UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #11

[Sweeper2000]

"Jurors were also told that three vials of insulin were issued to the neo-natal unit in 2014, six vials in 2015 and two vials in 2016."

I can stop thinking about the 6 vials in 2015

Even if one was ordered late in 2015 and not opened till 2016 ..its still high.

I cannot see how so much extra could have been used .. imo its a strong possibility vials were put in a pocket

Lucy Letby trial told of battle to save air-injected baby - BBC News

Murder-accused Lucy Letby is alleged to have injected a baby with air and his twin with insulin.

www.bbc.co.uk

It says here and I hope it’s allowed but insulin generally has a short shelf life once opened. In most sources I have read it reads about a month after being opened. Could that be a reason?

“Insulin, a medication used to treat diabetes, is temperature-sensitive and has a short shelf life. It can be stored unopened for up to a year, but once opened, it must be used within weeks or even days. Because insulin is composed of proteins suspended in a water-based solution that facilitates its delivery and preservation, if it isn’t refrigerated or used shortly after opening, those proteins can break down and become ineffective.”

Study on extending insulin’s shelf life may have dramatic implications for health care—on Earth and in space – The NAU Review

news.nau.edu

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

That report wouldn't have attributed causes to collapses and deaths.

No, but if the report contains descriptions of substandard care which are similar to identical to the cases where LL is charged, that bolsters the defence case that sub standard could have caused the collapses LL is charged with.

IMO , it’s one thing to point out suboptimal care, but if the cases with suboptimal care all seem to occur in cases where LL is charged, that doesn’t help the defence much. One would hear that and think that it was too coincidental for poor care to only occur in cases where LL is charged .

But if you can show the there is poor care more generally in other cases, the argument that bad care is to blame starts to carry more weight in my view.

 

[ColourPurple]

I replied specifically to the poster who advised to cool off and observe somebody who does it better I wasn't referring to LL.

You are right, I do miss a lot of details, because I do not read all the threads and just dip in when I have some time. I do not follow the case closely and have no opinion about LL. I am a nurse though and so I am interested in this case even when I do miss a lot of details

No worries.There was a bit of generalisation with the line " a lot of people have no idea how these things work but still judge and form opinions about them even without any relevant knowledge or insight" so it didn't read like you were just referring to one poster.

I think if you dip in and out of the case it probably is hard to tell what information people are basing their comments on.

 

[Anxala]

I’m not sure if related but recently in her texts she said she prefers 4 days to 4 nights. If this is after the move by management I couldn’t see how with that response it was explained to her either formally or otherwise. She doesn’t seem to recognise the potential reasons for the move To days. It’s another thing that makes me think she is oblivious to any suspicion she may be under. Would certainly seem she is not keeping her eyes open or being guarded.

I would bet if management did do it as an exploratory measure they wouldn’t have given her any ideas as to a potential negative reason for it. not quite sure what to make of that if true, playing with fire comes to mind though.

I find that extraordinary, the idea that LL, under suspicion of actively not just harming but killing babies, was, as a precaution, just moved to day shifts. In other environments, that's a perfectly viable option if an employee is supected of being up to no good, but not, for pity's sake, in a life or death hospital/neonatal unit one.

And if LL had no idea why she was being moved but went along with it because it suited her, then surely that points to her having no idea that she's under suspicion. Which points to her, well, if guilty here, either not being too bright (but there's no evidence to back that up) or, if innocent, that she had no reason to think there was anything suspicious about her move other than it was eg. felt she and her skills would be better utilised on day shifts.

There's a clear 'disconnect' here. And a very disconcerting one as far as management is concerned imo.

 

[Sweeper2000]

No, but if the report contains descriptions of substandard care which are similar to identical to the cases where LL is charged, that bolsters the defence case that sub standard could have caused the collapses LL is charged with.

IMO , it’s one thing to point out suboptimal care, but if the cases with suboptimal care all seem to occur in cases where LL is charged, that doesn’t help the defence much. One would hear that and think that it was too coincidental for poor care to only occur in cases where LL is charged .

But if you can show the there is poor care more generally in other cases, the argument that bad care is to blame starts to carry more weight in my view.

this is in mr Myers opening speech

Ben Myers KC tells the jury that there are other examples of "suboptimal treatment" within the Countess of Chester Hospital that are "legitimate targets of criticism".
The prosecution has "consistently" highlighted how some babies recovered once removed from Letby's orbit.
Yet the defence says: "Their improvement coincided with removal from the Countess of Chester Hospital which could not deliver, we say, on some occasions the care that was necessary or the expertise for some of the children it looked after."
Mr Myers says that blaming Letby for this is "unfair and inaccurate".
The Countess of Chester had a "lack of technical medical skills", accepted babies with too high a level of care need, and on occasion was "too busy".
He points to the fact that the hospital was "downgraded" by a clinical watchdog, and redesignated to a level one. He says the hospital "could not provide care at the level it did".

