UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #24

[marynnu]

Thanks. So is it possible the small bottles could have been contaminated with insulin?

I can only tell you that the bottles we used had a ringtop metal cap over the rubber top, so could only be needled once this was removed.

 

[ColourPurple]

You're correct, but you'd never do either independently. So if a nurse were alone at an incubator doing this it would look very suspicious.

LL and Mary Griffith were in room 1, which is away from the other rooms and has some blind spots if anyone was approaching the room from the corridor. Not sure which cot Baby L was in but if guilty, I assume LL would just wait till Mary was on a break or maybe on the computer if that meant Mary didn't have a clean line of vision to Baby L.

JMO, if guilty.

ETA Although this is when Johnson has suggested the first time happened:

Mr Johnson says a series of prescriptions for three different babies at 9.25-9.29am, co-signed by a nursery nurse and Mary Griffith, gave Letby the "opportunity" to administer the insulin for Child L.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 5 - cross-examination continues

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Quotes from today in bold..

NJKC: "Why would you NOT put insulin into one of these bags?"
LL: "Because it’s against all practice"
NJKC: "It’s highly dangerous isn’t it?"
LL: "Yes"
NJKC: "Life threatening to a child of this age?"
LL: "Yes"

IMO it is telling that her first reason for why not to put insulin in a TPN bag is because ‘it’s against practice’ and not that ‘it could kill a child’ or even that it is dangerous and could harm. NJ has to suggest the dangers first.

Then this statement….

Nick Johnson KC: "It was a targeted attack wasn’t it. What do you say?"
Lucy Letby: "Not by me it wasn’t"
NJKC: "Poisoning a child in the same way baby F was poisoned"
LL: "Yes"
NJKC: "With the same substance"
LL: "Yes"

And this…

Mr Johnson says the reason for the hypoglycaemia was that someone had poisoned Child L through 'at least two' bags of insulin.
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "And that was you, wasn't it?"
LL: "No."

Both conflict IMO with this….

NJKC: "So do you accept that baby F was poisoned deliberately?"
LL: "I can’t answer that because I don’t know how insulin got into the bag, or who put it there or why"

She accepts that baby L was poisoned with insulin yet csnt say whether it was a deliberate poisoning? To me the word ‘poisoning’ in this context, implies intent IMO.
How can you say someone put insulin in the bag and the child was poisoned, but also say you don’t know how the insulin got there - someone put it there.
And can’t say if it was deliberate - why else would someone put insulin in the bag when it cannot be done accidentally? And not just a one bag but multiple bags? How can that not be deliberate?

It’s such a blatant contradiction that makes absolutely zero sense IMO…

But she was asked why you wouldn’t put insulin in one of these bags ; not why you wouldn’t put insulin in the bag in the case of the baby in question.

Putting insulin in one of the bags isn’t going to kill or harm a baby if the baby actually requires insulin as far as I’m aware. It’s not practice to do it but doesn’t become more potent or dangerous when administered through a tpn bag as opposed to another method ?

If that is correct, then I don’t see anything suspicious about her answer.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

But she was asked why you wouldn’t put insulin in one of these bags ; not why you wouldn’t put insulin in the bag in the case of the baby in question.

Putting insulin in one of the bags isn’t going to kill or harm a baby if the baby actually requires insulin as far as I’m aware. It’s not practice to do it but doesn’t become more potent or dangerous when administered through a tpn bag as opposed to another method ?

If that is correct, then I don’t see anything suspicious about her answer.

She answered ‘because it’s against all standard of practice’ so I’m guessing that if insulin needed to be administered then it should never be added to a TPN bag.

So LL is acknowledging there is no good reason for it to be in there by saying it’s against standard of practice, yet doesn’t actually answer the question of why? Why is it against standard of practice? - because it could be dangerous.

