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

[Kemug]

Dear fellow Sleuthers, by the time this trial is over, we will all be practically qualified nurses!

 

[Kasmeer]

It's much more than exclusion.

Two of the babies had x-rays showing air, which Professor Owen Arthurs testified about. All five babies (A to E) had sudden colourful blotches and patches flitting around their bodies that none of the doctors or consultants at the hospital had seen before. All of the collapses were sudden and unexpected, in babies who had been stable at that point. Some of the babies improved between collapses which did not fit with infection status.

I'm aware of all that: my point, perhaps not well phrased, was there is no definitive test, no forensic evidence which can prove it. Only (informed) opinion, reached via excluding other possibilities. This make these cases (comparitively) less absolutely clear than the insulin ones, where anyone can point at the numbers on the tests and say: "See, that's not possible naturally!" I am NOT arguing that they were natural causes, just that the possibility is more open, because by their nature, they cannot be proven categorically, meaning that's a potential strategy for the defence, while they really can't argue it for the insulin.

We've heard from Dr Sandie Bohin that she was even researching exceedingly rare conditions to try to explain spontaneous bleeding.

And she found one. Vanishingly rare, but so are cases of nurses deliberately harming babies. (And yes, before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm obviously aware it's the buildup of many rare/impossible things that makes the case, no need to tell me...)

(Snipping for focus or this will be a mile long)

(Edited to snip what was probably me being overly sensitive)

To be clear, I'm largely in agreement with the rest of you; I just retain an open mind on the less clear points, given we've not even heard half of the prosecution case, and none of the defence case. I don't feel I'd be contributing anything useful by repeating what everyone else is saying (that's why I rarely post in general!), instead I'd rather raise points which the defence may use, or which I feel need to be explained more clearly by the evidence. I may just be too thinskinned for raising such points to be a good idea though

 

[Kasmeer]

Today’s evidence RE synthetic insulin having being given, being the only possible way that baby F’s blood results contained this level of insulin and insulin peptides is probably the strongest evidence I’ve heard so far in this trial. The fact that the defence didn’t cross examine dr Gibbs makes this evidence all the more damning IMO. You’d think that if there was another reason for the presence of this amount of insulin then the defence would have questioned this at their opportunity to cross examine. Instead, silence…..

I think the only possible defence to this one is "someone else did it", there wasn't really a lot of point questioning the findings based on what we've heard; I'd say it's certain (IMO) that insulin was deliberately given, the only question is who applied the insulin.

The whole one bag or two thing leaves that one rather messy, I saw the nurse saying bags would always be changed after a tissued line change, and would be one of many stock bags, which weren't kept in a specific order. If that happened, then we're back to asking how a fresh bag and line continued to give a presumably fairly consistent dosage of insulin which kept a consistently low blood sugar level until shortly after the bag was removed entirely.

The long-lasting insulin someone suggested is a possibility which reassures me a bit, although it's somewhat coincidental that it wears off soon after the (maybe second) bag is removed, but then, I guess it also adds up to 15-16 hours after LL goes off duty which sounds a reasonable length of time. Wonder if anyone will ask about the availability of longer lasting insulin on the ward. It would solve the puzzle if so!

 

[katydid23]

Yes, but this is the UK where no single agency takes responsibility for anything, and governing bodies (whether private or governmental) aren't really fit for purpose.

This is true, not just in healthcare, but in most aspects of British life.

Every time something goes wrong, the governing body says there will be 'an inquiry'. And there usually is, but still nothing changes.....

I think that is basic flaw of human nature, not necessarily based upon specific cultures or countries.

 

[katydid23]

If there is an urge to harm, though, I imagine there are easier ways that don't involve spending years studying and working hard.

There is a possibility there was no prevalent urge to harm, years ago.

From reading some of the facts we have been presented, makes me wonder if there was a jealousy or resentment, which may have formed over the years, from watching OTHERS being in love, starting their families---perhaps there was anger because that had not happened for her?

 

[katydid23]

The empirical basis for interpreting the significance those findings is much more limited than the insulin/c-peptide finding though, and in the case of the skin discolourations is subjective and being reinterpreted years after the events in question.

Is it being 'reinterpreted' or was it investigated and researched by top medical experts who formally concluded that the events surrounding the skin discolouration had certain causes that could now be ascertained?

 

[katydid23]

Today’s evidence RE synthetic insulin having being given, being the only possible way that baby F’s blood results contained this level of insulin and insulin peptides is probably the strongest evidence I’ve heard so far in this trial. The fact that the defence didn’t cross examine dr Gibbs makes this evidence all the more damning IMO. You’d think that if there was another reason for the presence of this amount of insulin then the defence would have questioned this at their opportunity to cross examine. Instead, silence…..

