UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #9

[Tortoise]

“She believed the only plausible explanation was an air embolism in the infant's body that had been caused either accidentally or deliberately.”

Lucy Letby trial hears injection of just 5ml of air 'murdered' baby

One of the babies allegedly murdered by neonatal nurse Lucy Letby was killed by an injection of a 'spoonful' of air, a paediatrician told her Manchester trial today.

www.dailymail.co.uk

ACTUAL QUOTE FROM ARTICLE

Dr Sandi Bohin, a leading paediatrician called in by Cheshire Police, said the intentional introduction of an air embolism was the only 'plausible explanation' for Baby A's sudden collapse and death at the Countess of Chester Hospital in June 2015.

She believed the only plausible explanation was an air embolism in the infant's body that had been caused either accidentally or deliberately.

'The idea of air getting in accidentally is extremely unlikely,' she told Manchester Crown Court.

Lucy Letby trial hears injection of just 5ml of air 'murdered' baby

She adds that even if air was accidentally administered, there is an electronic pump system which would detect the air and stop the administration.

Dr Bohin explains to the court that could be bypassed further down the line by administering the air embolus via a connector normally used for administering drugs.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 25



"The lines and the connecting points are filled with saline so even the tiniest of air bubbles could not get in. It is ingrained in nursing staff."

She said the amount of air likely to be fatal in an infant such as Child A, who weighed just 3lb 5oz (1.6kg) at birth, was a "teaspoon of air".

Lucy Letby: Disturbing pattern in baby deaths, nurse's trial told


Question: Is it impartial to selectively quote to give the impression that a teaspoon of air was administered accidentally, not just in baby A but in multiple babies?

 

[Sweeper2000]

It being extremely unlikely maybe shouldn’t exclude it from being a potential explanation especially when all other avenues have been discounted.

Why did she think it and not The doctors or nurses present at that time?

obviously doesn’t need to be nefarious for it to be a possibility And I didn’t quote anything about 5 ml of air that’s the title of the article Which anyone can actually read if they want to. I put The word accidentally in bold on purpose.

 

[Tortoise]

"Nicholas Johnson KC, for the prosecution, explains to the jurors he will now read a summary of the police interview Lucy Letby had in respect of Child A and Child B.
The wording of the summary has been agreed between the prosecution and defence. [...]

She agreed she had been taught to prime lines so air could not get in them."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, October 26

 

[Tortoise]

And I didn’t quote anything about 5 ml of air that’s the title of the article Which anyone can actually read if they want to. I put The word accidentally in bold on purpose.

I know. It was a selective quote.

It's relevant because a teaspoon of air doesn't get in by accident, according to the descriptions of the safety features of the equipment.

Then multiply that for the number of times it is alleged. IMO

 

[Tortoise]

Dr Harkness - baby A - "the skin [patterns] I had never seen before"
shift leader nurse - baby A - "She recalled she had "never seen a baby look that way before", with a skin discolouration on a pattern she had "never seen before"."
Dr Jayaram - baby A - “I had never seen anything like it before"
Dr Evans medical expert - baby A - "He says he has never come across such skin discolouration in a collapse in 'hands-on experience'" - baby B - "We have heard numerous doctors saying they have never seen this before. I feel I can say the same. It's very unusual"
consultant doctor - baby B - "The consultant's notes: "Spoke to parents. Purple discolouration almost resolved. ?? cause." The consultant says, from looking at her notes, she was "quite puzzled" by that as there were two question marks."


etc..
Quotes from media thread

 

[Sweeper2000]

I selected that phrase from the article as it’s relevant to furthering my question on why after all other avenues were discounted supposedly experienced doctors didn’t think that AE was a potential cause of otherwise unexplained events. When apparently AE isn’t some obscure medical event that nobody would think of. Granted though, evidence and hindsight.

im not sure a difference in relayed information of 0.1 is a good example of a lie either or that it is clinically significant.

ok so one suspected air embolism with seemingly blatant symptoms that no one has seen before isn’t necessarily going to be noticed even with very questionable and sudden collapse but when it happens again and again the docs still don’t think of it not even once? Until dr Ravi sees that paper?

