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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
magikarpmagikarp said:
My own personal opinion - even "subpar" care should not result in a need for resuscitation let alone death in a situation like this. These were healthy 33 week babies, on minimal respiratory support. Feed them, provide basic respiratory support as needed, basic thermoregulation, mom & dad hold them.... nothing complicated or difficult... just stay out of the way and they should grow.
Click to expand...
This alleged "subpar care" is getting really tiring now.
Look at kids born in primitive villages, filthy conditions all over the world.
CoC Hospital is Ritz in comparison.

JMO
 
magikarpmagikarp said:
My own personal opinion - even "subpar" care should not result in a need for resuscitation let alone death in a situation like this. These were healthy 33 week babies, on minimal respiratory support. Feed them, provide basic respiratory support as needed, basic thermoregulation, mom & dad hold them.... nothing complicated or difficult... just stay out of the way and they should grow.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. What are the chances? Especially along with other similar cases, notably Baby M. Once would be a shock, but multiple times? I just don't buy it.
 
I don't know what's going on with Nurse Taylor saying LL wanted to keep the three triplets together in room 2, and Mr Myers asking her if it was desirable to want to keep them all together.

As far as we were told in electronic evidence triplets O and P were in room 2 with LL, and the third triplet was in room 1. Which was also confirmed during opening speech, owing to the third triplet being more needy.

yesterday's electronic evidence -
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, March 8

"Ben Myers KC, defending, asked Ms Taylor whether it was "desirable" to keep the three brothers together "as far as you can". She agreed.
She also accepted she was "content" to leave Child O in nursery two so the parents could "have all three of them together"."

BBC Lucy Letby: Nurse rejected baby move suggestion, jury told
 
Ah, I see Dan O'Donoghue got the testimony wrong, according to ITV report, which fits with the evidence.

goodness knows about that last sentence in quotes about the parents having all three of them together. :rolleyes:


“I can’t remember the reasoning behind it. Sometimes it can be just a gut instinct. Sometimes they (the baby) can present very slight things.

“I remember saying it out loud to Lucy.

“I asked whether she felt we should move him into nursery one. She said ‘no’. She felt it was OK and wanted to keep him in nursery two and wanted to keep the brothers together.

[...]

Ben Myers KC, defending, asked the witness: “Do you recall Miss Letby explained she wanted to keep him (Child O) with his brother?”

“Yes,” Ms Taylor said.

ITV
 
Tortoise said:
Ah, I see Dan O'Donoghue got the testimony wrong, according to ITV report, which fits with the evidence.

goodness knows about that last sentence in quotes about the parents having all three of them together. :rolleyes:


“I can’t remember the reasoning behind it. Sometimes it can be just a gut instinct. Sometimes they (the baby) can present very slight things.

“I remember saying it out loud to Lucy.

“I asked whether she felt we should move him into nursery one. She said ‘no’. She felt it was OK and wanted to keep him in nursery two and wanted to keep the brothers together.

[...]

Ben Myers KC, defending, asked the witness: “Do you recall Miss Letby explained she wanted to keep him (Child O) with his brother?”

“Yes,” Ms Taylor said.

ITV
Click to expand...
Thanks - this has been driving me mad!
 
What do we make of this evidence?

"Letby files a Datix form on June 30, in which it was recorded that equipment required for a procedure during resuscitation was not available on the unit.
It was clarified in July 2016 Child O did not lose peripheral access."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, March 8

This Datix form was filed 7 days after baby O died, I believe a day after THE consultants' gathering, and possibly day after or same day LL was moved to clerical duties.

Is it possible the "peripheral access" is linked to the Datix report, and she was claiming baby O had no access for administration of medications? Or is it unlikely to be linked?
 
Tortoise said:
What do we make of this evidence?

"Letby files a Datix form on June 30, in which it was recorded that equipment required for a procedure during resuscitation was not available on the unit.
It was clarified in July 2016 Child O did not lose peripheral access."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, March 8

This Datix form was filed 7 days after baby O died, I believe a day after THE consultants' gathering, and possibly day after or same day LL was moved to clerical duties.

