UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #10

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I honestly think you're reading too much into it. To me it's simple and by offering no evidence for murder but keeping the attempted murder charge, they're still saying they believe LL took the alleged action but they've decided it would prove tricky trying to prove that the action killed her, because of her being moved to the other hospital and not dying straight away. And then there's the added info about her being born at the wrong grade hospital.

As neither of those things are likely to change in the future, there would imo be no point keeping the murder charge on file. And as none of the other allegedly murdered babies were in the same postion as baby K and they all died straight after LL's alleged actions, in the same hospital, the decison to offer no evidence on that charge has no impact on the other charges and is no relecton of the strength of the evidece for those charge. Sure they could have come to that decision sooner, but the fact that they didn't IMO isn't the big red flag you seem to think it is.

imo

I don’t think that that makes sense, with the greatest respect.

You cannot charge a person with both murder and attempted murder in relation to the same act. If it is alleged that LL dislodged the breathing tube (because that’s the alleged method) of Baby K, that is grounds for an attempted murder charge. If Baby K then dies three days later, you cannot also file a charge of murder in relation to the same incident of alleged tube dislodgement.

What do you can do is bring attempted murder charges for an alleged tube dislodgement which does not result in death, and then, if there is a subsequent episode of alleged tube dislodgement which does cause death, you can bring a murder charge in relation to that alleged incident whilst maintaining the AM charge for the earlier incident.l

From what I have read, there are two separate tube dislodgements for baby K. For the first alleged attempt, the prosecution filed attempted murder charges in 2020 and at the same time, in relation to a second alleged tube dislodgement on the same day (17 February 2016), they filed a murder charge. In June 2022, they then decided to offer no evidence in relation to the murder charge which relates to the second alleged dislodgement . The attempted murder charge for the first episode remains.

The first alleged dislodgement is the one which Dr Ravi walked in on where LL was standing cot side and allegedly said “she’s just started deteriorating now.” Dr Ravi found the breathing tube had been dislodged which was allegedly impossible because the baby was sedated. The second dislodgement (to which the murder charge related) was witnessed by the nurse shift leader, where they found that the breathing tube had slipped too far down into the baby’s throat (as per prosecution opening).

The prosecution said that “we allege that LL was trying to kill her when the paediatric consultant walked in on her”, thus making it clear that the AM charge relates to the earlier incident.

My point is that the prosecution is now not bringing any charges in relation to the second alleged dislodgement . It’s not that they are going for the ‘lesser’ charge of AM because of concerns regarding the care at COCH: they are now not bringing any charges in relation to it . So my inference from that is they had medical evidence that the second alleged dislodgement was such that it couldn’t have occurred accidentally and that it caused baby K’s death when they filed the murder charge in 2020, but they then had to abandon the charge . They no have no charges in relation to the second alleged dislodgement. So we’ve gone from a murder charge to no charges.

 

[katydid23]

I don’t think that that makes sense, with the greatest respect.

You cannot charge a person with both murder and attempted murder in relation to the same act. If it is alleged that LL dislodged the breathing tube (because that’s the alleged method) of Baby K, that is grounds for an attempted murder charge. If Baby K then dies three days later, you cannot also file a charge of murder in relation to the same incident of alleged tube dislodgement.

What do you can do is bring attempted murder charges for an alleged tube dislodgement which does not result in death, and then, if there is a subsequent episode of alleged tube dislodgement which does cause death, you can bring a murder charge in relation to that alleged incident whilst maintaining the AM charge for the earlier incident.l

From what I have read, there are two separate tube dislodgements for baby K. For the first alleged attempt, the prosecution filed attempted murder charges in 2020 and at the same time, in relation to a second alleged tube dislodgement on the same day (17 February 2016), they filed a murder charge. In June 2022, they then decided to offer no evidence in relation to the murder charge which relates to the second alleged dislodgement . The attempted murder charge for the first episode remains.

The first alleged dislodgement is the one which Dr Ravi walked in on where LL was standing cot side and allegedly said “she’s just started deteriorating now.” Dr Ravi found the breathing tube had been dislodged which was allegedly impossible because the baby was sedated. The second dislodgement (to which the murder charge related) was witnessed by the nurse shift leader, where they found that the breathing tube had slipped too far down into the baby’s throat (as per prosecution opening).

The prosecution said that “we allege that LL was trying to kill her when the paediatric consultant walked in on her”, thus making it clear that the AM charge relates to the earlier incident.

My point is that the prosecution is now not bringing any charges in relation to the second alleged dislodgement . It’s not that they are going for the ‘lesser’ charge of AM because of concerns regarding the care at COCH: they are now not bringing any charges in relation to it . So my inference from that is they had medical evidence that the second alleged dislodgement was such that it couldn’t have occurred accidentally and that it caused baby K’s death when they filed the murder charge in 2020, but they then had to abandon the charge . They no have no charges in relation to the second alleged dislodgement. So we’ve gone from a murder charge to no charges.

I'm confused about your statement above: "So we’ve gone from a murder charge to no charges."

