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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
The exact quote was “Instead the report has the hallmarks of an exercise in ‘working out an explanation’ that exculpates the applicants” and also describes Dr Evans’ report as “worthless”. Which is about as bad as you can get.

So the allegation from the defence (backed up by the court of appeal in that particular case) is that he moulds his “expert” opinions on the evidence to fit with a desired conclusion.

Bohin and Evans may well come to the same conclusions in cases. But what I am saying is that we are hearing the defence launch various attacks against the experts and just like everything else, we have to consider whether those attacks are valid in our opinions or not. For me, there have been several things about dr evans which have hit the mark, to the extent that I don’t really rate his evidence now. Similar attacks against dr bohin and her credibility have , in contrast, not landed IMO .

So it doesn’t matter to me whether dr evans agrees with dr bohin in a particular case. What I would be basing my decisions on would be Dr Bohin’s opinions , for the reasons I’ve said.
If both doctors are in agreement, then why would one expert's testimony hold more weight than another? Isn't evidence stronger when the experts agree with each other? Why discount one and not the other?
 
If both doctors are in agreement, then why would one expert's testimony hold more weight than another? Isn't evidence stronger when the experts agree with each other? Why discount one and not the other?
So far all medics -
from hospital consultants to experts speak in unison.

"The truth is out there."

JMO
 
Last edited:
the first case file dr evans reviewed he suspected air embolus. Think the first file he looked at was child g but not sure.
- He’s introduced injection of air on 13 June for the first time and IMO, based on his careful choice of words, has changed his conclusion that there was an injection of air on 12 June.

Look at his words. “That was a possibility , yes.” “That was an opinion I have expressed .”

IMO , his careful choice of words is revealing.

- in relation to 13 June, dr evans said this on the stand:

“Mr Myers asks Dr Evans what evidence there is to support that air had been injected into the stomach on June 13.

Dr Evans: "The baby collapsed and died."

“Asked to explain further, Dr Evans says it was part of a differential diagnosis.

He said there were three clinical scenarios - injecting air into the stomach that interfered with his breathing, or that air was injected intraveneously, or from a combination of the two, which Dr Evans says "sounds awful".

Dr Evans says, from his perspective, from an academic point of view, he would not be able to rule out any one of those three scenarios.” “

- I don’t think Dr bohin did come to the same conclusion about this:

“Dr Bohin said it was not clear from the notes how long the 'free drainage' was in place.

She said one conclusion for Child C's collapse was CPAP accumulation of air, the other being deliberate injection of air.”

I don’t think dr evans was writing these reports with a particular suspect in mind. But once the prosecution noticed that dr evans’ report was saying there was a deliberate injection of air on a day when LL couldn’t have done it, it is IMO naive to think there weren’t conversations between the prosecution and dr evans regarding his conclusions about 12 June.
All this says to me is that the baby collapsed and died on the 13th, and it appeared to be from air leaking or being injected into his stomach. It could have also possibly happened on the 12th, but not enough air was leaked or injected to to be lethal. That one may or may not have been a CPAP leAk.

There was an incident on the 13th which was lethal.
 
Re Baby O’s, I understand they are alleging air embolus, but are they saying that LL also caused the liver injury? It sounds like abdominal issues were presenting themselves before LL came on shift?
It didn't sound like there was any cause for concern. The baby had a full tummy. No other symptoms to indicate a traumatic liver injury or imminent collapse.

I'd like to know how long she was away on her vacay and how many sudden collapses there were that required crash carts and dozens of adrenaline shots and intubations during her time away.

Because the first day back, baby O had one, and died. ..and the next night his brother P also died. Both were her designated babies.

And the night after that baby Q inexplicably collapsed. Why would all of this happen right when she came back on the unit?
 
It didn't sound like there was any cause for concern. The baby had a full tummy. No other symptoms to indicate a traumatic liver injury or imminent collapse.

I'd like to know how long she was away on her vacay and how many sudden collapses there were that required crash carts and dozens of adrenaline shots and intubations during her time away.

Because the first day back, baby O had one, and died. ..and the next night his brother P also died. Both were her designated babies.

And the night after that baby Q inexplicably collapsed. Why would all of this happen right when she came back on the unit?

Coincidence.

How many other nurses caring for babies with high needs could we look at and say hmmm they declined on your shift. Probably a lot. I'm interested in hearing stats or at least some kind of testimony on that occurring.

A distended stomach even if soft is an early warning sign and was treated as such. It wasn't an emergency or cause for great concern at this point, but it was something to watch. We know this because nurse Ellis tells us so.
 
