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

[Sweeper2000]

I would assume the circumstances of her surroundings would give her all the impetus to push the plunger down in one quick movement and trying to push a plunger on a 3 ml syringe slowly is extremely difficult And trying to do that already difficult task whilst trying to avoid suspicion is probably close to impossible. if she used a bigger than 3 ml syringe the chances are that without measuring it she would administer more than 3 ml. If she is trying to kill them she won’t be specific in volume of air administered. Pull the plunger back put it in the IV line and go go go. i think it would be impossible to spend a minute pushing the plunger on a 3 ml syringe, it’s just extremely Difficult to do without a machine. She could only actually push the plunger as slowly as her reflexes allow and with such a minuscule amount as 3 ml that’s actually not much. Picture yourself doing it, you would actually have to stop pushing to consciously spend more time administering it. Remember that if she pushes less than 3 ml in and slowly it’s less likely to cause death and won’t be enough to actually cause a blockage or emboli.

 

[Dotta]

I guess we will all become specialists on air embolism here.

 

[Tortoise]

I can't think of any other way she might have administered air. I'm not seeing the difficulty, bearing in mind it's not the same as demonstrating with an empty syringe pushing the plunger slowly, there will probably be a measure of resistance with a narrow tube connected into a vein. If I had to imagine it.

Re baby A - "It was suggested by police that Letby had administered an air embolus. She replied it would have been very hard to push air through the line."
Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

 

[ColourPurple]

I would assume the circumstances of her surroundings would give her all the impetus to push the plunger down in one quick movement and trying to push a plunger on a 3 ml syringe slowly is extremely difficult And trying to do that already difficult task whilst trying to avoid suspicion is probably close to impossible. if she used a bigger than 3 ml syringe the chances are that without measuring it she would administer more than 3 ml. If she is trying to kill them she won’t be specific in volume of air administered. Pull the plunger back put it in the IV line and go go go. i think it would be impossible to spend a minute pushing the plunger on a 3 ml syringe, it’s just extremely Difficult to do without a machine. She could only actually push the plunger as slowly as her reflexes allow and with such a minuscule amount as 3 ml that’s actually not much. Picture yourself doing it, you would actually have to stop pushing to consciously spend more time administering it. Remember that if she pushes less than 3 ml in and slowly it’s less likely to cause death and won’t be enough to actually cause a blockage or emboli.

The surroundings certainly in the early days, weren't a bustling ward full of parents and visitors etc. The alleged murders took place during night shifts, wheres it's a lot quieter, no visitors and lights are often dimmed. And nursery one, which appeared to be her preferred room looked (on the video ) to be somewhere you could be left to your own devices without anybody having cause to be walking in and out unless they were looking after a desingated in there. So, if guilty, I don't think it would neccessarily be a case of her having to do something in a split second to avoid being seen doing it. She's said herself it would be very hard to push air through a line with a syringe, implying it would take a bit of time.

And I don't think it would look suspsicious for a nurse to have any size of empty syringe on her so it wouldn't need to be a particular size. From the description we heard in court she's alleged to have injected it in the area of the line where drugs can be injected, so unless somebody was close up, if somebody did see her doing it from a distance they wouldn't know that she wasn't just injecting a prescribed drug in that location.

Also the references to air embolus being treatable. Well yes, there's a chance they're treatable, if the doctors treating the patient know or suspect that's what the problem could be. But on a neonatal ward, where the medical equipment has safety measures, designed specifically to prevent somebody accidentally injecting air, and where the last thing anybody would suspect is that one of the staff would deliberately bypass those safety measures to maliciously injecting air, air emobolism would be the last thing the doctors woud suspect was wrong. And the one person who is alleged to have known that the problem was air emobolism didn't pipe up to suggest that could be the cause, or as far as we know suggest things that she knew may have treated it, without mentioning what she knew it to be. In fact she was very good at coming up with other possible causes.

 

[Dotta]

To break with the topic of air embolism...

I checked the info online about hospital cameras in my country.

And... cameras can be installed in "special supervision wards" such as children's ones without permission of parents/guardians.

The aim is safety of little patients.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Curious in this instance that people believe her on that statement, can anyone verify it? I would assume as a layman in medicine that the only resistance you would get would be Due to the rubber seal keeping the liquid in the syringe and the pressure necessary to force the liquid or air through the needle point, considering it’s designed for that purpose I wouldn’t guess it would take much force really.

“From the description we heard in court she's alleged to have injected it in the area of the line where drugs can be injected”. That’s true but again if she used a line made for injecting liquids it could be easier to inject air Presumably. Surprising as well because if it’s true that it’s difficult to push air through the line then does that go against the air embolism theory Altogether?

I dont See why people would think she would take ages to push the plunger down ? especially as it compromises the lethality of the alleged air embolism Imo, it needs to be a big enough bubble of air at once (over 3ml) to be fatal Otherwise it gets to the lungs and exhaled IMO.

