UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #16

[ColourPurple]

Any information is interesting to me Mary so long as I isnt about cricket. Tbh I found it interesting to learn that a larger syringe would be more suspect.


Well I’m trying to figure out how we can put the alleged action into context using the info provided by the prosecution.

for instance Mary has said it might take a couple of minutes to do as alleged if it fits the info we can say it’s likely or not.

and it seems that it isn’t as easy as keeping a loaded syringe in pocket on the sly. If it’s the case that that syringe needs to be pumped a few times every time its done it increases the likelihood of discovdry. If you have to alter the incubator ie lift the lid again it’s more noticeable, if you have to stop the feed its noticeable. Literally anything involved in the alleged process would be really interesting to hear about and see if the shape fits the hole.

Mary's said it could be done undetected.

By "where you are going with this" I meant... are you saying you think the medical experts are wrong and no air (and possibly fluid) was injected into the NG tube at all?

Or are you saying that you think the medical experts were right but you don't think LL (if guilty) had the opportunity to do it unnoticed as there were others in the room... in which case how would anybody else have had the opportunity to do it in a room with others in either? * Yet, if the medical experts are right, that's what happened... somebody injected it.


ETA * LL was due to feed Baby Q at 9am, but apparently left in the middle of making notes for that feed after asking the other nurse to watch Baby Q. Then Doctors responded to a crash call at 9.17 as Baby Q had vomited and de-sated. Are you thinking the other nurse may have injected air while LL was gone? I think the prosecution are suggesting LL deliberately left so that she wasn't there for the vomiting that she knew would follow her on from her allegedly injecting air.

All IMO , if guilty

 

[Sweeper2000]

I'm not seeing the difference? What is this framework?

Looking at the evidence provided by the prosecution gives you the framework surrounding the events. for example this hypothetical situation, LL was administering a feed at approx 10.05 am to a baby not involved in the charges, baby z collapses at approx 10.08 am, we would then have to fit the alleged method within those 3 minutes. Or even LL door swipe data shows she entered the unit at 8.59 and the baby collapses at 9.00 am, if it takes some minutes to do as alleged there isn’t the scope for it to have happened or otherwise.

im trying to figure out every potential stage in the sequence of alleged events, including anything that increases the likelihood of being caught out for instance anyone saying anything to LL during the time period of the alleged Act being carried out. The feeds are relevant to the timing of the feeds and the alleged events. For instance if a feed is noted for 9.11 am and a collapse happens at 9.15 am it would seem that ll would have had to interrupt a feed to administer the air. IMO it’s every single potential act involved in the alleged event that is out of the ordinary that increases the likelihood of being caught.

 

[JosieJo]

Any information is interesting to me Mary so long as I isnt about cricket. Tbh I found it interesting to learn that a larger syringe would be more suspect.


Well I’m trying to figure out how we can put the alleged action into context using the info provided by the prosecution.

for instance Mary has said it might take a couple of minutes to do as alleged if it fits the info we can say it’s likely or not.

and it seems that it isn’t as easy as keeping a loaded syringe in pocket on the sly. If it’s the case that that syringe needs to be pumped a few times every time its done it increases the likelihood of discovdry. If you have to alter the incubator ie lift the lid again it’s more noticeable, if you have to stop the feed its noticeable. Literally anything involved in the alleged process would be really interesting to hear about and see if the shape fits the hole.

You could put your hand through an incubator port and with a pre loaded 20 ml syringe administer it ..then pull the syringe back again without taking your hands out and do it again...imo 30 seconds easily.
Who would wonder what a long standing colleague would be doing ...no one

 

[marynnu]

Looking at the evidence provided by the prosecution gives you the framework surrounding the events. for example this hypothetical situation, LL was administering a feed at approx 10.05 am to a baby not involved in the charges, baby z collapses at approx 10.08 am, we would then have to fit the alleged method within those 3 minutes. Or even LL door swipe data shows she entered the unit at 8.59 and the baby collapses at 9.00 am, if it takes some minutes to do as alleged there isn’t the scope for it to have happened or otherwise.

im trying to figure out every potential stage in the sequence of alleged events, including anything that increases the likelihood of being caught out for instance anyone saying anything to LL during the time period of the alleged Act being carried out. The feeds are relevant to the timing of the feeds and the alleged events. For instance if a feed is noted for 9.11 am and a collapse happens at 9.15 am it would seem that ll would have had to interrupt a feed to administer the air. IMO it’s every single potential act involved in the alleged event that is out of the ordinary that increases the likelihood of being caught.

