UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #20

[katydid23]

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

The Dr from Alder 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.

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.

The doctor you are putting your faith in said that "the adrenaline may have helped reduce the swelling."

Adrenaline is used to reduce swelling so that makes sense.

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.

Six different doctors/experts saw and reported the bleeding and the swelling. I find it hard to believe they were all mistaken, incompetent or liars.

One doctor, many hours later, did not see blood or swelling anymore but he did say the adrenaline shots could have reduced the symptoms. So it is not a big mystery. JMO

 

[IspyWithMyBigEye]

I am not sure how it works in the UK, but in US trials, the cross does not start until the defense attorney says he has no more direct questions---so could it be another week or more until the prosecution gets to ask their questions of her ?

Yes Katy, same here. The cross won’t start until the defence has said he has no more questions. I’m guessing here - but the defence will start on Friday asking LL questions about every single baby from Baby A to Baby Q - so depending on how long it takes him questioning her on each baby, we could be looking at weeks before the cross examining starts. And that too could take weeks…

I suspect when the cross questions her about each individual baby, that may be when she slips up or says something revealing her true character - if she is guilty, of course, <modsnip> I also think (JMO) that her main motive was to cause horrendous heartache to the parents’.

 

[IspyWithMyBigEye]

I'm just biased as I can't bear the idea she's done this plus I've had some bad experiences with system failures and scapegoating so I just want to champion the idea that it's all been a terrible mistake... :/

I will trust the judge and jury though!

I can understand you not wanting to think a nurse would purposely kill babies, but sadly, there’s been other cases where nurses and doctors have killed patients. It’s rare, thank God, but it has happened.

This news item I’ve pasted from a highly respectable newspaper which only prints facts, is highly damning IMO:



<modsnip for copyright - no link to source material and what appears to be a complete article when only 10% is allowed>

When you read how LL deliberately “wiped out” events from the medical history, and even lied saying she wasn’t in the room when baby E collapsed - when she was - that alone proves she altered medical notes and also told lies.

And when you read how she took a sinister interest in baby E’s twin brother, and allegedly laced insulin into his feeding bag, which resulted in him collapsing too - you can’t put that down to incompetence: feeding bags are all sealed and the only way for insulin to be inside one is for the nurse who opened it to feed him added insulin to it.

And when baby E died she searched on Facebook for his parents just three hours later, as soon as she’d woken up. She’s already given various accounts of why she did Facebook searches on the parents’, claiming mostly she wanted to see how the babies were getting on - but baby E was dead - so what was she hoping to see? IMO she wanted to see a distressing post where baby E’s parents announced his heartbreaking death.

 

[IspyWithMyBigEye]

One thing I have enjoyed about following This case is trying to predict where the case would go and what would happen. I got Lucy letby taking the stand right. Other things as well.

I’ve always believed she’d take the stand - she had to. Had she not taken the stand jurors would have wondered why she didn’t want to defend herself, which you would do if you were innocent. So she had no choice.

The problem for her is that there’s so much damning evidence against her, so her barrister would have advised her on how to act, how to dress, to say as little as possible, not to look at the jury, and to think of sad things to help the tears fall.

 

[IspyWithMyBigEye]

@Sweeper2000 adrenaline is specifically used to treat airway swelling. It works rapidly by constricting the blood vessels and therefore reducing edema. Usually when it's given to treat airway swelling, it's administered via inhalation to target that specific area of the body, while having less effect on other parts of the body. Being given systemically can, as the expert testimony has noted, certainly have the effect of reducing swelling considerably. It's going all over the body, and the body includes the airway. To me, there is nothing fishy about the idea that there could have been airway swelling which impeded intubation and that following 6 doses of adrenaline (that's a lot!), the swelling had reduced to the point that intubation was possible. JMO.

It’s also possible that the original attack on baby N left him with a vulnerability, hence why he had medical issues after going home.

One baby girl who LL allegedly tried to kill has been left severely disabled and brain damaged due to the attack.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Oh, that old chestnut everyone uses “I have PTSD” is so tiresome.

An innocent person having police call round wouldn’t develop PTSD if they had nothing to fear.

Having the police "call round" - seriously?

That's not remotely an accurate description of events!

Being arrested at 6am in your pajamas, having three more arrests lasting days at time; having to report for bail for months between those arrests and having thirty interviews under caution over more than twenty hours is rather significantly more than merely "having the police call round"!