Some events took place when Letby wasn't there, but he says the prosecution has been selective with the events it has chosen.

Lucy Letby trial - latest: Nurse 'adamant' she's done nothing to harm any of the babies in the case as defence begins

Latest updates on day four of the Lucy Letby trial, with the prosecution showing the court handwritten "confessions" from the nurse in which she allegedly admitted she was "evil", and the defence saying the hospital was "well out of its depth". Letby denies all charges.

news.sky.com

 

[JosieJo]

It says here and I hope it’s allowed but insulin generally has a short shelf life once opened. In most sources I have read it reads about a month after being opened. Could that be a reason?

“Insulin, a medication used to treat diabetes, is temperature-sensitive and has a short shelf life. It can be stored unopened for up to a year, but once opened, it must be used within weeks or even days. Because insulin is composed of proteins suspended in a water-based solution that facilitates its delivery and preservation, if it isn’t refrigerated or used shortly after opening, those proteins can break down and become ineffective.”

Study on extending insulin’s shelf life may have dramatic implications for health care—on Earth and in space – The NAU Review

news.nau.edu

It says here and I hope it’s allowed but insulin generally has a short shelf life once opened. In most sources I have read it reads about a month after being opened. Could that be a reason?

“Insulin, a medication used to treat diabetes, is temperature-sensitive and has a short shelf life. It can be stored unopened for up to a year, but once opened, it must be used within weeks or even days. Because insulin is composed of proteins suspended in a water-based solution that facilitates its delivery and preservation, if it isn’t refrigerated or used shortly after opening, those proteins can break down and become ineffective.”

Study on extending insulin’s shelf life may have dramatic implications for health care—on Earth and in space – The NAU Review

news.nau.edu

The shelf life is the same in any given year so I'm not sure how it can be relevant really.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I find that extraordinary, the idea that LL, under suspicion of actively not just harming but killing babies, was, as a precaution, just moved to day shifts. In other environments, that's a perfectly viable option if an employee is supected of being up to no good, but not, for pity's sake, in a life or death hospital/neonatal unit one.

And if LL had no idea why she was being moved but went along with it because it suited her, then surely that points to her having no idea that she's under suspicion. Which points to her, well, if guilty here, either not being too bright (but there's no evidence to back that up) or, if innocent, that she had no reason to think there was anything suspicious about her move other than it was eg. felt she and her skills would be better utilised on day shifts.

There's a clear 'disconnect' here. And a very disconcerting one as far as management is concerned imo.

I find it highly strange as well. I’m sure the nhs could investigate without fear of being sued, just suspend her on full pay and then wait on the investigations results. “It’s only a investigation Lucy and we are going to reinstate you if no problems are found, we just want to make sure you are doing your job properly“ wouldn’t be too difficult to say would it? Very different from saying “we think you are a murderer Lucy”.

I find it incredulous to think that a person knowing exactly what they had done and was actively seeking to allay suspicions wouldn’t question this move. She’s definitely not dumb IMO I think if she was guilty and intelligent enough to dupe everyone into thinking she was an angel which seems to be the case she would at least question this move. If she’s that smart and guilty I think the move would also create a precedent for her not doing anything else as well, at least for a while. She was also present for baby A post-mortem meeting on the ward and again didn’t seem to be worried. Her last words on the ward also seemed to suggest she wasn’t concerned, they were “do I need to be worried”? Or something like that. if she was guilty that’s probably not what she would be asking. Would probably be something like “what was dr g saying for example. She really does seem oblivious.

 

[Sweeper2000]

The shelf life is the same in any given year so I'm not sure how it can be relevant really.

6 jars of insulin over 12 months doesn’t seem so extraordinary to me. you would only need 6 babies requiring it to account for that many jars With one baby every two months at which point after a month a new vial is needed. I’m not sure how long keeping it in the fridge extends the shelf life either.

would it not have raised any alarms to be sending up allot more than was expected?

just my very humble opinion though, “looks away and twiddles thumbs”.

 

[DianaWW]

But they didn’t suspect her of murder at the time she was moved to days…they didn’t know what was going on at that time. Not making excuses for anyone, but hindsight is a wonderful thing, and I’m sure they also wish they’d done things differently. JMO.

 

[ColourPurple]

But they didn’t suspect her of murder at the time she was moved to days…they didn’t know what was going on at that time. Not making excuses for anyone, but hindsight is a wonderful thing, and I’m sure they also wish they’d done things differently. JMO.

I hope we get to hear exactly what they did suspect and when, what LL was told and what her reaction was. Hopefully that info comes out in court on a day where there's good press coverage.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Think I have learned more today about medicine and court cases than at any other point in time. Thanks everyone

 

[Tortoise]

No, but if the report contains descriptions of substandard care which are similar to identical to the cases where LL is charged, that bolsters the defence case that sub standard could have caused the collapses LL is charged with.