All JMO.
If you're hoping for a minute-by-minute record of who did what, when & for how long, I'd get a good book to read as it might be a long wait.

 

[Sweeper2000]

All JMO.
If you're hoping for a minute-by-minute record of who did what, when & for how long, I'd get a good book to read as it might be a long wait.

We already have something close to a minute by minute recording of the circumstances surrounding the events. As an example

“Another nurse's medical note on an 'apnoea/brady/fit chart' notes: "09:10; brady 98; desat 68; fit ?; baby found to be very mucousy, clear mucous from nasopharynx oropharynx removed clear fluid +++.

"O2 via neopuff given post suctioning. Dr... emergency called to attend.

"NGT used to aspirate stomach by Nurse L Letby”

The prosecution say given that Letby was Child Q's designated nurse and she performed the aspiration of air, it might be thought surprising that she did not make the note – yet she did make notes in records of other babies’ notes at about the same time.

Mr Johnson: "We question whether this is an attempt by her to create a documentary alibi."

Lucy Letby trial recap: Prosecution finishes outlining case, defence gives statement

THE prosecution in the trial of Lucy Letby, accused of murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

I would assume the prosecution have gathered this evidence through a reading of the clinical notes which is scheduled and presumably recorded care. maybe something close to a minUte by minute account of the events.

not assuming a second by second account of the events at the time but we have to go with the best we have. Using that which is reported such as witness testimony ie ll saying hello then the baby collapses whilst she is in the doorway, door swipe data, electronic data such as texts sent etc the schedule of care all of which allows us to triangulate on the goings on at the time. Took years to gather that info.


i see there’s different takes on exactly how long the alleged acts would have taken to perform. The way you worded it seems to me that it would actually be a process, I was wondering if that could be what ll meant when she said in police interview it wouldn’t be easy to do?

this is why I was asking about the stomach capacity of these babs, so we can estimate EXACTLY what would have to be involved for the alleged events to have happened.

Mary's said it could be done undetected.

By "where you are going with this" I meant... are you saying you think the medical experts are wrong and no air (and possibly fluid) was injected into the NG tube at all?

Or are you saying that you think the medical experts were right but you don't think LL (if guilty) had the opportunity to do it unnoticed as there were others in the room... in which case how would anybody else have had the opportunity to do it in a room with others in either? * Yet, if the medical experts are right, that's what happened... somebody injected it.


ETA * LL was due to feed Baby Q at 9am, but apparently left in the middle of making notes for that feed after asking the other nurse to watch Baby Q. Then Doctors responded to a crash call at 9.17 as Baby Q had vomited and de-sated. Are you thinking the other nurse may have injected air while LL was gone? I think the prosecution are suggesting LL deliberately left so that she wasn't there for the vomiting that she knew would follow her on from her allegedly injecting air.

All IMO , if guilty

tbh I would guess the only plausible alternative to the prosecution’s case is that the diagnosis is incorrect or based on incomplete information.

edited to say, I think looking at the prosecution’s case the medical evidence is by far the strongest aspect of it and seems to be what the entire case is based on rather than for instance the high probability of this individual having done as alleged or eye witness testimony.

 

[ColourPurple]

tbh I would guess the only plausible alternative to the prosecution’s case is that the diagnosis is incorrect or based on incomplete information.

edited to say, I think looking at the prosecution’s case the medical evidence is by far the strongest aspect of it and seems to be what the entire case is based on rather than for instance the high probability of this individual having done as alleged or eye witness testimony.

The defence originally seemed to be saying it was due to Baby Q having NEC but then we heard last week that apparently he didn't even have NEC.

 

[ColourPurple]

I've been trying to work out what the clear fluid Baby Q vomited could have been (that LL is alleged to have possibly injected into his NG tube along with air)

Looking at the notes it says LL had recorded numbers for fluids... if guilty, could LL have deliberately injected the IV fluids through Baby Q's NG tube instead of giving them through the IV line?


According to the record, Child Q's heart and respiratory rates both increased for a short period of time.But, the prosecution say, the feeding chart shows something 'unusual'.

That chart is shown to the court. The 9am fluid chart, in Letby's handwriting, appears unfinished, with numbers noted for fluids, but no record for the feed or Letby's signature initials at the bottom of the 9am column.