I suppose my points simplified is this, it would be easier to administer a fatal dose of air than not and It is antithetical to her interests to do it slowly if she is trying to kill And dr bohins suggestion that the speed of application is inapplicable to air embolism via syringe. I think but can’t say for sure.

 

[KurtVile2021]

Sorry, struggling to understand why my post was deleted when I was just highlighting similarities of evidence in this case, with those presented in previous decided cases. That was by no means to suggest LL is guility or NG, but merely to point out these techniques have been used successfully before in other cases as posts above were questioning how the alleged acts were carried out and delivered. My point was if others can deliver these air embolisms successfully in similar settings, what would make LL's circumstances any different (if she is guilty of the alleged offences)?

 

[Tortoise]

My point was if others can deliver these air embolisms successfully in similar settings, what would make LL's circumstances any different (if she is guilty of the alleged offences)?

respectfully snipped by me

The defence has accepted that air embolisms are a theoretical possibility, without accepting that LL did it. That's all we need to know on this really, there is no dispute, in court, over how it could happen. Two medical experts were asked why some of the babies survived and others didn't, and they both gave the same answer.

LL herself would not have been an expert on air embolisms and if she's guilty, I suspect she wouldn't have appreciated the reasons for the different outcomes, and each occasion would have presented her with different opportunities for not being seen and time available, for the alleged injections.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

Sorry, struggling to understand why my post was deleted when I was just highlighting similarities of evidence in this case, with those presented in previous decided cases. That was by no means to suggest LL is guility or NG, but merely to point out these techniques have been used successfully before in other cases as posts above were questioning how the alleged acts were carried out and delivered. My point was if others can deliver these air embolisms successfully in similar settings, what would make LL's circumstances any different (if she is guilty of the alleged offences)?

It’s still sub judice. My post is simply questioning whether dr bohin s statement about speed and volume is accurate. Not LL capacity for successfully delivering an air embolism. She had all the opportunity necessary it’s just the small likelihood of delivering a less than fatal dose with available equipment That I question. I just don’t see any reason to think she would discriminate in volume of air or that she would spend more time than necessary to deliver it.

 

[Tortoise]

It’s still sub judice. My post is simply questioning whether dr bohin s statement about speed and volume is accurate. Not LL capacity for successfully delivering an air embolism. She had all the opportunity necessary it’s just the small likelihood of delivering a less than fatal dose with available equipment That I question. I just don’t see any reason to think she would discriminate in volume of air or that she would spend more time than necessary to deliver it.

Why do you refer to it as Dr Bohin's statement again, when I have provided the testimonies of both Dr Evans and Dr Bohin saying the exact same thing?

Effectively you describe yourself as a "layman in medicine" and say that two medical experts are inaccurate.

I won't be replying to any further posts on the matter.

 

[Tortoise]

The Trial of Lucy Letby, Episode 9: Baby G, Part 2: “She was a pale colour. She wasn’t moving. The monitor wasn’t on.”

www.mailplus.co.uk

The Trial of Lucy Letby, Episode 9: Baby G, Part 2: “She was a pale colour. She wasn’t moving. The monitor wasn’t on.”​

In this episode Caroline and Liz explain how Lucy Letby allegedly tried to kill Baby G, the most premature baby in the case, on two more occasions.

I had wondered where baby G's mum was when the cannula was being fitted by the two doctors behind a screen. The reporter says the mum left the room while it was being carried out.

 

[Sweeper2000]

fair enough both dr bohin and dr evans say the same thing. true I’m A layman in medicine and they are both very experienced and qualified doctors but they are not experts or doctors in murder and method of murder. They are perhaps no more qualified than you or me to speculate on the likelihood that LL would discriminate in volume of air delivered when attempting to kill a baby. there is no reason to think she would.

 

[ColourPurple]

Curious in this instance that people believe her on that statement, can anyone verify it? I would assume as a layman in medicine that the only resistance you would get would be Due to the rubber seal keeping the liquid in the syringe and the pressure necessary to force the liquid or air through the needle point, considering it’s designed for that purpose I wouldn’t guess it would take much force really.

“From the description we heard in court she's alleged to have injected it in the area of the line where drugs can be injected”. That’s true but again if she used a line made for injecting liquids it could be easier to inject air Presumably. Surprising as well because if it’s true that it’s difficult to push air through the line then does that go against the air embolism theory Altogether?

I dont See why people would think she would take ages to push the plunger down ? especially as it compromises the lethality of the alleged air embolism Imo, it needs to be a big enough bubble of air at once (over 3ml) to be fatal Otherwise it gets to the lungs and exhaled IMO.

I suppose my points simplified is this, it would be easier to administer a fatal dose of air than not and It is antithetical to her interests to do it slowly if she is trying to kill And dr bohins suggestion that the speed of application is inapplicable to air embolism via syringe. I think but can’t say for sure.