Even if a baby needed insulin, I gather from Lucy’s answer that it should not ever be in a TPN bag and to put insulin in there could cause all sorts of problems and pose a risk to the baby. Even if there’s only a low possibility of it harming a baby, if it’s against practice it’s for a reason. It shouldn’t be in there and if it was there it was put there deliberately IMO.

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

IMO it is telling that her first reason for why not to put insulin in a TPN bag is because ‘it’s against practice’ and not that ‘it could kill a child’ or even that it is dangerous and could harm. NJ has to suggest the dangers first.

It's up there with her answer to if she had done anything to deliberately harm any babies -

"That is completely against everything a nurse is."

https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/n...y-letby-trial-tuesday-may-2---defence-begins/

IMO

 

[marynnu]

She answered ‘because it’s against all standard of practice’ so I’m guessing that if insulin needed to be administered then it should never be added to a TPN bag.

So LL is acknowledging there is no good reason for it to be in there by saying it’s against standard of practice, yet doesn’t actually answer the question of why? Why is it against standard of practice? - because it could be dangerous.

Even if a baby needed insulin, I gather from Lucy’s answer that it should not ever be in a TPN bag and to put insulin in there could cause all sorts of problems and pose a risk to the baby. Even if there’s only a low possibility of it harming a baby, if it’s against practice it’s for a reason. It shouldn’t be in there and if it was there it was put there deliberately IMO.

MOO

I agree with GoodDayToYouSir. In theory insulin is no more or less dangerous whatever the route. The reason you don't put it in infusion bags is that the rate is extremely precise and is changed frequently, or it's even stopped now & then. This is impossible to achieve if it's in a bag with other additives which has been calculated to run at a certain rate.

 

[JosieJo]

How many hours do you think ? Is there a possibility that the insulin could have been already in the bag when it went up at 12pm and didn’t reach the baby / cause the collapse until 9am the next day?

That would make more sense to me. As someone else pointed out, I can see someone furtively injecting a bag which was sitting on a table or a desk, but I find it more difficult to envisage someone going up to a bag that is already hanging up and injecting it with insulin.

Obviously it would only take a matter of seconds to inject a bag, but considering an already hung bag would be there on display in the nursery in view of anyone, the chances and implications of getting caught with a syringe in your hand and injecting the bag whilst it is hanging up seem far huge .

I'd say that because insulin syringes are tiny and very fine it would be very quick..just a case of making sure you stood in front of the fluid bag and no one would know what you are doing ...same as adding air into bloodstream etc

 

[JosieJo]

I think the insulin cases were very damning today ..you can see why the KC wanted to discuss them together.
He got LL to admit insulin was added to both ..that at least one was added when already hung and the only possibility was her and one other nurse.
The dextrose case is very damning now knowing it had to be tampered with at bedside

 

[Popcorn80]

So is she expecting us to believe that BS carried out the insulin poisoning, plus maybe 3 others as chart showed she was on shift for 5 in total. Then someone else caused the other collapse’s.
I take you back to Dr Marnerides quote!

Dr Marnerides compared it to the hypothetical discovery of a dead man in the desert with a pot next to him, saying it could be "possible" that a helicopter flew over and dropped the pot on his head, but that it was not "probable".

 

[Sweeper2000]

I don't know if that is true, that someone seeing some more swelling happening negates the timeline. I don't think it is exactly like a balloon, and there is instant swelling that never goes up or down. The air bubble could have moved from one place to another, eventually settling in the stomach, which began to swell visibly minutes later.

my thinking was if people actually witnessed the swelling would mean it’s not injected air that’s causing it.

I know dr evans changes his opinions based on evidence as it comes but I don’t remember hearing him say anything about that, either means he chose to ignore it or he didn’t hear it.

im wondering if dr evans would still be present? He’s a paid witness rather than otherwise right ? So I would assume he’s still there.

