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 #37

[joltz]

There

Post in thread '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'
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

“It is all assumed based on the memory of the intern about strange color of the skin"

What intern are you referencing?

The unusual rash was testified about by over a dozen different members of staff during the trial.”

In answer: I am referring to the Intern (i know his name) (there may be a different term used in UK, a registrar?) who inserted a PICC line around 5 pm into baby A. He later remembered the strange color of the skin. It is nowhere in the notes but was mentioned in the trials.

This skin color, “mottling” or “lived reticularis” was mentioned in three babies. Too bad they didn’t use medical terms but god-knows-what for description.

Livedo reticularis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Baby A’s mom had antiphospholipid syndrome that could have predisposed him for clotting.

But in his case, the first question I would like to know is: did a single consultant, not an intern, but a doctor with a degree in neonatology, take care of baby A from birth to collapse?

I have read that consultants were on the unit twice a week.

If a mixed level 2-3 unit in a regular, not teaching, hospital, has mostly interns caring for preemies, the whole case against Lucy IMHO had to be thrown out of court. It should not be even allowable.

There was more than one person who remarked about the unusual rash on baby

Yet in the court testimony it is referred to as a flitting rash by the judge. A pink flitting rash.
This fits with the type of rash that would be caused with

Antiphospholipid syndrome​

Which was what the mum was diagnosed with and in the testimony of Dr Evans describing the rash itself- was very unusual. Yet somehow we then leap to an entirely different conclusion.

Mottled skin (livedo reticularis): Causes, treatment, and more

Mottled skin can develop for various reasons, including low circulation, septic shock, and some chronic health conditions. Learn more here.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

We know the baby didn't have this syndrome but let's pretend for a minute baby A did have this condition.

So In an unfortunate set of circumstances, there just happens to be some other highly unusual rashes, which are all actually related to other conditions which caused the collapses and deaths of the other babies as well.

The AE babies are also linked by sudden acute arrest and lack of response to normal resus methods but this is another coincidence.


And btw we don't just "leap" to an entirely different conclusion. We follow the evidence from multiple experts in their fields, who bring us to this conclusion.

JMO

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

Yet in the court testimony it is referred to as a flitting rash by the judge. A pink flitting rash.
This fits with the type of rash that would be caused with

Antiphospholipid syndrome​

Which was what the mum was diagnosed with and in the testimony of Dr Evans describing the rash itself- was very unusual. Yet somehow we then leap to an entirely different conclusion.

Mottled skin (livedo reticularis): Causes, treatment, and more

Mottled skin can develop for various reasons, including low circulation, septic shock, and some chronic health conditions. Learn more here.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

This is copy pasta and a dead horse.

The mottling associated with APS has its own name. It also tends to be persistent because it is caused by blood clots. It wouldn't vanish after a short time.

Not a doctor, just my opinion. But I did read your link. Did you?

 

[Sweeper2000]

Ok Sweepsr, it went by fast so I missed it the first time. She offers at 16:11 to go into more detail about the antibodies, which Justice Goss declines. Then at 16:50 she explains that only one type of mom's antibodies passed and that it "is not significant". When she speaks of APS not passing to the baby she *is* addressing exactly the hypothesis that Dr. Lee suggests. But that was the hypothesis- maternal antibodies. Not that the babies inherited the condition. It is only to non experts like you and I that it is easy to miss. Especially because we didn't get to hear her full explanation of APS which is summarized in this video. JMO

thankyou majestic magik, do you know what i was so confident that something wouldn't have been missed as looking at the prosecution one might gather that they collectively are in a better position to speak on the very specific matters presented at court. summing it up the prosecution has dedicated specialists in very particular fields such as prof kinsey "blood" and prof hindmarsh "insulin+body chemicals", the defences new batch have ten high level neonatolgists yes but only one dedicated specialist and that specialist is in infectious diseases. do ten neonatal specialists neccesarily have more credentials than one? not in my mind. sounds more like numbers were chosen for impact to me. ten sounds better than one dosnt it? but in reality when compared to level of expertise needed to be a professor in something specific i might say the prosecution has the greater weight. why hear ten identical opinions rather than one? and without a doubt the prosecution has top level neonatoligts as well they also dont need top level nnu docs to diagnose what was in the charges they need top level nnu docs to verify it and support it with explanation

 

[Ruthbullock]

There

There was more than one person who remarked about the unusual rash on baby

We know the baby didn't have this syndrome but let's pretend for a minute baby A did have this condition. So In an unfortunate set of circumstances, there just happens to be some other highly unusual rashes, which are all actually related other conditions which caused the collapses and deaths of the babies as well.

And btw we don't just "leap" to an entirely different conclusion. We follow the evidence from multiple experts in their fields, who bring us to this conclusion.

