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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ah right so he's saying why would LL need to go the other baby at 9 when they'd only had their obs done half hour earlier? Wonder what meds she signed for for the other baby.
could be wrong but I got the sense the meds she signed for could have been for another baby, not her baby in room 1, and she hung around writing in other babies' (plural) notes until the doctors responded to baby Q. I don't know why they would have mentioned that her other baby was stable at 8.30am and no need to observe again at 9am if the baby genuinely needed a treatment.
 
Actually, was the baby who she did the drugs for another baby she was caring for in a different room?

It doesn't say that she was called away by anyone though. Just that she asked the other nurse to watch Baby Q around 9am while she went to check on another baby. And then she signed for a medication for the other baby at 9.04
But if you sign for another baby, you often go to the cotside where the nurse is working and check the drugs being made up are the correct amount. It's normally the nurse leading the care who grabs another nurse.
 
could be wrong but I got the sense the meds she signed for could have been for another baby, not her baby in room 1, and she hung around writing in other babies' (plural) notes until the doctors responded to baby Q. I don't know why they would have mentioned that her other baby was stable at 8.30am and no need to observe again at 9am if the baby genuinely needed a treatment.


She doesn't appear to have told either the other nurse , or Dr A in her texts later WHY she had to go to her other designated baby either, just that she did.
 
But if you sign for another baby, you often go to the cotside where the nurse is working and check the drugs being made up are the correct amount. It's normally the nurse leading the care who grabs another nurse.


But neither the other nurse (Mary) or LL have said that anybody came and grabbed LL. It's just been said that LL told Mary she had to go to the other baby. Hopefully we hear a bit more about which baby she signed for meds for and who the co-signer was.
 
It will be interesting to find out what stopped her, if guilty, from continuing to attack Baby Q.
 
It will be interesting to find out what stopped her, if guilty, from continuing to attack Baby Q.


If you mean why she didn't try again after the alleged failed murder attempt at 9am, then, if guilty, it was probably her walking in on Dr G after that resus and hearing him asking another nurse how long LL had been gone when Baby Q collapsed, that spooked her enough not to try again.

If guilty, IMO etc.
 
If you mean why she didn't try again after the alleged failed murder attempt at 9am, then, if guilty, it was probably her walking in on Dr G after that resus and hearing him asking another nurse how long LL had been gone when Baby Q collapsed, that spooked her enough not to try again.

If guilty, IMO etc.
I wonder how Dr G felt after begging this exec nurse to remove LL and being refused.
And then - the next day - another collapse!
:(
 
If the prosecution are alleging that that child Q was injected with saline, would it be possible to obtain forensic evidence? Salt levels or something?


Asked what she saw when she was first to arrive at the incubator, Ms Lappalainen said: “He had been sick. I turned him on his side and made sure his airway was alright.”

She had noted clear mucous coming from the baby’s mouth and nose which was suctioned clean.

Asked why she recorded “clear fluid +++”, she said: “The clear fluid means the mucous I’m cleaning. There is no feed in it, no milk in it. It’s like saliva.”

 
Maybe one for the nurses as I could be completely misunderstanding this...

Apparently Baby Q had an umbilical venous catheter (UVC) and was receiving Babiven via that, and was only having trophic 0.5ml milk feeds.

Does a UVC bypass the stomach? Meaning the stomach would be empty other than the tiny 0.5ml trophic feed (if and when it was given)?

If so could that be why LL is alleged to have possibly injected clear fluid as well as air? Because otherwise there wouldn't have been enough fluid in Baby Q's stomach to bring up/vomit, and she couldn't use excess milk as it would be noticed as Baby Q's feeds were only 0.5ml?

Letby made notes on Child Q's fluid/feeding chart at 8am. Child Q was receiving nutrition Babiven via a UVC.

 
It will be interesting to find out what stopped her, if guilty, from continuing to attack Baby Q.
He was subjected to blood tests, x-rayed, put on antibiotics, and then the parents showed up. First they weren't allowed to go into room 1, and then when the midwife complained they were allowed in during the afternoon. At some point LL walked in on Dr Gibbs speaking to Mary in the store room about what had happened, which could have been a choice she made to follow them in there.

Baby Q had to be put on a ventilator before the night shift, and in true LL-style, she noted he was declining and on a downward trend. Mr Myers seemed keen to point out that baby Q stabilised "relatively quickly", perhaps seeking to minimise the event, but he was moved to room 1 with the morning event and needed to be put on breathing support.

"Letby notes before the shift handover at 7.30pm: 'Respiratory rate declining (15-19bpm) and intermittent pauses in breathing. Blood gas stable but on downward trend and [Child Q] appearing 'tired'."

JMO
 
Maybe one for the nurses as I could be completely misunderstanding this...

Apparently Baby Q had an umbilical venous catheter (UVC) and was receiving Babiven via that, and was only having trophic 0.5ml milk feeds.

Does a UVC bypass the stomach? Meaning the stomach would be empty other than the tiny 0.5ml trophic feed (if and when it was given)?

If so could that be why LL is alleged to have possibly injected clear fluid as well as air? Because otherwise there wouldn't have been enough fluid in Baby Q's stomach to bring up/vomit, and she couldn't use excess milk as it would be noticed as Baby Q's feeds were only 0.5ml?

Letby made notes on Child Q's fluid/feeding chart at 8am. Child Q was receiving nutrition Babiven via a UVC.

Good spot on the 0.5.
I think the uvc just goes straight in the umbilical cord.
 
He was subjected to blood tests, x-rayed, put on antibiotics, and then the parents showed up. First they weren't allowed to go into room 1, and then when the midwife complained they were allowed in during the afternoon. At some point LL walked in on Dr Gibbs speaking to Mary in the store room about what had happened, which could have been a choice she made to follow them in there.

Baby Q had to be put on a ventilator before the night shift, and in true LL-style, she noted he was declining and on a downward trend. Mr Myers seemed keen to point out that baby Q stabilised "relatively quickly", perhaps seeking to minimise the event, but he was moved to room 1 with the morning event and needed to be put on breathing support.

"Letby notes before the shift handover at 7.30pm: 'Respiratory rate declining (15-19bpm) and intermittent pauses in breathing. Blood gas stable but on downward trend and [Child Q] appearing 'tired'."

JMO


So possibly setting something up for the next shift , if guilty IMO
 
If the prosecution are alleging that that child Q was injected with saline, would it be possible to obtain forensic evidence? Salt levels or something?


Asked what she saw when she was first to arrive at the incubator, Ms Lappalainen said: “He had been sick. I turned him on his side and made sure his airway was alright.”

She had noted clear mucous coming from the baby’s mouth and nose which was suctioned clean.

Asked why she recorded “clear fluid +++”, she said: “The clear fluid means the mucous I’m cleaning. There is no feed in it, no milk in it. It’s like saliva.”


I think they are just saying a clear fluid not specifically saline ..so could just be water for example
 
A professor reviewed brain imaging of Child Q taken in November 2019 - more than three years later. He found evidence of abnormalities which whilst they were not diagnostic of him having suffered a brain injury as a result of being given excessive air and liquid via his NGT, they could be explained.

Lucy Letby trial recap: Prosecution finishes outlining case, defence gives statement
Sorry, this sentence is so strangely constructed I have problems understanding the meaning.

"They could be explained" as the consequences of collapse?

Or not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
198
Guests online
1,775
Total visitors
1,973

Forum statistics

Threads
605,575
Messages
18,189,202
Members
233,447
Latest member
Pencat
Back
Top