Now, I'm not an accredited expert on here, and neither are you <modsnip> but the above coupled with having your house, and that of your parents searched at least twice, having your most private possessions and writings exposed to all and sundry including having the gardens dug up might just cause you to go a little bit nuts, I'd suggest. Oh, and not to mention losing the career you've essentially based your entire life around!


When you add to that being remanded in prison for what is now two and a half years in some of the UKs worst prisons then even my inexpert mind can see that a major degree of psychological messed-up'ness is not altogether unlikely. Indeed, it's probably highly likely and I think most people will agree.

The above applies whether guilty or not guilty but especially so in the case of the latter, IMO.

 

[Ruby12345]

Exactly.

The evidence is overwhelming, yet some people seem to dismiss it. Either they haven’t read the facts, or they’re blinkered because LL presents herself as an innocent, caring nurse.

The evidence is definitely not overwhelming it's circumstantial. We have read all the facts most of us have been here for the whole trial.

 

[esther43]

I can understand you not wanting to think a nurse would purposely kill babies, but sadly, there’s been other cases where nurses and doctors have killed patients. It’s rare, thank God, but it has happened.

This news item I’ve pasted from a highly respectable newspaper which only prints facts, is highly damning IMO:


<modsnip for copyright - no link to source material and what appears to be a complete article when only 10% is allowed>

When you read how LL deliberately “wiped out” events from the medical history, and even lied saying she wasn’t in the room when baby E collapsed - when she was - that alone proves she altered medical notes and also told lies.

And when you read how she took a sinister interest in baby E’s twin brother, and allegedly laced insulin into his feeding bag, which resulted in him collapsing too - you can’t put that down to incompetence: feeding bags are all sealed and the only way for insulin to be inside one is for the nurse who opened it to feed him added insulin to it.

And when baby E died she searched on Facebook for his parents just three hours later, as soon as she’d woken up. She’s already given various accounts of why she did Facebook searches on the parents’, claiming mostly she wanted to see how the babies were getting on - but baby E was dead - so what was she hoping to see? IMO she wanted to see a distressing post where baby E’s parents announced his heartbreaking death.

For me, baby E was the worst baby to hear about. Just horrendous and absolutely no idea why this baby was bleeding out. I have only ever seen a baby bleeding out like that once and it was due to organ failure caused by HIE.
The nurse caring for him had to take a week off afterwards as sadly the baby died.

 

[marynnu]

@Sweeper2000 adrenaline is specifically used to treat airway swelling. It works rapidly by constricting the blood vessels and therefore reducing edema. Usually when it's given to treat airway swelling, it's administered via inhalation to target that specific area of the body, while having less effect on other parts of the body. Being given systemically can, as the expert testimony has noted, certainly have the effect of reducing swelling considerably. It's going all over the body, and the body includes the airway. To me, there is nothing fishy about the idea that there could have been airway swelling which impeded intubation and that following 6 doses of adrenaline (that's a lot!), the swelling had reduced to the point that intubation was possible. JMO.

Exactly. Epipens deliver epinephrine (adrenaline) for this very reason. Their effect is rapid.

 

[crystalline]

I go back and forth with this case, I don't want to believe it, because its so awful, I've tried to switch my mind to both sides, and still will, however information from people so high up in professional experience, my logical mind has no choice but to kick in so many people can't surely be wrong can they?

 

[marynnu]

The evidence is definitely not overwhelming it's circumstantial. We have read all the facts most of us have been here for the whole trial.

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. It's what most convictions are based on. The important thing is to ensure it is valid & compelling.

 

[marynnu]

Letby said in her testimony that the NG tubes were not routinely aspirated in that way. But am I to automatically take her word for that? I'd like to know more before I accept that as gospel.

There is some flexibility with aspiration, but the most important thing by far is to ensure that the NG tube is in the stomach. You do this by aspiration. If you get just a little clear fluid then you can test the pH for acidity. But if you get a decent amount of milk, common sense dictates the tube is in the right place so you might not aspirate fully, especially with an infant who has been tolerating full feeds with no problem.
This is just a subjective view, but in my experience if a baby is having full milk feeds, the flow gets much slower towards the end. I think it would be quite hard to gravity feed if the stomach still contains the previous feed. JMO.

 

[esther43]

The evidence is definitely not overwhelming it's circumstantial. We have read all the facts most of us have been here for the whole trial.

I find a lot of the circumstantial evidence only takes on any true meaning if your working on the premise that the medical experts are correct.
If a person is skeptical about the medical experts then I can see why the other evidence seems less strong.
Is there any case where the medical evidence is particularly compelling / disputable for you?