I have been reading Doctor Evans transcript from court on baby A and how it transpires- I fail to see how he went from one conclusion to the other and provided no evidence in court- so it is that he leapt as I could see no logical reason for that explanation. That is my interpretation of it, and unlike the jury I am fortunate that I can sit back with head space and read and reflect on the typed words I am reading- something after an incredibly long trial the jury didn’t have the privilege of.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Yet in the court testimony it is referred to as a flitting rash by the judge. A pink flitting rash.
This fits with the type of rash that would be caused with

Antiphospholipid syndrome​

Which was what the mum was diagnosed with and in the testimony of Dr Evans describing the rash itself- was very unusual. Yet somehow we then leap to an entirely different conclusion.

Mottled skin (livedo reticularis): Causes, treatment, and more

Mottled skin can develop for various reasons, including low circulation, septic shock, and some chronic health conditions. Learn more here.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

I get what you are saying i do but when you have a professor saying this

"BLOOD abnormalities were not the cause of the collapse of three babies allegedly attacked by nurse Lucy Letby, a court has heard." imo "blood abnormalities" means anything unusual with the blood so is a particularly broad brush meant to cover anything, then you have this as well.

"Blood count results for both were also normal during their stay at the unit, the court was told."

then this

"Nick Johnson KC asked: “Was the description consistent with a particular phenomenon?”

Prof Kinsey replied: “Seeing air embolism features in the skin.

“I have never seen it myself. I have seen it in medical literature but it was a pretty stark description of what sounded like air embolism to me.”

Lucy Letby trial: Blood abnormalities 'not cause of babies’ collapse'

BLOOD abnormalities were not the cause of the collapse of three babies allegedly attacked by nurse Lucy Letby, a court has heard.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

ETA "On Tuesday, November 29, blood expert Professor Sally Kinsey told jurors at Manchester Crown Court she had been asked by Cheshire Police to review the cases of Child A, B and E."

 

[Ruthbullock]

This is copy pasta and a dead horse.

The mottling associated with APS has its own name. It also tends to be persistent because it is caused by blood clots. It wouldn't vanish after a short time.

Not a doctor, just my opinion. But I did read your link. Did you?

I’m not a doctor and did read the article, also possibly have the condition and until today and watching the video hadn’t made a link. I’m actually living in optimism that these dots may actually give me a diagnosis.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

I’m not a doctor and did read the article, also possibly have the condition and until today and watching the video hadn’t made a link. I’m actually living in optimism that these dots may actually give me a diagnosis.

Well I really do hope all the best for you if that is the case.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I get what you are saying i do but when you have a professor saying this

"BLOOD abnormalities were not the cause of the collapse of three babies allegedly attacked by nurse Lucy Letby, a court has heard." imo "blood abnormalities" means anything unusual with the blood so is a particularly broad brush meant to cover anything, then you have this as well.

"Blood count results for both were also normal during their stay at the unit, the court was told."

then this

"Nick Johnson KC asked: “Was the description consistent with a particular phenomenon?”

Prof Kinsey replied: “Seeing air embolism features in the skin.

“I have never seen it myself. I have seen it in medical literature but it was a pretty stark description of what sounded like air embolism to me.”

Lucy Letby trial: Blood abnormalities 'not cause of babies’ collapse'

BLOOD abnormalities were not the cause of the collapse of three babies allegedly attacked by nurse Lucy Letby, a court has heard.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

ETA "On Tuesday, November 29, blood expert Professor Sally Kinsey told jurors at Manchester Crown Court she had been asked by Cheshire Police to review the cases of Child A, B and E."

Thanks for that- I am still so on the fence (having been to both sides of the fence multiple times), I am also eternally grateful I wasn’t on the jury. I appreciate the sharing and reminding of evidence- and then, because I’m down the rabbit hole, like to see what was said in the inquiry.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Thanks for that- I am still so on the fence (having been to both sides of the fence multiple times), I am also eternally grateful I wasn’t on the jury. I appreciate the sharing and reminding of evidence- and then, because I’m down the rabbit hole, like to see what was said in the inquiry.

its all good bebe. totally understand really. it was a lengthy and extremely detailed trial and too easy to forget so much about it if that knowledge was aquired in the first place which is more or less impossible anyways.im always double checking stuff. tb totally honest with you this new panel infuriates me a little. they have presented themselves as in some way above the prosecutions team as in more qualified to speak at this point i do not agree with that at all. one might find grievance with that as a proposition as well as it belittles the entire justice system, the entire medical system that got it to trial and probably much more. SOOOO MANY layers this has taken to get it this far and i as opposed to at the start can't find myself thinking i have the capacity to argue against what has been presented so at this point i have great faith and confidence in the systems that be and that what has been presented and found is very sound. was only after people repeatedly demonstrating much patience and excellent nature in thier own expertise that i found it good and could assume correct, i just hope it wasn't too arduous for them

ill be totally straight and say I don't think this new panel will get far even with the best of intentions. this article is interesting in that it gives a description about what can be expected in the future from LL defence.

