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

[Charlot123]

.

"The newborns either died of natural causes or from bad medical care", he says. And this is absolutely damning to the COCH. And how does it feel for the parents to hear it?

I'm sorry, but if the above ^^^statement was true, there'd be no reason for Nurse Letby to have falsified her medical notes and lied about the timeline in Baby E's case.

Dr Shoo-Lee does not dissuade me from believing in Nurse Letby's GUILT.

These medical arguments are not cut and dry/black and white. Even the smartest most experienced doctors do not totally agree about medical cases. That's why people get 2nd and 3rd opinions .

This case cannot be decided by the duelling of two groups of doctors. MURDER cases are built upon many factors.

The trial took many things into account. It was not just the medical reports. It was a combination of many things that as a whole, proved her guilt.

These doctors did not watch the trial and take all of the evidence into account.

In jurisprudence, we have to base our opinion on evidence, not on emotions. Otherwise, any process can turn into a show trial. JMO.

Mind you, I am not commenting only on Lucy. The three doctors who just ran away with the article of Dr. Shoo Lee without bothering to call the author. Maybe they are so hypnotized by own belief that one can't get to them now. But, to me Dr. Shoo Lee is not only a worldwide-known, experienced neonatologist. He stands for fairness. He, the author, thinks that the doctors misunderstood his article. He, the neonatologist who was working at good hospitals, thinks that COCH care is substandard. He, a Ph.D. in economics (healthcare) from Harvard, can surely read into hospital statistics. And what does he say?

“In summary then, ladies and gentlemen, we did not find murders,” Lee said at a London news conference."

So many of these deaths were explained by Lucy "attacking" the babies and causing air embolism. The author of the article they cited says, no, this is not how it looks. He wrote that article. He knows. He says, colleagues, this is not what I have described.

I expect the first to seriously fall would be Dr. Dewi Evans.

 

[katydid23]

The big problem is that each side says, or admits, that with each case, it could possibly be natural, or possibly be criminal. If you have just one case to look at, you'd have to go with it being a natural death, and not pursue a criminal charge.

But the problem is that after 2 years of 'outliers' ---after 2 years of unexplained, unexpected, sudden collapses of babies, one can no longer write each one off as an outlier. You cannot continue to see it as an oddity, a fluke.

And when one does begin to look at the tragic string of sudden unexplained collapses, one common denominator stands out. One person was the common denominator in every case.

Once it was proven that this one person was lying, falsifying her medical notes, altering them to try and distance herself from certain collapses, it was impossible to ignore.

The day she went on her 2 week vacation, one of the babies she cared for had a sudden unexplained collapse. The entire time she was away from the clinic, there were no unexplained desaturations or deaths.

The very day she returned, there were TWO sudden collapses. Baby O and OP. How can Shoo-Lee explain that?

When the babies were first dropping, staff members noticed that Lucy was always part of the circumstances. So much so, that her friends and co-workers helpfully suggested that she step away from the most poorly babies because it must have been so distressing for Lucy to have to endure those tragedies so repeatedly.

But she doggedly refused the chance to step away and recover. She did the opposite. She demanded that she be given the most critical caseload. And she sulked and complained if she was not given those cases. And the collapses continued.

During the trial it was shown that Letby sometimes falsified her case notes to distance herself from the babies that collapsed. The prosecution showed several instances where she wrote down incorrect information, trying to place herself in other rooms when a baby collapsed, instead of putting the true facts, showing she was actually in the room where the collapse were occurring.

For example she would write in her notes that @ 8 pm she was changing nappies and feeding in nursery one. But the prosecution was able to prove that she was actually doing an observation and changing a line in nursery 3, moments before that baby inexplicably collapsed.

It is those kinds of shady and sketchy circumstances that have to be taken into account when trying to decide if all of these unexplained collapses are natural occurrences or malicious actions. IMO

 

[katydid23]

.

In jurisprudence, we have to base our opinion on evidence, not on emotions. Otherwise, any process can turn into a show trial. JMO.

