UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #19

[Jazmania]

Also why if swelling is visible would multiple further, ultimately futile and potentially harmful attempts at intubation be continued rather than a difference in approach be thought of.

Because without ventilating a baby who is crashing, their chances of survival are essentially zero? What different approach would you recommend? If 6 doctors observed swelling in baby n's throat, but one doctor who arrived later didn't - what is the more probable reason for this? 6 doctors are lying, or the swelling had reduced, allowing the final doctor to intubate?

 

[Sweeper2000]

Because without ventilating a baby who is crashing, their chances of survival are essentially zero? What different approach would you recommend? If 6 doctors observed swelling in baby n's throat, but one doctor who arrived later didn't - what is the more probable reason for this? 6 doctors are lying, or the swelling had reduced, allowing the final doctor to intubate?

The swelling didn’t reduce, it disappeared which is my point along with any visible signs of the alleged injury. If it was trauma that caused the swelling it might not be visible with the swelling but definitely would be once that had reduced imo. Punctures or blunt force trauma will obviously still be visible for a time after. It could be that those six docs weren’t doing something correctly as they presumably informed each other. The doc from ah was a completely fresh doc. Who do you trust more six docs who couldn’t incubate the babs after numerous attempts or the one doc who does after his first attempt further reporting no visible signs of swelling, injury or blood?

 

[Jazmania]

The swelling didn’t reduce, it disappeared which is my point along with any visible signs of the alleged injury. If it was trauma that caused the swelling it might not be visible with the swelling but definitely would be once that had reduced imo. Punctures or blunt force trauma will obviously still be visible for a time after. It could be that those six docs weren’t doing something correctly as they presumably informed each other. The doc from ah was a completely fresh doc. Who do you trust more six docs who couldn’t incubate the babs after numerous attempts or the one doc who does after his first attempt further reporting no visible signs of swelling, injury or blood?

But the reason the first doctors couldn't intubate is because the swelling blocked their vision, and blocked the airway, preventing them from doing so. The reason the last doctor could intubate is because the swelling had subsided.

 

[esther43]

This article is interesting reading. Baby n.

Lucy Letby: ‘Unusual’ presence of blood in throat of baby

AN “unusual” presence of blood and swelling was seen in the throat of a baby allegedly attacked by nurse Lucy Letby, a jury heard.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

multiple medical experts failed to insert the breathing tube each having more than one attempt, only took one attempt by a medical expert from alder hay and he saw no swelling, injury or bleeding. That’s a very poor reflection on the doctors and other specialists at coch. It’s also a poor reflection of who ever said the swelling was likely caused by traumatic inflicted injury. Presumably dr evans. Out of all these med experts whom do you place greater faith in, the doctors who couldn’t intubate, dr evans diagnosing from afar or the doc who incubated on first attempt? In this case I know who my money is on.

baby n also had further episodes of breathing difficulties after discharge and there was no reason found for it. Apparently medical anomalies do happen. In this case as well it is a cardiac collapose that is Under question. This baby seemed to have issues even after discharge that really does weaken the prosecutions case IMO for baby n.

I mention this as in a case built around the unlikelihood of these events being coincidental with every case that’s knocked off the list the chances decrease overall that ll was responsible.

To be honest, they do often struggle in level 3 units to ventilate pre-term babies, it's par of the course. My little girl was only 627g and was like a little bird. When the consultant debriefed me around the birth he pointed out that the tube went down on the first attempt which he described as 'very good'.

 

[Jazmania]

But the reason the first doctors couldn't intubate is because the swelling blocked their vision, and blocked the airway, preventing them from doing so. The reason the last doctor could intubate is because the swelling had subsided.

So in answer to your question I would trust the report of all the doctors, as they all noted down their observations and clinical treatment at the time.

 

[esther43]

Radio interview with Dan
Lovely voice

Lucy Letby trial: Nurse accused of murdering babies gives evidence

Dan O’Donoghue, BBC journalist

www.rte.ie

A Scouser by the sounds of it!

 

[WaxLyrical]

The swelling didn’t reduce, it disappeared which is my point along with any visible signs of the alleged injury. If it was trauma that caused the swelling it might not be visible with the swelling but definitely would be once that had reduced imo. Punctures or blunt force trauma will obviously still be visible for a time after. It could be that those six docs weren’t doing something correctly as they presumably informed each other. The doc from ah was a completely fresh doc. Who do you trust more six docs who couldn’t incubate the babs after numerous attempts or the one doc who does after his first attempt further reporting no visible signs of swelling, injury or blood?

I get what you’re saying. I said something similar at the time of this evidence, and I even looked up the apparent medieval torture device that’s used to intubate. Happy to accept the swelling went away as the result of the adrenaline, that sounds right. But you’d think that whatever traumatic injury which caused the blood and swelling in the first place would still be clearly visible in the throat.

