UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #23

[Dotta]

"What will tomorrow bring,
What will tomorrow bring,
I came to wonder, what will tomorrow bring
I said I wonder, what will tomorrow bring..."

I hope the Jury will not come in vain.

 

[Enquirer-2019]

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.

Sorry, I should have expressed gratitude for your efforts in the first instance. Thank you for sharing this, it was helpful.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Right, if we look at each individual case, brick by brick, we can come up with an alternative explanation, for each one.

And that would be reasonable if there were a couple of unexplained collapses. But we are looking at 22 separate incidents, each one on days that Nurse Letby was on duty.

What are the chances that so many healthy babies would suddenly and surprisingly collapse in such a short time?

We cannot just look at these individually and try to rationalise an alternative explanation , one by one. Doing so nullifies the big picture, which is where the real mystery lies.

Enquirer, does it make sense that there was a huge spike in mysterious collapses, involving three separate types of injuries---air embolisms, internal wounds and insulin poisonings? Various babies having various combinations of these kinds of injuries, sometimes back to back to back nights.

The collapses happened randomly and routinely, but never on Nurse Letby's week long vacations.

Either the defendant was responsible OR a group of co-workers and consultants and even parent's of victimised babies got together and framed her ?

One of my big questions is about the other collapses though. I agree with you about the internal wounds/bleeding and insulin cases: they are what they are and if there was a huge spike in collapses where insulin or injury was present, that is obviously concerning .

My issue arises in relation to the air embolism cases.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but right at the start, it was Dr Evans who was brought in to review suspicious cases. I seem to recall he was given 33 to review?

So the cases have been grouped into “suspicious “ and “non suspicious “ based on his opinions. (Side note: did Dr Bohin’s reviews of Dr Evans’ work include all 33 cases or did she just review the ones in relation to which these charges relate ?)

Sorry if I sound like a broken record , but baby c to me strongly suggests that dr Evans isn’t great at correctly identifying an air embolism based on the evidence. I’m not saying that is necessarily a personal failing specific to him: we have heard a great deal about how difficult embolisms are to study, particularly in relation to babies, because as Doctor Evans quite rightly points out, you can’t do clinical trials and give babies AE to see what the effects are. As a result, the research on this is limited, so much so that we had (I think it was), Doctor Bohin referring to studies on air embolisms in adult deep sea divers in her evidence . So it may simply be that as things stand at this point in time, no one is truly an expert in the medical community with regards to air embolism in babies.

If that is the case, then it seems to me possible that some of the other 33 cases with which LL is not charged may have been very similar to these AE cases, but Dr Evans has not concluded that they were AEs. Not because of some huge conspiracy theory to frame LL, but simply because of his inability to accurately identify when a case is an AE, and when a case is something else like CPAP.

So I would like to know about the other cases making up the original 33 and whether those cases do involve similar features to the alleged AE cases with which LL is charged. Because if they do, maybe that changes the whole picture in terms of who might be responsible; or equally, maybe it just solidifies the case against LL.

Either way, it is something I would like to know.

JMO, as always .

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I think it's very problematic. If memory serves me, I think the first tube was size 2. This is the smallest you can use and is avoided if possible, not least of all because you can't get a suction catheter down, and of course they're more prone to moving. It's a tricky thing to secure them just enough while not narrowing the lumen at all. And I've personally seen a fair few ET tubes pulled out by even the tiniest baby!
All JMO.

I just wanted to say, Mary, I really appreciate your input in this trial discussion. I think I have a good idea of which way you are leaning in terms of guilt or innocence, but you are always willing to acknowledge valid points made by both sides of the argument, even if the point somewhat goes against the verdict you would seemingly render if on the jury.

I have found this incredibly useful in helping me to sort out my opinions on various things, particularly because of your extensive background in the relevant field, and your willingness to explain things from scratch to people like me who have no medical background (and equal willingness to have a nitty gritty technical discussion with those who want it).

 

[katydid23]

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.

Which is why it is essential to scrutinise each case individually. Conversely, evaluating the cases overall on collective patterns, and attributing an individuals presence as a common denominator - leads to bias and oversights IMO

Not all of the babies were unwell, or premature. And it was not normal or explainable that so many died so suddenly, and in clusters. And that is what is missed when you try to look at them one by one.

