UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #27

[Dotta]

Please advise if this is inappropriate and I'll delete!

Tortoise's post on common personality traits/ characteristics of homicidal poisoners reminded me of something I read recently.

I am currently reading a book on schema therapy after a colleague had talked about how useful it was for them. I don't quite understand it properly, but from what I can gather from this book (see title cover below), we all can operate from certain patterns or "schemas" that were formed in childhood that can sometimes be maladaptive. In other words these are key lessons that we learned in childhood that form our view of the how the world works and how we responded to get our needs met. If I understand correctly, the patterns of behaviours that are a part of a schema stem from unmet needs in childhood. (This is my rough understanding anyway). There are 18 common maladaptive schemas and one is the Grandiose/ Entitled schema. I have photographed the short description of this schema given in the book. I found this very interesting, especially how, in the final paragraph of the photographed page, which describes childhood experience in this schema, it lists that it can stem from overattentive, protective parenting. (Perhaps the style of parenting that may happen if one was an indulged only child......). JMO!

How true!

"The Child Is The Father Of The Man"

is an idiom given to the world by famous poet William Wordsworth.
It first appeared in his poem “My Heart Leaps Up” that was out in 1802.

It means that the behaviour and activities of a person's childhood go a long way in building his personality.

 

[Imnothere]

12:31pm

Mr Myers refers to the second event for Child G on September 21, 'At 1015 x2 large projectile milky vomits....desaturation to 35% with colour loss. NG Tube aspirated - 30mls undigested milk discarded.'
He says if Letby is alleged to have attempted to kill Child G, 'what a thing to put it in a nursing note'. He asks where the 'document fraud', or 'cooking the notes' is.
He says it is "an incredibly weak basis" that the only two events of milky vomits on September 7 and September 21 are suspcious.

 

[Becky53]

Tweets up to dinner - hopefully not missed any off.

@MrDanDonoghue

Lucy Letby's defence lawyer Ben Myers KC is due on his feet for a third day at Manchester Crown Court, where he is giving his closing speech to the jury. The nurse is accused of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill a further 10 between 2015/16 - she denies all charges.

@MrDanDonoghue
·
2h

Mr Myers begins with Child F. The court has heard that blood samples from the boy showed an "extremely high" insulin level and a very low C-peptide level, which a medical expert said had "only one explanation", that being that the child "received insulin from some outside source.

@MrDanDonoghue
·
2h

Mr Myers says they cannot dispute the blood test results - as the samples have long since been lost - but says 'whatever has happened' there is nothing in fact to say Ms Letby injected the boy with insulin.
@MrDanDonoghue
·
2h

'The evidence has demonstrated in both counts that there have been bag changes when Ms Letby wasn't present and changing of lines with insulin continuing throughout, we say that is something that Ms Letby cannot be held responsible for realistically', he said.


@MrDanDonoghue
·
2h

He said in the case of Child L, another boy allegedly poisoned with insulin, the suggestion was that Ms Letby went to and from his nursery three times to 'spike' his TPN bag with insulin - he asks the jury to reflect on how realistic that is.

@MrDanDonoghue
·
2h

Mr Myers says neither Child F or L displayed 'anything like the symptoms' that the jury were told would result from such high doses of synthetic insulin being administered


@MrDanDonoghue
·
2h

Mr Myers says there's 'no evidence Ms Letby interfered with any bag of TPN, blink ladies and gentlemen and you will miss that point...in this case not one witness sees Ms Letby doing any of the acts alleged to amount to harm brought against her'


@MrDanDonoghue
·
2h

Mr Myers says the prosecution case is 'self perpetuating' and essentially amounts to 'put it all together and it must be her'

@MrDanDonoghue
·
1h

Mr Myers notes in the case of Child F, after his first bag - supposedly spiked with insulin - was changed for another bag (also allegedly spiked), the second bag was a stock maintenance bag (so not prescribed to that baby individually)


@MrDanDonoghue
·
1h

He says the bag was also hung when Ms Letby was not on shift. He says the allegation here is 'laughable' and says the case is like 'a series of Russian dolls of improbability, it goes on and on' and accuses the prosecution of performing 'contortions' to make it all fit

@MrDanDonoghue
·
1h

Mr Myers says the suggestion that Ms Letby managed to contaminate a second random maintenance bag 'beggars belief' - he says what follows from that is that Ms Letby contaminated more than one with insulin and there's no evidence any other bag caused an issue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
1h

