UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #13

[esther43]

So I'm a bit behind today but I just wanted to make a point about the offer from the doctor to lend LL his car. Apologies if everyone already knows this but I'm thinking of members who may not be from the UK, because it's a little different here. I've lived abroad and I know in many countries, it's the car itself which is insured, so people would lend each other their cars to use quite freely. However, in England, it's generally the driver who is insured to drive that particular car so it's a completely different ball game. When I've driven my mum's car in the past she has called the insurance company and added me to the insurance policy as a named driver. So in my experience, it's not common for people to lend each other their cars here unless it's someone you know very well, and the borrower would usually be added to the insurance. JMO.

I think most people who have fully comprehensive insurance would be happy to drive someone else's car for a short journey. Not that I think that she was 'on his insurance'. Seems like they were just getting to know each other and he was being a gentleman. To me it just represents that he fancies her.

 

[Cardgame]

Dr Choc may not be from the UK.

If so, he may be making a friendly casual offer of car without realizing the implications for British drivers.

One of his texts made me think English might not be his first language, but could also have been a typo.

I wonder if they have been in touch while she has been incarcerated.

The reaction when he testifies for the prosecution makes it seem like before this moment, she had reason to believe he was still 'on her side'.

JMO.

 

[marynnu]

I wonder if baby N had an allergy to the formula and in combination with the blood disorder, resulted in the swelling, redness and bleeding of the epiglottis?

Just thinking out loud…

It seems to me this child went through a lot of procedures before he passed. He was weak to begin with, then suffered a lot of trauma with someone trying to shove a tube down his throat many many times, and then pumping him full of adrenaline, riding some twisted modern day rollercoaster drug ride. And then they question the nurse who happens to work in an area of the hospital with probably the highest risk and most vulnerable patients?

<modsnip - sub judice>


All my own opinions.

<modsnip - sub judice>

All my own opinion:

IMO, I don't think a milk allergy causes problems like this in an infant. And he was being given mom's milk for weeks with no problems, so personally I'd discount that idea.
I'm a little unsure what you're saying re. the intubation and drugs, in that these interventions wete necessary to save the baby's life?
Baby N didn't die, by the way.

 

[JosieJo]

I hope we get a better idea from reporting today how the prosecution believes these attacks happened

 

[marynnu]

[

I'd like to know how many 'inspections' this sweet baby had between the handoff at around 8 pm, and the notes at 1 am about the mottled skin and distention.

LL had noted the baby had a bottle before sleep around end of her shift. If so, he probably wasn't expected to wake u0 and have another until midnight or so. The night nurse who took over a child who was about to be released for home, may have just gone in a couple of times, seen him asleep, and he was not assessed again until he became unsettled around 1 am?

Could something have happened to him around 8 pm that did not appear physically until midnight or so?

I've been wondering the same thing!

 

[ColourPurple]

I wonder if baby N had an allergy to the formula and in combination with the blood disorder, resulted in the swelling, redness and bleeding of the epiglottis?

Just thinking out loud…

It seems to me this child went through a lot of procedures before he passed. He was weak to begin with, then suffered a lot of trauma with someone trying to shove a tube down his throat many many times, and then pumping him full of adrenaline, riding some twisted modern day rollercoaster drug ride. And then they question the nurse who happens to work in an area of the hospital with probably the highest risk and most vulnerable patients?

<modsnip - sub judice>


All my own opinions.

<modsnip - sub judice>

We can't say whether any evidence proves her guilt. As that's up to the jury to decide. However as well as LL being present/involved in each case, the prosecution are highlighting patterns. One pattern has been that the collapses seem to happen just after either the babies desgnated nurse leaves for a break etc, or when parents that have been with their baby on the ward leave, to do things like get food or get some sleep.

So, in addition to any medical evidence we hear, for this case we've also heard that on the 3rd June, the baby collapsed 5 minutes after the designated nurse went on their break at 1am. On 15th June, the first collapse happened before the parents were on the ward, but the collapse around 3pm happened when the parents had left to get food, and the collapse around 7.40pm happened when they left as the mother felt unwell.

The blood around the mouth and alleged throat injury is also very similar to what we heard for Baby E.


all IMO

ETA re milk allergy. There's no evidence that Baby N had any other problems with milk, or that they stopped milk before he recovered, so milk allergy doesn't really fit

edited- to clarify it was 1am on the 3rd June, on the 2nd/3rd June night shift

 

[Dotta]

We can't say whether any evidence proves her guilt. As that's up to the jury to decide. However as well as LL being present/involved in each case, the prosecution are highlighting patterns. One pattern has been that the collapses seem to happen just after either the babies desgnated nurse leaves for a break etc, or when parents that have been with their baby on the ward leave, to do things like get food or get some sleep.

