UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #5

[Sweeper2000]

I would be grateful if anyone with relevant expertise could tell us how an individual might go about injecting enough air into a baby’s stomach to compress and disable the lungs? It’s different from the minuscule injection of air necessary to cause an embolism in veins which is much harder to detect. Would you have to forgive the expression “pump like a foot pump”? I’m just thinking it’s very likely something obvious like that would have been noticed. I also read elsewhere that “CPAP belly” can cause compression on the lungs and needs aspiration to prevent it?

 

[Sweeper2000]

With such suspicions, it seems bizarre, even negligent, to allow her to work without being closely supervised.

True it’s also bizarre that she wouldn’t have been seen doing anything when under such suspicion aside from dr rav and baby k which isn’t on the charges.

 

[JosieJo]

I would be grateful if anyone with relevant expertise could tell us how an individual might go about injecting enough air into a baby’s stomach to compress and disable the lungs? It’s different from the minuscule injection of air necessary to cause an embolism in veins which is much harder to detect. Would you have to forgive the expression “pump like a foot pump”? I’m just thinking it’s very likely something obvious like that would have been noticed. I also read elsewhere that “CPAP belly” can cause compression on the lungs and needs aspiration to prevent it?

The baby had a ngt tube ...that is the one they were using to aspirate the bile / black liquid.
These tubes have a wider bore than long lines and uvcs. All you would need to do is get an empty syringe draw back full of air and attach and push the air in. The air would flow easier and quicker through a NGT.
Also as the baby was needing the tube aspirating occasionally that would be an excuse to be at the cot messing with the ngt if you got caught.
I cannot think how air could accidentally go through this tube which is why the defence at the minute seem to be going for CPAP belly as a "cause"

 

[Sweeper2000]

The baby had a ngt tube ...that is the one they were using to aspirate the bile / black liquid.
These tubes have a wider bore than long lines and uvcs. All you would need to do is get an empty syringe draw back full of air and attach and push the air in. The air would flow easier and quicker through a NGT.
Also as the baby was needing the tube aspirating occasionally that would be an excuse to be at the cot messing with the ngt if you got caught.
I cannot think how air could accidentally go through this tube which is why the defence at the minute seem to be going for CPAP belly as a "cause"

Wouldn’t it need a substantial amount of air to inflate the stomach enough to compress the lungs though? More than one compression of the syringe? Thanks for the info.

 

[JosieJo]

From yesterday I'm surprised that yet again the defence were trying to get the two nurse witnesses to say they had it wrong that LL was standing at the cot of baby c when the baby collapsed.
Yet LL in police interview said she was.

Is the defence case that actually no one including his client remembers anything about these events?

 

[JosieJo]

Wouldn’t it need a substantial amount of air to inflate the stomach enough to compress the lungs though? More than one compression of the syringe? Thanks for the info.

No I wouldn't think so a newborn baby has a stomach the size of pea at that gestation (roughly)
This is a pure guess and I'm sure the prosecution would have witnesses for this

Maybe between 3ml to 10ml ???????

However much it would be easy to do

The unit would likely have the following syringes readily available

1ml
2.5ml
5ml
10ml
20ml
50ml

 

[Noseyposy76]

I don't think it's assumed that parents who have lost a child are bitter or jealous of another parent's happiness.

However, someone who is unstable or suffers from a severe mental health disorder, might be resentful and jealous. Anything could be a trigger.

However, I haven't seen any indication that LL was resentful or bitter. We know so little about her, although witness testimony is beginning to paint a picture of how she was perceived by her colleagues, and in some cases, the victims who lost their children.

I agree with your middle paragraph being possible, as anything traumatic could be a trigger for someone who is already not of sound mind. I have since realised this is what the OP actually meant anyway. But I originally read it as being suggested baby loss or infertility could be the actual cause, which I would find hard to believe.

 

[JosieJo]

From the prosecution opening

11:12am

As was the case with Child B, the prosecution say, Lucy Letby was not the designated nurse for Child C, a baby boy. Letby was assigned to look after a baby girl, and the leading nurse had to reinforce this assignment when, the prosecution say, Letby was 'ingnoring her'.

I will be interested to hear more about this

 

[Powermjp]

I don't accept that. It's perfectly reasonable for a doctor - or anyone in any superior role - to raise concerns about the performance of anyone under them, or anyone above them for that matter. Let alone a group of them. They need not have any suspicion that the person in question is doing anything illegal or intentionally dangerous, it may be as simple as being not trained properly or unskilled at a particular practice. That is what the people with the greater training and superiority are supposed to do.

Bringing to the fore someone's inability to do their job, especially when it is a safety critical matter, in no way amounts to bullying or anything close to it. You cannot sue your employer for preventing you from doing something dangerous or investigating whether you are doing something dangerous.

It wasn't about just about normal poor performance, like being late.

They were saying she was leading to many babies deaths, which is career ending.

You can sue, for bullying and being the scape goateed. Where did I say you can sue for being stopped harming people? If they have evidence you caused harm after an investigation, of course you cannot sue. But the issue at this exact point in time they had 0. Where did i say you can sue mid investigation?

If you were kicked off the wards and blamed for the deaths, investigated and they still had 0 evidence and dropped it that would indeed be a case for bullying (or scape goating the poor performance of the ward on one person). The damage to a reputation in the ward and career would be huge. And this is a risk, which they would take into consideration.