It is not 'emotions' to take into account the deceitful actions of a murder suspect. Why would a nurse have to lie and falsify her medical logs if these were all natural deaths?

And why didn't any of these unexplained, sudden collapses happen during Letby's two long vacations from work?

It is not 'emotions' speaking when we have to take these facts into account.

Mind you, I am not commenting only on Lucy. The three doctors who just ran away with the article of Dr. Shoo Lee without bothering to call the author. Maybe they are so hypnotized by own belief that one can't get to them now. But, to me Dr. Shoo Lee is not only a worldwide-known, experienced neonatologist. He stands for fairness. He, the author, thinks that the doctors misunderstood his article. He, the neonatologist who working at good hospitals, thinks that COCH care is substandard. He, with a Ph.D. in economics (healthcare) from Harvard, can surely read into hospital statistics. And what does he say?

Yes, Chester has had some substandard care. That is one big reason why Letby was able to get away with her transgressions, imo.

The trial spent a lot of time looking at the substandard care issues. It was a major focus. But NONE of those examples of substandard care was able to explain the 27 incidents of sudden, unexpected Neo-natal collapses.

“In summary then, ladies and gentlemen, we did not find murders,” Lee said at a London news conference."

So many of these deaths were explained by Lucy "attacking" the babies and causing air embolism. The author of the article they cited says, no, this is not how it looks. He wrote it. He knows. He says, colleagues, this is not what I have described.

Shoo-Lee is not the only medical expert that knows about these kinds of deaths.

And yet no one really knows much about air embolisms at all because they are so rare. And we obviously cannot study them by replication. So even Shoo-Lee is just speculating and admits as much.

There is a large, unnatural spike in collapses in which the babies could not be resuscitated. One thing they all had in common was that they did not react they way 98% of desaturated infants reacted. They needed several shots of adrenaline in order to be revived. That is highly unusual.

These collapses, which had many odd things in common, never happened unless the common denominator was present. When the common denominator was on holiday or off duty, the collapses did not occur.

 

[Charlot123]

The big problem is that each side says, or admits, that with each case, it could possibly be natural, or possibly be criminal. If you have just one case to look at, you'd have to go with it being a natural death, and not pursue a criminal charge.

But the problem is that after 2 years of 'outliers' ---after 2 years of unexplained, unexpected, sudden collapses of babies, one can no longer write each one off as an outlier. You cannot continue to see it as an oddity, a fluke.

And when one does begin to look at the tragic string of sudden unexplained collapses, one common denominator stands out. One person was the common denominator in every case.

Once it was proven that this one person was lying, falsifying her medical notes, altering them to try and distance herself from certain collapses, it was impossible to ignore.

The day she went on her 2 week vacation, one of the babies she cared for had a sudden unexplained collapse. The entire time she was away from the clinic, there were no unexplained desaturations or deaths.

The very day she returned, there were TWO sudden collapses. Baby O and OP. How can Shoo-Lee explain that?

When the babies were first dropping, staff members noticed that Lucy was always part of the circumstances. So much so, that her friends and co-workers helpfully suggested that she step away from the most poorly babies because it must have been so distressing for Lucy to have to endure those tragedies so repeatedly.

But she doggedly refused the chance to step away and recover. She did the opposite. She demanded that she be given the most critical caseload. And she sulked and complained if she was not given those cases. And the collapses continued.

During the trial it was shown that Letby sometimes falsified her case notes to distance herself from the babies that collapsed. The prosecution showed several instances where she wrote down incorrect information, trying to place herself in other rooms when a baby collapsed, instead of putting the true facts, showing she was actually in the room where the collapse were occurring.

For example she would write in her notes that @ 8 pm she was changing nappies and feeding in nursery one. But the prosecution was able to prove that she was actually doing an observation and changing a line in nursery 3, moments before that baby inexplicably collapsed.