So, in addition to any medical evidence we hear, for this case we've also heard that on the 2nd June, the baby collapsed 5 minutes after the designated nurse went on their break at 1am. On 15th June, the first collapse happened before the parents were on the ward, but the collapse around 3pm happened when the parents had left to get food, and the collapse around 7.40pm happened when they left as the mother felt unwell.

The blood around the mouth and alleged throat injury is also very similar to what we heard for Baby E.


all IMO

Another pattern is that the Baby recovered (miraculously???) when taken to another hospital.
Far away from certain presence as Prosecution claim.

JMO

 

[ColourPurple]

Another pattern is that the Baby recovered (miraculously???) when taken to another hospital.
Far away from certain presence as Prosecution claim.

JMO

That one's a tricky one, as although there's definitely a pattern of this happening, the prosecution claim it's as a result of being away from LL, whereas the defence claim it's as a result of being away from the hopsital itself.

 

[Dotta]

That one's a tricky one, as although there's definitely a pattern of this happening, the prosecution claim it's as a result of being away from LL, whereas the defence claim it's as a result of being away from the hopsital itself.

Well,
It might be BOTH are right

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

LL was the designated nurse for baby N on the previous shift. She handed him over on the 14th around 8 pm, and he was ready to be released to go home that day on the 15th.

At 1 am he was suddenly mottled and distended?

UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

10% BBC - Lucy Letby: Nurse denied dislodging baby's breathing tube, trial hears "In a police interview, Ms Letby said the baby's designated nurse would not have left unless she was stable and the tube was in place. [...] Mr Johnson said: "Expert evidence is admitted into a criminal trial to...

www.websleuths.com

The penny has just dropped for me, of the basis of this set of allegations.

This was a baby who occasionally suffered episodes of apnoea and desaturations. He had episodes of desaturation the preceding night-shift (early morning 15th June).

LL is charged with causing the collapses where trauma to the throat is said to have occurred, at 7.15am and 2.50pm. I believe they are saying the trauma precipitated these desaturations.

The 7.15am collapse was accompanied by crying and he required neopuff and oxygen. Between 8am and 9am blood was evident and swelling in the throat prevented intubation.

The 2.50pm collapse happened after the parents were told to go outside and get some fresh air. He had fresh bleeding from the mouth and blood aspirated from his stomach and again he couldn't be intubated because of swelling.

Note that LL is not charged with causing the 7.40pm collapse on her day-shift that necessitated resuscitation. Fresh bleeding and swelling in the throat were apparently not features.

She is also charged with inflicting pain or injury to him on 3rd June, five minutes after the designated nurse went on his break, when baby N suddenly started screaming and had a profound desaturation.

These collapses/desaturations were not like his other ones.

MOO

 

[marynnu]

Indeed, and further apnoea at alder hay which was never explained

Did the baby have an apnoea at Alder Hey? I thought that was after he went home?

 

[Tortoise]

The blood around the mouth and alleged throat injury is also very similar to what we heard for Baby E.

Also I've just pulled up this evidence heard for baby G -

7 Sep 2015

medical notes -
2.15am - projectile vomiting and collapse
3.15am - desaturation to 20% and apnoea - decision to intubate
Dr Ventress's notes - Child G was then intubated, and 'IV vitamin K given due to blood from trachea'.
6.15am - 'Reintubated 0615 ETT with intubation drugs. Blood-stained fluid in oropharynx.
Letby had written a note, retrospectively at 8.57am, recording what happened during the night shift: [...] 'Blood noted beyond vocal cords during intubation'.

Dr Ventress's testimony -

Dr Ventress noted 'blood-stained fluid noted coming up from trachea/between cords' during intubation.

Child G was reintubated with a mild anaesthetic at 6.15am, with 'blood-stained fluid in oropharynx' noted.
Dr Ventress says the first observation of blood was in the windpipe, whereas this was more in the throat.

Mr Myers refers to the note about 'blood-stained fluid noted coming up from trachea/between cords'.
He asks if that was noted after intubation.
Dr Ventress said it was during intubation.
Mr Myers asks if it would be unusual to see that.
Dr Ventress: "It's not uncommon for the baby to [have bleeding during intubation] - it is unusual to have blood coming up from beneath the vocal cords."



Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, December 1

 

[Tortoise]

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue
Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
20m

Nurse Lucy Letby's murder trial continues at Manchester Crown Court this morning. We'll be hearing evidence in relation to a baby boy, Child N, who Ms Letby is accused of trying to kill on three occasions in June 2016. She denies all charges.

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
9m

The prosecution allege Ms Letby made her first attempt on Child N's life on 3 June, before carrying out two more attacks on 15 June. The Crown say Child N's deteriorations were consistent with some kind of "inflicted injury" or him having received an injection of air.

 

[Tortoise]

Did the baby have an apnoea at Alder Hey? I thought that was after he went home?

Following his transfer to Alder Hey, Dr Potter said Child N's stay was “fairly uneventful”, although there were episodes of “apnoea” in which he would temporarily stop breathing.