So of course they needed to act slower, I'm saying I understand why things happened like they did, its in no way the perfect way. But it doesn't mean we can discount the doctors testimony from this at all, there is no reason to.

Its completely understandable that they be cautious and wait, actually for all we know they started the investigation soon afterwards on this issue. Because we know steps were taken out as more babies kept dying when she was alone with them.

The trust acted the best they could with a very hard situation, and the doctors testimony should be 100% believed, it has not been countered in any way.

Just because they didn't move quicker doesn't mean he is not telling the truth which is what you seem to be getting at. There's no credible link there at all.

 

[Honeybirdette]

From yesterday I'm surprised that yet again the defence were trying to get the two nurse witnesses to say they had it wrong that LL was standing at the cot of baby c when the baby collapsed.
Yet LL in police interview said she was.

Is the defence case that actually no one including his client remembers anything about these events?

Makes you wonder if the defence really have nothing themselves (I.e, none of their own medical experts that are willing to dispute the air embolisms/insulin etc)
So they are trying to cast doubt on everything else they can - The rash wasn’t really there, the doctors and nurses were all imagining it, lucy letby wasn’t in the room, lucy letby wasn’t stood by the incubator etc etc…

 

[Kemug]

I would still think some sort of verbal warning would precede an act like that. Why would you not say something but wait for her to potentially harm someone? Makes no sense. I also find it difficult to believe LL wouldn’t have been observed doing something if she was under that much suspicion. Enough suspicion to move her onto days but not enough to talk to her?

Do we know for sure that she wasn't spoken to?

 

[Kemug]

It's very strange, isn't it, that we all actually know and believe (in theory) that a murderer can look as nice and normal as the next person, but we still have trouble with that in real life.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Do we know for sure that she wasn't spoken to?

Nope but considering so many statements from the docs who held LL under suspicion include their own thinking at the time that isn’t related to the court case we would have heard of it. I believe she asked someone “should I be concerned about the questions I was asked earlier” and that was close to when she was taken off clinical duties so is very late in the day if it is the first instance of issues being raised verbally. I kind of think it suggests doubt on the part of the clinicians and again points to “she was there she did it”. MOO. If patients lives are at risk you don’t mess about, you act and you deal with the process, you don’t hang back in fear of being called a bully etc.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Makes you wonder if the defence really have nothing themselves (I.e, none of their own medical experts that are willing to dispute the air embolisms/insulin etc)
So they are trying to cast doubt on everything else they can - The rash wasn’t really there, the doctors and nurses were all imagining it, lucy letby wasn’t in the room, lucy letby wasn’t stood by the incubator etc etc…

Reasonable doubt. If Lucy is found not to have been possibly involved in even one of the events then it casts doubt on the others and strengthens the defences case of “correlation is not causation”. Think it’s tactical in nature.

 

[notsurebutjustwondering]

On motive, and in the context that someone further upthread mentioned that many of Lucy's friends/colleagues had been starting relationships with doctors/consultants etc, is it not the case that when there is a serious emergency, a senior doctor/consultant is called to the room? And if so, would this not be a way for Lucy Letby of attracting attention, even if the ultimate intention was not for the babies to die?

Speculating here but I understand that the alleged killings started around the same time that Dr Ravi Jayaram was first filmed and/or appeared on TV?

 

[Sweeper2000]

On motive, and in the context that someone further upthread mentioned that many of Lucy's friends/colleagues had been starting relationships with doctors/consultants etc, is it not the case that when there is a serious emergency, a senior doctor/consultant is called to the room? And if so, would this not be a way for Lucy Letby of attracting attention, even if the ultimate intention was not for the babies to die?

Speculating here but I understand that the alleged killings started around the same time that Dr Ravi Jayaram was first filmed and/or appeared on TV?

No the form of attention gained in munchausen is more than being present, you would portray yourself as a hero and it would be much more palpable. Nothing to suggest LL was making herself centre stage in these events which would mean something and would be IMO an instance of unusual behaviour.

 

[BabaVanga]

Wouldn’t it need a substantial amount of air to inflate the stomach enough to compress the lungs though? More than one compression of the syringe? Thanks for the info.

The babies are absolutely tiny. Don’t think a foot pump of air would be needed to cause damage :/

 

[JosieJo]

No the form of attention gained in munchausen is more than being present, you would portray yourself as a hero and it would be much more palpable. Nothing to suggest LL was making herself centre stage in these events which would mean something and is IMO an instance of unusual behaviour.

In theory the attention could be in any form ....for example the amount of text conversations with a theme of "oh this happened" I feel so sad etc etc

 

[Sweeper2000]

The babies are absolutely tiny. Don’t think a foot pump of air would be needed to cause damage :/

Yeh was just thinking that if the only way someone could administer enough air would be through something obvious then it would have been noticed. If it doesn’t take much time or effort it’s obviously much easier to hide. Busy ward, staff always around and paying attention means it would have been seen. One plunge of a syringe though is not noticeable. Would be interesting to see if the syringe necessary for a AE is already attached to the equipment or if someone would have to introduce it separately which again might have been noticed.

Anyone know if the syringe is at the ready so to speak?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

They weren't. He said that he wished he'd raised them to the coroner but didn't for whatever reason.

I have big issues accepting that a doctor would have reservations about raising concerns relating to a lowly nurse.

I agree. Also to fail to raise concerns is not acting professionally so that doesn't make him look good.