It is those kinds of shady and sketchy circumstances that have to be taken into account when trying to decide if all of these unexplained collapses are natural occurrences or malicious actions. IMO

To me, all of them are not telling the truth. Maybe she is lying. Maybe it is her personality. Or, perhaps these were not outliers. Or, as many now ask, the bacteria in the water was the culprit for the statistics.
The fact that she falcified her notes might simply indicate the same that "Dr. Choco" story does - that there was no discipline in the unit. That was Dr. Breary's turf.

About lying... some information that you probably know. Mislabeled door swipe data section. I am getting it from Wiki. Who was falcifying information here, the police? That's more serious than the nurse. One of the crucial witnesses' testimony was tied up to that time...How is he involved?

Lastly, the same Wikipedia says that there, indeed, in 2015 there was peak of mortality in other units of COCH. So the statistical outlier was the whole hospital. Lucy's job, or maybe, merely an old facility? (BTW, I am sorry for this, not joking). Here: "In September 2016, the RCPCH interviewed staff at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Their subsequent report concluded that medical and nursing staff levels were inadequate. They observed that the 2015 increase in mortality was not limited to the neonatal unit."

The card swiped data has a separate section in the end of Wiki article.

Lucy Letby - Wikipedia

BTW, I honestly have no idea about LL' guilt or innocence. I think that with so many things going wrong, it is practically impossible to prove. If LL is guilty, she is probably mentally ill and needs treatment. If she is not, she deserves freedom. I think her nursing career is over anyhow. She can still have a life.

 

[katydid23]

To me, all of them are not telling the truth. Maybe she is lying. Maybe it is her personality. Or, perhaps these were not outliers. Or, as many now ask, the bacteria in the water was the culprit for the statistics.
The fact that she falcified her notes might simply indicate the same that "Dr. Choco" story does - that there was no discipline in the unit. That was Dr. Breary's turf.

She accused the parents of Baby E of making up their account of seeing him crying in pain and bleeding from the mouth.
Letby lied and told the mum that she had already called a doctor for help. But she hadn't called for help and she waited almost an hour before doing so.

Then she accused the parents of lying about seeing the blood on the baby's mouth and lying about bing there for a 9pm scheduled feeding.

THAT^^^ was all proven in court. Then Letby falsified her medical logs to try and prove that the parents were lying.

NOTHING that Shoo-Lee says can explain Letby's deceitful actions concerning baby E. Those deceitful actions have nothing to do with Dr Choco, or the substandard care accusations.

Those deceitful actions were designed to cover up the FACTS that Baby E was injured by Letby and she had to quickly cover up that assault on the baby by trying to alter the timeline.

No one has been able to explain away Letby's behaviour in the cases of Babies E and F. The jury saw it clearly during the trial when Letbys attorney tried to label those parents as either lying or mistaken. But they had the phone records to corroborate their timeline.

And Lucy falsified her records, and claimed that the doctor cancelled the 9 pm scheduled feeding. When the doctor came forward and denied that, and showed his own medical notes, corroborating his timeline, LUCY WAS CAUGHT OUT by the jury.

Then and there I knew Letby was guilty. NONE of these recent articles or arguments can undo the damage that was done in court that day. Two grieving distraught parents sincerely told their devastating story on the stand. They had no reason to lie and they had corroborating documentation. In response, the defense tried to use Letby's medical logs, and they were proven to be false when the midwife and the doctor testified.

About lying... some information that you probably know. Mislabeled door swipe data section. Who was falcifying information here, the police?

That wasn't falsified. It was an error. But it didn't matter and had no real bearing on the case.

That's more serious than the nurse. One of the witnesses' testimony was tied up to that time...How is he involved?

There was only one common denominator to ALL of the collapses. Only one.

Lastly, the same Wikipedia says that there, indeed, in 2015 there was peak of mortality in other units of COCH. So the statistical outlier was the whole hospital. Lucy's job, or maybe, merely an old facility? (BTW, I am sorry for this, not joking).

Lucy Letby - Wikipedia

No, it wasn't the whole hospital. There was a spike in still births. But that is not necessarily an issue with the hospital.