I dont think anybody's saying she definitely would take ages. My post was just disputing that the fear of being seen doing it, would make her do it quickly. IMO, if guilty, as she was often on anight shift and/or in room 1, she could have done it as quickly or slowly as she wanted. However her comment to police does suggest that if it was hard to physically inject air into a line then it probably wasn't a quick one second thing. Whether she was telling the truth about it being hard to do, who knows but it was an odd thing to say regardless. A simple "no" would have sufficed.

 

[ColourPurple]

I had wondered where baby G's mum was when the cannula was being fitted by the two doctors behind a screen. The reporter says the mum left the room while it was being carried out.

Yes another example of an incident happening in the timeframe when the parents or designated nurses weren't around, but LL was.

IMO

 

[ColourPurple]

Sorry, struggling to understand why my post was deleted when I was just highlighting similarities of evidence in this case, with those presented in previous decided cases. That was by no means to suggest LL is guility or NG, but merely to point out these techniques have been used successfully before in other cases as posts above were questioning how the alleged acts were carried out and delivered. My point was if others can deliver these air embolisms successfully in similar settings, what would make LL's circumstances any different (if she is guilty of the alleged offences)?

I've had a post deleted when I've mentioned the case by name too so don't think we're allowed to specifically name it, while LL's trial is active.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I dont think anybody's saying she definitely would take ages. My post was just disputing that the fear of being seen doing it, would make her do it quickly. IMO, if guilty, as she was often on anight shift and/or in room 1, she could have done it as quickly or slowly as she wanted. However her comment to police does suggest that if it was hard to physically inject air into a line then it probably wasn't a quick one second thing. Whether she was telling the truth about it being hard to do, who knows but it was an odd thing to say regardless. A simple "no" would have sufficed.

“My post was just disputing that the fear of being seen doing it, would make her do it quickly”

my point remains that she probably wouldn’t discriminate in volume of air and the equipment available would mean that she is much more likely to deliver a fatal amount than not.

if It is difficult to push it through the line does that go against the AE theory in this instance?

in order to deliver a lethal dose she has to deliver more than 3 ml in one go otherwise it wouldn’t necessarily be fatal. IMO .

 

[Sweeper2000]

Here is article that I think supports my points.

Lucy Letby trial: Baby girl was ‘force-fed massive amounts of milk’

A BABY girl allegedly attacked by nurse Lucy Letby was force-fed “massive additional amounts of milk”, a court has heard.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

“I can’t recall a baby vomiting as far as the floor, I certainly can’t recall a baby vomiting that distance. It is quite extraordinary, there is something very, very unusual going on for (Child G) to throw up in this way.

"There can be only one explanation. (Child G) received far more than 45ml (of milk) down her nasal tube before she vomited.”

this amount of milk I think suggests what is called “overkill” or excessive degrees of inflicted injury to ensure maximum harm Which is fitting if she was trying to kill.
why would she discriminate in volume of air in a intravenous air embolus but not in volume of milk/air via the ngt?

 

[ColourPurple]

“My post was just disputing that the fear of being seen doing it, would make her do it quickly”

my point remains that she probably wouldn’t discriminate in volume of air and the equipment available would mean that she is much more likely to deliver a fatal amount than not.

if It is difficult to push it through the line does that go against the AE theory in this instance?

in order to deliver a lethal dose she has to deliver more than 3 ml in one go otherwise it wouldn’t necessarily be fatal. IMO .

Here is article that I think supports my points.

Lucy Letby trial: Baby girl was ‘force-fed massive amounts of milk’

A BABY girl allegedly attacked by nurse Lucy Letby was force-fed “massive additional amounts of milk”, a court has heard.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

“I can’t recall a baby vomiting as far as the floor, I certainly can’t recall a baby vomiting that distance. It is quite extraordinary, there is something very, very unusual going on for (Child G) to throw up in this way.

"There can be only one explanation. (Child G) received far more than 45ml (of milk) down her nasal tube before she vomited.”

this amount of milk I think suggests what is called “overkill” or excessive degrees of inflicted injury to ensure maximum harm Which is fitting if she was trying to kill.
why would she discriminate in volume of air in a intravenous air embolus but not in volume of milk/air via the ngt?

We don't know that she did "discriminate in volume of air". I think if guilty, she basically injected air, and it went through at whatever speed it went through at and she injected whatever amount of air she felt like. I don't think she would have sat there thinking "Ok so I need to inject X amount in X amount of time in order for it to be fatal/non fatal" It's basic nursing (and common) knowledge that you just don't inject air because there's a good chance it could kill the person.

 

[ColourPurple]

that supports my point that she wouldn’t have incidentally administered less than a lethal dose In the time it would take to deliver the ur in one go.

the Difficulty in pushing air through the line is a valid point but the fact she did say that might mean something. Is that incriminating or not?

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say or prove. You don't inject air full stop, because theres a high risk of it being fatal.

 

[Dotta]

Merry Christmas and very happy New Year to everyone!!!

"Let us hurry to love people
They depart so quickly!"

Best wishes from snowy Poland