The prosecution suggests something caused Letby to leave halfway through doing this...

Letby signed for medication for another baby at 9.04am.

The other nurse agreed to keep an eye on Child Q at 9am.

A few minutes later, Child Q's monnitor alarms activated to alert staff to a deterioration in his condition.

Mr Johnson: "We say that Lucy Letby had sabotaged [Child Q] and had injected him with air and a clear fluid into his stomach via the NGT. She was trying to kill him."

Lucy Letby trial recap: Prosecution finishes outlining case, defence gives statement

THE prosecution in the trial of Lucy Letby, accused of murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

IMO if guilty

 

[esther43]

Yeh it’s only relevant to arterial AE but the ng tube is different. Has to be enough to splint the diaphragm which I would assume is a significant amount.

I never said it was difficult to do as alleged but I do think it’s difficult to do without being seen. I also think it’s very blatantly an abnormal thing for a nurse to repetitively pump a syringe. Easy enough to blend in ie priming a line but using a big syringe? Pumping a small syringe multiple of times?

 

[esther43]

Yeh it’s only relevant to arterial AE but the ng tube is different. Has to be enough to splint the diaphragm which I would assume is a significant amount.

I never said it was difficult to do as alleged but I do think it’s difficult to do without being seen. I also think it’s very blatantly an abnormal thing for a nurse to repetitively pump a syringe. Easy enough to blend in ie priming a line but using a big syringe? Pumping a small syringe multiple of times?

I'm not really sure that it would be that easy to be seen. When you think about opportunity particularly. A nurse has many chances to be alone with a baby. E.g when a parent returns to postnatal, goes home, gets a drink, goes to the toilet, has visitors etc.
It can't be assumed that another nurse was there during these periods of parental absence.
Secondly, say another nurse was there and LL was not alone every time.
They likely sit metres away from LL, are looking at their own notes, monitor, phone etc as well as periodically leaving to do other meds elsewhere.
If the question is around opportunity then opportunities were there imo.

 

[esther43]

Wasn't this in 2016 though? I'm not sure that the A&E situation was as desperate then as it is now.

I don't know, I just see it as an occupational health matter and they normally have their vaccination slots for nurses etc. Who knows what was in their policy though or who how they interacted departmentally.

 

[Sweeper2000]

The defence originally seemed to be saying it was due to Baby Q having NEC but then we heard last week that apparently he didn't even have NEC.

I think mr Myers would have done himself a favour to emphasise his non medical background. as far as I know though the jury is Free to consider anything it deems important or worthy and I don’t think mr Myers apparently not quite being on point urm some of the time not often xd will necessarily prevent them from considering other potentials.

 

[Becci]

This will seem silly but can a bolus of air cause a rash to?
Also say there were an air embolism can that come unintentionally from a bolus of air ty

 

[Sweeper2000]

I'm not really sure that it would be that easy to be seen. When you think about opportunity particularly. A nurse has many chances to be alone with a baby. E.g when a parent returns to postnatal, goes home, gets a drink, goes to the toilet, has visitors etc.
It can't be assumed that another nurse was there during these periods of parental absence.
Secondly, say another nurse was there and LL was not alone every time.
They likely sit metres away from LL, are looking at their own notes, monitor, phone etc as well as periodically leaving to do other meds elsewhere.
If the question is around opportunity then opportunities were there imo.

Neither am I.I am keen to see if the prosecution’s account of events especially the alleged timing of the actual acts themselves though, they are the shape and the framework is the hole. Do they match up?

 

[esther43]

I think that different NHS Trusts and hospitals might have slightly different Policies regarding management of needlestick injuries in staff, in hospitals.

The dangers of blood-borne infections from any sharps injury are very real.

Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital inform parents that, should a sharps injury occur, they would like to test the child’s blood (a sample may still be in hospital storage for other testing), for various viruses so that the staff member can get appropriate treatment quickly, if required.

Competent patients can consent to their blood being tested.

Any testing of a patient’s blood, when a member of staff has had a sharps injury, is done as an emergency by the lab.

The doctor in A&E would do a risk assessment of the sharps injury and the member of staff’s medical history.

Non-Responders

Some individuals are ‘non-responders’ to hepatitis B preventative injections (not always because they actually have the condition, it’s very complicated, apparently).

Some individuals need immunoglobulin injections, as soon as possible after sharps injury, for example.

