yes, sorry, I wasn’t suggesting these babies died of SIDS. I’m just struck by the fact that there are indeed deaths which have no identifiable cause, and which DO contain the lines of air seen here, and where an intentional air embolism did not happen. And without knowing WHY that air appears, it makes me feel less confident that the ONLY possible conclusion must be deliberate air embolism in these cases.

Thank goodness I’m not on the jury. I’d be the one person who’s hung up on something mentioned on day 1 while everyone else is on month 7!

No need to apologise, you make some valid points. I guess it’s just that sheer horror of thinking the only explanation could be the alleged deliberate injection of air on all these tiny little souls. It’s quite staggering really.

 

[ColourPurple]

Yes, I agree with that. If she is guilty, I think it is almost certain that she did things to harm babies earlier on, because from all the research on serial killers, they don’t just suddenly commit a murder, but start off with lesser assaults . And even if, as you say, the assaults she allegedly committed on the babies still cannot be identified now because there were no witnesses and no major effect on the babies’ health, I think it remains that something has to have happened in order for her to allegedly move from “just” hurting babies (whether that was by pinching them, sticking them with sharp implements, intermittent, smothering, or whatever) to actually allegedly murdering one.

You can call it a stressor or a trigger or something else , but in these cases, something happens in the perpetrator’s life that causes them to move onto actual killing. It is the absence of any evidence as to a stressor or a trigger in this case, which I find curious. The police will have gone through every aspect of LL’s life with a fine tooth comb by now. They must have been able to identify something which, if guilty, occurred in the days/weeks/months before baby A died which could constitute a stressor or trigger for LL to allegedly move to murder. It could be many things: a breakdown in a romantic relationship, or disciplinary issues at work, or a personal medical condition or something else entirely.

But at the moment, it just seems there is a huge gap in the place where you would expect this kind of evidence to be.

I think we're all in the same boat, wondering, if guilty, what on earth could have happened to trigger her into actually killing. I suspect even if she's guilty, we'll never know. She might not even know herself.

If guilty, it may have been a gradual build up, or something she'd thought about for ages, or a snap decision. It could have been triggered by real life events in her private life, or even from witnessing a non suspcious resus and death, in either real life or in some medical docusoap, and deciding she wanted to recreate the drama of it all. Whatever it was, if guilty, it looks like although there were breaks of apparent inactivty, it became a compulsion, that she just couldn't stop.

All IF guilty IMO etc.

 

[ColourPurple]

Yes, sorry, I wasn’t suggesting these babies died of SIDS. I’m just struck by the fact that there are indeed deaths which have no identifiable cause, and which DO contain the lines of air seen here, and where an intentional air embolism did not happen. And without knowing WHY that air appears, it makes me feel less confident that the ONLY possible conclusion must be deliberate air embolism in these cases.

Thank goodness I’m not on the jury. I’d be the one person who’s hung up on something mentioned on day 1 while everyone else is on month 7!

I think so far IMO on the whole, the prosecution have put forward a strong case, and the medical expects have clearly explained how they came to the conclusions they did. Things like the presence of the unusual fleeting rash (associated with air embolus) at the time of the cardiac arrests, that various staff commented on and had never seen before, or since, other than in the babies in this trial. And doctors rarely having to resort to using adrenalin to try to revive babies, until 2015 when it suddenly became a common occurance.

I think the nurse's statement about doctors allegedly apologising for not switching the monitor back on, in Baby G's case may be enough to muddy the water on that particular case. And I don't think the press reported enough about Baby H's case, for me to comment on that one. But other than that I think the prosecution's case has been strong. Of course we are yet to hear fully from the defence.

All IMO

 

[katydid23]

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, February 10

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

3:21am

Mr Myers says babies such as Child I can decline quite steeply.
Dr Bohin says babies don't suddenly collapse and have a cardiac arrest without warning. The subsequent events to September 5/6 were "very unusual".

Dr Bohin says Child I had chronic lung disease, something which could be diagnosed under the microscope, but it was not affecting her breathing at that time.

Mr Myers says such a condition could lead to an accelerated decline in a baby such as Child I.

Dr Bohin said Child I was gaining weight, not as quickly as one might expect, but she had been "very ill" and there had been stop-start points in her feeds.