Are there NO charges at all for Baby K case anymore? In the opening statement for prosecution they said :
"The prosecution allege that Lucy letby was trying to kill Child K when Dr Jayaram walked in."

It appears to me they are still charging her with Attempted Murder on first attempt to dislodge breathing tube.

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

THE trial of former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of multiple baby murders, is due to finalise its jury and hear…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Child K

Child K was born at the Countess of Chester Hospital in February 2016, very premature, and weighing only 692g.

There was not time to deliver at a hospital for this type of maternity delivery care. Dr Ravi Jayaram, paediatric consultant, was present at her birth as a result.

4:45am

Lucy Letby booked Child K on to the neonatal unit. Child had required help with breathing, but was stable and in as good a condition as a baby of that prematurity could be.


At 3.50am, Dr Jayaram was standing at the nurses’ station compiling his notes. Although he did not have a view into Nursery 1, Dr Jayaram was aware the deisngated nurse was not there, a fact backed up by door swipe data. Lucy Letby was the only nurse in room 1, alone with Child K.

"Feeling uncomfortable with this because he was beginning to notice the coincidence between the unexplained deaths and serious collapses and the presence of Lucy Letby, Dr Jayaram decided to check on where Lucy Letby was and where Child K was."

"As he walked in, he could see Letby standing over Child K's incubator. He could see Child K's oxygen levels were falling. However, the alarm was not sounding and Lucy Letby was making no effort to help.

"Dr Jayaram went straight to treat Child K and found her chest was not moving, he asked Letby if anything had happened to which she replied, “she’s just started deteriorating now”.

Dr Jayaram found Child K's breathing tube had been dislodged.

Child K was very premature, and had been sedated and inactive. The tube had been secured by tape and attached to Child K's headgear.

Mr Johnson: "It's well recognised if you handle a child you can dislodge the tube accidentally, but any experienced staff member would recognise that.

"Dr Jayaram was troubled as the levels were falling and Nurse Letby had been the only person in the room."

The prosecution added: "On these monitors, all readings are set to default values in the neonatal unit.

"Saturation levels falling to the 80s, is a serious issue and if the machine is working properly, it would have an alarm if the saturation levels fell to the 80s, as Dr Jayaram noticed.

"There is an alarm pause button on the screen of the monitor - if you want to treat the child, you don't want the alarm going away. It will pause for one minute.

"Bearing in mind the rate displayed on the monitor, Dr Jayaram estimates the tube would have been dislodged between 30-60 seconds, and that is on the assumption the alarm had been cancelled once."

The court hears Dr Jayaram did not make a contemporaneous note of his suspicions or the alarm failing to activate.

Child K remained unwell and later died.

Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans viewed Lucy Letby’s failure to summon help as soon as possible was unusual.

The prosecution allege that Lucy letby was trying to kill Child K when Dr Jayaram walked in.

In police interview, when Dr Jayaram's account was put to her, she said no concerns had been raised at the time.

She said the alarm had not sounded. She said Child K was sedated and had not been moving around.

She also did not recall either any significant fall in saturations or there being no alarm. She accepted that in the circumstances described by Dr Jayaram she would have expected the alarm to have sounded.

she denied dislodging the tube and said she would have summoned help had Dr Jayaram not arrived, saying she was "possibly waiting to see if she self-corrected, we don’t normally intervene straight away if they weren’t dangerously low".

After the interviews - that suggestion made by Lucy Letby was referred to a nursing expert. Her view was that it was very unlikely that a nurse would leave the bedside of an intubated neonate unless they were very confident that the ET tube was correctly located and secure, the baby was inactive and then they would be away only briefly.

The nurse dismissed the idea that a competent nurse would have delayed intervention if there had been a desaturation.

Letby was found to have researched Child K's parents on Facebook in April 2018 - two years and two months after Child K had died. When asked about this, she said she did not recall doing so.

 

[ColourPurple]

I don’t think that that makes sense, with the greatest respect.

You cannot charge a person with both murder and attempted murder in relation to the same act. If it is alleged that LL dislodged the breathing tube (because that’s the alleged method) of Baby K, that is grounds for an attempted murder charge. If Baby K then dies three days later, you cannot also file a charge of murder in relation to the same incident of alleged tube dislodgement.

What do you can do is bring attempted murder charges for an alleged tube dislodgement which does not result in death, and then, if there is a subsequent episode of alleged tube dislodgement which does cause death, you can bring a murder charge in relation to that alleged incident whilst maintaining the AM charge for the earlier incident.l

From what I have read, there are two separate tube dislodgements for baby K. For the first alleged attempt, the prosecution filed attempted murder charges in 2020 and at the same time, in relation to a second alleged tube dislodgement on the same day (17 February 2016), they filed a murder charge. In June 2022, they then decided to offer no evidence in relation to the murder charge which relates to the second alleged dislodgement . The attempted murder charge for the first episode remains.

