UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #5

[JosieJo]

Lucy Letby: Murder-accused nurse found baby's death hard, trial hears

The nurse is accused of killing seven babies and attempting to murder 10 others on a neo-natal ward.

www.bbc.com

"Ms Letby recalled he deteriorated not long after his first feed by one of the nurses but said she had no involvement in that."

This comment from LL stood out to me.
It's fairly specific
Would the nurse have been the "new girl" as LL called her

 

[Tortoise]

Lucy Letby: Murder-accused nurse found baby's death hard, trial hears

The nurse is accused of killing seven babies and attempting to murder 10 others on a neo-natal ward.

www.bbc.com

"Ms Letby recalled he deteriorated not long after his first feed by one of the nurses but said she had no involvement in that.
Her only involvement with Child C was when she was asked to help with the resuscitation attempt, she told police."

I find it strange that she definitely recalled his first feed when she claims not to have been present until his resuscitation, 15 minutes later. She has difficulty remembering things she agrees she was present for, like the memory box.

It adds weight (IMO) to SE's (his designated nurse) evidence that LL was beside the incubator for the first collapse, just after the feed at 11pm.

 

[Tortoise]

"Ms Letby recalled he deteriorated not long after his first feed by one of the nurses but said she had no involvement in that."

This comment from LL stood out to me.
It's fairly specific
Would the nurse have been the "new girl" as LL called her

I didn't see you picked up on the same thing until I finished my post!

Yes the nurse was the "new girl"

 

[Tortoise]

At first glance I think this article is different from the others

Lucy Letby 'admitted it was hard when one of her baby victims lived'

The newborn, known only as Baby C, is one of seven babies allegedly killed by 32-year-old neonatal nurse just days after his premature birth at Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[JosieJo]

I didn't see you picked up on the same thing until I finished my post!

Yes the nurse was the "new girl"

Great minds ...and all that

 

[WaxLyrical]

There is something about this case that makes me feel really unsettled. I think it’s because foul play wasn’t suspected during the post mortems, and the need to consider the causes of death retrospectively in order to build the case against LL.

I’m reminded of SIDS statistics. We have legitimate SIDS deaths, truly unexplainable, and then we also have the accidental suffocation deaths that get listed as SIDS because it’s more compassionate to do so.

This case is making me wonder how many times a cause of death is listed as “natural causes”, when in actual fact there is evidence of something like an air embolism or other potential mistake by a medical provider. But natural causes is more compassionate for a death certificate.

If all neonatal deaths were subject to the same levels of scrutiny as those in the LL case, would potential causes such as air embolism be easily excluded? Or would conflicting opinions exist?

I’m also struggling to reconcile the hospital’s decision to move LL to day shifts, to see if the collapses/deaths followed her. This is outrageous, plain and simple, and makes me feel like they could not have been truly suspicious of her purposefully causing harm to the babies. Because for a hospital to test out a theory in that manner would be horrifying.

Just my thoughts and ramblings.

 

[Dotta]

If this was a genuine option, the defence would have used it as an alternative explanation when questioning Dr Evans. They came up with alternatives to AE, to put to Dr Evans, and the machine wasn't one of them

Besides, Im not sure if a machine causing air embolism could be allowed to be used in hospitals.
That would be novelty to me.

 

[Tortoise]

It seems that was the agreed facts pertaining to LL's police interviews about Baby C, just like they read out for Baby A and Baby B.

I wonder why it didn't contain her eventual admission that she had been alone with Baby C when he collapsed, as stated in the prosecutor's opening statement. Maybe that's going to be in a later police interview that they play to the jury? I don't see how else it's coming into evidence.

 

[Tortoise]

There is something about this case that makes me feel really unsettled. I think it’s because foul play wasn’t suspected during the post mortems, and the need to consider the causes of death retrospectively in order to build the case against LL.

I’m reminded of SIDS statistics. We have legitimate SIDS deaths, truly unexplainable, and then we also have the accidental suffocation deaths that get listed as SIDS because it’s more compassionate to do so.

This case is making me wonder how many times a cause of death is listed as “natural causes”, when in actual fact there is evidence of something like an air embolism or other potential mistake by a medical provider. But natural causes is more compassionate for a death certificate.

If all neonatal deaths were subject to the same levels of scrutiny as those in the LL case, would potential causes such as air embolism be easily excluded? Or would conflicting opinions exist?

I’m also struggling to reconcile the hospital’s decision to move LL to day shifts, to see if the collapses/deaths followed her. This is outrageous, plain and simple, and makes me feel like they could not have been truly suspicious of her purposefully causing harm to the babies. Because for a hospital to test out a theory in that manner would be horrifying.