Mr Myers refers to the September 30 incident, in which Dr Bohin says Child I had air administered via the naso-gastric tube.

Dr Bohin says she does not have any idea how much air would have gone down the naso-gastric tube, as it would be "impossible to say".

She says the x-rays showed "massive" distention in the abdomen, and "there had been a change".

For the October 13 incident, in which Dr Bohin says air was administered via the naso-gastric tube and via a vein, Dr Bohin had said she believed the apnoea machine had been switched off or tampered with.

She says, having heard nurse Ashleigh Hudson's evidence, Child I was breathing enough, but very slowly, not to have triggered the apnoea alarm. She says that information was not available when she compiled in her report.

Mr Myers says Dr Bohin had recorded there was no evidence the naso-gastric tube was in situ at the time of October 13.

Dr Bohin says staff were "notoriously poor" on noting whether naso-gastric tubes were in situ, inserted, replaced or removed.

Mr Myers says Dr Bohin had said there was no evidence it was in situ as Child I was bottle feeding, so the tube couldn't be in.

"Well, someone could've put one in," Dr Bohin replies.

 

[katydid23]

[from yesterday's testimony about baby I:]

Lucy Letby's note of 'some bruising/discolouration evident on sternum and right side of chest, ?from chest compressions', written from 19 hours after the incident.

Dr Bohin says this note is not from the time of the incident.

Dr Matthew Neame's note from the time of the October 13 incident is shown to the court, and Mr Myers says there is 'no reference to any discolouration' in that note, which described the collapse and the efforts to stabilise Child I.

Dr Bohin agrees there is not.

Mr Myers suggests the bruising appeared later and the discolouration 'does not link to that incident'.

Dr Bohin says it does, as bruising is not a result of chest compressions. It was first noted 18-19 hours later.

Mr Myers suggests Dr Bohin is using that unrelated evidence to support an air embolism. Dr Bohin disagrees.

After a short break, Dr Neame's note is shown again to the court. Mr Myers says he has been made aware the word 'mottled' appears in the note. Dr Bohin agrees she can see it.

4:11am

Lucy Letby's note from the morning of October 14 is shown to the court. the note includes 'at 0500 abdomen noted to be more distended and firmer in appearance with area of discolouration spreading on right hand side'.

Dr Matthew Neame's note, made at 5.55am, is shown to the court. Mr Myers asks if it is a note from 5am. Dr Bohin says it does not say it was written retrospectively. She says if that note was related to 5am, then she had missed it.

Mr Myers asks if, from Dr Neame's note showing Neopuff was used, it could have contributed to the distended abdomen. Dr Bohin said it would not have done so to that extent.

Dr Bohin said the team did not have an obvious cause for Child I's deteriorations and she was always going to be transferred out to Liverpool on October 15.

Mr Myers refers to the location of the ET tube, NG tube and long line from a report shown to the jury. He says there is early evidence of NEC. Dr Bohin disagrees, saying the report needs to be taken in conjunction with clinical findings showing Child I had a collapsed lung and an over-inflated lung. Child I was reintubated before transfer.

Mr Myers says Dr Bohin reported for the final collapse, Dr Bohin had recorded air had been administered by the NGT and via an air embolus.

Dr Bohin says she cannot be clear whether both happened on each event, or whether it was one on each.

Mr Myers says Dr Bohin had earlier described how Child I presented at the time.

Dr Bohin said Child I had an NGT in place, but that would not have caused a distended abdomen to the extent shown.

Mr Myers says the air embolus cause was "very speculative" based on Child I's crying.

Dr Bohin says the crying was "very unusual" and air embolus was a "compatible finding" for the cause.

 

[katydid23]

Fri feb 10th, continued:

Mr Myers says the repeated collapses would lead a child to become weaker and sadly die.

Dr Bohin said Child I recovered so well from the first collapse she was extubated, and that she was doing well, and the first collapse had no relation to how Child I reacted to subsequent collapses.



The prosecution, led by Nicholas Johnson KC, rises to clarify a few of the questions.

The events around September 5 are discussed, and Dr Bohin said the incident was not notable as Child I had an infection, so there was an identifiable cause, and it was not NEC. She said it was "not a suspicious event" so had no need to flag it up as one.