The first alleged dislodgement is the one which Dr Ravi walked in on where LL was standing cot side and allegedly said “she’s just started deteriorating now.” Dr Ravi found the breathing tube had been dislodged which was allegedly impossible because the baby was sedated. The second dislodgement (to which the murder charge related) was witnessed by the nurse shift leader, where they found that the breathing tube had slipped too far down into the baby’s throat (as per prosecution opening).

The prosecution said that “we allege that LL was trying to kill her when the paediatric consultant walked in on her”, thus making it clear that the AM charge relates to the earlier incident.

My point is that the prosecution is now not bringing any charges in relation to the second alleged dislodgement . It’s not that they are going for the ‘lesser’ charge of AM because of concerns regarding the care at COCH: they are now not bringing any charges in relation to it . So my inference from that is they had medical evidence that the second alleged dislodgement was such that it couldn’t have occurred accidentally and that it caused baby K’s death when they filed the murder charge in 2020, but they then had to abandon the charge . They no have no charges in relation to the second alleged dislodgement. So we’ve gone from a murder charge to no charges.

You are correct there were two separate breathing tube incidents, and the first part of my post incorrectly refers to them as if it were just one incident. However they were both on the same day (3.50am and 7.30am) and Baby k was transfered to the other hospital later the same day

So it would've been more accurate for me to have worded my post this way:

To me it's simple and by offering no evidence for murder but keeping the attempted murder charge, they're still saying they believe LL took the alleged action at 3.50am but they've decided it would prove tricky trying to prove that the alleged action at 7.30am killed her, because of her being moved to the other hospital and not dying straight away. And then there's the added info about her being born at the wrong grade hospital.

As neither of those things are likely to change in the future, there would imo be no point keeping the murder charge on file. And as none of the other allegedly murdered babies were in the same postion as baby K and they all died straight after LL's alleged actions, in the same hospital, the decison to offer no evidence on that charge has no impact on the other babies' charges and is no relecton of the strength of the evidence for those charges. Sure they could have come to that decision sooner, but the fact that they didn't IMO isn't the big red flag you seem to think it is.

ETA Re your other point- yes I guess they could have gone for a second attempted murder charge instead, but it still doesn't strike me as something that brings into question any of the other murder charges for other babies as their circumstances were very different.

 

[marynnu]

Hi i missed abit of this one.
So when LL said the baby looked pale was the alarm turned off when the nurse went to check?

According to LL's notes, the apnoea monitor was on but did not alarm.

 

[marynnu]

Hi i missed abit of this one.
So when LL said the baby looked pale was the alarm turned off when the nurse went to check?

Not yhat we know of, according to LL's notes the monitor was on but did not alarm.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I'm confused about your statement above: "So we’ve gone from a murder charge to no charges."

Are there NO charges at all for Baby K case anymore? In the opening statement for prosecution they said :
"The prosecution allege that Lucy letby was trying to kill Child K when Dr Jayaram walked in."

It appears to me they are still charging her with Attempted Murder on first attempt to dislodge breathing tube.

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

THE trial of former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of multiple baby murders, is due to finalise its jury and hear…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Child K

Child K was born at the Countess of Chester Hospital in February 2016, very premature, and weighing only 692g.

There was not time to deliver at a hospital for this type of maternity delivery care. Dr Ravi Jayaram, paediatric consultant, was present at her birth as a result.

4:45am

Lucy Letby booked Child K on to the neonatal unit. Child had required help with breathing, but was stable and in as good a condition as a baby of that prematurity could be.


At 3.50am, Dr Jayaram was standing at the nurses’ station compiling his notes. Although he did not have a view into Nursery 1, Dr Jayaram was aware the deisngated nurse was not there, a fact backed up by door swipe data. Lucy Letby was the only nurse in room 1, alone with Child K.

"Feeling uncomfortable with this because he was beginning to notice the coincidence between the unexplained deaths and serious collapses and the presence of Lucy Letby, Dr Jayaram decided to check on where Lucy Letby was and where Child K was."

"As he walked in, he could see Letby standing over Child K's incubator. He could see Child K's oxygen levels were falling. However, the alarm was not sounding and Lucy Letby was making no effort to help.

"Dr Jayaram went straight to treat Child K and found her chest was not moving, he asked Letby if anything had happened to which she replied, “she’s just started deteriorating now”.

Dr Jayaram found Child K's breathing tube had been dislodged.

Child K was very premature, and had been sedated and inactive. The tube had been secured by tape and attached to Child K's headgear.

Mr Johnson: "It's well recognised if you handle a child you can dislodge the tube accidentally, but any experienced staff member would recognise that.

"Dr Jayaram was troubled as the levels were falling and Nurse Letby had been the only person in the room."

The prosecution added: "On these monitors, all readings are set to default values in the neonatal unit.

"Saturation levels falling to the 80s, is a serious issue and if the machine is working properly, it would have an alarm if the saturation levels fell to the 80s, as Dr Jayaram noticed.

"There is an alarm pause button on the screen of the monitor - if you want to treat the child, you don't want the alarm going away. It will pause for one minute.

"Bearing in mind the rate displayed on the monitor, Dr Jayaram estimates the tube would have been dislodged between 30-60 seconds, and that is on the assumption the alarm had been cancelled once."