He says 'whatever happened, there's no sensible way for claiming Ms Letby put insulin in the second bag' he accuses the Crown of working on a presumption of guilt and trying to make the allegation fit

@MrDanDonoghue
·
1h

Mr Myers is now turning to Child G. Prosecutors said Ms Letby overfed Child G with milk through a nasogastric tube or injected air into the same tube on 7 September 2015 and made two more attempts to kill her on 21 September

@MrDanDonoghue
·
55m

He says what Ms Letby is alleged to have done in this case is 'incredibly speculative

@MrDanDonoghue
·
26m

The court has previouslyheard that at around 15:30 BST on 21 September 2015, Child G was cannulated by doctors and placed on a Masimo monitor, a portable device that continually measures oxygen saturations and heart rate levels

@MrDanDonoghue
·
26m

A nurse, who cannot be named for legal reasons, previously told the court that shortly after the procedure Ms Letby shouted for help from the nursery where Child G was being cared for. She said she responded


@MrDanDonoghue
·
27m

The nurse said she noticed that the monitor had been switched off, which was "not normal protocol", but refuted any suggestion Ms Letby had turned it off

@MrDanDonoghue
·
26m

Mr Myers reminds the jury what the prosecution said in opening - they suggested Ms Letby turned it off. He reminds the jury the nurse, who cannot be identified, told the court Dr John Gibbs and Dr David Harkness had apologised to her, as they had not switched the monitor back on

@MrDanDonoghue
·
26m

Mr Myers says 'if it hadn’t been for (the nurse) we would be left with the usual wall of denials'

@MrDanDonoghue
·
26m

He said this shows a 'common theme of blaming Ms Letby' for other people's failures

@MrDanDonoghue
·
19m

Mr Myers has now moved to the case of Child H. The prosecution say the nurse caused the girl to collapse on 26 and 27 September 2015, but she survived and went to make a full recovery

@MrDanDonoghue
·
29m

@MrDanDonoghue
'This may illustrate a problem, nurses and doctors not wanting to push blame on more senior doctors but to her credit she told us what did happen', he adds

Edited to remove double tweet

 

[Imnothere]

12:35pm

Mr Myers says "we don't know" how much of the 45ml feed at 6am is still in the stomach by the time of the following feed.
He says for September 21, Child G recovered quickly, unlike the September 7 event.

12:38pm

Mr Myers says, for the allegation Letby 'cooked the notes', he refers to Child G's temperature reading on the observation chart, that there are 'two dots' on the 9am reading. He says there are multiple dots recorded on other hours on the same chart by other nurses.
He adds the dots are both in the 'white' area [ie normal]. He says it is "not a good point".

12:46pm

Mr Myers adds Child G had a further projectile vomit on October 15, when Letby was not on duty.
He refers to the third event for Child G, the second on September 21, 2015.
He says the prosecution opening in October last year said somebody had switched off the monitor. He says it was the evidence of a nursing colleague who said what did happen.
He said the nurse recalled there had been seven attempts to insert a cannula. Mr Myers says that could have caused a desaturation for Child G.
Mr Myers said the nurse's "crystal clear evidence" said the doctors left Child G behind screens and the monitor was switched off. He says Dr John Gibbs had said if that was what the nurse had said, then that was what had happened. Dr David Harkness said he could not recall.
Mr Myers says it was "very poor treatment" for Child G.

12:50pm

Mr Myers refers to the case of Child H. He describes the events for Child H, including the insertion of chest drains.
He says the evidence reveals "serial, sub-optimal care" and "no evidence" of Letby "doing any wrongdoing at all", but "she gets the blame".

 

[Imnothere]

12:53pm

Mr Myers says late provision of surfactant would have made the pneumothorax worse for Child H, as Dr Bohin said.
He says Dr Bohin also wrote in her report there was an "unacceptable delay" in intubating, and leaving a butterfly needle in the chest was 'sub-optimal practice as it is hazardous'.

12:56pm

He adds there was a delay in inserting the second chest drain, and Child H had not been sedated.
He says the issue of the 'moving second chest drain' is "hotly contested".
Highlighting the 'sub-optimal care', Mr Myers says there is "a very good reason" why babies got better when transported to a tertiary centre, and it 'wasn't because of Lucy Letby'.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

True, there are both sides. But one side brought in medical experts to testify and show their evidence.