Lucy Letby better not go free. She is a dangerous menace. She is not some innocent scapegoat. She is truly one of the most dangerous offenders I have ever studied. It makes me shudder to think she could be unleashed.

 

[mrC]

if it was an eror it would of been spotted sooner i think it was falsified ethere way if the proscution make errors like that nothing they say can really be trusted weather it was an eror or falsification it still destroys there credibility how can i believe a word they say

 

[Sweeper2000]

if it was an eror it would of been spotted sooner i think it was falsified ethere way if the proscution make errors like that nothing they say can really be trusted weather it was an eror or falsification it still destroys there credibility how can i believe a word they say

even letby's defence said it didnt change a thing. i wonder if that was a damning statement from himself?

 

[katydid23]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed, following concers Dr. Jayram>

He said he believed that she 'deliberated dislodged' a breathing tube. The court said that 'legitimate criticism' could be made of that evidence because Dr J never reported it at the time or in the ensuing months. That is a fair criticism.

However during the T Inquiry that concern was answered , imo, because it was revealed that the doctors were essentially ordered to lay off of their concerns about Nurse Letby. When they pressed for her to be taken off the floor while things were investigated, they were chastised and scolded by the executives. And they were pressured to apologise to her by the administrators. The doctors were in a tough position.

By the way, the Court of Appeals ruled against Nurse Letby.

 

[JosieJo]

My Thoughts on Dr Lee
He is not a specialist in Air Embolism...no one is ..he did one paper 30 years ago he's done no work on it since
.Many Dr's often do papers on subjects of nk real interest in them for their CV

Air embolism is extremely rare ... deliberate Air embolism non existant.

DR Lee was not happy that they didn't contact him and used the paper in court without saying these cases with the rash were arterial not venous.

He then becomes peed off that the court of Appeal didn't accept his evidence so decides to look at all the cases. Top Consultants do not like their ego being shot.

The jury were told this paper was 30 years old and it was the only one available because its so rare

 

[mrC]

the appeal court more or lee declared Jayram a liar they dident actually say it but then thats not the sort of language they use but they certainly heavily implied it

 

[Sweeper2000]

My Thoughts on Dr Lee
He is not a specialist in Air Embolism...no one is ..he did one paper 30 years ago he's done no work on it since
.Many Dr's often do papers on subjects of nk real interest in them for their CV

Air embolism is extremely rare ... deliberate Air embolism non existant.

DR Lee was not happy that they didn't contact him and used the paper in court without saying these cases with the rash were arterial not venous.

He then becomes peed off that the court of Appeal didn't accept his evidence so decides to look at all the cases. Top Consultants do not like their ego being shot.

The jury were told this paper was 30 years old and it was the only one available because its so rare

true dat. i think dr lees paper was on air embolism caused by machines rather than venous or arterial air embolsim as well. ventilation machines mostly. didnt the courts also state that?

 

[Ruthbullock]

That is not true. The 9 pm bleed was not inconsistent with the time of death.

The 9 pm blood seen by mom was just a small amount that was on his upper lip and chin. It was not a heavy flow or a flood.

But 2 hours later he had a massive internal bleed. There is no reason to believe that both things cannot be true.

Mom's timeline is possible and is consistent with the facts.

I read the entire testimony---in fact, I read all the testimonies as I followed the case every day. The full trial.

YES, she does get questioned about the call as does her husband. And they were steadfast about what happened and the phone records support their testimony.


NO, that alternate timeline is fiction created by the defense to try and cover for Letby's falsified medical notes.

The mother, the father and the mid wife and the attending doctor ALL had the same timeline as the parents.

THE ONLY TIMELINE THAT WAS INCONSISTENT WAS NURSE LETBY'S.

I disagree with your interpretation of the evidence at trial. This information was not irrelevant. It is of utmost importance because it proved that Letby LIED about her timeline, LIED to the mother about having called a doctor already. She had not called a doctor.