 

[Tortoise]

I'm just biased as I can't bear the idea she's done this plus I've had some bad experiences with system failures and scapegoating so I just want to champion the idea that it's all been a terrible mistake... :/

I will trust the judge and jury though!

Why would a whole host of independent medical experts scapegoat a junior nurse? These are not accusations made by the hospital she worked at.

Dr Dewi Evans
Dr Sandie Bohin
Another medical expert who died before the trial
Professor Owen Arthurs
Professor Peter Hindmarsh
Professor Sally Kinsey
Professor Simon Kenny
Dr Stavros Stivaros
Dr Andreas Marnerides

According to the above experts' opinions, based on clinical records, these babies were deliberately harmed or murdered, so unless you disregard all of their credentials, experience and unbiased professional opinions, if LL is innocent it means a group of people are guilty of these crimes, because no one else was present at ALL of these collapses/deaths.

 

[JosieJo]

Why would a whole host of independent medical experts scapegoat a junior nurse? These are not accusations made by the hospital she worked at.

Dr Dewi Evans
Dr Sandie Bohin
Another medical expert who died before the trial
Professor Owen Arthurs
Professor Peter Hindmarsh
Professor Sally Kinsey
Professor Simon Kenny
Dr Stavros Stivaros
Dr Andreas Marnerides

According to the above experts' opinions these babies were deliberately harmed or murdered, so unless you disregard all of their credentials, experience and unbiased professional opinions, if LL is innocent it means a group of people are guilty of these crimes, because no one else was present at ALL of these collapses/deaths.

I think the Jury will have taken so much more than us from these medical witnesses. Actually seeing numerous Dr's stating there was foul play must have quite an impact...imo this impact will only be diminished if the defence produces a similar number of medics saying the complete opposite

 

[notsure]

I’ve always believed she’d take the stand - she had to. Had she not taken the stand jurors would have wondered why she didn’t want to defend herself, which you would do if you were innocent. So she had no choice.

The problem for her is that there’s so much damning evidence against her, so her barrister would have advised her on how to act, how to dress, to say as little as possible, not to look at the jury, and to think of sad things to help the tears fall.

The BBC reported that LL looked directly at the jury while answering the questions in a clear voice.

 

[Lammergeier]

Don’t lose sight of the fact that the question is not “were babies harmed,” but rather “did Lucy Letby harm the babies“. The medical experts are telling us that the deaths were unusual and deliberate, but they can’t tell us who caused them. I think we’re all convinced now in at least the insulin cases that deliberate harm was done. “I trust medical experts and they think she did it” is conflating the medical evidence with evidence of Letby’s involvement and is therefore a mistake.

 

[GumdropButtons]

Oh, that old chestnut everyone uses “I have PTSD” is so tiresome.

An innocent person having police call round wouldn’t develop PTSD if they had nothing to fear.

As a long time lurker I've had to butt in here: I can assure you, you are completely and utterly incorrect. Being arrested is extremely traumatic as an innocent person. As an innocent person accused of something fabricated that affects/ruins your career it is terrifying and devastating. Your mind goes to incredibly dark places, even though you know you haven't done what they're saying you have.

It absolutely can cause PTSD. It has for me.

This doesn't directly relate to LL, she could be lying, of course. But "an innocent person has nothing to fear" is a crock. There is much to fear from being wrongly arrested.

 

[Jazmania]

LL taking the stand was always a 50/50 chance but if you've correctly predicted that Myers will argue that the swelling that was seen by several doctors never existed, you can chose my lottery numbers next week. Deal?

I think from the cross examination he did, he will argue that the swelling was caused by the multiple intubation attempts, and wasn't there at the first attempt. Although the doctor involved in that attempt swore that it was present.

 

[Jazmania]

Don’t lose sight of the fact that the question is not “were babies harmed,” but rather “did Lucy Letby harm the babies“. The medical experts are telling us that the deaths were unusual and deliberate, but they can’t tell us who caused them. I think we’re all convinced now in at least the insulin cases that deliberate harm was done. “I trust medical experts and they think she did it” is conflating the medical evidence with evidence of Letby’s involvement and is therefore a mistake.

This is true. But if you believe that the medical evidence shows that babies were deliberately harmed, then there is only one person who was present for all these cases, and therefore could have done it. The alternative would be that there were several baby killers on the ward in a sort of Agatha Christie 'Death on the Orient Express' kind of situation.