Dr Potter said apnoea could simply be a sign a child was unwell or it could have a more specific reason.

He said Child N was breathing for himself and off intensive care by June 18 before he was discharged later that month.

Dr Potter agreed with Mr Myers that Child N was readmitted on July 3 with further episodes of apnoea, but no explanation was found and the situation settled after he was given breathing support.


Irish News ‘Unusual' presence of blood in throat of baby ‘attacked by nurse', court told

 

[Tortoise]

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
2m

Jury are currently being read statements of agreed evidence from doctors and nurses who worked 15 June. They're in relation to the treatment of Child N, who crashed several times that day

 

[DinerMite]

Baby N has really solidified my irrelevant views I have to admit. Morning folks btw

 

[Tortoise]

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
1m

A nurse, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said in her statement that she remembers being 'shocked' at Child N's deterioration that day. She said that he was previously stable and ready to go home that day

 

[Tortoise]

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
4m

Court being read a statement from Independent Nursing Healthcare Advisor Elizabeth Morgan, who was asked by Cheshire Police whether Ms Letby's 'failure' to alert other medics that fresh blood had been aspirated from Child N's mouth that day fits with 'good practice'

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
5m

Ms Morgan said in her professional opinion, it would be 'standard good practice' to escalate anything unusual - first verbally and then later recoded

 

[Jazmania]

The penny has just dropped for me, of the basis of this set of allegations.

This was a baby who occasionally suffered episodes of apnoea and desaturations. He had episodes of desaturation the preceding night-shift (early morning 15th June).

LL is charged with causing the collapses where trauma to the throat is said to have occurred, at 7.15am and 2.50pm. I believe they are saying the trauma precipitated these desaturations.

The 7.15am collapse was accompanied by crying and he required neopuff and oxygen. Between 8am and 9am blood was evident and swelling in the throat prevented intubation.

The 2.50pm collapse happened after the parents were told to go outside and get some fresh air. He had fresh bleeding from the mouth and blood aspirated from his stomach and again he couldn't be intubated because of swelling.

Note that LL is not charged with causing the 7.40pm collapse on her day-shift that necessitated resuscitation. Fresh bleeding and swelling in the throat were apparently not features.

She is also charged with inflicting pain or injury to him on 3rd June, five minutes after the designated nurse went on his break, when baby N suddenly started screaming and had a profound desaturation.

These collapses/desaturations were not like his other ones.

MOO

But at the same time, before the early morning of 15th June this baby was well and ready to be discharged. So baby N was not having regular desaturations before the 15th. He suddenly went down hill, and so far it seems no one knows why. Blood screens revealed no infection, and his haemophilia is a mild one. So his sudden deterioration with no medical explanation fits the other cases. The only difference is that LL wasn't present when he started deteriorating.

It's possible that an explanation will be given whereby the prosecution will argue that LL harmed the baby before she left her shift on the 14th, and that the baby either deteriorated unnoticed during the night, or suddenly crashed a few hours later. However that doesn't seem to form part of the charges. Otherwise this could seriously undermine the whole prosecution case surely - as if you accept that baby N was previously well, and then suddenly deteriorated with no medical explanation - but it wasn't down to LL - then that could also be the case for the other babies too.

On the one hand if the prosecution can convince the jury that she is guilty of just one murder, then the weight of evidence needed to convince the jury that she is guilty of any and all of the charges is lowered in my opinion. The flip side of the coin means that if the defence can show that just one of these mysterious collapses couldn't have been down to LL, then that will cast doubt on all the other cases too.

 

[DinerMite]

But at the same time, before the early morning of 15th June this baby was well and ready to be discharged. So baby N was not having regular desaturations before the 15th. He suddenly went down hill, and so far it seems no one knows why. Blood screens revealed no infection, and his haemophilia is a mild one. So his sudden deterioration with no medical explanation fits the other cases. The only difference is that LL wasn't present when he started deteriorating.

It's possible that an explanation will be given whereby the prosecution will argue that LL harmed the baby before she left her shift on the 14th, and that the baby either deteriorated unnoticed during the night, or suddenly crashed a few hours later. However that doesn't seem to form part of the charges. Otherwise this could seriously undermine the whole prosecution case surely - as if you accept that baby N was previously well, and then suddenly deteriorated with no medical explanation - but it wasn't down to LL - then that could also be the case for the other babies too.

On the one hand if the prosecution can convince the jury that she is guilty of just one murder, then the weight of evidence needed to convince the jury that she is guilty of any and all of the charges is lowered in my opinion. The flip side of the coin means that if the defence can show that just one of these mysterious collapses couldn't have been down to LL, then that will cast doubt on all the other cases too.

She isn't charged with any offense on June 14th and therefore prosecution cannot make an allegation of harm now - they can either prove the desat was of natural cause and not LL or the evidence they did have to suggest it was LL didn't meet the threshold to charge. IMO