She spent the next 45 minutes alone with the screaming bleeding baby before she sought medical help for him.

Then she falsified her medical notes to pretend as though the scheduled FEED was cancelled----and then set forth the bigger lie, accusing the mother of being dishonest about bringing milk to the nursery and seeing her baby bleeding.

How can anyone say those are not relevant facts in this murder trial?

Why would a nurse deny that a mother came to a scheduled feeding at 9 pm and try and put forth a lie about the doctor cancelling the feeding? There is no innocent explanation for that kind of deceit by Letby, IMO.

Mum was there at 9.00, Dr Harkness was there prior to the 9.30 bleed and caring for the baby for the next 4 hours. It amazes me that after the first bleed the consultant didn’t come to see the baby, nor does it appear any major action was taken until the baby had a further bleed at 11.00.

 

[katydid23]

the appeal court more or lee declared Jayram a liar they did actually say it but then thats not the sort of language they use but they certainly heavily implied it

But Dr J said he 'believed' that she dislodged the tube. He didn't say he saw it happen. But he believed it because when he walked into the nursery, Letby was standing motionless in silence. And the baby was non-responsive, about to go into collapse mode, while Letby did nothing about it.

When questioned later, she said she was waiting to see if he was going to self recover. Which dos not happen with premies. They need instant treatment.

And the Alarm on the machine did not go off. It should have been beeping but it wasn't. So someone probably turned the alarm option off. Dr J took all of that into account, when he decided that Nurse Letby probably dislodged the tube, which cut off the oxygen support, which put the baby in distress.

If the doctor had not gone into the room to check on the baby, it may have been too late because the alarms was turned off and Letby had not been proactive in getting the child fast medical response.

Taking all of that into account, I think Dr J was probably correct in his theory that she purposely dislodged the tube.But I do understand the courts criticism that he did not report it at the time, although I know that he had already reported many of his concerns already and was told to back off.

 

[Ruthbullock]

She accused the parents of Baby E of making up their account of seeing him crying in pain and bleeding from the mouth.
Letby lied and told the mum that she had already called a doctor for help. But she hadn't called for help and she waited almost an hour before doing so.

Then she accused the parents of lying about seeing the blood on the baby's mouth and lying about bing there for a 9pm scheduled feeding.

THAT^^^ was all proven in court. Then Letby falsified her medical logs to try and prove that the parents were lying.

NOTHING that Shoo-Lee says can explain Letby's deceitful actions concerning baby E. Those deceitful actions have nothing to do with Dr Choco, or the substandard care accusations.

Those deceitful actions were designed to cover up the FACTS that Baby E was injured by Letby and she had to quickly cover up that assault on the baby by trying to alter the timeline.

No one has been able to explain away Letby's behaviour in the cases of Babies E and F. The jury saw it clearly during the trial when Letbys attorney tried to label those parents as either lying or mistaken. But they had the phone records to corroborate their timeline.

And Lucy falsified her records, and claimed that the doctor cancelled the 9 pm scheduled feeding. When the doctor came forward and denied that, and showed his own medical notes, corroborating his timeline, LUCY WAS CAUGHT OUT by the jury.

Then and there I knew Letby was guilty. NONE of these recent articles or arguments can undo the damage that was done in court that day. Two grieving distraught parents sincerely told their devastating story on the stand. They had no reason to lie and they had corroborating documentation. In response, the defense tried to use Letby's medical logs, and they were proven to be false when the midwife and the doctor testified.

That wasn't falsified. It was an error. But it didn't matter and had no real bearing on the case.

There was only one common denominator to ALL of the collapses. Only one.

No, it wasn't the whole hospital. There was a spike in still births. But that is not necessarily an issue with the hospital.

Lucy Letby better not go free. She is a dangerous menace. She is not some innocent scapegoat. She is truly one of the most dangerous offenders I have ever studied. It makes me shudder to think she could be unleashed.

