UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #8

[Supernovae]

Morning guys, I was hopeful we might be back today but then I remembered Croatia v Brazil is the 3pm match today, so a juror may still be covid postive for the weekend...

If we are back I'll be updating as usual

I'd be more surprised if they weren't, when my family had covid we were all positive for around two weeks.

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

I'd be more surprised if they weren't, when my family had covid we were all positive for around two weeks.

Same! Me and my partner had it earlier on this year and still tested positive on a LF for about two weeks. Haven't kept up with the new rules I'll be honest but if the Juror tested positive on Wednesday could they even be back today anyway?

 

[Supernovae]

This hospital sounds worse and worse. If the culture was to stand chatting and ignore chocking babies and not follow up on test results then it would made a perfect place to commit crimes against babies and go unnoticed.

It's not clear who was actually supposed to be in charge of her while her designated nurse was on a break.

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

THE trial of former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of multiple baby murders, is due to finalise its jury and hear…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

3:11pm

At 2am, a feed had shown minimal aspirated of partially digested milk. The nurse took her scheduled one-hour break.
"Nothing is recorded on who was asked to keep an eye on Child G," Mr Johnson said.

3:14pm

At 2.15am, the shift leader said she was sat with Lucy Leader when she heard Child G vomiting, along with Child G's monitor alarm going off.
They ran into her nursery. Child G had vomited violently and suffered a collapse.
The prosecution said medical records suggest the shift leader nurse's memory of being with Lucy Letby for a period of time before this event cannot be accurate.

Lucy Letby: Baby's deterioration was unexpected, fellow nurse tells jury

A colleague of Lucy Letby tells the nurse's trial that a change in a baby's condition was unexpected.

www.bbc.co.uk

Her colleague, who was the baby's designated nurse, said she gave Child G a routine feed of 45ml of breast milk via tube before going for her break and the baby was stable.
She told the court she returned to find Child G had been moved to the intensive care unit and was surrounded by staff.

The court later heard from Ailsa Simpson, who was the nursing shift leader.
She said the mood on the neonatal unit had been "calm" and Child G had appeared in "good condition", but she had later heard the baby suddenly vomit at 02:15 as she was sitting with Ms Letby at a nursing station metres away.
She said the "large milky digested vomit" was "loud enough to hear" and had "gone from over the cot and on to a chair next to her".
She said an alarm also sounded, signalling the baby's oxygen levels and heart rate had dropped, and she and Ms Letby immediately went to the room.

 

[Supernovae]

It's not clear who was actually supposed to be in charge of her while her designated nurse was on a break.

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

THE trial of former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of multiple baby murders, is due to finalise its jury and hear…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Lucy Letby: Baby's deterioration was unexpected, fellow nurse tells jury

A colleague of Lucy Letby tells the nurse's trial that a change in a baby's condition was unexpected.

www.bbc.co.uk

This, by the way, is one case where the defence will likely dispute that she was where she needed to be to do what she is said to have done, if they haven't already.

 

[Supernovae]

I’m not sure I’ve seen the defence really do any kind of disputing against the potential air embolisms. They’ve offered no other feasible explanation for them, or potential other cause of the collapses/rash symptoms/pain signals like babies screaming etc.

You can argue understaffed or sub optimal care all you like, that doesn’t explain what appears to be intended harm caused by injecting air?

At this point they can only really chip away in cross examination, which they have been doing. They won't get the chance to put forward a positive case until the prosecution have completed theirs which won't be for several months.

 

[Tortoise]

A little bit more of an insight into baby G (I think it was mentioned previously but I can’t quite recall, about IVF).

In the article, baby Gs mother talks about her pregnancy following conceiving after IVF and bleeding in her pregnancy. More in the article which I don’t think I’ve actually read thus far in the trial?