She tells the court Child I "continued to be unwell and was intubated", and "had a very rocky time for a few days" before "she recovered".

The other events, Dr Bohin said, was when Child I collapsed and recovered "very quickly", or in the last case, "sadly", Child I had died.

The prosecution ask about the October 13-14 collapse, and how quickly a naso-gastric tube can be inserted and removed, and Dr Bohin confirms that can be done in "seconds".

Mr Johnson says there is no evidence "from the records" showing an NGT was in place, but "on the balance of probabilities", that was the cause - Child I receiving excess air via the NGT - which Dr Bohin favoured. Dr Bohin agrees.

That concludes Dr Bohin's evidence for Child I.

 

[katydid23]

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, February 10

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Mr Johnson now talks the court through a summary of Lucy Letby's police interviews for Child I.

For the first incident on September 30, Letby had no independent recollection of it. She said she did not know whether the distended abdomen was her observation or Child I's mother.

For the October 13 incident, she did recall that incident. She said she put on the light when she entered the room with nurse Ashleigh Hudson and noted Child I looked pale. Child I was shallow breathing and gasping, and the apnoea alarm was not activated. Letby could not recall giving Child I treatment prior to that event.

For October 14, Letby said she could not recall that shift.

Letby could not recall the night when Child I died, other than recalling she had died.

She said there was a feeling Child I had been transferred between hospitals too quickly.

Lucy Letby, in a subsequent police interview, said she had sent a sympathy card to the parents, and had taken a photo of the card on her phone.

She denied giving air via the NGT.

For the October 13 incident, Letby agreed it would have been difficult to see if Child I was pale without the lights being on.

She thought she and Ashleigh Hudson had been at the doorway when noting Child I was pale. She could not recall if there was a prior examination. She said “maybe I spotted something that Ashley wasn’t able to spot” because she was “more experienced than Ashley”. She said there was still light coming into the room from the corridor and there would be some natural light.

For October 14 and 22, Letby denied causing Child I any harm.

In a third interview, Letby was asked about texts following the October 14 shift, she agreed she had sent texts to a colleague saying Child I looked 'not good' and had asked to be assigned to her care.

She was asked why she had searched for Child I's mother on Facebook, and said she did not know, and could not recall doing so.

 

[katydid23]

CHILD J, BABY GIRL;

The court will next hear evidence in relation to Child J.

The trial is now resuming after a lunch break, and will hear evidence from the prosecution in the case of Child J.

In the prosecution opening, the Crown say Letby attempted to murder Child J, a baby girl, on the night shift of November 26-27.

The mother of Child J is called to give evidence.

She says she had a difficult pregnancy, and following a difficult operation in London, one of her planned twins was lost.

She said she gave birth to Child J, a baby girl, at 32 weeks and two days gestation on October 31, 2015.

Child J "appeared to be extremely well" and was shown to her after birth, and there appeared to be "no concern" before the baby girl was taken to the neonatal unit.

The mother said she visited Child J later at the unit, she was in an incubator. The baby girl was seen in the 10-minute time there to produce a bit of brown bile.

Child J was then taken to Alder Hey by ambulance. The mother said she was told there were concerns about Child J's bowel at the time.

The mother said it was discussed afterwards that Child J had 'NEC' [necrotising enterocolitis: a serious gastro-intestinal disorder where a portion of the bowel becomes inflamed] and had emergency surgery at Alder Hey.

The bowel was 'cut', 1cm was removed - "a little amount", and the decision was made to give Child J two stomas.

Child J returned to the Countess of Chester Hospital on November 10, and the mother recalls being there frequently., establishing a routine. Child J was "absolutely" progressing well, going from being treated in room 1 (most intensive treatment), to room 2, to room 3, to room 4, over the course of four weeks in November.

Child J's mother recalls there were issues with the baby girl's weight gain, which 'concerned her' and she relayed those concerns "frequently".

She said those concerns were treated "not very seriously - they weren't overly concerned".

There were "quite a lot of challenges" with the stoma management.

Child J's mother says, between November 10-27, there were no major concerns with the stoma management, but the bags were not lasting as long as expected, and breastfeeding was impractical, but attempts at breastfeeding were made as Child J was doing well.