Only possible explanation maybe that because it was a rare thing to happen the staff were not actually familiar with the symptoms?

not even as the remotest possible explanation for otherwise unexplained events? Not even once even when everyone knows not to do it.

if the symptoms are particular to AE why wasn’t it thought of when it is very well known of?

 

[Tortoise]

Child H is curious, certainly doesn’t make the hospital unit look good Especially with the dramatic recovery at arrowe.

so I am wondering what the alleged method was in the case of child H. presumably if any symptoms fitted with bolus of air in any form we would have heard of it or indeed any implicative symptoms at all? Or explanation or possible suggestions for why the baby collapsed from the medical experts.

could it read “because we can’t explain it we are going to blame someone“?

Yes, the jury is going to have to weigh up the evidence, which as far as I can see is

no natural causes identified at the time
no natural causes found by medical experts who were critical of care but discounted that as a cause
two successive night shifts
LL tending to the child alone both times
not happening at other times
also possibly creating false notes
babies G and I suffering life-threatening collapses literally days before and after H, also under the care of LL

I think there could be more evidence that we haven't heard due to poor trial coverage, particularly as regards the designated nurse noting pink-tinged secretions around baby H's mouth, mentioned in opening speech.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

It being extremely unlikely maybe shouldn’t exclude it from being a potential explanation especially when all other avenues have been discounted.

Why did she think it and not The doctors or nurses present at that time?

obviously doesn’t need to be nefarious for it to be a possibility And I didn’t quote anything about 5 ml of air that’s the title of the article Which anyone can actually read if they want to. I put The word accidentally in bold on purpose.

It doesn't seem like a potential explanation if it was described as 'extremely unlikely.'

Now, if we were discussing ONE incident, then perhaps it could have been a rare fluke that happened. But we are discussing many odd, unexplained circumstances with the same mottled skin rash and sudden collapses.

So it does not seem like a likely possibility anymore because it happened so many times, often in quick succession.

 

[Tortoise]

im not sure a difference in relayed information of 0.1 is a good example of a lie either or that it is clinically significant.

what does 0.1 mean?

 

[katydid23]

I selected that phrase from the article as it’s relevant to furthering my question on why after all other avenues were discounted supposedly experienced doctors didn’t think that AE was a potential cause of otherwise unexplained events. When apparently AE isn’t some obscure medical event that nobody would think of. Granted though, evidence and hindsight.

im not sure a difference in relayed information of 0.1 is a good example of a lie either or that it is clinically significant.

ok so one suspected air embolism with seemingly blatant symptoms that no one has seen before isn’t necessarily going to be noticed even with very questionable and sudden collapse but when it happens again and again the docs still don’t think of it not even once? Until dr Ravi sees that paper?

Only possible explanation maybe that because it was a rare thing to happen the staff were not actually familiar with the symptoms?

not even as the remotest possible explanation for otherwise unexplained events? Not even once even when everyone knows not to do it.

if the symptoms are particular to AE why wasn’t it thought of when it is very well known of?

I think the reasons the doctors couldn't identify what was happening back in real time was because of a couple issues.

One, they were looking for natural medical causes to start with. Two, whomever was the culprit, they were changing up their MO, and making it appear as though different cases had different causes. So the doctors never thought they were dealing with someone doing something maliciously and purposely.

When looking at each case individually, a doctor is going to list the possible diagnosis for each child. It is only when they figured out that there was a probable connection and there might have been a malicious intervention that they began considering things like poisonous injections and purposeful air embolisms.

Who would ever consider that as a possibility to begin with? Air embolisms in newborns are very rare because the machinery has 'fail safe' mechanism to prevent them from accidentally happening. The first thought by the attending doctors is not going to be that a care giver is going to be forcing air into those little babies.

 

[Sweeper2000]

The difference between 1.7 and 1.8.

It doesn't seem like a potential explanation if it was described as 'extremely unlikely.'

Now, if we were discussing ONE incident, then perhaps it could have been a rare fluke that happened. But we are discussing many odd, unexplained circumstances with the same mottled skin rash and sudden collapses.

So it does not seem like a likely possibility anymore because it happened so many times, often in quick succession.

that’s kinda my point and besides the point of what caused these events.

if the symptoms are particular to AE and everyone knows about it, why wasn’t it thought of sooner? By numerous docs and nurses.