'Tiny’ IVF baby left brain damaged after being fed excessive milk by Lucy Letby, court told

A child with quadriplegic cerebral palsy was allegedly attacked by the nurse when she was just weeks old, a court has heard

inews.co.uk

Isn't it great that our regular reporters in court didn't mention IVF, not one of them!

It makes me wonder how much else they choose to leave out. It's potentially pretty relevant information if it turns out that these babies had the same thing in common. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. I can imagine some papers storing up a bombshell revelation like that. Could be wrong but I'm just so frustrated with the reporting in this case. Perhaps the Mail weekly podcast for baby G will mention it when it comes out.

Thanks for linking.

 

[Tortoise]

This, by the way, is one case where the defence will likely dispute that she was where she needed to be to do what she is said to have done, if they haven't already.

opening speech, which isn't evidence but is unlikely to be untruthful or the defence would have objected, said she admitted she was the only nurse in there when C collapsed. We didn't get to hear about the police interviews in full from our lovely court reporters.

11:19am

The court has heard Child C was being looked after by a nurse less qualified than Lucy Letby and had been given the responsibility as Child C was stable.
That nurse had left to go to the nurses station in the hospital. While there, she heard Child C's monitor sound an alarm.
Upon her return, Letby was already in the room, standing next to Child C's cot.
It was the third baby to have suffered a serious deterioration in the matter of a few days, the court heard.

11:20am

Letby was the only nurse who had been on duty for all three collapse incidents for Child A, B and C.

11:22am

In police interview, Letby denied she had anything to do with Child C, other than with the resuscitation.
She could not remember why she had ended up in nursery 1.
In a second interview, asked about texts which had been found on her phone placing her in that room, Letby said that she might have been sending them from the nurses’ station and then gone into room 1 “to do something else”.
She then agreed that she had been the only person in the room when Child C had collapsed.

11:24am

After finishing her shift, Letby searched on Facebook for Child C's parents.
The prosecution say this would've been one of the first things she would have done after that night shift ended.
Mr Johnson, for the prosecution, added Letby would have been the only adult in the room when Child C collapsed, as was the case with Child A, and was one of only two in the room when Child B collapsed.

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

Isn't it great that our regular reporters in court didn't mention IVF, not one of them!

It makes me wonder how much else they choose to leave out. It's potentially pretty relevant information if it turns out that these babies had the same thing in common. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. I can imagine some papers storing up a bombshell revelation like that. Could be wrong but I'm just so frustrated with the reporting in this case. Perhaps the Mail weekly podcast for baby G will mention it when it comes out.

Thanks for linking.

I think you're bang on there about the papers, I mean the headlines write themselves don't they really, potentially "KILLER NURSE TARGETS IVF BABIES". I think we're missing a lot in this case, we may even be missing really key details that make this whole thing make a bit more sense (if it even can make sense).

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

The article also mentions baby G had regular brain scans before she went to the Countess, so that's how they can determine that her brain damage was caused by the collapses.

"During the first 13 weeks of her life at Arrowe Park, Child G received regular brain scans that did not show any problems, the jury was told."

'Tiny’ IVF baby left brain damaged after being fed excessive milk by Lucy Letby, court told

 

[Dotta]

Morning guys, I was hopeful we might be back today but then I remembered Croatia v Brazil is the 3pm match today, so a juror may still be covid postive for the weekend...

If we are back I'll be updating as usual

But I thought that such a diagnosis should be issued by a doctor, no?

Can a person just say "Hey, I have covid so I can't come to work today"?

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

But I thought that such a diagnosis should be issued by a doctor, no?

Can a person just say "Hey, I have covid so I can't come to work today"?

In England yes, I could tell my boss 'sorry I have tested positive for covid' and have a couple of days off, especially if I had symptoms. He could ask to see a positive test.