The comment LL made about having to think about the baby's "poor heels" was in relation to not testing Baby F's blood sugar because of how sore repeated test could make the heels. If guilty, and if LL's aim was for Baby F's blood sugar to go so low he died, then telling a nurse not to test him for a while because of his poor heels would suit her agenda. So would be more a case of using somebody else's empathy to achieve her own aims. We don't know for sure that she did tell the other nurse that, but the mention of his poor heels and the other nurse nto questioning it,indicated that they may have already discussed this as a reason for not testing.

We don't know the full exchange that happened at the time but if guilty, and if was something like this then I don't think it demonstrates any empathy on LL's part at all. I think it shows manipulation IMO

Baby F's blood sugar is testing low for hours
LL records a reading at 5am that seems to indicate that it's now improving and says that they shouldn't test for a while because of his sore heels
The other nurse doesn't test for a couple of hours
When Baby F's blood sugar is finally tested at handover, it has fallen to a dangerously low level.
(LL then messages the other nurse to tell her how low the blood sugar had fallen at handover, the nurse feels awful for not testing, LL says they had to think of his poor heels, before telling her "hope you sleep well")

ive seen enough to know she does empathise with older people but in terms of her attitude towards babies I’m really not sure. Certainly nothing to suggest a negative but little in the way of positive either. I know they are babies but how does one empathise with something that can’t communicate feelings?

in her texts she often apologises for being rude and more importantly without prompting which assuming it’s genuine is bonafide empathy. Ie responding appropriately to people’s emotions without being told about them Or putting oneself in others shoes.

 

[esther43]

my thinking was if people actually witnessed the swelling would mean it’s not injected air that’s causing it.

I'm not sure. I know nothing about Air Emboli but the way some of these babies were reacting to resus was noted to be very strange. Rapid deteriorations and rapid recoveries and even babies 'coming back to life' after their heart beat stopped. Not what you'd expect even on a singular occasion, stranger still that there were so many incidents and all in one unit?

 

[Tortoise]

"Mr Johnson accused Letby of attacking Child L when the youngster’s designated nurse had left the room to give medications to other babies in the unit.

[...]

Mr Johnson suggested it was a “targeted attack”.

Letby replied: “Not by me.”

Mr Johnson said: “Not by you, somebody else?”

“Yes,” said Letby.

Mr Johnson said: “Poisoning of a child in the same way that (Child F) was poisoned?”

Letby said: “Yes.”

Mr Johnson said: “With the same substance?”

“Yes,” repeated Letby.

Mr Johnson said: “Is the reality that unless there is more than one poisoner it has to be you or Belinda Williamson?”

Letby replied: “I can only answer for myself and say I have never put insulin into any bags.”

Mr Johnson said: “It was never suggested (by Letby’s counsel) to Belinda Williamson that she did it.”

Letby said: “I can’t answer that.”

Lucy Letby ‘one of only two nurses on duty when babies poisoned eight months apart'

Lucy Letby was one of only two nurses on duty when two baby boys were poisoned eight months apart with insulin, her murder trial has heard.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Sweeper2000]

I'm not sure. I know nothing about Air Emboli but the way some of these babies were reacting to resus was noted to be very strange. Rapid deteriorations and rapid recoveries and even babies 'coming back to life' after their heart beat stopped. Not what you'd expect even on a singular occasion, stranger still that there were so many incidents and all in one unit?

All very true. I would like to hear how it is theorised that all the odd events are possibly due to air embolism Though, even just a theory on how it could happen. I thought the pattern between baby i and baby O might indicate some other medical problem that could be at play. <modsnip>

 

[Nali87]

Mr Johnson has been reviewing this horrid evidence for years. He has interviewed grieving, devastated family members, offered them Kleenex tissues to dry their eyes, listened to their stories, and watched the defendant calling them 'confused or misleading' as they talk about their painful memories.

He has spoken to many co-workers and colleagues and many medical experts, who have led him to believe the allegations he is now putting forth. He sees the sweet, nice defendant as an adversary.