Even on this page- 2 people have stated different times for the phone call- one stated it was at 8.50, another stated 9.20. Both posters followed the trial and are arguing that any discrepancies I point out are inaccurate. The reality is we haven’t seen the actual court transcripts, but are reliant on what was reported, or using the inquiry transcripts and evidence. Mum went down for a 9.00 feed, Dr Harkness was there before 9.30 (in his own words)

 

[Ruthbullock]

Nurses’ support for Lucy Letby and concerns about hospital safety cut from public hearing

Only selective evidence was read into the record at the Thirlwall Inquiry in October, it has emerged

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[JosieJo]

To me, all of them are not telling the truth. Maybe she is lying. Maybe it is her personality. Or, perhaps these were not outliers. Or, as many now ask, the bacteria in the water was the culprit for the statistics.
The fact that she falcified her notes might simply indicate the same that "Dr. Choco" story does - that there was no discipline in the unit. That was Dr. Breary's turf.

About lying... some information that you probably know. Mislabeled door swipe data section. I am getting it from Wiki. Who was falcifying information here, the police? That's more serious than the nurse. One of the crucial witnesses' testimony was tied up to that time...How is he involved?

Lastly, the same Wikipedia says that there, indeed, in 2015 there was peak of mortality in other units of COCH. So the statistical outlier was the whole hospital. Lucy's job, or maybe, merely an old facility? (BTW, I am sorry for this, not joking). Here: "In September 2016, the RCPCH interviewed staff at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Their subsequent report concluded that medical and nursing staff levels were inadequate. They observed that the 2015 increase in mortality was not limited to the neonatal unit."

The card swiped data has a separate section in the end of Wiki article.

Lucy Letby - Wikipedia

BTW, I honestly have no idea about LL' guilt or innocence. I think that with so many things going wrong, it is practically impossible to prove. If LL is guilty, she is probably mentally ill and needs treatment. If she is not, she deserves freedom. I think her nursing career is over anyhow. She can still have a life.

The swipe data was just for one baby wasn't it? Which went to retrial anyway?

Yes I get your point about if the unit was not well run then documentation could be poor....but letby was known for being fastidious and by the book....and why change times?

 

[JosieJo]

Mum was there at 9.00, Dr Harkness was there prior to the 9.30 bleed and caring for the baby for the next 4 hours. It amazes me that after the first bleed the consultant didn’t come to see the baby, nor does it appear any major action was taken until the baby had a further bleed at 11.00.

To be honest that's pretty standard..rightly or wrongly..at night consultants are at home and yhe floor is run by a registrar

 

[JosieJo]

Mum was there at 9.00, Dr Harkness was there prior to the 9.30 bleed and caring for the baby for the next 4 hours. It amazes me that after the first bleed the consultant didn’t come to see the baby, nor does it appear any major action was taken until the baby had a further bleed at 11.00.

It states she called him at 9.30 not that he was there ...when he got there she showed him just blood speckled stomach content.
But exact timings from memory aside as mine may be be exact...the prosecution claim remains the same...letby tried to move the course of events forward an hour by not documenting the mums visit or conversation about blood ..and swearing blind in court the mum visited at 10pm

 

[Charlot123]

NOTHING that Shoo-Lee says can explain Letby's deceitful actions concerning baby E. Those deceitful actions have nothing to do with Dr Choco, or the substandard care accusations.

First, while Dr. Shoo K. Lee had training in behavioral sciences, please note, he did not comment on deceitful actions or lying or whatever. He commented on medical facts. In fact, that some of the ways the doctors accused LL of using to kill the babies made no sense.

That wasn't falsified. It was an error. But it didn't matter and had no real bearing on the case.

Only interesting that "error" was in case of "baby K", wasn't it? That's where there was Dr. Jay with his amazing memory and looking at the watch, and a year later, showed memory gaps.

But you know what's most interesting? They said that LL killed the baby by dislodging the tube. Dr. Shoo Lee said the tube wasn't dislodged, but the caliber used for the tube was too small. Guess on whose watch was the intubation performed? Surprise...

There was only one common denominator to ALL of the collapses. Only one.