The court hears Dr Jayaram did not make a contemporaneous note of his suspicions or the alarm failing to activate.

Child K remained unwell and later died.

Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans viewed Lucy Letby’s failure to summon help as soon as possible was unusual.

The prosecution allege that Lucy letby was trying to kill Child K when Dr Jayaram walked in.

In police interview, when Dr Jayaram's account was put to her, she said no concerns had been raised at the time.

She said the alarm had not sounded. She said Child K was sedated and had not been moving around.

She also did not recall either any significant fall in saturations or there being no alarm. She accepted that in the circumstances described by Dr Jayaram she would have expected the alarm to have sounded.

she denied dislodging the tube and said she would have summoned help had Dr Jayaram not arrived, saying she was "possibly waiting to see if she self-corrected, we don’t normally intervene straight away if they weren’t dangerously low".

After the interviews - that suggestion made by Lucy Letby was referred to a nursing expert. Her view was that it was very unlikely that a nurse would leave the bedside of an intubated neonate unless they were very confident that the ET tube was correctly located and secure, the baby was inactive and then they would be away only briefly.

The nurse dismissed the idea that a competent nurse would have delayed intervention if there had been a desaturation.

Letby was found to have researched Child K's parents on Facebook in April 2018 - two years and two months after Child K had died. When asked about this, she said she did not recall doing so.

In relation to the second alleged dislodgement, yes: we’ve gone from a murder charge to no charges.

 

[mummyshark]

I’m confident if you put a piece of white paper at the back of the crib you could see it.

Sure. But we're not talking about whether or not you could see if something was present or not. We're talking about a small baby's complexion and if it is paler than it was previously.

A baby's face, even of full term size, obscured by an NG tube and paler than usual, is not comparable to if you could see a white piece of paper or not.

 

[katydid23]

In relation to the second alleged dislodgement, yes: we’ve gone from a murder charge to no charges.

Right, but there are still pending charges for attempted murder. And IMO, this is one of the most damning cases because of the close attention paid to LL by the Doctor. This is a very troubling case and one of the only ones where a co-worker saw what was happening.

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

THE trial of former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of multiple baby murders, is due to finalise its jury and hear…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

At 3.50am, Dr Jayaram was standing at the nurses’ station compiling his notes. Although he did not have a view into Nursery 1, Dr Jayaram was aware the deisngated nurse was not there, a fact backed up by door swipe data. Lucy Letby was the only nurse in room 1, alone with Child K.

"Feeling uncomfortable with this because he was beginning to notice the coincidence between the unexplained deaths and serious collapses and the presence of Lucy Letby, Dr Jayaram decided to check on where Lucy Letby was and where Child K was."

"As he walked in, he could see Letby standing over Child K's incubator. He could see Child K's oxygen levels were falling. However, the alarm was not sounding and Lucy Letby was making no effort to help.

"Dr Jayaram went straight to treat Child K and found her chest was not moving, he asked Letby if anything had happened to which she replied, “she’s just started deteriorating now”.

Dr Jayaram found Child K's breathing tube had been dislodged.

Child K was very premature, and had been sedated and inactive. The tube had been secured by tape and attached to Child K's headgear.

Mr Johnson: "It's well recognised if you handle a child you can dislodge the tube accidentally, but any experienced staff member would recognise that.

"Dr Jayaram was troubled as the levels were falling and Nurse Letby had been the only person in the room."

The prosecution allege that Lucy letby was trying to kill Child K when Dr Jayaram walked in.


Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans viewed Lucy Letby’s failure to summon help as soon as possible was unusual.

 

[katydid23]

Sure. But we're not talking about whether or not you could see if something was present or not. We're talking about a small baby's complexion and if it is paler than it was previously.

A baby's face, even of full term size, obscured by an NG tube and paler than usual, is not comparable to if you could see a white piece of paper or not.

Agreed, but even if we let the defense win, and we accept that she was allegedly able to see that the child was very pale, why then did she just stand in the doorway, doing nothing?

I'd expect that a nurse that had recently seen several babies die unexpectedly from such collapses would have immediately gone to the child to begin reviving them. That's not a good look for her, especially because it has been said she has reacted that same way in several of the collapse incidents. JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

Incidentally as I posted earlier there does seem to be a few cases with a layered approval that air embolus was a potential cause of the event. A,B and E were all reviewed by professor kinsey, a expert in haematology. Can’t say on how applicable her opinion would be in terms of an air embolism though. I’m surprised the cases were not reviewed by a expert in cardiology or the circulatory system if that’s the relevant discipline. Again with case A being amongst the strongest in terms of evidence I can’t help but think that these secondary and more specific opinions help to shore up the prosecution’s case.

there Does seem to be something that goes against dr bohins suggestion that excess air in the stomach couldn’t be due to intaking air down the throat. I know that was in the case of the child vomiting but apparently it’s not impossible for a baby to swallow air. The baby wouldn’t necessarily need to intake air when vomiting but could swallow air, I’m not sure it’s impossible to swallow air in the process of vomiting. If I am reading this correctly, it doesn’t suggest that LL was too far from the mark.