Perhaps it was there and the alder hey doctor didn’t manage to get a good look, his main objective would just be to get a successful intubation. JMO.

 

[Sweeper2000]

But the reason the first doctors couldn't intubate is because the swelling blocked their vision, and blocked the airway, preventing them from doing so. The reason the last doctor could intubate is because the swelling had subsided.

It did not subside, it magically Disappeared which traumatic injury doesn’t nor does the remaining damage just disappear Especially with that babies haemophilia. The injury would be visible, lasting and obvious once the swelling had gone down. Imo.

 

[TheCraig]

After the defence have finished then it’s onto the prosecution cross examination of letby it then goes back to BM for one last time before prosecution and defence closing speeches judges summing up and jury out.

So they defence don't have any other witnesses or experts and letby is they only one?

 

[May72031]

Ms Letby said the pair would go for walks, meals, coffees together and he would sometimes come to her house - she said he was a 'trusted friend', but said it wasn't anything more than a friendship

The doctor moved to another hospital in 2016 and Ms Letby said they they stayed in touch until 2018, when the friendship 'fizzled out'

I bet it did! I reckon it fizzled out rather quickly around early July, 2018...

 

[Dotta]

Dbm

 

[Anxala]

I often wonder if similar evidence in a different situation would be viewed in the same way...

Imagine 22 young women 10 killed 12 attacked and left for dead ...

The women all used a dating app and only one person had contacted all of them

This person amongst lots of other searches searched many of the women on Facebook

This person had taken a photo of 2 of the women's online conversations and kept them on their phone

You're not comparing like with like though. Surviving adult victims capable of id'ing their attacker, for immediate starters. DNA for seconds. There are thirds and fourths and fifths...

After five years (almost) of being asked the same question, including over thirty police interviews under arrest, I think that expressing shock as to being asked that question yet again would come over as being remarkably weird and false, quite honestly!

It really would. Also, the idea that she should be sitting in the dock weeping and wailing over the babies and families is imo at best unrealistic and at worst beyond ludicrous. If I were sitting on that jury and LL was permanently on the point of teary collapse over the fate of the victims, I'd be side-eyeing her big time.

Im going to take a gamble ad suggest the prosecutions cross questioning will likely be the same as the defences. Except with shorter answers mostly consisting of “no” and “not unusual for me” with a spattering of “I don’t remember“. I will gamble it will be another anti climax.

Well, the prosecution constructed a very good case against her so I presume they'll frame their questioning in a way that leaves her with little room for manoeuvre. If LL is vague, if she fails to properly address whatever questions/points they put to her, if she comes across as less than cooperative, that's not going to help her one bit as far as the jury is concerned.

This is her last chance to be heard before her fate is decided. The ball is as much in her court as it is in the prosecution's.

But I would say that the fact she's taken the stand suggests that she's fully aware of what's at stake here so...

JMO etc

 

[Tortoise]

Tracheotomy? I believe that’s standard when the normal approach isn’t viable And is vital. Looks like it wasn’t vital to me But who knows.

"The team from Alder Hey Children's Hospital arrived in Chester at 19:20. They were made up of experienced intensive care consultants and an ear, nose and throat surgeon. Plan was to take Child N try to intubate, if that failed an emergency tracheostomy would take place

Dr Gibbs tells the court that Child N suffered a 'sudden deterioration' before the team could carry out the procedure however. Heart rate dropped to 60bpm, oxygen dropped to 40% - 'clear he was not being ventilated properly', Dr Gibbs said

At this point, Dr Gibbs said chest compressions were started and six doses of adrenaline were given over 30mins. A specialist doctor from Alder Hey also finally managed to intubate the baby, which allowed him to be placed on a ventilator"

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

 

[Sweeper2000]

"The team from Alder Hey Children's Hospital arrived in Chester at 19:20. They were made up of experienced intensive care consultants and an ear, nose and throat surgeon. Plan was to take Child N try to intubate, if that failed an emergency tracheostomy would take place

Dr Gibbs tells the court that Child N suffered a 'sudden deterioration' before the team could carry out the procedure however. Heart rate dropped to 60bpm, oxygen dropped to 40% - 'clear he was not being ventilated properly', Dr Gibbs said

At this point, Dr Gibbs said chest compressions were started and six doses of adrenaline were given over 30mins. A specialist doctor from Alder Hey also finally managed to intubate the baby, which allowed him to be placed on a ventilator"

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

Thankyou tortoise. So the prosecutions Case is that the swelling, injury and bleeding all disappeared within half an hour of the adrenaline being administered. That’s magical. It’s a polar difference IMO all those six doctors report something that allegedly disappeared within half an hour of treatment. Did the tissue injury on a baby with haemophilia just get up and walk off when it saw the specialists from ah?

im wondering when the last recorded sighting of the swelling is? and the reported evidence is swamping me. I could put a little more credit to The prosecutions case if that injury was already on the wain.

eta I’m very glad that baby didn’t need a tracheotomy.

