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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
MsBetsy said:
What equipment would be faulty that would allow air through the line?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Marantz4250b said:
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?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. I did some searching but could not find anything about faulty machines causing air embolisms.
 
arrogantcat said:
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!
Click to expand...
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.
 
Marantz4250b said:
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?
Click to expand...
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 them
 
Wednesday November 2nd 2022 - Tweets - Andy Gill, BBC, @MerseyHack

Hello. I’m back at #Manchester Crown Court where the trial of nurse Lucy #Letby is due to resume. She denies murdering 7 babies at the Countess of #Chester neonatal unit in 2015 and 2016. She’s also pleaded not guilty to the attempted murder of 10 other babies.
@BBCNWT

The court is hearing from Dr Sandie Bohin, a paediatrician expert instructed by the prosecution. Ben Myers KC, defending, suggests alleged victim Child C was very premature and at “at high risk of complications.” Dr Bohin says “He was at risk of complications.”

Mr Myers asks if Dr Bohin agrees with what he calls facts about C. She agrees he never left intensive care. But when it’s suggested he never breathed without assisted breathing, she says it’s more accurate to say without respiratory support, which is less intense.

Dr Bohin agrees that a nurse failed to record the one feed Child C had, and agrees that that is “not good practice”.

Dr Bohin agrees with Mr Myers that the fact that C has pneumonia could be a contributory factor in his death as it would make him less responsive to resuscitation. But…

…but when it’s put to her by the defence that whatever caused C to collapse might not have been fatal were it not for the pneumonia, she says “It’s impossible to say that.”

Mr Myers asks Dr Bohin if she’s “in any way minimising” C’s overall condition, she replies “Absolutely not.”

Dr Bohin disagrees with Mr Myers that distension of C’s bowel seen in an X ray could have caused by an obstruction in his bowel, because other factors don’t indicate that. “Like everything in this case information has to be taken in the round.”

A reminder - the allegation in the case of Child C is that Ms Letby murdered him by injecting air into his stomach. She denies this, and denies all the other charges she faces.

https://twitter.com/MerseyHack
 
Dr Bohin has said that C died “with” pneumonia but not “of” pneumonia. The judge asks her what the scenario would be if a premature baby like C HAD died of of infection ? 1/2

Dr Bohin says in that case there’d be “a slow but continuous decline”, with an escalation of care being required for breathing and heart problems. “This didn’t happen [in Child C’s case]”.

https://twitter.com/MerseyHack
 
Tortoise said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thank you sincerely.
 
Tortoise said:
This seems to be about today's evidence - haven't read it yet

www.shropshirestar.com

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 www.shropshirestar.com
Click to expand...

From link above:

When interviewed about child C, the defendant said she remembered him because he was a small baby.
Letby recalled he deteriorated not long after his first feed by one of the nurses but said she had no involvement in that.
Her only involvement with child C was when she was asked to help with the resuscitation attempt, she told police.
She added she had a "vague recollection" of taking child C's hand and foot prints for a memory box while the infant was sat with his parents but "couldn't be certain".

Letby went on to say she found the boy's death "quite hard because he lived several hours (after the collapse)" and she had "not seen that before".
Detectives also asked her about a conversation in which a nurse was said to have asked child C's parents if they wanted him to be taken away in a ventilator basket while he was still alive.
She replied she had no recollection of making that comment and questioned whether the parents had said she was the nurse who said that, the court heard.
 
Supernovae said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would also add that, considering the possibility of an innocent cluster phenomenon, multiple births would share common risk factors, both genetically and in terms of pre-natal environment.
 
Hello, 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.
 
Jazmania said:
Hello, 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.
Click to expand...
Welcome Jazmania

I believe the 17 deaths under investigation happened over a wider (17 month) period March 2015 to July 2016. We do know that one of the deaths in the figures was a murder charge later dropped, which was Baby K's death after transfer to a different hospital.

Early articles said there were 13 unexplained baby deaths at the CoCH between Jan 2015 and Jul 2016 - 8 in 2015 and 5 in 2016. Perhaps 3 of the excess deaths under investigation were of other babies who had been transferred to other hospitals?

www.bbc.co.uk

Staffing 'inadequate' at Chester baby death hospital

A review found "significant gaps" in rotas and "insufficient senior cover" at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
www.bbc.co.uk

If that is so, then the number of deaths at CoCH between Jan 2015 and Jul 2016 not included in the charges (initially termed unexplained but perhaps later attributed to natural causes) would be 6, which would be more in line with expectations.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 132 more.
Total: 2,930 (members: 133, guests: 2,797)

Online statistics

Members online
133
Guests online
2,797
Total visitors
2,930
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,691
Messages
18,145,361
Members
231,493
Latest member
EmmaV
Back
Top