“Dr Bohin is asked by police about Lucy Letby saying babies can 'take on a lot of air when vomiting'.

Dr Bohin was asked if that was correct or not.

Dr Bohin tells the court: "That's not correct. Babies do not take on air when they vomit."”

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, December 12

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

but then we have this

“The doctor recorded the results as 'not normal' for a child breathing on their own and treated for suspected 'NEC'.
It was thought down to Child O's swallowing of air or the passing of a stool earlier.
An x-ray taken at the time showed a moderate amount of gas in the bowel loops throughout the abdomen”

Recap: Prosecution continues opening of Lucy Letby trial

The prosecution continues its opening in the trial of Lucy Letby, accused of multiple baby murders at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

if I am reading that right.

there are some other inconsistencies in The cases as suggested by the prosecution.

one is child E allegedly being attacked before the mother arrived. It seems to me reasonable to assume that an injury sufficient to cause a loss of blood equivalent to a quarter of its total blood volume is on par with the injury in this quoted case. Yet there is no suggestion of an accompanying desaturation Or anything in baby E Notes to suggest that trauma was inflicted before 9pm.

“At 1.05am, Child N's oxygen saturation levels fell from 99% to 40%.

"Unusually", fr a baby, he was described as crying and "screaming".

Child N recovered quickly, while the doctor was then called to another emergency.

Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans said he believed the deterioration of Child N "was consistent with some kind of inflicted injury which caused severe pain".

Dr Sandie Bohin said such a profound desaturation followed by a rapid recovery, in the absence of any painful or uncomfortable procedure, suggested an inflicted painful stimulus.

She said – “this is life threatening. He was also noted to be … ‘screaming’ and apparently cried for 30 minutes. This is most unusual. I have never observed a premature neonate to scream.”

another suggestion by the prosecution is that the second case of insulin included a higher dose of insulin administered. The reason suggested by the prosecution is that LL had remembered her first attempt to kill using insulin didn’t succeed so tried to make a more certain attempt with a higher dose. I’m not sure that’s a good suggestion because I don’t think we see elevating levels of supposed intent. There are so many am charges relating to one individual baby at a time but we don’t see any stronger evidence of increasing harm inflicted. If anything we see lower levels as more babies survived after the initial alleged attempts. If I am reading this right.

“The prosecutor told the court Lucy Letby had failed to kill child F so decided to increase the dose of insulin administered to child L.”

Lucy Letby trial: Nurse 'tried to murder two sets of twins in same way'

COUNTESS of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby attempted to murder child L and child M, twin boys, in similar circumstances to two other twin boys…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

jmo.

 

[esther43]

totally agree. It could well be an example of a more human moment IMO suggesting emotional attachment. It’s also true that if guilty it could be a way to be the Center of attention. Seems like a more emotional moment so is in line with what’s normal.

just by going with moo and others here seemingly, she does seem somewhat detached but if that’s normal for her and she isn’t guilty and has more of the normal human traits, conscientiousness, anxiety etc she could remain detached until there is a strong reason to be emotionally engaged. So if everything is fine she remains at a distance but when something is a real pusher of the emotional button becomes engaged. That is more or less normal IMO. For some people emotions can be a very taxing and tiring thing, social people love them though. Jmo.

Don't know about serial numbers but as Baby F's TPN bag was a bespoke one that codul be another reaosn they might've kept the same bag rather than replace it with a stock one

Agree on the bespoke bag matter. The fridge stock take system on the unit was weird, it's restocked each day and fridge could stock up to three customised bags. (For each baby presumably?)
A prescription goes to pharmacy and it has three bags on the order. (So nnu fridge must empty)
Bag 1 gets made up and administered by LL. It contains insulin but bag 2 doesn't get made up until later the next afternoon, it's then dropped at unit at 4pm.
Moral of the story? The nurse who was working after LL who claims to have changed the line and set up a new fluid bag could not have set up a customised one because it hadn't arrived back from pharmacy so, if there was a second bag, it would have had to have been a bulk standard one. - apologies if this is old ground! X

 

[katydid23]

Incidentally as I posted earlier there does seem to be a few cases with a layered approval that air embolus was a potential cause of the event. A,B and E were all reviewed by professor kinsey, a expert in haematology. Can’t say on how applicable her opinion would be in terms of an air embolism though. I’m surprised the cases were not reviewed by a expert in cardiology or the circulatory system if that’s the relevant discipline. Again with case A being amongst the strongest in terms of evidence I can’t help but think that these secondary and more specific opinions help to shore up the prosecution’s case.

there Does seem to be something that goes against dr bohins suggestion that excess air in the stomach couldn’t be due to intaking air down the throat. I know that was in the case of the child vomiting but apparently it’s not impossible for a baby to swallow air. The baby wouldn’t necessarily need to intake air when vomiting but could swallow air, I’m not sure it’s impossible to swallow air in the process of vomiting. If I am reading this correctly, it doesn’t suggest that LL was too far from the mark.

