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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
How does that answer the question?

You proposed that it might have been a faulty machine, that was forcing air into the babies lines, killing them.

So I asked if that faulty machine continued to do so after LL left the Neo-natal unit?

If not, then there was not ample reason to believe this was due to a faulty machine, imo.
The defence isn't proposing that the equipment was faulty. I think they will have considered every possible defence to these charges.

If they're not suggesting it as a possibility in any of the collapses and/or deaths, which happened in different rooms and different cots, and didn't happen to other babies on dates in between, it's a flawed theory, IMO.
 
One thing I do hope comes out of all this is that awareness is raised in hospitals and medical training environments of the signficance of that combination of collapse and fleeting rash in babies. So that it acts as an alert that somebody may be deliberately harming babies.
 
LL seemed to know what air e. was - didn't she watch (as reported) a programme about the dangers of it?
But, of course, she never mentioned it in her texts with diagnoses :(
JMO

she would have known about them well before watching that program.
 
she would have known about them well before watching that program.
Sure, even I know and Im not a nurse (although I didnt know about skin "moving rash").

But, my point was that she told police she had no knowledge of it.

And she reportedly watched the programme about air e. and how it kills.

Why didn't she even hint this cause to others?

JMO
 
Sure, even I know and Im not a nurse (although I didnt know about skin "moving rash").

But, my point was that she told police she had no knowledge of it.

And she reportedly watched the programme about air e. and how it kills.

Why didn't she even hint this cause to others?

JMO

she said she didn’t know exactly what an air embolism is, by way of for instance she may not have known which part of the heart the air bubble blocks thus causing a heart blockage.

why didn’t the doctors even hint at this, they would presumably know sooner than her being specifically trained to spot symptoms?

it’s really not necessarily all the defendants fault that the symptoms were not spotted. Even if LL is responsible and that’s my point.
 
she said she didn’t know exactly what an air embolism is, by way of for instance she may not have known which part of the heart the air bubble blocks thus causing a heart blockage.

why didn’t the doctors even hint at this, they would presumably know sooner than her being specifically trained to spot symptoms?

it’s really not necessarily all the defendants fault that the symptoms were not spotted. Even if LL is responsible and that’s my point.
Tell you what!
I suspect this particular programme was (allegedly)
her "inspiration" :(
JMO
 
2:11pm

The text messages related to one of Letby's female colleagues having an argument with another nurse who 'snapped at her'.
Letby messages Jennifer Jones-Key to say: "I am a bit up and down. Have not had nice shifts and not been feeling supported by some people."
Letby messages another colleague: "Let's run away!!!" and the subject turns to moving away to New Zealand, which one of the nurses is planning to do.
Letby said she could not do so as it would mean leaving her parents behind, they would be "completely devastated".
She said she had come to Chester for university and did not go back to Hereford, and added: "I feel guilty being so far away often", but it was what she wanted.

2:14pm


Letby messages colleague Alison Ventress at 10.09pm: "Families are tough aren't they!" followed by two sad face emojis.
Alison Ventress replied: "Some more than others!..."

2:17pm

Letby messages Jennifer Jones-Key to say she had been originally taken off the September 30 shift for working the previous Wednesday night, but was later put back on the shift.

 
she said she didn’t know exactly what an air embolism is, by way of for instance she may not have known which part of the heart the air bubble blocks thus causing a heart blockage.

why didn’t the doctors even hint at this, they would presumably know sooner than her being specifically trained to spot symptoms?

it’s really not necessarily all the defendants fault that the symptoms were not spotted. Even if LL is responsible and that’s my point.
The doctors not spotting it at the time is not relevant to whether or not LL committed the criminal acts of intentionally injecting air. It's not a defence to say doctors didn't spot it so it's not my fault.
 
2:19pm

The sequence of events relays medications which were given to Child I throughout the night shift, along with regular observations.

2:23pm

For the day shift on October 1, Ashleigh Hudson was the designated nurse, who continues to record observations for Child I.
Bernadette Butterworth inputs an incident, written at 8.30am for 8.30pm the previous night, about administering an antibiotic infusion over 10 minutes instead of 30 minutes. 'Although correct dose was given it was delivered at a faster rate.
'When aware of mistake, infusion was adjusted. Reg and shift leader informed'.