She tells the court the approach of staff at the Countess was different to Alder Hey. While Alder Hey was 'inclusive', the communication did not feel the same at the Countess.

 

[katydid23]

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, February 10

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Events leading up to the morning of November 27 are discussed, when Child J collapsed.

Child J's mother said the family were "really excited" to get Child J home, as she was off the heart monitor, and the mother was at the hospital ready to provide daytime cares, having also been involved in the night-time process.

The court hears it was 'a dry run' for life at home.

Overnight on November 25-26, Child J's mother was at the hospital, attending for cares, including stoma bag management.

On November 26, Child J's mother went and stayed home, intending to return as usual at 8am on November 27. She said 8am would be after the handover, and staff preferred parents not to be on the ward at the time of the handover.

The mother recalled receiving a telephone call on the morning of November 27 telling her Child J had collapsed, and to attend hospital as soon as possible. She said that would have been about 7.10am.

The mother attended the hospital as quickly as she could with her husband. Child J was in room 2 in a 'hot cot', connected back up to a monitor and looked "very floppy...pale, yellowy in colour and not very responsive".

Child J's mother said she was "totally and utterly shocked because prior to this, she was extremely well, she was coming home...we were preparing for her to come home.

"Other than the weight gain, everything was fine."

Child J's father spoke to Dr John Gibbs and the mother recalled joining in the conversation, being "very stressed about what I was seeing and experiencing".

After the collapse, Child J's mother said nurses led the care, and the parents stayed overnight.

It was established there was not an infection - it was "unknown at that stage", the mother tells the court, and Child J recovered "quite quickly".

By the afternoon of November 28, Child J was "back up to full feeds", the mother tells the court.

 

[Dotta]

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, February 10

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Mr Johnson now talks the court through a summary of Lucy Letby's police interviews for Child I.

For the first incident on September 30, Letby had no independent recollection of it. She said she did not know whether the distended abdomen was her observation or Child I's mother.

For the October 13 incident, she did recall that incident. She said she put on the light when she entered the room with nurse Ashleigh Hudson and noted Child I looked pale. Child I was shallow breathing and gasping, and the apnoea alarm was not activated. Letby could not recall giving Child I treatment prior to that event.

For October 14, Letby said she could not recall that shift.

Letby could not recall the night when Child I died, other than recalling she had died.

She said there was a feeling Child I had been transferred between hospitals too quickly.

Lucy Letby, in a subsequent police interview, said she had sent a sympathy card to the parents, and had taken a photo of the card on her phone.

She denied giving air via the NGT.

For the October 13 incident, Letby agreed it would have been difficult to see if Child I was pale without the lights being on.

She thought she and Ashleigh Hudson had been at the doorway when noting Child I was pale. She could not recall if there was a prior examination. She said “maybe I spotted something that Ashley wasn’t able to spot” because she was “more experienced than Ashley”. She said there was still light coming into the room from the corridor and there would be some natural light.

For October 14 and 22, Letby denied causing Child I any harm.

In a third interview, Letby was asked about texts following the October 14 shift, she agreed she had sent texts to a colleague saying Child I looked 'not good' and had asked to be assigned to her care.

She was asked why she had searched for Child I's mother on Facebook, and said she did not know, and could not recall doing so.

"I don't know"
"I don't recall"
Hmmm

If guilty - there is really nothing else a person could say.

If innocent - it was a perfect opportunity to explain/clear the matters.

But to be fair - I hardly remember what happened at my work place several months ago, let alone years!

Was her lawyer present during this questioning?
Or is it called interrogation? (Im not sure if this word is still used).

JMO

 

[katydid23]

In the following weeks after that, Child J had another collapse around December 16, 2015.

"That was when we really started to see issues with the stomas and the bags", the mother tells the court, with the bags not lasting anywhere near as long as before, and would stop working as they should.

After the second collapse, there were "concerns" when Child J was pressed in the abdomen, she would wince and feel pain, so Child J was transferred to Alder Hey to have the operation reversed and the stomas were closed, the bowel reattached.

On January 5, 2016, Child J returned home.

Mr Myers, for Letby's defence, asks the mother about Child J's birth, and that 'things seemed to be all right'. The mother agrees.

