UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #36

[Rohmer]

RSBM

Could you link to the evidence that the longline was in for four hours without an infusion please?

I don’t have the evidence but it’s what Dr Lee says in the press conference, I believe when he’s discussing either the first or the second baby quite near the start of the presentation.

 

[greenwoodlad]

Can you post a link to this data?

Lucy Letby was not on duty when many babies went downhill fastest

The mortality data is understood to show a broader spike in deaths during the period focused on by police, bolstering the claim that wider failures of care were behind the fatalities.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Rohmer]

thats not 100% accurate imo. he agreed with the symptoms but not the cause, he said it was thrombosis aka blood clot that caused the circulatory system blockage rather than administered air embolism doing the same. the reason why dr shoo lee has said it was thrombosis rtaher than ae was due to the mother of baby A having a blood condition that made blood clots more likely, it has been conclusively ruled out that baby A had the same condition so no greater likelihood of developing blood clots. the case of baby a and baby b were the first of a series of events that were not at all likely to happen without deliberate human action and many of these babies suffered the acute decline and difficulty in resus that made AE a likely potential. it wasnt just baby a that made human action a likely potential it was baby a plus the rest of the evidence.

this is not accurate. Dr Lee did not agree with the symptoms. He explained that there has never been a case described in the literature where venous air embolism resulted in a patchy rash/skin discolouration. This has only happened with arterial air embolism and there’s a specific complex physiological reason as to why - to do with the fact that veins and arteries carry blood in opposite directions from skin to heart and vice versa.

If the air embolism theory is correct, this is the first time a rash/discolouration has ever been recorded. Whereas according to Dr Lee there are other possible causes of collapse some of which were not picked up on due to critical delays and what looks like a tragic series of failures.

He gets into it in more depth, and it’s hard to follow the detail, but surely at the very least these inconsistencies call for explanation given the stakes for the families, Letby, and doing everything possible to work out what went wrong in case it has been systemic failures that could happen again.

 

[Tortoise]

I don’t have the evidence but it’s what Dr Lee says in the press conference, I believe when he’s discussing either the first or the second baby quite near the start of the presentation.

Oh dear, Dr Lee must have made a mistake.


A note by Dr Harkness at 7pm: "Long line inserted at 1st attempt."
A sticker confirming the insertion of the long line is placed.
An x-ray review sticker is also placed, timed 7.09pm.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, October 20

The 10% dextrose solution is shown from a fluid prescription chart as beginning at 8.05pm.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, May 5 - defence continues

 

[May72031]

He gets into it in more depth, and it’s hard to follow the detail, but surely at the very least these inconsistencies call for explanation given the stakes for the families, Letby, and doing everything possible to work out what went wrong in case it has been systemic failures that could happen again.

What systemic failures are you talking about?

 

[May72031]

Oh dear, Dr Lee must have made a mistake.

Shoo-erly not!

 

[marynnu]

this is not accurate. Dr Lee did not agree with the symptoms. He explained that there has never been a case described in the literature where venous air embolism resulted in a patchy rash/skin discolouration. This has only happened with arterial air embolism and there’s a specific complex physiological reason as to why - to do with the fact that veins and arteries carry blood in opposite directions from skin to heart and vice versa.

If the air embolism theory is correct, this is the first time a rash/discolouration has ever been recorded. Whereas according to Dr Lee there are other possible causes of collapse some of which were not picked up on due to critical delays and what looks like a tragic series of failures.

He gets into it in more depth, and it’s hard to follow the detail, but surely at the very least these inconsistencies call for explanation given the stakes for the families, Letby, and doing everything possible to work out what went wrong in case it has been systemic failures that could happen again.

Have you not heard of the foramen ovale?

 

[JosieJo]

I don’t set much store in these coincidences. After all, in the scenario in which she’s innocent she’s searching for the parents of this very unusual and unexpected cluster of babies who were most unwell and who died. She was a prolific voyeuristic searcher on facebook. She searched for people in her salsa classes and apparently people whose names she heard on the street.

But there were other deaths ..she searched "her deaths" as a cluster (at the same time) only her deaths at times in short bursts of searches

 

[JosieJo]

I totally get what Dr Lee said about their "baby 1" it did make me think ...but ..I also wondered were any of the venous air entry cases "deliberate" ..as surely the air pushed through in a deliberate act would be considerably more than accidental air entry..and potentially with more force.
Based on educated guess only, based on the anatomy larger amounts of air forced through could end up in the arterial system

 

[joltz]

According to Dr Lee, the author of the literature review on air embolism that has stood the test of time, an incredibly rare cause of death with only 80 odd examples, there has never been a single recorded instance of a baby presenting with a rash/skin discolouration with an air embolism in the venous system; discolouration has only ever been present with the arterial system. They used skin discolouration as an identifying symptom of air embolism in the venous system but this is incorrect. In cases where air was injected into the veins there were no patchy skin discolourations ever described in the literature. So the evidence that they can be diagnosed as having air embolism because they collapsed and had skin discolouration has no basis in fact. If this is true, it is the first case ever described. Moreover, there’s a specific reason that explains this to do with the differences in physiology of the arterial and venous systems and something to do with pressure. That’s something like a smoking gun-like error in diagnosing the symptoms and signs of air embolism.