Just my thoughts and ramblings.

BBM

I think it's the suddenness of these deaths, without signs of deterioration, and not responding to CPR, that sets these deaths apart. As well as the unusual skin colouration not seen before by any of the medical staff. (IMO)

 

[notsure]

BBM

I think it's the suddenness of these deaths, without signs of deterioration, and not responding to CPR, that sets these deaths apart. As well as the unusual skin colouration not seen before by any of the medical staff. (IMO)

Yet still there was no suspicion of foul play at the time.

 

[Tortoise]

Yet still there was no suspicion of foul play at the time.

My thoughts about this are that the idea of anyone on the staff harming the babies is so outrageous, it wouldn't even be on anyone's radar. For a while.

 

[notsure]

My thoughts about this are that the idea of anyone on the staff harming the babies is so outrageous, it wouldn't even be on anyone's radar. For a while.

If there is no other reasonable explanation for the deaths, foul play is the only possibility.

But there evidently were other reasonable explanations. For instance, mistakes made by staff. As we've seen in other underperforming hospitals just recently.

 

[Tortoise]

If there is no other reasonable explanation for the deaths, foul play is the only possibility.

But there evidently were other reasonable explanations. For instance, mistakes made by staff. As we've seen in other underperforming hospitals just recently.

None of the experts that we've heard from so far have said that these deaths were due to medical errors.

 

[notsure]

None of the experts that we've heard from so far have said that these deaths were due to medical errors.

And none of them has categorically stated that the deaths were caused deliberately.

 

[Tortoise]

And none of them has categorically stated that the deaths were caused deliberately.

Actually, I'm not sure that's true, but in any case they have concluded unnatural causes and it's obviously a matter for the jury to determine why that would be.

Edited to add one example of Dr Dewi Evans' testimony -

"He said he had "only one" conclusion, that Child A had received an air embolus, "through an IV line".
He said with the systems in place, and the medical equipment, and medical staff being "obsessive" about making sure patients are not injected with air, "there was no way this could have been done by accident"."

And Dr Bohin's testimony -

"Dr Bohin said doctors and nurses are "absolutely meticilous" in making sure even "the tiniest air bubble" is not injected by accident into a patient's circulation.
She adds that even if air was accidentally administered, there is an electronic pump system which would detect the air and stop the administration.
Dr Bohin explains to the court that could be bypassed further down the line by administering the air embolus via a connector normally used for administering drugs."

 

[MsBetsy]

If there is no other reasonable explanation for the deaths, foul play is the only possibility.

But there evidently were other reasonable explanations. For instance, mistakes made by staff. As we've seen in other underperforming hospitals just recently.

Had all the autopsy reports been completed by then, including COD and manner of death?

 

[MsBetsy]

My thoughts about this are that the idea of anyone on the staff harming the babies is so outrageous, it wouldn't even be on anyone's radar. For a while.

Also, the nurses thought it was very odd that there were 3 deaths in the month of June, but they gave no indication they felt it was because they thought someone was harming babies. Going by the text messages, at least one colleague recognized the deaths as being similar, but didn't seem to suspect LL at that time.

 

[bbsaz]

Yet still there was no suspicion of foul play at the time.

Well her colleague said there was something odd about them (text convo on 30th June)

 

[arrogantcat]

He said with the systems in place, and the medical equipment, and medical staff being "obsessive" about making sure patients are not injected with air

"Dr Bohin said doctors and nurses are "absolutely meticilous" in making sure even "the tiniest air bubble" is not injected by accident into a patient's circulation.

<RSBM>

These bits do make me wonder what would happen if one or more members of staff weren’t following the “systems”, “being obsessive about making sure patients are not injected with air” and being “absolutely meticulous”. Whether through wilful negligence, bad habits, a culture of cutting corners or something else.

The inclusion of these elements in the testimony does seem to suggest that this is a procedure where medical staff have to stay diligent. Would you need to be “absolutely meticulous” if there was no chance of human error?

It will be interesting to hear how the defence medical experts speak of these risks later on.

 

[Tortoise]

These bits do make me wonder what would happen if one or more members of staff weren’t following the “systems”, “being obsessive about making sure patients are not injected with air” and being “absolutely meticulous”. Whether through wilful negligence, bad habits, a culture of cutting corners or something else.

The inclusion of these elements in the testimony does seem to suggest that this is a procedure where medical staff have to stay diligent. Would you need to be “absolutely meticulous” if there was no chance of human error?

It will be interesting to hear how the defence medical experts speak of these risks later on.

You've snipped the parts about the medical equipment preventing accidental administration.

They expressed certainty that it wasn't accidental.