 

[Tortoise]

The difference between 1.7 and 1.8.

stated where?

oh never mind, I get it. The blood sugar reading for baby F.

Dropped into the middle of discussions for air embolisms. Should've guessed.

 

[Tortoise]

I think the reasons the doctors couldn't identify what was happening back in real time was because of a couple issues.

One, they were looking for natural medical causes to start with. Two, whomever was the culprit, they were changing up their MO, and making it appear as though different cases had different causes. So the doctors never thought they were dealing with someone doing something maliciously and purposely.

When looking at each case individually, a doctor is going to list the possible diagnosis for each child. It is only when they figured out that there was a probable connection and there might have been a malicious intervention that they began considering things like poisonous injections and purposeful air embolisms.

Who would ever consider that as a possibility to begin with? Air embolisms in newborns are very rare because the machinery has 'fail safe' mechanism to prevent them from accidentally happening. The first thought by the attending doctors is not going to be that a care giver is going to be forcing air into those little babies.

And the next thing that happened was baby E was allegedly injected with air but also allegedly had his throat injured with a sharp tool just before, causing massive bleeding that looked like a gastro-intestinal haemorrhage. And then baby F was poisoned with insulin, and baby G was allegedly force fed milk and air. So there was no natural connection between the collapses, to unsuspecting doctors.

IMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

stated where?

oh never mind, I get it. The blood sugar reading for baby F.

Dropped into the middle of discussions for air embolisms. Should've guessed.

Like the medical experts in some cases apparently.

 

[Tortoise]

Like the medical experts in some cases apparently.

where is the link for this please?

 

[Sweeper2000]

The witness agreed he did not suggest splinting of the diaphragm as the cause of death in eight reports completed for the investigation, including the most recent – a joint expert report in August this year.

In a 2017 report, Dr Evans wrote of Child C: “One may never know the cause of (his) collapse. He was at great risk of unexpected collapse.”

He also said he could not rule out infection as a possible cause, the court was told.

In another report in 2019, Dr Evans said “infection may be a significant factor in his collapse”.

Dr Evans told Mr Myers: “That was my opinion at the time. As a clinician, if I receive additional information that allows me to change or modify my opinion, that is what we do as clinicians.”

Expert medical witness denies ‘reaching’ to support claims against Lucy Letby

AN expert medical witness has denied “reaching for things” to support allegations faced by nurse Lucy Letby.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

educated guesswork maybe. At least it wasn’t dropped in the middle of a medical procedure with other medical staff in the same room as would be in this case according to people with relevant expertise on this forum.


“Mr Myers refers to Child E's collapse 'in front of the medical staff'.

He says by this point, "there had still been no transfusion".

Dr Harkness said there was no further evidence of bleeding after the second bleed.

Mr Myers: "The reaction to the second haemorrhage was far too slow wasn't it?"

Dr Harkness: "I disagree."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, November 17

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

 

[Blondiexoxo]

It’s very difficult to draw s conclusion one way or another when we aren’t hearing exactly what it is LL is alleged to have done to harm/kill these children. To me it sounds like we are still hearing the agreed facts in a way, no one is outright saying THIS is what LL did. Are we just supposed to infer from the circumstances that LL harmed the babies?

We are hearing that LL made some strange statements to colleagues, maybe acted a little odd at times, but also then hearing that some of the victims were very poorly, that it was possible for babies this tiny to deteriorate suddenly without warning, and now learning about failures made by medics in baby H’s care.
I know there’s no smoking gun so to speak in this case, but I’m just surprised that we aren’t hearing exactly what the prosecution claim LL did in each case.

Overall we know they’re alleging she killed/ attempted to kill each child. We know that there’s suspicious circumstances in regards to the blood sugar levels in some babies and sudden collapses. But are they ruling out any and ALL other causes of collapse? Are they proving beyond a reasonable doubt that LL is guilty of each charge? I agree there are some strong pieces of evidence in relation to some of the victims but then there’s things like the debate over whether a mother brought milk up to her baby at 9 or 10pm, which may or may not show that LL is a liar but has little to no proof that she is a killer.