Is it possible the "peripheral access" is linked to the Datix report, and she was claiming baby O had no access for administration of medications? Or is it unlikely to be linked?
Click to expand...

This is a total mystery IMO. I would say most equipment used in resus is pretty standard on a neonatal unit, stuff that is used on a daily basis. I can't imagine what might be missing. Hopefully we'll find out!
Interesting about the Datix form too.
 
10% Daily Mail re yesterday's evidence Parents begged to take baby after Lucy Letby 'murdered two brothers'


'She brought Baby O and Baby P down to see us in a Moses basket before we left for Liverpool. She dressed Baby P and took pictures of both boys, she was in floods of tears.' [...]

Both parents described an unusual discolouration or rash on both babies' stomachs as doctors tried desperately to save them. [...]

'All his veins, you could see them,' he said. 'All bright blue, going different colours. His whole body looked like it had really, really bad prickly heat that got worse.' [...]

'Everyone was running around again. It was chaotic. They appeared to be trying to stabilise Baby P, but he kept collapsing. He looked very similar to Baby O, with the discolouration and prominent veins.'
 
marynnu said:
Said no neonatal nurse ever, IMO. Or ever before, I should say! I wonder what that nurse thought as she typed that? Makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...
So babies L, M, and N were all 33 or 34 weekers . No other babies who are the subject of the charges which have already taken place were that gestation.

Neither L, M, or N died, whereas baby O did.

I wonder if her comment means “we don’t have much luck with 33/34 weekers because look at L,M, and N who previously collapsed.”

Or whether she is referring to other 33/34 weekers who died like baby O on the ward who aren’t the subject of these charges.
 
That doctor who suspected LL was up to no good could have done something, imo. I know what I would have done.
 
Tortoise said:
What do we make of this evidence?

"Letby files a Datix form on June 30, in which it was recorded that equipment required for a procedure during resuscitation was not available on the unit.
It was clarified in July 2016 Child O did not lose peripheral access."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, March 8

This Datix form was filed 7 days after baby O died, I believe a day after THE consultants' gathering, and possibly day after or same day LL was moved to clerical duties.

Is it possible the "peripheral access" is linked to the Datix report, and she was claiming baby O had no access for administration of medications? Or is it unlikely to be linked?
Click to expand...

It sounds connected somehow to me...I'm not sure what equipment might be used in neonatal if they are finding it difficult to get access? Perhaps someone might know
 
Tortoise said:
What do we make of this evidence?

"Letby files a Datix form on June 30, in which it was recorded that equipment required for a procedure during resuscitation was not available on the unit.
It was clarified in July 2016 Child O did not lose peripheral access."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, March 8

This Datix form was filed 7 days after baby O died, I believe a day after THE consultants' gathering, and possibly day after or same day LL was moved to clerical duties.

Is it possible the "peripheral access" is linked to the Datix report, and she was claiming baby O had no access for administration of medications? Or is it unlikely to be linked?
Click to expand...


An IO would be used in adults (intraosseous access) I'm not sure if used in neonatal?
 
I’m wondering if anyone knows if there would be a difference in symptoms between a ng air embolus and an IV AE? it’s just that the last two cases involve The rash. But if it’s the same one with different alleged methods then I don’t see how it would match up. For instance with child A we heard about the florid skin changes and that was explained how that would happen due to no blood in certain vessels but would that happen with a ng AE ?
 
JosieJo said:
An IO would be used in adults (intraosseous access) I'm not sure if used in neonatal?
Click to expand...

I personally have never heard of it for neonates, but I'm sure it's possible. It certainly makes sense given what we know, as you almost certainly wouldn't keep the necessary equipment on an NNU.
Also, given that Child O had a large blood loss due to liver damage, he could well have been peripherally shut down, couldn't he? So what you suggest fits. I'd never have thought of it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 127 more.
Total: 2,183 (members: 128, guests: 2,055)

Online statistics

Members online
128
Guests online
2,055
Total visitors
2,183
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,157
Messages
18,104,801
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top