 

[JosieJo]

You're not comparing like with like though. Surviving adult victims capable of id'ing their attacker, for immediate starters. DNA for seconds. There are thirds and fourths and fifths...



It really would. Also, the idea that she should be sitting in the dock weeping and wailing over the babies and families is imo at best unrealistic and at worst beyond ludicrous. If I were sitting on that jury and LL was permanently on the point of teary collapse over the fate of the victims, I'd be side-eyeing her big time.



Well, the prosecution constructed a very good case against her so I presume they'll frame their questioning in a way that leaves her with little room for manoeuvre. If LL is vague, if she fails to properly address whatever questions/points they put to her, if she comes across as less than cooperative, that's not going to help her one bit as far as the jury is concerned.

This is her last chance to be heard before her fate is decided. The ball is as much in her court as it is in the prosecution's.

But I would say that the fact she's taken the stand suggests that she's fully aware of what's at stake here so...

JMO etc

My example was not about how a case like that could go ..it was more about how the specifc evidence type mentioned would be viewed ...I'd suggest with a lot more weight than here sometimes.

 

[Tortoise]

Thankyou tortoise. So the prosecutions Case is that the swelling, injury and bleeding all disappeared within half an hour of the adrenaline being administered. That’s magical. It’s a polar difference IMO all those six doctors report something that allegedly disappeared within half an hour of treatment. Did the tissue injury on a baby with haemophilia just get up and walk off when it saw the specialists from ah?

im wondering when the last recorded sighting of the swelling is? and the reported evidence is swamping me. I could put a little more credit to The prosecutions case if that injury was already on the wain.

eta I’m very glad that baby didn’t need a tracheotomy.

No one has said it disappeared in half an hour. They didn't spend every minute of that afternoon trying to intubate him before the Alder Hey team arrived. He was intubated 4 hours after the last unsuccessful attempts.

 

[Xanadu62]

It did not subside, it magically Disappeared which traumatic injury doesn’t nor does the remaining damage just disappear Especially with that babies haemophilia. The injury would be visible, lasting and obvious once the swelling had gone down. Imo.

Why do you say it magically disappeared? There's been no medical evidence or witness evidence to this effect. All we've heard is: (Lucy Letby: ‘Unusual’ presence of blood in throat of baby).

"Alder Hey anaesthetist Dr Francis Potter told jurors that he did not see blood or swelling in Child N’s throat when he successfully inserted the breathing tube." BBM

As for Dr Gibbs - "He told the court he “couldn’t understand” why two consultants, two registrars and two anaesthetists had failed previously to intubate Child N throughout the day, but said the adrenaline may have helped reduce the swelling."

The swelling subsided because of the adrenaline that was provided, and the blood too. Dr Potter wasn't asked and didn't respond about seeing traumatic injury or bruising, he's only commented on not seeing swelling or blood. Which makes sense as that is what he would be focused on when trying to intubate. An injury to the upper airway as Dr Evans has said wouldn't necessarily be picked up by anyone not looking for it - bruising takes time to develop even in adults, and even if spotted later on, the assumption at Alder Hey would have been it's due to failed intubation at CoCH. They wouldn't have realised the blood appeared before intubation.

Also Dr Potter was an anaesthesist - so doubt he would have been looking for trauma or injury to the upper airway, just called to help intubate.

 

[marynnu]

‎The Trial of Lucy Letby: The Trial of Lucy Letby, Episode 31: Lucy Letby Pleads Her Innocence on Apple Podcasts

‎Show The Trial of Lucy Letby, Ep The Trial of Lucy Letby, Episode 31: Lucy Letby Pleads Her Innocence - 3 May 2023

podcasts.apple.com

 

[ColourPurple]

Food ? The equipment used? Etc. I was just thinking if there was swelling and it literally disappeared, did it disappear after the aggravating factor had been removed? Would explain the reoccurring apnoea and swelling even after leaving the unit. there has also been no further problems after reentry On the unit, could that be because o changes in the immune system later on Down the line?

It doesn't say there was any further episodes of swelling after leaving the unit at all. It just says there were "episodes of “apnoea” in which he would temporarily stop breathing."

 

[ColourPurple]

The swelling didn’t reduce, it disappeared which is my point along with any visible signs of the alleged injury. If it was trauma that caused the swelling it might not be visible with the swelling but definitely would be once that had reduced imo. Punctures or blunt force trauma will obviously still be visible for a time after. It could be that those six docs weren’t doing something correctly as they presumably informed each other. The doc from ah was a completely fresh doc. Who do you trust more six docs who couldn’t incubate the babs after numerous attempts or the one doc who does after his first attempt further reporting no visible signs of swelling, injury or blood?

It's not an "either or" situation. It seems simple to me. There was swelling present in the earlier unsuccessful attempts, that was no longer present during the final successful attempt. And they think the adrenalin may have reduced the swelling.