But Meyers is 'refuting' their medical experts but without having any medical experts to corroborate his statements.

He puts up an X-ray of a patient with an A/E, then says ' It looks nothing like the X-rays in this case.' HE IS NOT AN EXPERT IN THIS FIELD. How can he make such absolute medical attests with no medical expertise?

It's absolutely shocking and honestly I can't believe it.

I can't understand how the judge is allowing this type of talk in a court room and it is somewhat making a mockery. The only question to ask would surely be 'what qualification do you have to analyse and comment upon any type of x-ray submitted as evidence in this court?', 'none', 'OK strike this discussion from the records.

IMO JMO, IANAL

 

[MachinaCollecta]

I’m still waiting for BM to present anything he dismisses medically with any kind of expert analysis, and I’m still waiting because he doesn’t have anything like that. This is all just the defence team’s position, it’s not backed up with anything. JMHO.

 

[Dotta]

It's absolutely shocking and honestly I can't believe it.

I can't understand how the judge is allowing this type of talk in a court room and it is somewhat making a mockery. The only question to ask would surely be 'what qualification do you have to analyse and comment upon any type of x-ray submitted as evidence in this court?', 'none', 'OK strike this discussion from the records.

IMO JMO, IANAL

One can say that his only job is to

"sow the seeds of uncertainty"

about defendant's guilt.

Nothing more, nothing less.

JMO

 

[Blondiexoxo]

12:07pm

Mr Myers says Dr Evans and Dr Bohin, before the trial, said air and milk had been forced down the NG Tube, and that a colleague of Letby had aspirated Child G's stomach before the 45ml feed [ie the stomach was 'pretty much empty']. He says that was the assumption.
He says the assumption was wrong. The nurse said she would have taken enough aspirate to assess the pH level of the stomach, but not enough to empty the stomach. She had said that would have been done with bigger babies who were stable.
He says the evidence "all falls apart". He says the nurse said there could have been undigested milk in there.
He says this "created a fundamental problem for the experts". He says the defence was critical of how the allegation "morphs", and focused on the description of the pH level.
He says the judge, Mr Justice James Goss, asked about that, and the nurse replied the pH level would not give an indication of how much milk was in the stomach.
Mr Myers says Dr Evans and Dr Bohin said low pH levels meant acid, and no milk in the stomach, and had "changed their lines of attack". Dr Bohin was "particularly vigorous" about it, saying pH of 4 was "very acidic" and milk would "neutralise" that reading. Mr Myers says the nurse "did not get that wrong".
He says in the case of Child P, there can be a low pH reading with a lot of milk in the stomach. He says 14ml of milk was aspirated, and a pH reading of 3, and a later reading gives 20ml aspirate and a pH reading of 3.

I’m sure I recall the evidence saying differently, I thought after baby G vomited, 45ml was then aspirated. Which IMO would make sense as it seems like that could be done to ensure baby’s tummy is empty and avoid more vomiting. Sounds like BM is completely twisting the words of the experts here IMO. It’s very misleading and not what was said. 45mls was aspirated after the vomit. Baby G’s tummy was empty before the 45ml feed. Where did the extra milk come from? And also, whether it was 100mls of air or milk, baby G shouldn’t have had 100mls of anything in their tummy, which IMO shows that it was put there by someone!
MOO

Dr Bohin said-
Mr Johnson asks if there is an 'innocent explanation' which could have explained the projectile vomiting.

Dr Bohin says "no", as the stomach was empty, with a pH reading of 4. If there was milk in the stomach, it would have 'neutralised' the stomach and the pH reading would have been higher.

"I think the stomach was empty, and she was given excess milk and possibly air...which distended the stomach."

Dr Evans said-
Mr Myers says that is worked on the basis that Child G's tummy would have been empty or almost empty at the time, as the nurse responsible would have aspirated Child G's stomach of all milk.

Mr Myers says 'we now know' the stomach was not aspirated prior to 2am.

Dr Evans says that was not the case, as the nurse had aspirated to get a pH reading.

Mr Myers says the nurse had not aspirated the milk, as she would not have done so in a baby as young as Child G as a matter of procedure.

Dr Evans: "No, this is too simple." He says milk is a neutral pH, so if the reading is '4', then that sample was indicative of acid in the stomach.