2:26pm

Bernadette Butterworth recorded Child I, at 8.44am, was 'handling much better without desats/Bradys'.
'Was initially very pale colour has improved, abdo remains distended and firm but less distended than at beginning of shift'.
The parents were made aware of the plan of care.
A doctor, during the ward round, said it was considered to restart feeds for Child I. The parents were concerned Child I may be lactose intolerant, and that had possibly led to abdominal distention.

2:28pm

Letby messages her mother on October 1 to say she has arranged her shifts so she will be off for Christmas, and will be visiting her parents at that time. The mother replies: "That's fab, I could cry"

2:30pm

Ashleigh Hudson records, at 1.36pm: [Child I] appears pale but pink and well perfused...' followed by a number of medical notes.


 
Did they have the opportunity to?

At 5.30am, Child G had a profound desaturation.
"Her heart rate dropped to 60[bpm] and her oxygen [saturation] to 40% - which is unusual" when Child G was on a ventilator.
Dr Ventress wondered if the problem was the ventilation equipment, so moved to manual breathing support via a Neopuff device.

Child G was then reattached to a ventilator, before the ventilator was changed.
A 'large leak' remained, which meant the issue was unlikely to be with the ventilator.


The 'large leak', Dr Brearey says, he cannot explain, for a pre-term baby.
He says Dr Ventress was getting chest movement from Child G on the Neopuff device.
"It's perplexing and I can't think of a natural cause why that would happen."

 
2:33pm

The sequence of events goes to the end of October 1, with Ashleigh Hudson recording at 7.48pm: Review by Paeds SHO...abdomen is softer and less distended, ? start cautiously feeding...'
Both parents were updated on the plan of care.
Letby searches for the mother of Child I on Facebook at 1.16am on October 5.

2:35pm


On November 5, 2015, Letby searches for the mother of twins Child E and Child F at 11.41pm, then searched for the mother of Child G at 11.44pm and, in the same minute, a search for the mother of Child I.
Letby also searched for the mother of Child I at 11pm on May 29, 2016.

2:41pm

Benjamin Myers KC, for Letby's defence, is asking Claire Hocknall questions.
He asks about the feeding chart in connection with nursing notes by Lucy Letby at 1.36pm on September 30, with addendum at 1.48pm.
The nursing note was written at 1.36pm, covering 8am-1.36pm, and the family communication is timed at 1.48pm 'mummy visiting, carrying out feeds and cares'.
Mr Myers says the feeding chart for 8am-1.48pm shows one event of mother coming for feed that morning.
He says the family communication isn't timed, and can refer to the period of 8am-1.48pm, not the time the note was written at 1.48pm.

 
actually with the closure of the unit to anything other than level 1 babies, there is the potential that those machines relevant would have not been in use after. At which point any routine inspections on the machines would have identified the problem and fixed it. But that’s besides the point anyway.

And yes machines are no different to doctors, far from perfect.
Sorry, but that feels like you are reaching there. A bit tenuous.
 
2:33pm

The sequence of events goes to the end of October 1, with Ashleigh Hudson recording at 7.48pm: Review by Paeds SHO...abdomen is softer and less distended, ? start cautiously feeding...'
Both parents were updated on the plan of care.
Letby searches for the mother of Child I on Facebook at 1.16am on October 5.

2:35pm

On November 5, 2015, Letby searches for the mother of twins Child E and Child F at 11.41pm, then searched for the mother of Child G at 11.44pm and, in the same minute, a search for the mother of Child I.
Letby also searched for the mother of Child I at 11pm on May 29, 2016.

2:41pm

Benjamin Myers KC, for Letby's defence, is asking Claire Hocknall questions.
He asks about the feeding chart in connection with nursing notes by Lucy Letby at 1.36pm on September 30, with addendum at 1.48pm.
The nursing note was written at 1.36pm, covering 8am-1.36pm, and the family communication is timed at 1.48pm 'mummy visiting, carrying out feeds and cares'.
Mr Myers says the feeding chart for 8am-1.48pm shows one event of mother coming for feed that morning.
He says the family communication isn't timed, and can refer to the period of 8am-1.48pm, not the time the note was written at 1.48pm.

Gosh, more Facebook searches of the parents we weren't aware of before. I wondered if it was true she stopped searching after January 2016, obviously not! That search in May 2016 was 7 months after baby I died.
 