I guess it’s probably the lack of reporting, but I hope that the scene is being set by prosecutors, that they are putting across their theory in a way that ties in with the experts evidence. Surely they’ve put to the jury what they allege LL did? Jmo….

I know it’s a culmination of all the evidence in a circumstantial case, but to find someone guilty you atleast have to tell the jury what you accuse them of? Hopefully they are hearing more of the ‘bigger picture’ than we are.

ETA - I understand experts have said air embolism was the only possible cause of death, however they did not say ‘the only possible cause of death is that LL admistered the air between this time and this time. The jury cannot just assume that she most likely killed some babies so she probably is guilty of all charges, they have to break down each charge, and IMO the evidence for child H at the minute is shaky at best…

 

[katydid23]

It’s very difficult to draw s conclusion one way or another when we aren’t hearing exactly what it is LL is alleged to have done to harm/kill these children. To me it sounds like we are still hearing the agreed facts in a way, no one is outright saying THIS is what LL did. Are we just supposed to infer from the circumstances that LL harmed the babies?

We are hearing that LL made some strange statements to colleagues, maybe acted a little odd at times, but also then hearing that some of the victims were very poorly, that it was possible for babies this tiny to deteriorate suddenly without warning, and now learning about failures made by medics in baby H’s care.
I know there’s no smoking gun so to speak in this case, but I’m just surprised that we aren’t hearing exactly what the prosecution claim LL did in each case.

Overall we know they’re alleging she killed/ attempted to kill each child. We know that there’s suspicious circumstances in regards to the blood sugar levels in some babies and sudden collapses. But are they ruling out any and ALL other causes of collapse? Are they proving beyond a reasonable doubt that LL is guilty of each charge? I agree there are some strong pieces of evidence in relation to some of the victims but then there’s things like the debate over whether a mother brought milk up to her baby at 9 or 10pm, which may or may not show that LL is a liar but has little to no proof that she is a killer.

I guess it’s probably the lack of reporting, but I hope that the scene is being set by prosecutors, that they are putting across their theory in a way that ties in with the experts evidence. Surely they’ve put to the jury what they allege LL did? Jmo….

I know it’s a culmination of all the evidence in a circumstantial case, but to find someone guilty you atleast have to tell the jury what you accuse them of? Hopefully they are hearing more of the ‘bigger picture’ than we are.

ETA - I understand experts have said air embolism was the only possible cause of death, however they did not say ‘the only possible cause of death is that LL admistered the air between this time and this time. The jury cannot just assume that she most likely killed some babies so she probably is guilty of all charges, they have to break down each charge, and IMO the evidence for child H at the minute is shaky at best…

I am wondering if the UK sub judice laws are restricting some of the free flow of information.

The reporters must discuss the trial content without reporting anything that violates the following principles:

Basically anything that may prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial, for example,
Any suggestion, opinion, or direct accusation that the accused is either guilty OR innocent

I am sure the prosecutors are explaining to the jury what actions they believe the defendant took. But are the reporters allowed to repeat it all publicly without breaking the sub judice restrictions?

 

[ShireChe]

I am wondering if the UK sub judice laws are restricting some of the free flow of information.

The reporters must discuss the trial content without reporting anything that violates the following principles:

Basically anything that may prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial, for example,
Any suggestion, opinion, or direct accusation that the accused is either guilty OR innocent

I am sure the prosecutors are explaining to the jury what actions they believe the defendant took. But are the reporters allowed to repeat it all publicly without breaking the sub judice restrictions?

I thought sub justice relates to things being said 'outside of the courtroom' so the defendant still gets a fair trail from the court/jury etc. I believe reporting of court proceedings is fine as long as any restrictions (which usually relate to identification of witnesses/victims) are adhered to

 

[katydid23]

I thought sub justice relates to things being said 'outside of the courtroom' so the defendant still gets a fair trail from the court/jury etc. I believe reporting of court proceedings is fine as long as any restrictions (which usually relate to identification of witnesses/victims) is adhered to

I have been told that we cannot post anything here or on other platforms which literally accuse her of being guilty. So I wonder if the reporters, who are posting their tweets about the case, also cannot accuse her of being guilty or innocent.

They can describe what they hear in court but do they have to be cautious about not crossing a line?