“Dr Bohin is asked by police about Lucy Letby saying babies can 'take on a lot of air when vomiting'.

Dr Bohin was asked if that was correct or not.

Dr Bohin tells the court: "That's not correct. Babies do not take on air when they vomit."”

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, December 12

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

but then we have this

“The doctor recorded the results as 'not normal' for a child breathing on their own and treated for suspected 'NEC'.
It was thought down to Child O's swallowing of air or the passing of a stool earlier.
An x-ray taken at the time showed a moderate amount of gas in the bowel loops throughout the abdomen”

Recap: Prosecution continues opening of Lucy Letby trial

The prosecution continues its opening in the trial of Lucy Letby, accused of multiple baby murders at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

if I am reading that right.

Two things----first, I don't think anyone has said that babies never swallow air. [although not when projectile vomiting] They do swallow air, and it gives them hiccups and gas, etc.

But 2nd, when they swallow air, it does not give them mottled red skin, nor does it end up as a deadly air embolism. Injecting air into the feeding lines is not the same outcome as a baby swallowing air.

there are some other inconsistencies in The cases as suggested by the prosecution.

one is child E allegedly being attacked before the mother arrived. It seems to me reasonable to assume that an injury sufficient to cause a loss of blood equivalent to a quarter of its total blood volume is on par with the injury in this quoted case. Yet there is no suggestion of an accompanying desaturation Or anything in baby E Notes to suggest that trauma was inflicted before 9pm.

There is ,allegedly, nothing in LL"s notes to suggest trauma----but why would there be?
However Baby E's mum described the blood and the piercing screams from her very upset baby. And LL was doing nothing to comfort him when Mum arrived. That suggests trauma to me. He was dead 5 hours later.

Mother walked in on nurse Lucy Letby trying to kill baby, court told

Defendant accused of murdering seven babies allegedly said ‘trust me, I’m a nurse’ when interrupted

www.theguardian.com

The infant, who weighed 1.3kg (just under 3lbs) at birth, rapidly deteriorated and was pronounced dead less than five hours after Letby was seen attacking him, the jury was told.


Experts later concluded that Baby E died as a result of gas intentionally injected into his bloodstream and “bleeding indicative of trauma”, the jury was told.


The nurse allegedly “wiped out” the mother’s visit from the medical records then falsely claimed to be in another room when Baby E collapsed. This, the prosecution alleged, was Letby trying to establish an “alibi in someone else’s medical records”.


I find that alleged action ^^^ very damning to the defense. It its not the only time she has been accused of changing or omitting facts from her patient notes.


[I am confused by your post above because of the jumping from Baby E, to Baby N to baby F .... Are you comparing them or just talking about them separately? ]

“At 1.05am, Child N's oxygen saturation levels fell from 99% to 40%.

"Unusually", fr a baby, he was described as crying and "screaming".

Child N recovered quickly, while the doctor was then called to another emergency.

Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans said he believed the deterioration of Child N "was consistent with some kind of inflicted injury which caused severe pain".

Dr Sandie Bohin said such a profound desaturation followed by a rapid recovery, in the absence of any painful or uncomfortable procedure, suggested an inflicted painful stimulus.

She said – “this is life threatening. He was also noted to be … ‘screaming’ and apparently cried for 30 minutes. This is most unusual. I have never observed a premature neonate to scream.”

Is there an inconsistency above? I don't see any--it just seems to be the facts as noted.

another suggestion by the prosecution is that the second case of insulin included a higher dose of insulin administered. The reason suggested by the prosecution is that LL had remembered her first attempt to kill using insulin didn’t succeed so tried to make a more certain attempt with a higher dose. I’m not sure that’s a good suggestion because I don’t think we see elevating levels of supposed intent. There are so many am charges relating to one individual baby at a time but we don’t see any stronger evidence of increasing harm inflicted. If anything we see lower levels as more babies survived after the initial alleged attempts. If I am reading this right.

I see some elevated levels of supposed intent.

Recap: Prosecution continues opening of Lucy Letby trial

The prosecution continues its opening in the trial of Lucy Letby, accused of multiple baby murders at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

The doctor saw "fresh blood" in Child N's throat, which the prosecution say was the same seen in Childs C, E and G.

The doctor was unable to get the breathing tube down the throat of Child N as he was unable to visualise the child's tracheal inlet.

He was “surprised by his anatomy more than anything else … I could not visualise parts of the back of his throat because of swelling”.

And later that same day, 3rd attempt:

Child N collapsed just before 3pm and a consultant was called at 2.59pm. While awaiting a consultant, a junior doctor looked into the airway of Child N and saw a “large swelling at the end of his epiglottis” he could only just see the bottom of the vocal cords. He had never seen anything like this before in a newborn baby.

The prosecution said Child N was "so unwell" that attempts were made to reintubate him, but the doctor could not see down Child N's throat as the view was obscured by fresh blood. A more specialist team was called to carry out the intubation.