Dr Lee says that the other alternative explanations for causes of death are far more likely. He says post mortem showed evidence of thrombosis in the baby. And that the line staff put in the baby ‘tissues’, meaning that there was no infusion. He says that even in babies with no problems they avoid putting lines in with no infusion because if you do that clots can form. The baby is predisposed to clots due to the mother’s condition (disputed at trial you say) however having a line in for four hours without an infusion is a risk. Minutes after infusion was restarted, the baby collapsed most likely due to a blood clot. He says that there’s also another way a blood clot might have happened. He believes the occurrence of the collapse just minutes after the line was re-infused points towards the first of his theories about blood clots and the brain stem.

The original theory was that the baby died and they couldn’t find a reason for it. The baby had these skin discolourations that were consistent with air embolism.

But what he’s saying is that the second reason doesn’t hold. Air embolism in the venous system does not produce these discolourations. There has never been a case in the literature and there’s a plausible technical reason why that is so.

Given the fact there is a plausible and reasonable reason why the baby collapsed, they feel like this diagnosis is wrong.

That seems like pretty devastating new evidence to me.

As well as phrases such as “I am evil I did this”, she also wrote things like: “Why me?”; “I haven’t done anything wrong”; and “Police investigation slander discrimination victimisation”.

I genuinely think her writing down all that stuff, allegedly at the behest of a counsellor she was seeing, was a case of her venting and guilt-tripping and ventriloquising her accusers and feeling sorry for herself amid losing her job and being investigated.

I think it’s more probable than a killer writing down I’m evil and then also that ‘I haven’t done anything wrong’.

Experts have since said that they believe such evidence taken as a whole and not cherry-picked as it was at trial (they left out the fact she was seeing a counsellor for some reason) is bordering on meaningless and I agree.

It’s the medical evidence and the multiple catastrophic failures alleged by Dr Lee and co which hold so much more weight for me.

I just listened to the evidence and case notes for one of the other babies who was said to have been killed via embolism and the medical failures seem to have been devastating. The baby was not given antiobiotics prior to birth and there was a delay in recognising realities distress after birth, there was a delay in starting antibiotics, and delay in starting treatment for respiratory distress as the baby’s condition deteriorated from infection. Whereas at trial it was claimed that the baby was stable, Dr Lee says there were multiple signs of the baby’s deterioration that were missed and that the baby most likely died from sepsis and another two causes. They did not find any evidence of air embolism.

I don’t have the evidence but it’s what Dr Lee says in the press conference, I believe when he’s discussing either the first or the second baby quite near the start of the presentation.

I think you need to stop taking everything Dr lee says at face value. Dr Lee's opinion does not trump 10 months of evidence, first hand witness testimony and expert opinion.

And Dr Lee is wrong, like tortoise has just pointed out. So we know now that what Dr lee says isn't necessarily correct. Glad we got that out of the way. Maybe next, you can start looking objectively at what he has said instead of thinking it's gospel and everyone else is wrong.

 

[mrC]

Fresh doubts are raised over conviction of 'killer' nurse Lucy Letby

The documents raise serious questions over the courtroom claim that Letby was the common link between all the suspicious incidents involving babies at the Chester hospital where she worked.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[JosieJo]

Fresh doubts are raised over conviction of 'killer' nurse Lucy Letby

The documents raise serious questions over the courtroom claim that Letby was the common link between all the suspicious incidents involving babies at the Chester hospital where she worked.

www.dailymail.co.uk

If I'm understanding this correctly? It states other babies case notes were sent to Dr Evans to be looked at ...but it doesn't say these "were" found to be suspicious?

 

[Rohmer]

Oh dear, Dr Lee must have made a mistake.


A note by Dr Harkness at 7pm: "Long line inserted at 1st attempt."
A sticker confirming the insertion of the long line is placed.
An x-ray review sticker is also placed, timed 7.09pm.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, October 20

The 10% dextrose solution is shown from a fluid prescription chart as beginning at 8.05pm.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, May 5 - defence continues

Oh dear, Dr Lee must have made a mistake.


A note by Dr Harkness at 7pm: "Long line inserted at 1st attempt."
A sticker confirming the insertion of the long line is placed.
An x-ray review sticker is also placed, timed 7.09pm.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, October 20

The 10% dextrose solution is shown from a fluid prescription chart as beginning at 8.05pm.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Friday, May 5 - defence continues

I reviewed Dr Lee’s testimony. He’s referring to baby 4 in that instance. I have no idea what letter of baby that refers to but it obviously can’t be the same one. I’m pretty sure Dr Lee did not hallucinate a basic fact. I don’t think I’m being obsequious in counting on him to have the basic reading comprehension skill of an average Joe.