IMO , it’s one thing to point out suboptimal care, but if the cases with suboptimal care all seem to occur in cases where LL is charged, that doesn’t help the defence much. One would hear that and think that it was too coincidental for poor care to only occur in cases where LL is charged .

But if you can show the there is poor care more generally in other cases, the argument that bad care is to blame starts to carry more weight in my view.

So if I understand you correctly you believe that there are other similar or identical cases of sudden and unexpected collapses and deaths, flagged as suspicious by independent expert neonatologists, that the prosecution ignored because LL wasn't on duty. And the details of these will be contained in the CQC report. And Dr Evans reviewed all the cases but some of these cases are missing from the trial.

The CPS's reputation would be in tatters if this is the case.

 

[Gottlieb]

No worries.There was a bit of generalisation with the line " a lot of people have no idea how these things work but still judge and form opinions about them even without any relevant knowledge or insight" so it didn't read like you were just referring to one poster.

I think if you dip in and out of the case it probably is hard to tell what information people are basing their comments on.

Yes, this case is really complicated and I don't want to get emotionally invested in it. And ain't nobody got time for reading all the threads

I was just extremely bothered by comments on earlier threads about how silencing alarms and wanting to get back into dofficult settings are a clear sign of her guilt. No they are not. They could be but not necessarily must be. I think it's the lack of objectivity in those earlier threads that made me comment on these matters.

 

[Marantz4250b]

But they didn’t suspect her of murder at the time she was moved to days…they didn’t know what was going on at that time. Not making excuses for anyone, but hindsight is a wonderful thing, and I’m sure they also wish they’d done things differently. JMO.

They suspected her of harming patients. The reason for the move was stated quite specifically in the prosecutions opening statement that they moved her for that precise reason - to see if the trail of destruction followed her, or words to that effect.

It's an absolutely despicably shocking way of acting.

 

[JosieJo]

6 jars of insulin over 12 months doesn’t seem so extraordinary to me. you would only need 6 babies requiring it to account for that many jars With one baby every two months at which point after a month a new vial is needed. I’m not sure how long keeping it in the fridge extends the shelf life either.

would it not have raised any alarms to be sending up allot more than was expected?

just my very humble opinion though, “looks away and twiddles thumbs”.

It may not seem excessive..but when compared to the year before and after?

 

[Tortoise]

new episode Baby L

The Trial of Lucy Letby: Episode 17, Baby L, “He had been given insulin he should not have been given… it was inappropriate and dangerous.”

www.mailplus.co.uk

In this episode Caroline and Liz examine what the prosecution say happened to Baby L, a twin boy Lucy Letby is accused of poisoning with insulin.

 

[ColourPurple]

They suspected her of harming patients. The reason for the move was stated quite specifically in the prosecutions opening statement that they moved her for that precise reason - to see if the trail of destruction followed her, or words to that effect.

It's an absolutely despicably shocking way of acting.

If you mean this line then the prosecution didn't say she was suspected of deliberately harming them. They said:

“By this time Lucy Letby was supposed only to be working day shifts because the consultants were concerned about the correlation between her presence and unexpected deaths and life-threatening episodes on the night shifts.

Did they actually think she was deliberately harming babies at that point? Or did they just think that she was incompetent, lacking confidence, slacking, in need of more support or supervision? This is why I'd like to hear more.

Lucy Letby: what has the court heard so far in trial of Hereford nurse?

A HEREFORD nurse was allegedly interrupted by the mother of a victim as she attacked the baby in the neo-natal unit of the hospital where she worked.

www.herefordtimes.com

 

[ColourPurple]

It may not seem excessive..but when compared to the year before and after?

Yes although the numbers are low, in 2015 they ordered double the amount of insulin they ordered in 2014, and triple the amount that they ordered in 2016!

 

[ColourPurple]

new episode Baby L

The Trial of Lucy Letby: Episode 17, Baby L, “He had been given insulin he should not have been given… it was inappropriate and dangerous.”

www.mailplus.co.uk

In this episode Caroline and Liz examine what the prosecution say happened to Baby L, a twin boy Lucy Letby is accused of poisoning with insulin.

I wish they'd do a separate podcast with the guests in. They are often interesting but I'd prefer to hear more about the trial.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I could understand concern if the shelf life was considerably longer. I can see how that’s unusual though, easy for a jar to go missing? Or would it be a supervised disposal?

It does seem only a tiny amount is needed at any time as well, that makes me think it probably wasn’t more than a few mls in the mix at most. I just can’t envision a murderer actually measuring the amount, that just seems unthinkable to me unless the aim wasn’t to kill. 2016 they weren’t even open for around half the year I think? or down two thirds in levels. Not sure how often neonates need insulin either. Even as a one off.