Here is another issue:
At 11.29am Letby sent a Facebook message to the doctor telling him “small amounts of blood from mouth and 1ml from ng. Looks like pulmonary bleed on x ray [i.e. a bleed from the lungs]. Given factor 8 – wait and see”. Other than that phone message, there is no evidence that Lucy Letby brought the bleeding to the attention of any of the medical staff.

The prosecution said this is surprising given the problems Child N had suffered.


SO YOUR POINT IS THAT YOU DON'T SEE HER TRYING HARDER TO KILL THIS BABY? Does it matter? Isn't the real issue that she allegedly did try three times to severely harm him?

“The prosecutor told the court Lucy Letby had failed to kill child F so decided to increase the dose of insulin administered to child L.”

Lucy Letby trial: Nurse 'tried to murder two sets of twins in same way'

COUNTESS of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby attempted to murder child L and child M, twin boys, in similar circumstances to two other twin boys…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

jmo.

I am not sure where child F comes into your argument though. But it is another very troubling case where she continued allegedly, to keep assaulting babies with potentially deadly actions.

 

[MsBetsy]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>
I don't think this was normal crying for any baby, premature or not. Babies don't suddenly start screaming for no reason.

After Baby N's designated nurse went on break, the baby suddenly began screaming for about 30 minutes. The Doctor noted the screaming "was not something he had ever heard before." This sounds like the baby was in intense pain.

The prosecution alleges LL caused air embolus or traumatic injury.

In Baby E's case, the mother heard her son screaming from the hallway before she entered the room to find her child bleeding from the mouth. Letby sent her away, telling her, "Trust me, I'm a nurse," allegedly falsifying her notes to make it look like the incident never happened. She wrote a note indicating a meeting between the doctors and parent which none of the doctors remember.

His mother stated, "It was screaming more than crying." She said the crying was "like nothing I've seen before. It was horrendous."

That doesn't sound like it was normal crying in either case.

I'm not sure what you mean by no lab tests for Baby L. Do you have a link with that information? Also that the charges stem from the baby having hypoglycemia and LL caring for an infant? Tia.

 

[MsBetsy]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>
Yes, babies cry when they are hungry, thirsty, or uncomfortable. But I think a mother, as well as a doctor with years of experience, would be able to distinguish a cry of extreme distress from "normal" crying.

Baby E, if attacked just before his mother walked in, would have cried out in pain if a rigid medical tool had just been used to harm him as the prosecution alleged. That would also explain the bleeding from the mouth.

The jury also heard that the bleed "was not spontaneous or caused by any preexisting condition." Dr. Kinsey explained how she came to that conclusion.

Child E lost 25% of his blood volume.

I think it is the prosecution that is alleging it was Letby who assumed Baby E had haematalogical- related problems and that he could have died from a massive hemorrhage due to that condition.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

If guilty, LL may have actually wanted to be the one to raise the alarm about child I ‘looking pale’. Didn’t she make a statement about ‘perhaps i spotted something (the other nurse) didnt, because I’m more experienced’. I think, if guilty, this may have been part of the enjoyment of the situation, wanting to appear like a better and more competent nurse. Especially if people had been making comments about her abilities as suggested in some text messages sent to a colleague, LL seemed to be worried that others were talking about her in a negative light.

If guilty, aswell as enjoying the drama that ensued when a baby collapsed, perhaps harming a child and then being the one to raise the alarm to the designated nurse made her appear to be more ‘experienced’. That and obviously thinking it would deflect guilt being able to say ‘I was the one that raised the alarm, why would I do that if I was responsible’. If guilty, I think it was a calculated decision to raise the alarm in some children by just ‘happening to be there’ at the the time of collapse. Being the one to administer care. Then also trying not to raise suspicion by always being the one touching the child at the time of collapse.

By standing in the doorway and appearing to make a passing comment about child I looking pale. It made her appear concerned, without having direct contact with the child at the time, distancing herself in certain cases while in others being the one personally administering life saving care.
In the instances where she was ‘standing around doing nothing’, she was fully distanced from the situation and, if guilty, wanted to look like she had absolutely nothing to do with the collapse, but was showing her ‘concern’ aswell as wanting to see if the child pulled through or not.

Another example of this distancing is the baby she is accused of poisoning with insulin before finishing her shift then texting colleagues asking about the babies condition and wanting to be kept updated. Not physically being there when the babies condition deteriorated distanced her even more from the situation, she could say ‘I wasn’t even on shift’ when that happened. But she still wanted to be kept informed of what happened and achieved this by showing concern about that particular child. If guilty, I think these examples demonstrate calculation and awareness of how suspicion could be roused if she was always the one there and never the one to raise the alarm. All MOO of course.

 

[katydid23]

Babies do sometimes scream for no reason - or for "minor" reasons. Especially if there is gas, then they start swallowing air, which makes the gas worse, which causes more screaming, IME as a mother who has had to deal with fussy babies.

I was wrong about no lab tests, I apologize. I must have missed they did have a c-peptide for the second case as well.

But in the case we were discussing, the baby had blood coming from his mouth, because of an injury to his throat, which was very swollen and bloody:

The doctor saw "fresh blood" in Child N's throat, which the prosecution say was the same seen in Childs C, E and G.