2:47pm

Mr Myers refers to hourly observation charts which on occasions are not signed. He refers to two which happened in the case of Child C, where there was an hour which was not signed. The nurses who signed for each hour either side of that are not Lucy Letby, but signed by her colleagues.

2:48pm

Observation charts which are not signed by initials are also shown for Child I, with three in a row not initialled.

2:54pm

Kate Tyndall, intelligence analyst, has now returned to talk the jury through neonatal reviews for Child I.

 
Gosh, more Facebook searches of the parents we weren't aware of before. I wondered if it was true she stopped searching after January 2016, obviously not! That search in May 2016 was 7 months after baby I died.
How do you even remember parents names 7 months on, unless you've got them on your notes app or something. Plus to search for the mother of baby E & F, G and then I all within a minute shows she's grouping them together in her mind, and also searching them in chronological order..
 
Full disclosure too: I am VERY close to my parents, as in speak to them every single day, go out to the pub with them, sleep round their houses still close lol and not an only child so the relationship may be different but she seems very very close to hers. Being so upset about moving away, crying over Christmas etc. But again this might be totally normal to some people and I might be the weirdo for thinking it's weird!
 
3:07pm

A statement from a consultant neonatalogist at Liverpool Women's Hospital is being read out.
She gives details of Child I's birth, and said Child I was born in 'very good condition'.

3:08pm


Child I was 'stabilised very quickly' with no concerns, before being admitted to the neonatal unit after being allowed to be shown to her mother.

 
2:33pm

The sequence of events goes to the end of October 1, with Ashleigh Hudson recording at 7.48pm: Review by Paeds SHO...abdomen is softer and less distended, ? start cautiously feeding...'
Both parents were updated on the plan of care.
Letby searches for the mother of Child I on Facebook at 1.16am on October 5.

2:35pm

On November 5, 2015, Letby searches for the mother of twins Child E and Child F at 11.41pm, then searched for the mother of Child G at 11.44pm and, in the same minute, a search for the mother of Child I.
Letby also searched for the mother of Child I at 11pm on May 29, 2016.

2:41pm

Benjamin Myers KC, for Letby's defence, is asking Claire Hocknall questions.
He asks about the feeding chart in connection with nursing notes by Lucy Letby at 1.36pm on September 30, with addendum at 1.48pm.
The nursing note was written at 1.36pm, covering 8am-1.36pm, and the family communication is timed at 1.48pm 'mummy visiting, carrying out feeds and cares'.
Mr Myers says the feeding chart for 8am-1.48pm shows one event of mother coming for feed that morning.
He says the family communication isn't timed, and can refer to the period of 8am-1.48pm, not the time the note was written at 1.48pm.


This is what I mean by difficult to follow…
These updates go from 1/10 to Facebook searches on 5/10 (with no mention of what happened on 2/10, 3/10, 4/10. Then there’s mention of other Facebook searches (which are very enlightening imo, coincidentally searches for parents of children mentioned in this case) then minutes later it’s defense cross examining, so who was testifying before in those first 2 updates on this post? Or who was reading out this sequence of events. I know I’m blonde and can be easily confused but am I the only one who thinks this reporting is completely bonkers :oops:
 
3:12pm

Child I had 'very good gases' after being put on breathing support device CPAP.
There were readings consistent with an infection, but Child I was on antibiotics. A lumbar puncture and phototherapy were commenced.
Feeds were commenced, using expressed breast milk, on August 8 and Child I continued to be 'very stable, in spite of having an infection'.

3:14pm

Child I later had desaturations and bradycardias, so a second line of antibiotics was begun. The CRP infection marker was low, but the white blood cell count was elevated. A programme of five days of antibiotics began, and after a short gap in feeds, Child I continued to be fed.
Child I was stable when taken off CPAP for short periods of time.

3:16pm

On August 18, Child I was stable on CPAP, having four hours off it. She was tolerating feeds "very well". She had "normal tone, posture and movement".

 
How do you even remember parents names 7 months on, unless you've got them on your notes app or something. Plus to search for the mother of baby E & F, G and then I all within a minute shows she's grouping them together in her mind, and also searching them in chronological order..
Exactly. I find this particularly damning. More damning than the note imo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
149
Guests online
1,607
Total visitors
1,756

Forum statistics

Threads
602,446
Messages
18,140,563
Members
231,395
Latest member
HelpingHandz
Back
Top