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

 

[Becky53]

@MrDanDonoghue
·
16m

We're back after a break. Mr Myers is taking the jury back over the evidence for the care of Child H. He reminds the jury that the baby girls was fitted with a number of chest drains, one of which was located in a place 'not in accordance with guidelines'

@MrDanDonoghue
·
14m

Mr Myers notes that the Crown's medical expert, Dr Sandie Bohin, reviewed X-rays of Child H's chest drains - she agreed that the tip of one fitted by Dr Ravi Jayaram 'may come into contact with structures like the heart' 'we say that is bad', Mr Myers says

 

[Becky53]

@MrDanDonoghue
·
7m

Mr Myers is now turning to Child I. On 30 September 2015, she needed emergency attention after she vomited and her heart-rate dropped. She collapsed again on 13 and 14 October, before a fatal deterioration on 23 October.

@MrDanDonoghue
·
7m

A medical expert for the prosecution told the court she had been "been subjected to an infusion of air".

@MrDanDonoghue
·
1m

Mr Myers says the infant was very small, fragile and capable of deteriorating almost from nothing - he says the experts are 'wrong' in their analysis of this case.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

11:17am

Mr Myers says the evidence is the stock [replacement] bag must have been contaminated with insulin. He asks how can Letby can be responsible for that bag, as no-one could have foreseen it would have been needed? He says the first bag was replaced as the cannula line had tissued.
He says it is like "Russian dolls of improbability".
He says a TPN bag lasts 48 hours. He says there are a number of stock bags kept, not kept in any particular order. He says there is no evidence no other babies subsequently displayed symptoms of high insulin from the other bags.
He says unless Letby had a "Nostradamus-like" ability to read the future, in the event of a targeted attack, a stock bag would not be contaminated with insulin on the off-chance it would be needed, and the bag was the one chosen 'at random' by a colleague.

Wait, what!? What does that even mean? There's 'russian dolls' and there's 'russian roulette' and there's probability v improbability but 'russian dolls of improbability' whut!?

OK has he lost his mind and is now speaking in word salad? How is anyone in the actual court listening to this? I'm so baffled.

Nostradamus? Plenty of people wouldn't know who Nostradamus was. JMO MOO

JMO MOO

 

[Becky53]

@MrDanDonoghue
·
1m

He pulls out other events - not included in the indictment - were Child I collapses '(Child I) was not doing brilliantly, she wasn't doing well, and her capacity to deteriorate rapidly and suddenly is marked', Mr Myers said

@MrDanDonoghue
·
1m

Mr Myers revisits what was said in cross examination. Nick Johnson KC accused Ms Letby of falsifying nursing records in a bid to cover her first attack on Child I on the afternoon of 30 September.

@MrDanDonoghue
·
1m

He said Ms Letby falsely recorded an examination of Child I by "doctors" at 15:00, in which she wrote Child I "appeared mottled in colour with distended abdomen and more prominent veins". Mr Johnson said there was no corresponding doctor's note for this examination of "mottling"

@MrDanDonoghue
·
2m

"We allege this note is a complete fabrication", Mr Johnson said.

 

[soppppheiie]

I’m sure I recall the evidence saying differently, I thought after baby G vomited, 45ml was then aspirated. Which IMO would make sense as it seems like that could be done to ensure baby’s tummy is empty and avoid more vomiting. Sounds like BM is completely twisting the words of the experts here IMO. It’s very misleading and not what was said. 45mls was aspirated after the vomit. Baby G’s tummy was empty before the 45ml feed. Where did the extra milk come from? And also, whether it was 100mls of air or milk, baby G shouldn’t have had 100mls of anything in their tummy, which IMO shows that it was put there by someone!
MOO

Dr Bohin said-
Mr Johnson asks if there is an 'innocent explanation' which could have explained the projectile vomiting.

Dr Bohin says "no", as the stomach was empty, with a pH reading of 4. If there was milk in the stomach, it would have 'neutralised' the stomach and the pH reading would have been higher.

"I think the stomach was empty, and she was given excess milk and possibly air...which distended the stomach."

Dr Evans said-
Mr Myers says that is worked on the basis that Child G's tummy would have been empty or almost empty at the time, as the nurse responsible would have aspirated Child G's stomach of all milk.

Mr Myers says 'we now know' the stomach was not aspirated prior to 2am.

Dr Evans says that was not the case, as the nurse had aspirated to get a pH reading.