Mr Johnson has to stand next to the woman who he believes caused tremendous pain and torture to innocent babies and families, and try to get her to reveal herself, in the next few weeks. I am not surprised that he is trying to 'belittle' her in his attempts to rattle her cage. He is under tremendous pressure himself, if he believes his allegations and he feels it is up to him to get her to reveal her true self.

My father was a defense attorney and I know how urgent it was, in his mind, to get things done during a trial.

Sadly it seems that whenever he gets close to rattling her, the judge calls for a break or there’s a break where she can recover.

 

[Tortoise]

Shall we?

Episode 37, Dancing the dance

www.mailplus.co.uk

Episode 37, Dancing the dance​

In this episode Caroline and Liz explain what Lucy Letby said when questioned by the prosecution about three of the alleged victims in the case - Baby I, Baby J and Baby K.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

This is a trial discussion thread. If potential misdiagnosis has not been introduced via trial testimony, it is not appropriate to discuss it.

Thanks.

 

[ColourPurple]

my thinking was if people actually witnessed the swelling would mean it’s not injected air that’s causing it.

Do you have the original quotes where there are mentions of people "witnessing" the swelling. Are they not just referring to seeing that there was swelling or a swelling present, rather than witnessing the actual process of it swelling (ie getting bigger) in front of their eyes?

ive seen enough to know she does empathise with older people but in terms of her attitude towards babies I’m really not sure. Certainly nothing to suggest a negative but little in the way of positive either. I know they are babies but how does one empathise with something that can’t communicate feelings?

in her texts she often apologises for being rude and more importantly without prompting which assuming it’s genuine is bonafide empathy. Ie responding appropriately to people’s emotions without being told about them Or putting oneself in others shoes.

A few points IMO :

• A baby is a "someone" not a "something"
• You don't need to be able to communicate how you feel in order to feel.
• You don't need to hear somebody communicate how they feel in order to empathise.
• You don't need empathy to apologise.

 

[Dotta]

Thanks for all updates
What a day!

Re Baby K.

AFAI can remember this Baby was in the unit for about 10 hours and the name was not even on the handover sheet, right?

And suddenly, after many months LL checks parents' FB?

I admire Prosecutor's patience!
And meticulous work the whole team put into this terrible case.

As for the Juror's sudden emergency surgery - it doesn't bode well for the trial.
Let's hope this person gets well soon.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

Do you have the original quotes where there are mentions of people "witnessing" the swelling. Are they not just referring to seeing that there was swelling or a swelling present, rather than witnessing the actual process of it swelling (ie getting bigger) in front of their eyes?


A few points IMO :

• A baby is a "someone" not a "something"
• You don't need to be able to communicate how you feel in order to feel.
• You don't need to hear somebody communicate how they feel in order to empathise.
• You don't need empathy to apologise.

I’ve posted them already upthread. One was in the podcast for baby O. Was the father who said it. He said it was definitely swelling which I would think is him Saying he saw it.

I know all your points just think it must be difficult to put yourself in the shoes of a baby that’s all, think all that care would likely be innate rather than learned. The last point though, you wou need empathy to know when it is appropriate to apologise without prompting, showing an understanding of impact on others.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Thanks for all updates
What a day!

Re Baby K.

AFAI can remember this Baby was in the unit for about 10 hours and the name was not even on the handover sheet, right?

And suddenly, after many months LL checks parents' FB?

I admire Prosecutor's patience!
And meticulous work the whole team put into this terrible case.

As for the Juror's sudden emergency surgery - it doesn't bode well for the trial.
Let's hope this person gets well soon.

JMO

I think the most plausible explanation is that LL searched for the name after she had been tipped off that was one of the babies being investigated by police. It’s the only thing that makes sense.

Even if you are a proponent of the theory that LL was taking souvenirs and partaking in grief tourism , she never searched baby K before this and no handover sheets were recovered for this baby at her home.