It might be, or it might be an observation bias. Humans err.

No, it wasn't the whole hospital. There was a spike in still births. But that is not necessarily an issue with the hospital.

Lucy Letby better not go free. She is a dangerous menace. She is not some innocent scapegoat. She is truly one of the most dangerous offenders I have ever studied. It makes me shudder to think she could be unleashed.

I think it is not up to us. A year ago, i was just reading and observing the language. But I am not a neonatologist. It was a bothersome case. And now fourteen neonatologists came to UK, on own time and money, to question the validity of the conclusions. Kudos to them. They don't stand for their colleague. I truly doubt they ever saw LL. They studied the medical facts of the case. And they stand for truth and justice. I deeply respect Mr. Shoo Lee.

 

[katydid23]

Mum was there at 9.00, Dr Harkness was there prior to the 9.30 bleed and caring for the baby for the next 4 hours.

NO. He was not there 'prior to the 9:30 bleed.'
Dr H was not told about the baby needing care until he got the call from Letby at around 9:30. He arrived at the bedside at 9:40.

At 9 pm, Letby told mum that she had already called a doctor, and she demanded that the mum return to her room until called. Then Letby waited for over 30 minutes before she made the call to Dr H. AND she downplayed the situation, saying only that the baby had flecks of blood in his vomit.

It amazes me that after the first bleed the consultant didn’t come to see the baby,

He was told only that the baby threw up and there were specks of blood. There was no mention of the situation that mom had seen. No mention of an inconsolable baby screaming in pain, with blood all over his chin.

If Letby had described the real situation, Dr H would have rushed to the bedside. But she purposely downplayed it.

Then 30 minutes later he received another call and then he came to find that there was some real bleeding going on. So he called his superior for a consultation, and they made an immediate treatment plan, and began to put those plans in motion. They did note that the heart rate was strong and the blood pressure was stable.

Here was their plan:
The plan was for IV ranitidine, add metronidazole (at risk of NEC) and for close observation. Consultant Paediatrician was updated and was happy with this plan

But while they were doing that treatment, the intubation, the baby began a massive internal bleed and desaturated quickly and did not respond to emergency resuscitation.

nor does it appear any major action was taken until the baby had a further bleed at 11.00.

That seems to be because Nurse Letby was dishonest in her medical notes. The mom saw a screaming baby in pain that was inconsolable, with blood all over his chin and lips, @ 9 pm.

Letby waited over 30 minutes to call, and then described a less severe situation when she contacted Dr H. She said it was 'some vomit with flecks of blood.' No mention of fresh blood all down his chin or him screaming in pain. So the doctor was not on high alert and they began their original treatment plan of :ranitidine, add metronidazole

By the time the 11pm bleed happened, they upped their treatment plan significantly:
---The plan was to replace losses and for elective intubation with drugs. For CXR and AXR. To discuss the baby with surgeons once had x rays

While doing the intubation the baby had a rapid desaturation and was unresponsive.




22.10 hours, ST4 was asked to review the baby as he had had a gastric bleed at approximately 21.40 hours. He was alert, pink and well perfused with CRT <2. The baby's abdomen was soft, not distended and bowel sounds were heard. A diagnosis of GI bleed was made, ? cause. The plan was for IV ranitidine, add metronidazole (at risk of NEC) and for close observation. Consultant Paediatrician was updated and was happy with this plan. At 23.00 hours there was a further GI bleed and the baby desaturated to 70%. 13m1 of blood stained fluid was obtained from the NGT on free drainage. The baby's blood pressure remained stable (Mean BP 43) and he had a heart rate of 140 - 160, with SaO2 60 - 70% in 100% 19O2. The baby was making a good respiratory effort and was crying. The plan was to replace losses and for elective intubation with drugs. For CXR and AXR. To discuss the baby with surgeons once had x rays. Consultant Paediatrician updated and happy with plan. The baby had a sudden deterioration at 23.40 hours
https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0000194_5.pdf