Mr Myers says the nurse had not aspirated the milk, as she would not have done so in a baby as young as Child G as a matter of procedure.

Dr Evans: "No, this is too simple." He says milk is a neutral pH, so if the reading is '4', then that sample was indicative of acid in the stomach.

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

I think he’s saying that the stomach was not empty before this feed as it was not aspirated fully. The nurse stated this was not protocol.
Only a very small mls was needed to ph test to ensure it was in the stomach. And then the feed was given.
How could we know the tummy was empty before that feed? Unless it was the first and I apologise if that’s the case as I am getting babies confused in my mind. We can’t. There could have been multiple undigested milk feeds sat in the stomach. How could we know how much of the earlier feed was absorbed. When they stated it must be empty because the PH stated it was acidic they state that is not the case as they had tested undigested milk on other babies and the PH was 3 even though it was milk. And even if they did attempt to fully aspirate the tube it’s not fool proof, you can’t always aspirate the stomach contents fully for reasons such a tube placement etc.
I agree the full stomach aspiration was after the vomit. This is what should be done to prevent further vomiting.
I think there is no evidence the baby was over fed as there is no evidence the stomach was ever empty as it was not fully aspirated before the feed.

 

[Dotta]

There's 'russian dolls' and there's 'russian roulette' and there's probability v improbability but 'russian dolls of improbability' whut!?

OK has he lost his mind and is now speaking in word salad? How is anyone in the actual court listening to this? I'm so baffled.

Nostradamus? Plenty of people wouldn't know who Nostradamus was. JMO MOO

JMO MOO

One needs to drink Russian vodka to understand it all!
Cheers!

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Re 'russian dolls of improbability' well maybe he raises an interesting point here...

That if the perpetrator was tampering with the TPN bags before they were allocated to any baby, they were indeed playing russian roulette as it would be fairly (altho not totally) random to know which baby it might go to.

But then I recall we discussed how the TPN bags are made up in pharmacy uniquely and individually for each baby IIRC? Maybe wrong. And that it was ruled out that anyone in the pharmacy could be tampering with them. Did I remember that correctly?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

None for L through Q? Interesting....L was on April 9, 2016 and Q was June 23rd 2016. So that just means she didn't look any of the babies parents up in the final three months?

Maybe she was beginning to fear that others were already getting suspicious so she was distracted by it?

To my mind this ceasing of looking up the parents is significant and 'means' something... but what!?

I wonder if she had incidentally come off FB for separate reasons? For example, a lot of people migrated off FB a few years ago when it became mainstream news that FB was tracking and influencing algorithms and mining one's data, plus it went out of fashion with the younger generation. Also depending on what device she was using, a lot of people took FB off their mobile phones due to the advancement of things like WhatsApp and SnapChat. Plus the amount of space it takes up.

Maybe she just deleted the app off her phone and then didn't do it any more?

JMO MOO

 

[Becky53]

2:04pm

The trial is now resuming following its lunch break.

2:07pm

Mr Myers says it occurs to him they are halfway through the material, and appreciates it is very detailed. He says it is important and necessary to go through the detail.
He continues with the case of Child H. He says the defence suggests a 'build-up' of what had gone on, and a poorly positioned chest drain, caused the collapse at 3.15am, after a third chest drain was put in. He said it must have been "a huge stress on a baby".

2:18pm

Mr Myers says the second chest drain "may be another aspect of poor care". He says it was put in the 'wrong position' for Child H by Dr Jayaram. Two x-rays are shown. He says Dr Bohin accepted, in cross-examination, that the position of the chest drain was not in accordance with guidelines. She said the position of the tip was sub-optimal.
Mr Myers says the tip also moved around. A number of x-ray images for Child H are shown for the positions of the chest drain tip. He says it is shown to have moved, and says the tips of the other ones had not.