The doctor was unable to get the breathing tube down the throat of Child N as he was unable to visualise the child's tracheal inlet.

He was “surprised by his anatomy more than anything else … I could not visualise parts of the back of his throat because of swelling”.

And later that same day, 3rd attempt:

Child N collapsed just before 3pm and a consultant was called at 2.59pm. While awaiting a consultant, a junior doctor looked into the airway of Child N and saw a “large swelling at the end of his epiglottis” he could only just see the bottom of the vocal cords. He had never seen anything like this before in a newborn baby.

The prosecution said Child N was "so unwell" that attempts were made to reintubate him, but the doctor could not see down Child N's throat as the view was obscured by fresh blood. A more specialist team was called to carry out the intubation.

Child N was “stiff” on handling and extending upper limbs, back arching...

Recap: Prosecution continues opening of Lucy Letby trial

The prosecution continues its opening in the trial of Lucy Letby, accused of multiple baby murders at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

So I don't think we can compare the crying and screaming from this severely injured baby, to the crying from a healthy baby who has heartburn or gas, and is fussy. My kids did cry when fussy or uncomfortable.

But there is a difference when a baby is crying and screaming with such intensity, while arching their back and stiffening, that you feel the need to call 911 or run them to the urgent care.

 

[katydid23]

Yes, babies cry when they are hungry, thirsty, or uncomfortable. But I think a mother, as well as a doctor with years of experience, would be able to distinguish a cry of extreme distress from "normal" crying.

Baby E, if attacked just before his mother walked in, would have cried out in pain if a rigid medical tool had just been used to harm him as the prosecution alleged. That would also explain the bleeding from the mouth.

The jury also heard that the bleed "was not spontaneous or caused by any preexisting condition." Dr. Kinsey explained how she came to that conclusion.

Child E lost 25% of his blood volume.

I think it is the prosecution that is alleging it was Letby who assumed Baby E had haematalogical- related problems and that he could have died from a massive hemorrhage due to that condition.

EXACTLY. Mom's can recognise when a child is crying from being fussy or hungry OR they are seriously ill or injured. JMO

I tend to believe the mom's and dad's opinions in these cases when they say they could tell their babies were screaming in pain.

 

[Tortoise]

If guilty, I think these examples demonstrate calculation and awareness of how suspicion could be roused if she was always the one there and never the one to raise the alarm. All MOO of course.

Agreed!! Baby F's poisoning happened a day after one of the nurses messaged her saying LL needed a break from it being on her shift!

JJ-K: "Hey how's you?"
8.01pm -
LL: "Not so good, we lost E overnight."
8.02pm -
JJ-K: "That’s sad. ‘We’re on a terrible run at the moment. Were you in 1? x"
8.02pm
LL: "Yes. I had him and F x"
JJ-K: "That’s not good, you need a break from it being on your shift. x"

Colleagues of Lucy Letby told her she was 'terrible run of bad luck'

 

[Blondiexoxo]

You can 1000% tell when your baby is just crying because their hungry/tired etc and when your baby is in pain. I remember my daughter being in nicu, they were trying to put a cannula in and asked us to leave the room as it can be quite upsetting for parents to see their babies in distress. I instantly heard my daughter scream a high pitched wail that awakens something inside you as a parent and you just know they are hurting. That sound caused my eyes to fill with tears and the desperation I felt to just rush into the room and pick her up was overwhelming.

Your mothers instinct goes into overdrive and you just want to comfort them. Its a cry you instantly recognise and know your baby is in pain. I think that is built into our human nature, it tells us when our children really need us urgently. You can leave a baby to cry for a minute while you are preparing a bottle and it doesn’t upset you, whereas a pained scream makes you panic, you instantly feel the need to get to them fast and comfort them. So I personally fully believe that the mother knows her baby was in distress at that moment IMO. It must have traumatising for her to be sent away when her instincts would have been telling her something is very wrong.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Agreed!! Baby F's poisoning happened a day after one of the nurses messaged her saying LL needed a break from it being on her shift!

JJ-K: "Hey how's you?"
8.01pm -
LL: "Not so good, we lost E overnight."
8.02pm -
JJ-K: "That’s sad. ‘We’re on a terrible run at the moment. Were you in 1? x"
8.02pm
LL: "Yes. I had him and F x"
JJ-K: "That’s not good, you need a break from it being on your shift. x"

Colleagues of Lucy Letby told her she was 'terrible run of bad luck'

This is interesting! Was the next victim baby F who was allegedly poisoned with insulin, and one instance happened to occur after LL had finished her shift? I think this is the event they claim LL tampered with the bag that was delivering other fluids or lipids. They allege it was set up to run and then LL went home and baby F deteriorated.
If so, if guilty, this message from her colleague saying she needs a break from it being on her shift, may have encouraged her to switch methods and try to get a collapse to happen when she wasn’t on shift. If guilty, MOO.

ETA - I’m not certain on this as we’ve heard so much evidence it’s possible I’ve got mixed up, but if this did occur then it’s certainly something to consider IMO