Coincidence.

How many other nurses caring for babies with high needs could we look at and say hmmm they declined on your shift. Probably a lot. I'm interested in hearing stats or at least some kind of testimony on that occurring.

A distended stomach even if soft is an early warning sign and was treated as such. It wasn't an emergency or cause for great concern at this point, but it was something to watch. We know this because nurse Ellis tells us so.
But is it a coincidence when babies do not inexplicably collapse while she is on vacations----but they suddenly begin doing so on the nights she returns?

A coincidence is one or two times. I think we have more examples than that. I think we have a larger pattern which extends over a 12 month period. JMO
 
Coincidence.

How many other nurses caring for babies with high needs could we look at and say hmmm they declined on your shift. Probably a lot. I'm interested in hearing stats or at least some kind of testimony on that occurring.

A distended stomach even if soft is an early warning sign and was treated as such. It wasn't an emergency or cause for great concern at this point, but it was something to watch. We know this because nurse Ellis tells us so.
Also, it was something to watch. But the suddenness with which this baby deteriorated was unexpected and made no sense----even when they investigated for a couple of years, they found no natural medical cause. It appears to be from malicious attack.
 
It didn't sound like there was any cause for concern. The baby had a full tummy. No other symptoms to indicate a traumatic liver injury or imminent collapse.

I'd like to know how long she was away on her vacay and how many sudden collapses there were that required crash carts and dozens of adrenaline shots and intubations during her time away.

Because the first day back, baby O had one, and died. ..and the next night his brother P also died. Both were her designated babies.

And the night after that baby Q inexplicably collapsed. Why would all of this happen right when she came back on the unit?
some of her texting, has echoes IMO of when she texted that "Sophie the new girl had him" after the death of baby C, but Sophie was out of the room -

Letby messages the nursing colleague to say Child O 'went very suddenly' and 'had a big tummy overnight but just ballooned after lunch and went from there'.

[...]
Letby says the other two babies were being screened, as it was not known why Child O had collapsed.
[...]
Letby said Child O had died on the student's first day of a four-week placement. She adds who was on duty that day.
The nurse replies: 'Lots of consultants then'

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, March 8


some of the detail shown in court during opening speech that wasn't covered in yesterday's reporting -


Letby also had the responsibility of supervising a student nurse that day.
The designated nurse [my note - LL or Sophie Ellis (time of note not stated)] recorded 'no nursing concern - observations normal' for Child O.
There are three records of feeds by Letby, at 8.30am, 10.30am, and 12.30pm - the earliest signed by the student nurse, the latter two signed by Letby.
[this was in yesterday's report - In a note made by the doctor at 1.15pm, there was '1x vomit post feed' with 'abdomen distended'.]
Child O was put on to IV fluids as a precaution.
Child O's heart rate was 160-170, blood gases were low, and raised CO2 level.
The doctor recorded the results as 'not normal' for a child breathing on their own and treated for suspected 'NEC'.
It was thought down to Child O's swallowing of air or the passing of a stool earlier.
An x-ray taken at the time showed a moderate amount of gas in the bowel loops throughout the abdomen.

[this was in yesterday's reports - Letby noted at 8.35pm - 'reviewed by registrar at 1.15pm - [Child O] had vomited (undigested milk) tachycardic and abdomen distended. NG tube placed on free drainage … 10ml/kg saline bolus given as prescribed along with antibiotics. Placed nil by mouth and abdominal x ray performed. Observations returned to normal”.]

Prior to Child O's collapse, a colleague said of Child O: "“he doesn’t look as well now as he did earlier. Do you think we should move him back to [room] 1 to be safe?"
Letby did not agree.

Letby had taken Child O's observations at 2.30pm as 100% oxygen saturations and normal breathing rates.
From her phone, she was on Facebook Messenger at the time, and at 2.39pm, the door entry system recorded her coming into the neonatal unit.
Within a few minutes of that, Child O suffered his first collapse.
Letby called for help, having been alone with Child O in room 2 at the time.
Child O's heart rate and saturations had dropped to dangerously low levels. A breathing tube was inserted by the medical staff and he was successfully resuscitated. He was kept on a ventilator.