Regarding Child F here is a summary of Dr Lee’s statements:
‘
The baby had sepsis and hypoglycemia. It was treated with antibiotics and glucose. 9 hours after treatment began, it was noticed that the baby was not receiving glucose properly, the line had been feeding body tissue in the leg area, rather than the vein, so no glucose had been entering the bloodstream. This was evidenced by swelling in the leg and groin area. This can explain why blood glucose levels had stayed low during the first bag, rather than the explanation that the bag was poisoned with insulin.

A new bag was fixed and the low blood sugar continued for the next 7 hours. Then a new bag with glucose was inserted, with increased glucose from 10% to 15% and the baby's blood sugar increased and hypoglycemia resolved. Dr. Lee says this increased dose should have been done a lot earlier and the increased dose can explain why the hypoglycemia resolved. He also says they should have treated the baby with a continuous, gradually increasing amount of glucose. He says that the staff should not have given single pump doses of 10% glucose as they did, this caused a surge of insulin to be created in the body which caused blood sugar to fall, creating an up down up down pattern.

Prosecution lawyer Johnson claimed that glucose levels rose from 10am to 12pm due to the insulin spiked bag being removed at 10 am, he said:

at 10am, there were problems with the cannula infusion which meant the line had to be resited, and fluids were discontinued. The two further glucose readings after are '1.4' and '2.4', "implying" that the blood glucose level had started to rise "spontaneously" as there was "no contribution from the intravenous route".Mr Johnson said after Child F was taken off the 'double' dose of dextrose during that time, his blood sugar levels "actually rose.

This analysis by the prosecution was misleading, the 1.4 reading occured at 11:46, compared to 1.3 at 10am. So the prosecution lawyer was wrong to say the glucose had been increasing spontaneously without the bag and insulin expert Dr. Hindmarsh was wrong to say he was correct. The 2.4 reading at around noon can be explained by the new glucose bag being given.

Regarding the insulin blood tests, the insulin c-peptide ratio is different for newborns compared to older children and adults, according to Professor Jeff chase. He says The c-peptide level was a normal level for pre term infants. If insulin poisoning had occured, potassium levels would have been reduced but the baby had normal levels. Glucose levels were not low enough to indicate insulin poisoning. The insulin c-peptide ratio was in a normal range for pre term babies. Pre term babies have a lot of antibodies which binds to insulin and leads to a falsely high insulin reading. Immunoassay testing is unreliable when sepsis and antibiotics cause extra antibodies to interfere with the result.

Hypoglycemia was caused by sepsis, prematurity, IV line tissuing and poor medical management of the hypoglycemia.’

 

[Rohmer]

What systemic failures are you talking about?

The failures in treating the babies outlined by Dr Lee in a two hour press conference, of which there were many.

 

[imstilla.grandma]

Is Lucy Letby guilty? The question has persisted since August 2023, when a jury found the nurse had murdered seven babies and tried to kill six others at the Countess of Chester hospital in north-west England. In the eyes of the state, for a long time any doubt over the conviction amounted to nothing more than a false conspiracy theory. Ms Letby has had two appeals rejected; in July 2024, in a retrial preceded by nine months of reporting restrictions, a second jury found her guilty of another count of attempted murder. An ongoing public inquiry is predicated on her guilt. Its chair, Lady Justice Thirlwall, dismissed the speculation about the case as “noise”.

It increasingly looks as if Lucy Letby’s conviction was unsafe

The case of a nurse jailed for killing babies exposes deep problems with British justice

www.economist.com

 

[Sweeper2000]

What did really happen then?

 

[May72031]

The failures in treating the babies outlined by Dr Lee in a two hour press conference, of which there were many.

What evidence does he have any of these "failures" contributed to the deaths of babies?

 

[mrC]

well lee is ethere an expert or he isnt if hes not then his paper should not have been used bythe proscution

 

[Honeybirdette]

The failures in treating the babies outlined by Dr Lee in a two hour press conference, of which there were many.

After reviewing your recent posts over the last six pages, it seems that you are breaking down each piece of evidence separately and trying to justify each one in isolation. A more coherent method (and how the jury would be instructed to do it) might be to consider all the evidence together, like assembling a jigsaw puzzle, and then applying Occams razor and common sense to arrive at the simplest, most likely conclusion: that this person is guilty.

 

[Honeybirdette]

What if the timing given by baby E’s mum was wrong?

What if her recollection of events of that night was mistaken?

What if the statement (“I killed them on purpose”) was made under extreme mental distress?

What if the medical experts who testified got their assessments wrong?

What if the social media activity and searching for the parents of the dead babies on Christmas Day was innocent and unrelated?

Obviously it’s right to consider whether individual pieces of evidence might have alternative interpretations.
However, in a legal context the whole body of evidence is considered together, like assembling a jigsaw puzzle. Even if one can imagine different scenarios for each element, the verdict is based on whether the complete picture, after scrutinizing every detail and cross-examining the testimony leads to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, while it is useful to ask “what if” about individual pieces of evidence, the final judgment depends on whether, when all these pieces are put together, they overwhelmingly indicate that the person was responsible.