Hepatitis B immunoglobulin (issued November 2023)

www.gov.uk

Who knows what policies they had? It was a strange trust, seemed to have urgent care, women's and children's in the same division.

 

[katydid23]

Neither am I.I am keen to see if the prosecution’s account of events especially the alleged timing of the actual acts themselves though, they are the shape and the framework is the hole. Do they match up?

They seem to match up perfectly in Baby Q:

According to the record, Child Q's heart and respiratory rates both increased for a short period of time.But, the prosecution say, the feeding chart shows something 'unusual'.

That chart is shown to the court. The 9am fluid chart, in Letby's handwriting, appears unfinished, with numbers noted for fluids, but no record for the feed or Letby's signature initials at the bottom of the 9am column.

The prosecution suggests something caused Letby to leave halfway through doing this...

Letby signed for medication for another baby at 9.04am.

The other nurse agreed to keep an eye on Child Q at 9am.

A few minutes later, Child Q's monnitor alarms activated to alert staff to a deterioration in his condition.

Mr Johnson: "We say that Lucy Letby had sabotaged [Child Q] and had injected him with air and a clear fluid into his stomach via the NGT. She was trying to kill him


SO LL WAS WITH BABY Q AT 9 AM-----leaves suddenly, and asks another nurse to take over

A few minutes later baby Q's alarm goes off asa he starts to collapse

 

[JosieJo]

Who knows what policies they had? It was a strange trust, seemed to have urgent care, women's and children's in the same division.

Were Urgent Care in the same division? I know its common for women and children to be one division

 

[marynnu]

Who knows what policies they had? It was a strange trust, seemed to have urgent care, women's and children's in the same division.

I don't think there's any evidence that urgent care was in the same division?

 

[Sweeper2000]

They seem to match up perfectly in Baby Q:

According to the record, Child Q's heart and respiratory rates both increased for a short period of time.But, the prosecution say, the feeding chart shows something 'unusual'.

That chart is shown to the court. The 9am fluid chart, in Letby's handwriting, appears unfinished, with numbers noted for fluids, but no record for the feed or Letby's signature initials at the bottom of the 9am column.

The prosecution suggests something caused Letby to leave halfway through doing this...

Letby signed for medication for another baby at 9.04am.

The other nurse agreed to keep an eye on Child Q at 9am.

A few minutes later, Child Q's monnitor alarms activated to alert staff to a deterioration in his condition.

Mr Johnson: "We say that Lucy Letby had sabotaged [Child Q] and had injected him with air and a clear fluid into his stomach via the NGT. She was trying to kill him


SO LL WAS WITH BABY Q AT 9 AM-----leaves suddenly, and asks another nurse to take over

A few minutes later baby Q's alarm goes off asa he starts to collapse

Yeh I’m waiting to hear the testimony on that. Im not sure how much you can expect from either of the opening statements tbh. If it’s like the one where the nurses back was turned then wasn’t kind of thing but you know that is what it is Same as possible “nec“ then ruled out apparently for mr Myers.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

@Sweeper2000, they can tell there is excessive gas in the bowel by the xray, because of the shape of the intestines and how high the diaphragm is. Don't need to measure it to tell it is excessive. It is excessive if organs are being squashed or displaced.

Just chiming in with everyone else, there would be nothing difficult about giving extra air to a baby. It would look exactly like someone doing something legitimate with the NG tube. It would take very little time. It would be easy to overlook.

 

[katydid23]

Yeh I’m waiting to hear the testimony on that. Im not sure how much you can expect from either of the opening statements tbh. If it’s like the one where the nurses back was turned then wasn’t kind of thing but you know that is what it is Same as possible “nec“ then ruled out apparently for mr Myers.

I understand your point about opening statements. But in this incident, we have the court records of the notes by LL, the notes by the other nurse , and the police interviews of them both, also court records.

And we have seen the texts about the head consultant asking about why LL seemed to have left baby Q right at that time. [ Dr A and LL have a texting convo starting with her asking " Do I have anything to worry about?"]

So even though this was opening statements, we were given the court records concerning the medical notes and formal police interviews.

So I am pretty sure that LL was allegedly at the exact place at the most important time, when the harm was probably, allegedly, being done.

We cannot say that with every case. I don't think we can absolutely rule her out in any of them. But they don't all have such precise timelines of critical events, imo. Not a coincidence that she was taken off the floor after this incident, imo.