UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #21

[ShireChe]

Yes the media are privy to these discussions, but they cannot print them, and I agree in the interest of a fair trial I don't think it is right to even hint at them. But I think that is exactly what the podcast journos are doing in this instance. Wouldn't be surprised if that comment was later excised.

Agreed. It's very much touting for clicks/listens. 'we have all this juicy gossip, but we just can't tell you yet'.

It's all going to come out after the case is over and should have no mentions or hints until that point

 

[Marantz4250b]

Going back to the insulin cases; I recall that one involved alleged administration via a feed bag, the other via a glucose bag.

One involved extremely high readings of insulin in the blood test. Does anyone have the details of each one and which one produced the very high readings?

 

[katydid23]

But would the media be privy to legal discussions re LL that the jury were not? Surely legal discussions re LL that the jury were not privy to would also be legal discussions that the media were not privy to? Surely these same legal discussions would be carried out with only those on the prosecution and defence teams in attendance?

Bottom line, no journalist reporting on this case should be hinting at anything that's contrary to and questions their stance as credibly objective, fact-reporting reporters.

There are times that the media and the public would be privy to legal discussions while the jury was out of the court room.

Often, if one side is protesting the admission of certain evidence or of certain testimony from a witness, the judge will remove the jury, and then put the witness on the stand to preview their testimony. They judge will listen and then decide if it will be testified to in front of the jury.

If the judge denies admission of that testimony, the public hears the testimony but it will not be shared with the jury until the trial is over.

 

[marynnu]

Going back to the insulin cases; I recall that one involved alleged administration via a feed bag, the other via a glucose bag.

One involved extremely high readings of insulin in the blood test. Does anyone have the details of each one and which one produced the very high readings?

Baby F TPN. Insulin 4657.
Baby L 10% glucose. Insulin 1099.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Thanks.

Baby F TPN. Insulin 4657.
Baby L 10% glucose. Insulin 1099.

Thanks.

Don't know if we ever discussed it but has anyone done the calcs to work out just how much insulin must have been added to the various bags to achieve those test results?

 

[Bakers]

Thanks.
Thanks.

Don't know if we ever discussed it but has anyone done the calcs to work out just how much insulin must have been added to the various bags to achieve those test results?

Also the speed it must of been going thru would surely that would make a difference? ?

 

[WaxLyrical]

Thanks.
Thanks.

Don't know if we ever discussed it but has anyone done the calcs to work out just how much insulin must have been added to the various bags to achieve those test results?

Prof Hindmarsh said he thought 10 units of insulin would have been added to the bag, which is a small portion of one vial. However, it wasn’t reported how this was arrived at, or whether it accounted for the insulin which would have stuck to the tubes.

I can’t recall them outlining at all how much insulin would have been used for the second baby, considering it’s alleged multiple bags were poisoned.

 

[norealnameshere]

Baby F TPN. Insulin 4657.
Baby L 10% glucose. Insulin 1099.

Meaningless without units, although I wouldn't have banked on the journalist transcribing them correctly anyway.

 

[KathPlumber]

That's interesting! So the press get to hear stuff that the jury can't?

My guess is that there is information about the defendants history (ie. prior work performance or maybe even prior convictions) or facts about their personal life that has been suppressed, that the podcasters consider relevant to the issues at hand. IMO only.

 

[KathPlumber]

My guess is that there is information about the defendants history (ie. prior work performance or maybe even prior convictions) or facts about their personal life that has been suppressed, that the podcasters consider relevant to the issues at hand. IMO only.

another possibility is the supression of any similar characteristics along the families of the babies allegedly targeted. That’s the sort of thing that might be evident to anyone witnessing the trial but not also not be allowed to be discussed / have atention drawn to it. IMHO

 

[esther43]

Does anybody remember LL testifying when she wrote the note please? Specifically the first one that was published. Have looked through all her testimony links but can't find the time frame she offered.

 

[Dotta]

another possibility is the supression of any similar characteristics along the families of the babies allegedly targeted. That’s the sort of thing that might be evident to anyone witnessing the trial but not also not be allowed to be discussed / have atention drawn to it. IMHO

In such a case the Jury should be aware of it as it (allegedly) might have been part of the motive, no?
JMO

 

[Mrs Marple]

I am so shocked at the raised concerns being dismissed. I can imagine if found guilty there will be an inquiry into the handling of this by hospital management.

 

[Dotta]

DBM

 

[OhDannyBoi]

Thanks.
Thanks.

Don't know if we ever discussed it but has anyone done the calcs to work out just how much insulin must have been added to the various bags to achieve those test results?

Impossible to say without clinical data. Pharmacokinetics are complicated and there are too many variables to account for. It's enough to know that there was a severe discrepancy between c-peptide and insulin levels confirmed by an expert with academic and clinical experience.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Does anybody remember LL testifying when she wrote the note please? Specifically the first one that was published. Have looked through all her testimony links but can't find the time frame she offered.

July 2016 after redeployment, she said she wrote it as a reaction to what was being said about her practice. Was found in her 2016 diary in a drawer in the police house search that happened in 2018.


"It was when I'd not long found out I'd been removed from the unit and they were telling me my practice might be wrong, that I needed to read all my competencies - my practice might not have been good enough.
"So I felt like people were blaming my practice, that I might have hurt them without knowing through my practice, and that made me feel guilty and I just felt really isolated.

Lucy Letby trial: Nurse cries as interview excerpts read in court

Excerpts of Lucy Letby's interviews with Cheshire Police after her arrest are heard at her trial.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[marynnu]

Thanks.
Thanks.

Don't know if we ever discussed it but has anyone done the calcs to work out just how much insulin must have been added to the various bags to achieve those test results?

I don't know. However, you don't need much to get an effect. There's 100 units of Actrapid in 1ml. For example, for a 2kg baby 10 units (0.1ml) is added to a 50/60ml syringe. The rate can be anything from 0.1-1ml/hr, depending on the blood sugar. This equates to just 1ml (100 units) or so in a 500ml bag of TPN or glucose, which would obviously be running much faster than that. Something like 4mls/hr in a day-old 2kg baby, very roughly! But even 10 units would be very effective as running about 4 times the 'normal' insulin rate, especially as not needed in the first place.

 

[Jazmania]

In such a case the Jury should be aware of it as it (allegedly) might have been part of the motive, no?
JMO

Not necessarily. There was a trial recently in the UK where a little boy was murdered by his mom and step dad. The boy was mixed race, and after the step dad was found guilty it was revealed that he had been a member of the national front - a racist group. That information was not put before the jury as it could have prejudiced them, even though it offers a clear motive.

 

[Jazmania]

July 2016 after redeployment, she said she wrote it as a reaction to what was being said about her practice. Was found in her 2016 diary in a drawer in the police house search that happened in 2018.


"It was when I'd not long found out I'd been removed from the unit and they were telling me my practice might be wrong, that I needed to read all my competencies - my practice might not have been good enough.
"So I felt like people were blaming my practice, that I might have hurt them without knowing through my practice, and that made me feel guilty and I just felt really isolated.

Lucy Letby trial: Nurse cries as interview excerpts read in court

Excerpts of Lucy Letby's interviews with Cheshire Police after her arrest are heard at her trial.

www.bbc.co.uk

She said that in her police interview. However when she took the stand she changed her mind and said the note could have been written anytime between July 2016 until July 2018 when she was arrested

 

[Sweeper2000]

She said that in her police interview. However when she took the stand she changed her mind and said the note could have been written anytime between July 2016 until July 2018 when she was arrested

I don’t remember that?