Not sure if every job is the same, but where I am I can self-certify for 7 days and only after that would I need a sick note for work or any actual 'proof' that I was unwell from a doctor. But getting a GP appointment is like finding rocking horse sh*te at the moment

 

[Tortoise]

There is further evidence that LL was already in room 1 when baby C collapsed -

from October 28th evidence -

Ms Taylor said Lucy Letby suggested using a type of ventilation support - a Guedel device - to aid Child C.


from October 31st evidence -

Dr Davis's note is presented to the court, written at 1.30am on June 14 and timed retrospectively.
The note said she was arrived at the unit in "less than one minute" after the crash bleep went off.
A 'Guedel airway in situ' was noted, with chest compressions in progress.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, October 31

 

[Dotta]

In England yes, I could tell my boss 'sorry I have tested positive for covid' and have a couple of days off, especially if I had symptoms. He could ask to see a positive test.

Not sure if every job is the same, but where I am I can self-certify for 7 days and only after that would I need a sick note for work or any actual 'proof' that I was unwell from a doctor. But getting a GP appointment is like finding rocking horse sh*te at the moment

I see.
Well, where I live such absences from work are strictly regulated.
One MUST go to the doctor/or doctor comes to a patient.
Then a doc sends a document to workplace that a worker is unable to work due to illness from...to...
But the illness absences are paid ones, so that is why they are restrictly observed.

That is why I thought it was a joke when some posters here wrote about World Cup and Jurors absent haha

 

[Tortoise]

It's not clear who was actually supposed to be in charge of her while her designated nurse was on a break.

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

THE trial of former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of multiple baby murders, is due to finalise its jury and hear…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Lucy Letby: Baby's deterioration was unexpected, fellow nurse tells jury

A colleague of Lucy Letby tells the nurse's trial that a change in a baby's condition was unexpected.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Lucy Letby writes a note, written in retrospect at 8.57am, where care of Child G was transferred to her following an 'event'.
The note says "written in retrospect for care given from 2am to present. [Child G] had large projectile milky vomit at 2.15am. Continued to vomit++. 45mls of milk obtained from NG tube with air++. Abdomen noted to be distended and discoloured. Colour improved few minutes after aspirating tube, remained distended but soft. Reg[istrar] Ventress asked to review. To go nil by mouth with IV fluids. Dr called to theatre."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, December 1

 

[Sundial]

Isn't it great that our regular reporters in court didn't mention IVF, not one of them!

It makes me wonder how much else they choose to leave out. It's potentially pretty relevant information if it turns out that these babies had the same thing in common. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. I can imagine some papers storing up a bombshell revelation like that. Could be wrong but I'm just so frustrated with the reporting in this case. Perhaps the Mail weekly podcast for baby G will mention it when it comes out.

Thanks for linking.

I too feel this is quite relevant. I also wonder what the correlation is between ivf babies and illness/prematurity. For example are babies more likely to be born earlier? In addition (and this is just my own thoughts), *if* IVF is actually even mentioned at handovers (whether the parents may have told her this during their distress at their unwell child, how long they have waited to be parents for example) or if this was something LL would have found out by looking back through the mothers history.

My wondering is based on the theory it doesn’t matter how a child was conceived as such (in this instance of course it matters for these families awaiting to become parents etc), but whether it is actually indeed even mentioned in handovers. It’s very difficult to know what links these poor babies and their families without all the relevant points we’re not actually getting from the reporting. But if these are actually targeted cases, what links them together. Parents age, IVF, maybe even both or neither, perhaps we will never know.
Moo

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

I too feel this is quite relevant. I also wonder what the correlation is between ivf babies and illness/prematurity. For example are babies more likely to be born earlier? In addition (and this is just my own thoughts), *if* IVF is actually even mentioned at handovers (whether the parents may have told her this during their distress at their unwell child, how long they have waited to be parents for example) or if this was something LL would have found out by looking back through the mothers history.