At 3.49pm, Child O desaturated again. doctors removed the ET and replaced it "as a precaution". Letby's written notes suggest she was the one who called for help.
Child O suffered a further collapse at 4.15pm which required CPR. Those efforts were unsuccessful and Child O died soon after treatment was withdrawn at 5.47pm.
A consultant doctor noted Child O had an area of discoloured skin on the right side of his chest wall which was purpuric.
He noted a rash at 4.30pm, which had gone by 5.15pm, and did not consider it purpura, but unsure what it was or what had caused it.
The doctor was particularly concerned about Child O's death as he was clinically stable before these events, his collapse was so sudden and he did not respond to resuscitation as he should have.

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders
 
Last edited:
Coincidence.

How many other nurses caring for babies with high needs could we look at and say hmmm they declined on your shift. Probably a lot. I'm interested in hearing stats or at least some kind of testimony on that occurring.

A distended stomach even if soft is an early warning sign and was treated as such. It wasn't an emergency or cause for great concern at this point, but it was something to watch. We know this because nurse Ellis tells us so.

ALL MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION:

Poorly high dependency babies occasionally, babies like this rarely if ever. Like Baby M, these infants were a good gestation and they were also a decent weight, pretty remarkable for triplets. You don't expect any normal baby 30 weeks plus to die, never mind 34 weeks. Something would have to go catastrophically wrong.
 
ALL MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION:

Poorly high dependency babies occasionally, babies like this rarely if ever. Like Baby M, these infants were a good gestation and they were also a decent weight, pretty remarkable for triplets. You don't expect any normal baby 30 weeks plus to die, never mind 34 weeks. Something would have to go catastrophically wrong.

Maybe not the case in an unit offering sub-par care. Which this one was.

Even the parents in this case are critical of the care.
 
If both doctors are in agreement, then why would one expert's testimony hold more weight than another? Isn't evidence stronger when the experts agree with each other? Why discount one and not the other?
For the reasons I have said above.

The prosecution and defence are presenting evidence which has to be evaluated. Some of the evidence/submissions from the defence is in relation to the reliability or credibility of the evidence being provided by expert witnesses and, as such, that also has to be considered.

My point is that the defence’s submissions regarding dr Evans are, for me , landing much more than any submissions regarding dr Bohin.

And it is relevant because drs evans and bohin are not always giving the exact same opinion. It has been remarked upon here several times that dr Bohin has conceded points made by the defence during cross-examination, whereas dr evans on the whole does not.

So where the two experts are saying things which are different, an observer has to come to a conclusion as to which one’s opinion to accept. I am saying that I find Dr Bohin’s opinions more compelling in such cases.
 
All this says to me is that the baby collapsed and died on the 13th, and it appeared to be from air leaking or being injected into his stomach. It could have also possibly happened on the 12th, but not enough air was leaked or injected to to be lethal. That one may or may not have been a CPAP leAk.

There was an incident on the 13th which was lethal.
Yes, but even having an expert say that air could “possibly” have been injected into the stomach on 12th (even if it wasn’t a lethal amount ) is a huge problem for the prosecution because LL cannot have been responsible for anything on 12th as she was not there.

So unless there are two separate people going around injecting air into babies at the COCH during the period , you can see the implications of this.
 
Surely it's more pig headed to stick to your original conclusion in the face of new evidence rather than allow all the facts to help form your opinion.

If I was a coroner and I turn up on scene to a person with a bullet wound in the head, it's expected my original conclusion would be death by gunshot wound. If after post-mortem it was revealed they actually died from poisoning and then were shot after death, it would be moronic to stick with death by gunshot in the face of the new evidence.

It's fine to allow the facts and evidence to change your conclusion.
 
Maybe not the case in an unit offering sub-par care. Which this one was.

Even the parents in this case are critical of the care.
What did the caretakers do to trigger these two healthy babies to suddenly collapse and have liver trauma, etc?

The subpar care seems to be not washing hands in some cases, and being late to give standard medications in some cases, being understaffed and too busy in some cases. I don't see how those complaints affected these 2 triplets. JMO
 
Yes, but even having an expert say that air could “possibly” have been injected into the stomach on 12th (even if it wasn’t a lethal amount ) is a huge problem for the prosecution because LL cannot have been responsible for anything on 12th as she was not there.

So unless there are two separate people going around injecting air into babies at the COCH during the period , you can see the implications of this.
It makes the investigation seem impartial and unbiased, imo. They said it was a small amount and may have been a leak of some kind but was not enough to be severe. I don't think that negates the possibility of the other incidents which were lethal and had no easy explanation. JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
102
Guests online
1,856
Total visitors
1,958

Forum statistics

Threads
600,155
Messages
18,104,696
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top