The mother said she saw the brown bile from Child J's mouth and informed staff at the Countess. She agrees staff were "concerned".

Mr Myers says if there was a point when they were asked if Child J should be Christened. The mother agrees.

The court hears Child J had an 11-day stay at Alder Hey, during which she had a bowel operation. The details of the procedure and how to use the stoma bags are relayed in court, and the mother says she and her husband had it explained to them.

The mother said she would not say the stoma bags procedure was explained as well to them by Countess staff.

Mr Myers asks if the mother was told 'this could be a bit of a rollercoaster - that babies could go up and down' for Child J. The mother replies she is not sure when that was said to her, and could have been after Child J collapsed.

The mother says Alder Hey checked with the Countess of Chester Hospital to do the recycling of the stomas, and the Countess hospital had said yes, but did not seem to be as prepared.

The mother, having looked at a statement she gave to police, says that on reflection, the Countess staff were not as prepared for such procedures, and the 'time-consuming process' meant she offered to help with the stoma and the bags.

She adds that without the expertise of her husband, she would not have been able to position the stoma bags correctly, and without the prior experience, it would be considered a 'challenging' procedure.

The mother tells the court she felt if she raised concerns on the stoma care, they were not taken as seriously by Countess staff as the staff at Alder Hey.

 

[katydid23]

The mother says there were concerns raised 'frequently' about the lack of weight gain for Child J, and they were raised with Countess staff.

Those concerns were "not met with any changes - not taken very seriously", the mother tells the court.

After the first collapse, Child J's mother says they were much more alert on medication as 'things were missed'.

The mother says there was "a general concern" for Child J for an increased risk of infection.

Mr Myers asks if there was a case when Child J was not tidied up.

The mother replies 'yes', as there was one case where she arrived to find Child J's bottom had waste visible, and was wrapped around with a towel. She raised the issue with a consultant, after asking staff "what would you do in my situation?".

The mother said she felt "pushback" on raising those concerns.

 

[katydid23]

Intelligence analyst Kate Tyndall has returned to talk the court through events for Child J, who was born at 3pm on October 31, 2015, weighing 3lb 12oz.

Child J was admitted to the neonatal unit 10 minutes later.

A picture was taken of the baby girl.

She remained at the Countess until 4am on November 1, being transferred to Alder Hey, before coming back to the Countess on November 10, being admitted to the neonatal unit by Lucy Letby.

The same day, Letby messages a colleague saying "It's chaos here" and she had had a row with another colleague.

A selection of messages, recovered from Letby's phone, are shown to the court for the period from November 10-26.

Letby sends a lengthy message to her colleague explaining why the unit was 'chaos' and why she had a disagreement with a colleague, adding staff were "peeing her off".

Her colleague replies: "Nothing like a bit of team spirit eh! x"

Letby apologises for her rant, saying: "Just really gets me down sometimes and some...want the easy life"

Letby asks a colleague on November 16 about how often a procedure for the Broviac line for Child J needed to be carried out. She receives a reply that it is carried out weekly.

Letby says she had three missed calls on November 25, having been to Las Iguanas and was at salsa, saying no-one at the unit knew how to administer immunoglobin, and they rang her. Her colleague sympathises, saying they should not be ringing staff not on duty, but should be contacting Liverpool Women's Hospital first.

 

[katydid23]

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, February 10

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

The events of November 26 are now being talked through the court.

At 10.30am, a doctor's note says Child J was 'pink, well perfused, no respiratory distress' 'Abdomen- soft. Mum says mild distention soft abdomen. Stoma looks healthy'.

The note adds 'if [increased] distention to inform' as the plan, along with the feed for expressed breast milk and donor.

Letby messages a colleague saying 'staffing really needs looking at', before messaging colleague Jennifer Jones-Key to say 'sounds like you had a mad day'.

Letby adds the situation is 'just not manageable'.

Letby adds: "It's a nightmare isn't it...especially with no management x"

Jennifer Jones-Key said the staff [on duty] were going to ring Letby or Yvonne Griffiths the previous night [regarding how to administer immunoglobin], but thought that would have been done so sooner.

Letby adds the staff there should not have been in that position.