Which is why it is essential to scrutinise the big picture and the overall pattern. It is not 'bias' to take note of which staff is present during each incident. Those are hard facts. JMO

 

[marynnu]

I just wanted to say, Mary, I really appreciate your input in this trial discussion. I think I have a good idea of which way you are leaning in terms of guilt or innocence, but you are always willing to acknowledge valid points made by both sides of the argument, even if the point somewhat goes against the verdict you would seemingly render if on the jury.

I have found this incredibly useful in helping me to sort out my opinions on various things, particularly because of your extensive background in the relevant field, and your willingness to explain things from scratch to people like me who have no medical background (and equal willingness to have a nitty gritty technical discussion with those who want it).

Well, thank you!

 

[katydid23]

Fact: They were not healthy babies most were oxygen dependent and vulnerable d/t to prematurity +\- other conditions. That statement is misleading.

That doesn't mean they were on the verge of death though. The first four were not fully oxygen dependent nor deemed so fragile or vulnerable that they were considered likely to collapse and die.

Child A​

The court heard he was "stable" and was breathing without support on 8 June, but suffered a rapid deterioration about an hour after Ms Letby came on shift and was pronounced dead half an hour later.

Child B​

Child B, who required some resuscitation at birth but recovered quickly, was the twin sister of Child A and collapsed on 10 June 2015, 28 hours after her brother's death.

Child C​

Child C was in a "good condition" and stable after his premature birth in early June 2015, but stopped breathing without warning on 13 June while being treated in the unit's nursery one

Child D​

The prosecution accepted the failure to give antibiotics was a "legitimate target of criticism", but Child D had been "responding well to treatment and was not expected to deteriorate".
However, on 21 and 22 June, she collapsed several times and despite resuscitation attempts, she was pronounced dead.

 

[katydid23]

LL didn’t deny being in the room with when baby-C collapsed, she stated she cannot recall why she went into room 1 (she was designated to room 3 with other babies), but she may have entered in response to an alarm going off; she also stated earlier that medications for her designated babies would likely have been drawn up in room-1, not room 3.

So, SE feeds baby-c at 11pm (I did not find a time given of how long this took) and afterwards went briefly to the nurses station, upon her return she states LL was staring ‘cotside’ and said - ‘He just dropped his sats’


LL states that she believes she left room 3 to go to the nurses station, prior to going into room-1, she presumes this may have been in response to an alarm sounding from baby-C, but cannot be certain.


The evidence presented shows LL was engaged in texting when SE began feeding baby-c at 11 PM, and remained texting up to 11.09 pm.
Therefore, the time SE left child-c after feeding him would be significant because the alarm of a collapse was raised at 11.15 PM.

So, LL had at most 6 minutes to walk to room-1 open baby-c’s incubator and inflict harm she is accused of, or less if SE left room-1 after 11.09 pm.

Also, during these texts exchanges LL implied that she liked talking with nurse SE. In contrast with the theory that she was jealous or wanted to blame her (e.g., suggested by an earlier posts on here). Texting her friend moments before child-c’s collapse - ‘S.E. is in room-1 so I haven’t got her to talk with either’ (I.e., seemingly sad about that).

Sources:

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, May 18 - prosecution cross-examines Letby

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

Accused nurse ‘stood by baby’s incubator after heart rate and oxygen alert’

At Manchester Crown Court, Lucy Letby denies murdering seven babies and attempting to murder 10 more.

guernseypress.com

"So, LL had at most 6 minutes to walk to room-1 open baby-c’s incubator and inflict harm she is accused of, or less if SE left room-1 after 11.09 pm."

That^^^ would be plenty of time to inflict the harm. JMO

 

[marynnu]

Fact: They were not healthy babies most were oxygen dependent and vulnerable d/t to prematurity +\- other conditions. That statement is misleading.

I think you need to view this in the context of what is normal on neonatal units. For example, if you have an otherwise fit & healthy term baby at home who starts struggling for breath, sometimes stops breathing and needs oxygen they are obviously very sick. But a baby born at 30 weeks, say, can display the same symptoms due to immature brain and lungs. It's perfectly normal and does not mean they are sick as such. Nobody expects them to die, ever.

 

[Tortoise]

Johnson says: "So the gang of four?"
Letby answers: "Yes."
Johnson then asks: "What is the conspiracy between the gang of four?"
Letby replies: "That they have apportioned blame onto me."
Johnson says: "And the motive of apportioning blame onto you?"
Letby explains: "I believe to cover up things at the hospital."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65602988/page/3

I think Mr Johnson missed an opportunity here. I mean the gang didn't go about covering up too cleverly. If they wanted to cover up, why did they start an internal review after the first three deaths, flag her up to management, get outside eyes in, and go to the police? Why did the gang not stay quiet, and leave it as nothing to see here?