But didn't Defence say the doctor would be cross examined at later date?

Yes, the Defense Atty said he was going to question Dr Gibbs at a later time. But that would be a bad legal strategy, if the defense had strong evidence against this doctor's claims, and they just let his words and damning theories go unquestioned for days or weeks.

I really do not believe Meyers would have walked away like that if he had a strong argument against this assertion. At the very least he could have asked some aggressive questions hinting at their upcoming rebuttal, to prevent the jury from accepting the state's contention. JMO

 

[Blondiexoxo]

But didn't Defence say the doctor would be cross examined at later date?

They did, but IMO not in relation to this testimony because surely if they had anything to counter with they’d have cross examined today. Because that’s some pretty damning evidence. It makes me think they know that what dr Gibbs said was correct and the only way those blood results could occur is if baby F had been given synthetic pharmaceutical insulin. If the defence believe that something else caused them, surely they’d have questioned dr Gibbs on what he has told the court today. They were willing to cross examine the mother of a deceased baby and claim that she was exaggerating her child’s screams being ‘horrific’. I just feel that if they had something to say on this revelation then they’d have done so today. All MOO

Are they allowed to cross examine a witness more than once? If they’d asked dr Gibbs questions todsy then would they still be able to cross examine him again at a later date regarding evidence he has yet to give?

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Yes, similarly I see the evidence today as the strongest so far that somebody purposely harmed a baby & I imagine there will be more to come. The defence said he wasn’t going to challenge DR Gibbs on his evidence on this child today but he said he’d come this later, I think? Didn’t defence opening mention that this particular child’s cause of death was accepted? I’m guessing there is a “response” already in play from the defence to cover this but we just aren’t hearing it yet. Personally, so far, I haven’t heard anything as damning as today. There have been too many indefinite responses & too many maybes so far but today is the first time I’ve thought, there’s a high chance she’s guilty. Earlier, I’ve considered the evidence to be too maybe/could be/ possibly. I’ll continue to follow the case and await the defence and what they can bring.

I agree 100% up until now there’s been room for a lot of reasonable doubt. Even the note they found in her home the ‘I killed them on purpose because I’m evil’ wasn’t as damning as this, but then we’ve only heard that note being outlined in the prosecutions opening, we’re yet to hear more on that.

Of course it is open to debate that someone else may have tampered with the bag and administered the insulin, but LL is the one on trial not any other nurse. This is a circumstantial case, but when all evidence is put together so far, IMO LL is still the one constant factor and presence in every incident.

If air embolus was the primary method of harm up until this point and insulin was used in this instance and detected. I could see a perpetrator going back to using air embolus if the insulin was more easily detectable. I think there is another twin that the prosecution believe was given insulin, so either the perpetrator was trying out different methods or becoming more brazen, especially if they happened to be off shift when the effects of the insulin on baby m F became more serious. Perhaps wanting to actually witness the effects of the insulin be involved in the situation, believing they wouldn’t be suspected due to not being present when baby F’s blood sugars were dangerously low, they decided to try it again so they could watch the result. If one has been seen standing over a cot just observing a baby in distress and it doing anything to help, then it could be possible that they enjoyed watching the drama unfold, it would make an otherwise ‘boring’ shift much more dramatic IMO if babies were collapsing or showing unusual symptoms.

 

[annpats]

I think that is basic flaw of human nature, not necessarily based upon specific cultures or countries.

Nooe., t's endemic in the UK.
Failure after failure in health, social, safeguarding, education, transport and housing.....on and on.

 

[jiffajaffa31]

Hi all, have been following the trial throughout and appreciative of everyone's considered inputs.

This may have been explained but I might have missed it. If baby had insulin in his system that could only have been administered deliberately , would this not have been obvious at the time and an investigation take place at that point?

Im just a bit fuzzy as to how a baby dies with the above circumstances( that apparently cannot occur naturally) and it's not then investigated?

 

[dm799]

Hi all, have been following the trial throughout and appreciative of everyone's considered inputs.

This may have been explained but I might have missed it. If baby had insulin in his system that could only have been administered deliberately , would this not have been obvious at the time and an investigation take place at that point?

Im just a bit fuzzy as to how a baby dies with the above circumstances( that apparently cannot occur naturally) and it's not then investigated?

This child didn't die.

 

[katydid23]

This child didn't die.

And IIRC, this child was transferred to another hospital very soon, after he had the medical crisis, which he survived.

 

[ShireChe]

Hi all, have been following the trial throughout and appreciative of everyone's considered inputs.