She adds, for her November 26-27 night shift: "Ah well. Hopefully be a bit calmer for me tonight lol x"

A colleague messages Letby at 5.16pm: "U well rested for work? x"

Letby replies: "Yep I've had a chilled day and slept well..."

She adds: "Ready to face anything" with a strongarm emoji, before discussing about being contacted the previous night, and querying why she had been contacted when staff on duty had other lines of enquiry, such as Liverpool Women's Hospital or the transfusion department.

 

[katydid23]

Letby, as she sets off to work, messages her colleague: "Off to the mad house x" with a neutral face emoji.

Once inside, she messages the colleague to say she is in room 3 of the neonatal unit for the night shift.

A shift rota for that night is presented to the court.

There are two babies in room 1, two babies in room 2, two babies in room 3 (both designated nurse Letby), and two babies in room 4, one of them being Child J.

In addition, there are two babies in transitional care, and two babies whose location could not be confirmed from the records.

Nurse Ashleigh Hudson records, for Child J at the November 26 night-shift handover: 'Observations satisfactory as charted...Broviac remains in situ...[Child J] appears to be in no pain or discomfort.'

Letby received and sent messages between 7.36pm and 10.53pm, but not related to Child J.

At 1.57am on November 27, swipe data shows Letby recorded as entering the neonatal unit, at 3.47am and at 4.29am.

At 4.40am, an apnoea/brady/fit chart records Child J having an episode of apnoea, heart rate down to 100, lasting for three minutes.

At 5.03am, a desaturation to '30s' is recorded, heart rate to 100, lasting two minutes. In each event, a Neopuff device is administered.

Nurse Nicola Dennison records Child J looking unwell at 4.40am. In an untimed note [written retrospectively at 7.37am], Child J is moved from nursery room 4 to room 2.

Letby says, in a message to a colleague, she had not had a good shift, as Child J had '2 profound desats' and there were 'only 5 staff' on duty.

The colleague replies: 'We closed again then? x'

Mr Johnson explains to the court 'closed' by this definition means the unit would be closed to new arrivals, not closed entirely.

Letby confirms the unit is closed until they can get someone in.

 

[DianaWW]

Thank you so much for the updates.

She definitely does not sound like somebody who ‘loves their job’ as I’ve previously seen her described. She seems to be becoming more frustrated and unhappy with her work as time goes on. From reading her text messages anyway, which I’m sure don’t give the whole picture. JMO.

And very interesting that she claimed she’d turned the light on before claiming that baby I looked pale. MOO.

 

[Supernovae]

That’s an awful lot of babies with a possibility of dying with SIDS though.

Whilst you make some valid points here, even the radiologist report has clearly indicated massive amounts of air in the bowels of some of these cases.
JMO

The significance of the SIDS issue in this context is not could these cases appropriately be classified as SIDS, but what was special about SIDS that was not present in these cases, that meant air could be present post mortem without indicating air embolism?

A reminder of the evidence WaxLyrical is referring to:

11:07am

A further x-ray image, taken at Alder Hey Hospital after Child D had died, is shown to the court.
The UVC is still in, and a 'black line' just in front of the spine is a 'striking feature'.
Professor Arthurs says "air is present" on what the court hears is the 'main highway' of the circulation.


11:10am

Professor Arthurs says the significance of that is that it is an "unusual feature in babies who have died without an explanation".
He adds that amount of gas is consistent in babies who have died of sepsis, sudden unexpected death in infants, a road traffic collision, and two other babies in the trial. Another was Child A.
He says one of the other explanations which needs to be considered is deliberate air injection.
He says the most plausible conclusion was, in the absence of any other explanations, he considered they were 'consistent with, but diagnositic of, deliberate air administration'.
He confirms he has never seen this before in his experience.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, November 11

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

FWIW my best guess is that there might be different post mortem changes for a baby that dies at home and may be discovered after many hours, if the death occurs overnight.

 

[Becky53]

The mother of Child J is called to give evidence.

She says she had a difficult pregnancy, and following a difficult operation in London, one of her planned twins was lost.

She said she gave birth to Child J, a baby girl, at 32 weeks and two days gestation on October 31, 2015.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, February 10

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Planned twins suggests IVF to me. How sad she lost both in the end

edited to add that child J survived - sorry my mistake
thanks @marynnu