BabaVanga
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2021
- Messages
- 152
- Reaction score
- 1,108
For today I meanHas anyone found a link yet?
For today I meanHas anyone found a link yet?
Wasn't it mentioned right at the start when discussing the various machines that the manufacturer (Philips?) stated that one of the potential undesirable effects was an air embolism which had to be monitored for?What equipment would be faulty that would allow air through the line?
I'm not sure. I did some searching but could not find anything about faulty machines causing air embolisms.Wasn't it mentioned right at the start when discussing the various machines that the manufacturer (Philips?) stated that one of the potential undesirable effects was an air embolism which had to be monitored for?
I'm sure it was in the first couple of days of the trial. Did someone not post a link to the makers YouTube video or something?I'm not sure. I did some searching but could not find anything about faulty machines causing air embolisms.
But the feeling I'm getting is that under questioning from the defence, staff are making it clear that they weren't understaffed. They were compliant for numbers and the additional staff that all trusts wants, it to allow more flexibility/part time hours.In my experience, when a setting is understaffed it’s common for this to happen - sort of an “all hands on deck”, picking up the slack type situation. Once your patient’s needs have been attended to you might pop in to see if you can help a colleague, offer an extra pair of hands, cover a break, etc. Where I’ve worked it would have been seen as ‘not being a team player’ to just stick solely to your designated patient(s) when staffing was low.
As far as I know these babies weren’t on 1:1 care with constant observation, so popping in and out between timed procedures and care could be quite normal. Babies sleep a LOT, after all! Someone correct me if I’m wrong, though!
If this was a genuine option, the defence would have used it as an alternative explanation when questioning Dr Evans. They came up with alternatives to AE, to put to Dr Evans, and the machine wasn't one of themI'm sure it was in the first couple of days of the trial. Did someone not post a link to the makers YouTube video or something?
It's not a silly question!
I think this might be the most recent sketch
View attachment 377386
Lucy Letby trial: Expert says ‘line of gas’ in post-mortem X-ray ‘unusual’
Thank you sincerely.You might have sorted this out by now, but I'll tell you what I have so far in my incomplete timeline - I have many other articles to wade through before I put it up.
LL was working - (June 2015)
Night-shift Monday 8th/Tuesday 9th - that is when Baby A died at 8.58pm on the 8th.
Night-shift Tuesday 9th/Wednesday 10th - that is when Baby B collapsed at 12.30am (half past midnight)
(Wednesday 10th - Baby C was born in the afternoon)
Wednesday 10th 10.08pm - LL texted a colleague asking how Baby B was doing, so presumably not in work. Also searched the mum of twins A and B on Facebook at 11.31pm.
Before Saturday 13th, LL texted a colleague - this is the report we got which doesn't give a date -
"Text messages exchanged following the death of Child A and the collapse of Child B show LL asking if there were spare shifts going, adding: "Think I need to throw myself back in on Saturday." The response: "Hopefully it might settle down by then." LL: "I think from a confidence point of view I need to take an ITU [intensive treatment unit] baby soon." The response: "It does knock you a bit when things like that happen, but it's ok to have time out as well. Enjoy the sun"
Night-shift Saturday 13th/Sunday 14th - that is when Baby C collapsed at 11.15pm and died after midnight.
This seems to be about today's evidence - haven't read it yet
![]()
Accused nurse found it 'quite hard' after baby boy suddenly stopped breathing, court told
A nurse accused of multiple baby murders told police she found it "quite hard" when one of her alleged victims lived for several hours after his catastrophic collapse.www.shropshirestar.com
It could also be a relatively common scenario that would result in babies being slightly premature and therefore admitted to a relatively low level nicu.
Welcome JazmaniaHello, new to this forum but have been following this case with interest.
I think so far the prosecution have done a really good job in showing that these babies didn't die of natural causes, and that by process of elimination they have been deliberately harmed. The defence position that the hospital unit was failing hasn't really stood up so far. It seems that the clinical team worked well together, worked hard and were very skilled. There seemed to be good communication and care seemed thorough. Multiple experts with a great deal of expertise in neonatology have testified that they believe these deaths were caused by deliberate injection of air. I wonder if the defence will call their own experts to say that the deaths were caused by infection/failings of care? If not I think they'll be in trouble.
If you can prove that the babies were deliberately harmed, then it's a really small leap to Letby. She was the only one present for all cases. The Facebook searches, notes, texts may shine a light on her state of mind, but if she's guilty we may never really know her motive, and interpreting them doesn't tell us much. The texts to colleagues after deaths could be seen as attention seeking, or they could be seen as reaching out for support and help. The only thing that could change this in my opinion is if there were other suspicious deaths where she wasn't present. After all we've been told that there were 17 neonatal deaths in the period in question, when the average deaths per year were 2-3. She's only on trial for 7 of these. So what about the others? Do the police think she was also responsible for some of these, but there's not quite enough evidence? Or was she not present? I'd also be interested to know more about the statistics about staff presence for all the incidents. If she was present 100% of the time, who was the next most present person, and what was their statistic? If that person was only present 30% of the time, then that makes Letby appear more guilty than if the next most present person was there 80% of the time.