This may have been explained but I might have missed it. If baby had insulin in his system that could only have been administered deliberately , would this not have been obvious at the time and an investigation take place at that point?

Im just a bit fuzzy as to how a baby dies with the above circumstances( that apparently cannot occur naturally) and it's not then investigated?

It is an interesting point. If they knew from the results the only possible reason was human administered insulin why did this not ring huge alarm bells? Even if this baby got better and survived surely it would have been investigated as some kind of 'never again' medical incident (assuming they weren't thinking it was sinister at the time) .

Does this perhaps speak of a lack of oversight and senior personnel involved? It just seems so strange that a hospital when faced with countless 'sudden, unexpected, unexplainable' deaths and events are seemingly doing next to nothing about it.

Or is it simply the case that they weren't aware what the results were showing until the case was reviewed years later

 

[Music2022]

Nooe., t's endemic in the UK.
Failure after failure in health, social, safeguarding, education, transport and housing.....on and on.

Absolutely. The NHS is a beacon of no accountability, mismanagement, incompetence and poor care because no one looks at the big picture about a patient. In and out the door.

 

[MsBetsy]

It is an interesting point. If they knew from the results the only possible reason was human administered insulin why did this not ring huge alarm bells? Even if this baby got better and survived surely it would have been investigated as some kind of 'never again' medical incident (assuming they weren't thinking it was sinister at the time) .

Does this perhaps speak of a lack of oversight and senior personnel involved? It just seems so strange that a hospital when faced with countless 'sudden, unexpected, unexplainable' deaths and events are seemingly doing next to nothing about it.

Or is it simply the case that they weren't aware what the results were showing until the case was reviewed years later

Apparently they didn't get the results for the bloodwork back for a week. By then they must have known someone had at least made a tragic mistake by administering insulin. A group of doctors did go to the Board with concerns, according to Dr. Jayaram. He testified that at that time they had no evidence that Letby was responsible. Maybe it was at that time she was moved to the Day shift. Imo

 

[Music2022]

It is an interesting point. If they knew from the results the only possible reason was human administered insulin why did this not ring huge alarm bells? Even if this baby got better and survived surely it would have been investigated as some kind of 'never again' medical incident (assuming they weren't thinking it was sinister at the time) .

Does this perhaps speak of a lack of oversight and senior personnel involved? It just seems so strange that a hospital when faced with countless 'sudden, unexpected, unexplainable' deaths and events are seemingly doing next to nothing about it.

Or is it simply the case that they weren't aware what the results were showing until the case was reviewed years later

This baby survived so the hospital didn’t bother following up on the suspicious results. I’m not surprised, many times the nhs doctors didn’t review my blood tests results and I had to chase them up for days afterwards.

 

[MsBetsy]

And IIRC, this child was transferred to another hospital very soon, after he had the medical crisis, which he survived.

Yes, the prosecution stated that all 'sick' babies made remarkably fast recoveries when removed from Lucy Letby's "orbit."

 

[Eloise]

How can a nurse who seemed baffled at the idea of calculating doses of medicines by patients' weight be called "an excellent nurse"??

My young cousin who is a nurse - not so experienced - burst out laughing hearing this.

I think she is still giggling.

Moo

Right, agreed. There are lots of things unchallenged by the defence that show that LL wasn't professional at all. Judgment by peers of your own age and rank doesn't hold that much weight in my opinion... the people you're going out for drinks with, texting about your social plans etc aren't really objective. I'm sure it means something - she obviously wasn't grossly incompetent, for example - but I'd say it's the opinion of senior nursing staff (not just 'most senior on shift', but managers), doctors, other health professionals etc I'd be more curious to hear from about how 'professional' she really was. So far we've heard she had to be told to go back and attend to her own duties, that she could be pretty tactless with parents, and just how much and how often she was texting on the job.


Yes she'd done some further training but I don't think that's so extraordinary for a 25/26 year old nurse who'd been nursing for ~4 or 5 years post-graduation at that point.


All JMO

 

[katydid23]

It is an interesting point. If they knew from the results the only possible reason was human administered insulin why did this not ring huge alarm bells? Even if this baby got better and survived surely it would have been investigated as some kind of 'never again' medical incident (assuming they weren't thinking it was sinister at the time) .

Does this perhaps speak of a lack of oversight and senior personnel involved? It just seems so strange that a hospital when faced with countless 'sudden, unexpected, unexplainable' deaths and events are seemingly doing next to nothing about it.

Or is it simply the case that they weren't aware what the results were showing until the case was reviewed years later

I think we are soon going to hear more about this question, as the trial continues. At some point, the nurses and doctors do become concerned about the surge in sudden illnesses, and they begin to ask questions, etc.