I would expect the same, this of the first ETT was X-Rayed it would be good evidence that it was not at higher risk of dislodging. Notwithstanding, I have read that they still can, but IMO it would support Dr J’s testimony if he checked the placement of ETT-1.
I like following their YT video discussions, because they are non-biased and informative; motivated me to delve deeper into the narrative projected in earlier mainstream tabloids.
Episode 35, The Gang of Four
www.mailplus.co.uk
The Trial of Lucy Letby: Episode 35, The Gang of Four
In this episode Caroline and Liz explain what happened in court when the prosecution began questioning Lucy Letby for the first time.
Sophie Ellis's nursing note -
Interesting.Thanks! I wasn't aware of that.
First of all, that^^^ new story is very hard to believe. She now claims she was in nursery two, feeding and changing nappies, while her co-workers were across the hall in nursery one, answering an EMERGENCY code to resuscitate a baby.
Knowing what we know about Nurse Letby and her amazing skills during a medical crisis, and her strong pull towards such incidents, are we to believe she stayed across the hall and continued changing nappies?
No, that is a good try at explaining her answers, but it didn't go down like that. She did not make quick, impulsive answers. She had her notes available and was not confused about which case was which case. Here is what we know about her police interview about baby K;
https://www.itv.com/news/granada/20...n-waiting-for-baby-to-self-correct-trial-told
Letby told detectives at Cheshire Police she only recalled Child K because she was a “tiny baby” and the Countess of Chester did not usually take babies of her gestation and weight.
She said she had no recollection of the tube slipping and agreed that designated nurse Joanne Williams would not have left Child K unless she was stable and her ET (endotracheal tube) was correctly positioned.
Mr Johnson said: “She stated she would have raised the alarm if Dr Jayaram had not walked in and if she had seen the saturations dropping or that the tube had slipped.
“Miss Letby thought it possible that she was waiting to see if (Child K) self-corrected. She explained that nurses don’t always intervene straightaway if levels were not ‘dangerously low’.”
You would have to contact the primary researchers to ascertain that information, that is not something I have time to do in your behalf sorry.
How do you know she had ‘all her notes with her’ during the police interviews, and at which stage of interviews - since she was arrested more than once.First of all, that^^^ new story is very hard to believe. She now claims she was in nursery two, feeding and changing nappies, while her co-workers were across the hall in nursery one, answering an EMERGENCY code to resuscitate a baby.
Knowing what we know about Nurse Letby and her amazing skills during a medical crisis, and her strong pull towards such incidents, are we to believe she stayed across the hall and continued changing nappies?
No, that is a good try at explaining her answers, but it didn't go down like that. She did not make quick, impulsive answers. She had her notes available and was not confused about which case was which case. Here is what we know about her police interview about baby K;
https://www.itv.com/news/granada/20...n-waiting-for-baby-to-self-correct-trial-told
Letby told detectives at Cheshire Police she only recalled Child K because she was a “tiny baby” and the Countess of Chester did not usually take babies of her gestation and weight.
She said she had no recollection of the tube slipping and agreed that designated nurse Joanne Williams would not have left Child K unless she was stable and her ET (endotracheal tube) was correctly positioned.
Mr Johnson said: “She stated she would have raised the alarm if Dr Jayaram had not walked in and if she had seen the saturations dropping or that the tube had slipped.
“Miss Letby thought it possible that she was waiting to see if (Child K) self-corrected. She explained that nurses don’t always intervene straightaway if levels were not ‘dangerously low’.”
In my experience with my (ex) friend who ticks all the boxes for NPD, she was nearly always angry about something. Or with someone (including me). Not defensive, just angry. Especially if things didn't happen the way she wanted them to. She could put on a sweet smiley demeanour, but it never lasted long. I never knew her in her youth, as she is from another country. She did sometimes speak of her family, but with no affection. eg "my sister didn't like me because I was the beautiful one"!! She told so many lies, and I tried to believe them. Eventually I stopped listening to her lies and tall tales, and managed to detach myself. I really don't know if it is just her nature, or if there is some reason for the way she is. But I don't believe that her family were any different or worse than most.What exactly is the cause of this?
Are such people born with some brain abnormalities?
Or is it the result of upbringing or some trauma?
Because it seems to me it is the manifestation of hatred/malice towards others or self hatred.
Or maybe such people feel somehow threatened by others or don't think their needs are are met?
Is it unhappiness, feeling of disillusionment with life in general?
Is there a cure for this terrible condition?
JMO
re. baby A police interview -
IMO - the deterioration of unwell premature babies - could be explained by a combination of medically explainable explanations based on pathological processes and/or non-sinister iatrogenic reasons.
Fact: They were not healthy babies most were oxygen dependent and vulnerable d/t to prematurity +\- other conditions. That statement is misleading.
I would agree with that viewpoint, that would be odd.
Your take is interesting- The impression I get from this exchange, is that LL is highlighting that the designated nurse should have checked sooner, and then transitions into supporting her colleague by stating reasons not to feel so bad about not checking sooner. Which, was after the fact, and thus wouldn’t have changed the outcome.
That is very interesting, thank you for sharing your insight - I was not aware of this.
I appreciate your reply @Tortoise - but, it does not answer my original post querying a proposed fact. I appreciate, that would take a lot of time neither of us have freely, otherwise I would have attempted to answer it myself.
Feel free to interpret it as you wish. As the prosecution are about to cross examine LL on this case soon, I thought it might be helpful to re-post the transcript and possible "if guilty" scenario.