2:28pm

Professor Owen Arthurs was asked, Mr Myers said, about the position of the tip of the needle [from a radiograph image for Child H on September 26, 2015], and whether it was touching the heart. He replied he could not tell - it could be several centimetres away, it could be touching.
A doctor wrote for Child H on September 26: 'Possible cause for cardiac arrest could be that a drain is too close to heart and touching pericardium...'
A nursing note: 'At 16.21 [Child H] started to desaturate, no air entry heard, ET Tube suctioned and help summoned from colleague. Crash call...
'Second chest drain noted to be in a different position and 'holes' close to chest wall. Further tegerderm applied and chest drain tubing position altered. Both chest drains bubbling ++ during reintubation...'
Mr Myers says the chest drain was "not well secured and this can't be blamed" on Letby. He says a desaturation to 56% at 7pm 'should be included in the list of events, but this wouldn't fit as Letby isn't on it'.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 28 - defence closing speech

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Becky53]

2:32pm

Mr Myers says the key event for Child H happens at 3.20am, hours after the parents left before midnight.
He refers to the second event, the following night, in which he says Letby has "no opportunity to be involved in this".

2:37pm

He says Child H had a 'profound desat' at 2030 and a further 45% desaturation at 2145. He says the 'profound desaturation to 40%' at 0055 is the one Letby is blamed for, "randomly".
There is also a desaturation at 0330, which Letby is not linked with.
Mr Myers says the desaturation at 12.55am is part of a series Child H had been going through that night.

2:38pm

Mr Myers said no cause was identified for the collapse of Child H.
He says there were "very serious failings in care".

2:44pm

Mr Myers refers to the case of Child I, which he says has a lot of detail to it.
He says Child I was very small and "fragile" and "capable of deteriorating from almost nothing". He says this was evidence heard from her time in Liverpool. He says nurses would talk of Child I 'having a big tummy', and Dr Bohin agreed there were multiple occasions noted of a distended abdomen.

He says Child I regularly presented as "mottled".

2:49pm

Mr Myers refers to an event of 'abdominal distention' on August 23, which experts had agreed was 'consistent of harm', but is not on the sequence of events and Letby was not on duty.
He says there is an 18-hour period from September 5-6 where Child I deteriorated from being a well baby, to the point she was transferred to Arrowe Park Hospital. Mr Myers says it shows how quick Child I could deteriorate, and "she was not doing well".


2:55pm

He says, for the first event [that Letby is charged with], the cause of the collapse on September 30 was said by Dr Evans and Dr Bohin to be air down the NG Tube.
Mr Myers says this is the event with Letby's note which the prosecution took issue, that there was 'no doctor review', and she was 'lying about a fictional review at 1500'.
He says the agreed evidence by Child I's mother said she was changing Child I's nappy when a nurse she later found to be Letby said Child I's stomach appeared swollen.
In a second statement by Child I's mother, she said the first time she saw Letby was 3pm, and remembered Letby 'I'll go and get the doctor to come and check her.' The mother said she agreed, and a female doctor went and checked Child I.


3:02pm

Mr Myers says for the 4pm event, Letby calls for the doctors "in good time", and 'that is all'.
He says for 7.30pm, nurse Bernadette Butterworth had said Child I's air in the tummy increased from Neopuffing, and that can push the diaphragm up.
He says breathing support can cause abdominal distention, and that can be applied from as little as Neopuffing.


3:09pm

He says for the second event of Child I, this event is the 'what could Lucy Letby see or not see?'
He says one of the issues in this case, staffing experience levels are a factor.
He says Letby had said nurse Ashleigh Hudson was 'quite inexperienced'.
He says Child I was on antibiotics up to a few hours before the collapse, not 48 hours as the prosecution had said.
He says as there are no heart rate or respiration observations being recorded, it could not be said how stable Child I was before the collapse.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 28 - defence closing speech

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[marynnu]

I think he’s saying that the stomach was not empty before this feed as it was not aspirated fully. The nurse stated this was not protocol.
Only a very small mls was needed to ph test to ensure it was in the stomach. And then the feed was given.
How could we know the tummy was empty before that feed? Unless it was the first and I apologise if that’s the case as I am getting babies confused in my mind. We can’t. There could have been multiple undigested milk feeds sat in the stomach. How could we know how much of the earlier feed was absorbed. When they stated it must be empty because the PH stated it was acidic they state that is not the case as they had tested undigested milk on other babies and the PH was 3 even though it was milk. And even if they did attempt to fully aspirate the tube it’s not fool proof, you can’t always aspirate the stomach contents fully for reasons such a tube placement etc.
I agree the full stomach aspiration was after the vomit. This is what should be done to prevent further vomiting.
I think there is no evidence the baby was over fed as there is no evidence the stomach was ever empty as it was not fully aspirated before the feed.

A small point - if there is a lot of milk in the aspirate you can't get an acid reaction.