My wondering is based on the theory it doesn’t matter how a child was conceived as such (in this instance of course it matters for these families awaiting to become parents etc), but whether it is actually indeed even mentioned in handovers. It’s very difficult to know what links these poor babies and their families without all the relevant points we’re not actually getting from the reporting. But if these are actually targeted cases, what links them together. Parents age, IVF, maybe even both or neither, perhaps we will never know.
Moo

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think statistically that IVF does seem to result in multiples (twins, triplets etc) a bit more often than standard conception. So it would follow that quite a lot of the babies in the unit may be from IVF because so many of them are multiples, as they usually have a lower birth weight and may need some more support.


MOO

 

[BabaVanga]

No court today. Juror still ill

 

[Tortoise]

I too feel this is quite relevant. I also wonder what the correlation is between ivf babies and illness/prematurity. For example are babies more likely to be born earlier? In addition (and this is just my own thoughts), *if* IVF is actually even mentioned at handovers (whether the parents may have told her this during their distress at their unwell child, how long they have waited to be parents for example) or if this was something LL would have found out by looking back through the mothers history.

My wondering is based on the theory it doesn’t matter how a child was conceived as such (in this instance of course it matters for these families awaiting to become parents etc), but whether it is actually indeed even mentioned in handovers. It’s very difficult to know what links these poor babies and their families without all the relevant points we’re not actually getting from the reporting. But if these are actually targeted cases, what links them together. Parents age, IVF, maybe even both or neither, perhaps we will never know.
Moo

from The Mail podcast episode 3 for baby A - link in post #90 page 5 of media thread

“LL also told detectives that she knew Baby A and his twin sister Baby B were much wanted babies and his parents had waited a long time for them. The interviewing officer then asked “who told you that?” and she replied “it was known through the nursing handover we had”. She was then asked if that sort of information would change the way she would deal with parents, and she said “no, I would like to think we treat all the parents the same, but you bear in mind what they’ve gone through to get to this point”.”

We don't know that this refers to IVF but it's some circumstance of the parents. There's just something about her reply that seems off to me. Firstly I think 'no' would be a full answer, but saying 'we treat all the parents the same' indicates to me that she doesn't think they are all the same. MOO

 

[Sundial]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think statistically that IVF does seem to result in multiples (twins, triplets etc) a bit more often than standard conception. So it would follow that quite a lot of the babies in the unit may be from IVF because so many of them are multiples, as they usually have a lower birth weight and may need some more support.


MOO

Oh for sure, I have read that too (statistically with Ivf and twins), it seems to be well founded by doctors who mention this too. I think back about the triplets in this case and can’t help but think they were conceived by ivf also and if the twins in this case were also indeed ivf.

Which baby/babies can anyone recall where it was stated “long awaited pregnancy” was this a twin pregnancy? It makes you wonder if it is ivf that links a majority of these cases. But considering the babies which were singleton pregnancies; if anyone knows if children conceived via ivf are more likely to be premature,.. thus naturally would more likely to be in NNU. It’s very frustrating not knowing the relevant points from the reporting.

 

[Sundial]

from The Mail podcast episode 3 for baby A - link in post #90 page 5 of media thread

“LL also told detectives that she knew Baby A and his twin sister Baby B were much wanted babies and his parents had waited a long time for them. The interviewing officer then asked “who told you that?” and she replied “it was known through the nursing handover we had”. She was then asked if that sort of information would change the way she would deal with parents, and she said “no, I would like to think we treat all the parents the same, but you bear in mind what they’ve gone through to get to this point”.”

We don't know that this refers to IVF but it's some circumstance of the parents. There's just something about her reply that seems off to me. Firstly I think 'no' would be a full answer, but saying 'we treat all the parents the same' indicates to me that she doesn't think they are all the same. MOO

See this is what I’m picking up on aswell. Now we know baby G was conceived via ivf, I’m not sure whether it actually *would* be such a point in handover. Hence what I meant by, is the conception relevant? (Yes it matters of course, not to sound insensitive at all to these poor families and their babies), but I can’t help but wonder; really?, *THAT* would be discussed in handover? Why? It doesn’t matter,..their care is what matters, it just seems a little strange to me. Moo