 

[IDK]

Nevermind

 

[JosieJo]

Sophie Ellis's nursing note -

"The note provides observations for Child C from the night shift. It adds: 'First feed of 0.5mls given at 23.00"
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, May 5 - defence continues

0.5mls was a trophic feed and would not take very long.



Six minutes sounds like more than enough time to inject air into his nasogastric tube. IMO

Easily do it in half the time jmo

 

[Becky53]

Found it

Medic denies ‘touting for job’ helping Lucy Letby police probe

A MEDIC has denied “touting” for the job of assisting a police probe into baby deaths and “giving them what they wanted”, the murder trial…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Dr Evans went on to write a number of reports about his findings, Manchester Crown Court has been told.

On Tuesday, March 6, jurors were read an email sent by Dr Evans to the National Crime Agency (NCA) in May 2017, ahead of his involvement with Cheshire Police.

In his message to “Nick” at the NCA’s national injuries database, Dr Evans wrote: “Incidentally I’ve read about the high rate of babies in Chester and that the police are investigating.



I believe her first arrest was 3 Jul 2018

 

[JosieJo]

I'd imagine if registered with the NCA if expert witnesses hear of investigations that may be linked to their field they may often "put themselves forward" ...I do not necessarily see this as a negative as long as they are suitable for the subject at hand

 

[Becky53]

He was accused of already knowing about suspicious rashes and air embolus.



Mr Myers went on: “At some point before you started writing reports you were told by the police about suspicious rashes and air embolus, weren’t you?”

Dr Evans said: “That is completely untrue. It’s totally untrue.

”The first time I heard a local doctor mention air embolus was a couple of weeks ago.

“The first person I know to raise the area of air embolus was me. I did that in case number one and I thought ‘oh my god, what is going on here?’

Medic denies ‘touting for job’ helping Lucy Letby police probe

A MEDIC has denied “touting” for the job of assisting a police probe into baby deaths and “giving them what they wanted”, the murder trial…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[WaxLyrical]

Found it

Medic denies ‘touting for job’ helping Lucy Letby police probe

A MEDIC has denied “touting” for the job of assisting a police probe into baby deaths and “giving them what they wanted”, the murder trial…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Dr Evans went on to write a number of reports about his findings, Manchester Crown Court has been told.

On Tuesday, March 6, jurors were read an email sent by Dr Evans to the National Crime Agency (NCA) in May 2017, ahead of his involvement with Cheshire Police.

In his message to “Nick” at the NCA’s national injuries database, Dr Evans wrote: “Incidentally I’ve read about the high rate of babies in Chester and that the police are investigating.



I believe her first arrest was 3 Jul 2018

Ah yes, you’re quite right, it was pre-arrest.

The news articles in May 2017 hinted that eight of the deaths were suspicious, saying there were 15 deaths, but eight where “medical practitioners had expressed concern”.

Police investigating baby deaths at Countess of Chester hospital

Cheshire police will look at deaths of 15 babies and six non-fatal incidents between 2015 and 2016 after trust contacted them

amp.theguardian.com

 

[Becky53]

Ah yes, you’re quite right, it was pre-arrest.

The news articles in May 2017 hinted that eight of the deaths were suspicious, saying there were 15 deaths, but eight where “medical practitioners had expressed concern”.

Police investigating baby deaths at Countess of Chester hospital

Cheshire police will look at deaths of 15 babies and six non-fatal incidents between 2015 and 2016 after trust contacted them

amp.theguardian.com

Still would’ve been better if he had disclosed original email though - I’m always amazed about how much stuff they manage to dig up to discredit people.

 

[Tortoise]

Still would’ve been better if he had disclosed original email though - I’m always amazed about how much stuff they manage to dig up to discredit people.

It would have been in the disclosure, that's how the defence had it.

He offered his services and he would have had to wait to hear from them that they wanted him to do the work.

 

[katydid23]

It would have been in the disclosure, that's how the defence had it.

He offered his services and he would have had to wait to hear from them that they wanted him to do the work.

That could be how Meyers got his job in this case as well....What if he offered his services to LL's family when he heard about the arrest? Would that mean he wasn't fit to take on the job, if offered?

 

[WaxLyrical]

That could be how Meyers got his job in this case as well....What if he offered his services to LL's family when he heard about the arrest? Would that mean he wasn't fit to take on the job, if offered?

Letby’s family is not paying Myers!