"The evidence given as part of the Thirlwall Inquiry will be within the remit of the CCRC too. Although the inquiry has not yet formally concluded, all oral testimony has taken place. As would be expected given the inquiry’s terms of reference, much of the evidence heard has been LESS FAVOURABLE TO LETBY."

"As the Thirlwall Inquiry and the CCRC application are separate processes, is it technically not essential that the inquiry concludes before the CCRC makes a decision. Closing submissions to the inquiry are scheduled for March 2025, with the report expected later in the year. This should fit within the expected timeframe of the CCRC taking AT LEAST A YEAR to consider the application."

Will Lucy Letby get a retrial? Here's what happens next with her case | Brunel University of London

www.brunel.ac.uk

by less favourable they mean we don't see the same picture of letby as we saw in the trial, it more or less removed the glowing presentation of her by the defence. i still don't understand that either and everyone said that at the start. we couldn't believe someone so positively presented had done this, then we heard the med evidence and werent really left with any other option.

I really do think that if the defence do not aquire their own specialists that mirror the prosecutions in strength with opposing viewpoints they don't have a credible argument. as it stands and in my opinion even after this new panel she is where she should be assuming she shouldn't be in one of dante's seven levels.

I really do hope you don't have that condition btw good to get it checked.

 

[Furore]

Post in thread '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'
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

“It is all assumed based on the memory of the intern about strange color of the skin"

What intern are you referencing?

The unusual rash was testified about by over a dozen different members of staff during the trial.”

In answer: I am referring to the Intern (i know his name) (there may be a different term used in UK, a registrar?) who inserted a PICC line around 5 pm into baby A. He later remembered the strange color of the skin. It is nowhere in the notes but was mentioned in the trials.

This skin color, “mottling” or “lived reticularis” was mentioned in three babies. Too bad they didn’t use medical terms but god-knows-what for description.

Livedo reticularis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Baby A’s mom had antiphospholipid syndrome that could have predisposed him for clotting.

But in his case, the first question I would like to know is: did a single consultant, not an intern, but a doctor with a degree in neonatology, take care of baby A from birth to collapse?

I have read that consultants were on the unit twice a week.

If a mixed level 2-3 unit in a regular, not teaching, hospital, has mostly interns caring for preemies, the whole case against Lucy IMHO had to be thrown out of court. It should not be even allowable.

I suspect if it was a rash they’d never seen before they probably had to describe it without medical terminology or it would have been identifiable MOO

 

[Furore]

Yet in the court testimony it is referred to as a flitting rash by the judge. A pink flitting rash.
This fits with the type of rash that would be caused with

Antiphospholipid syndrome​

Which was what the mum was diagnosed with and in the testimony of Dr Evans describing the rash itself- was very unusual. Yet somehow we then leap to an entirely different conclusion.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321422[/URLwasnt the diagnosis of baby A

http://

haematologist covered that baby A didn’t have anti phospholipid syndrome in trial. Haematologists are experts in anti phospholipid syndrome.

intersting. i was aware that the condition had been ruled out but dr lees wording doesnt state the babs had it right? i was thinking maybe it just made clotting slightly more problematic but thats total guesswork. had anything like that been ruled out? id be really suprized ifthis supposedly top level neonatologists spouted nonsense especially nonsense thats already been covered seemingly ignorant of the trial itself. on the flip side i know the prosecution had top level guys as well so know which side im erring on currently. could very easily be the new guys just looking for stuff.

Shoo Lee acknowledges in this article he hasn’t followed or reviewed transcription from the trial. Release Lucy Letby under house arrest immediately, urges expert behind medical review

I think the trial covered the issues that some babies were unwell or had other things going on, but the collapses were not in keeping with their medical condition on the day, and always unwitnessed, always with same nurses, refractory to resus. It’s that context, not the presence of pneumonia etc that changes things from an explicable natural causes or neglect death, to one that becomes more nefarious.

In his Thirlwell Inwuiry evidence Dr Hawdon - an external reviewer of the deaths - tells Ian Harvey the CEO that some deaths are unexplained, that it is unusual to have unexplained collapses in neonates, and elsewhere in emails Ian Harvey discussed with Jane that even one unexplained death needs to be investigated.

It is problematic not to consider the medical findings in context - you might have a bad bout of flu - you might need bed for a couple of days - then you’re up and about, light housework, friends for coffee…then bam you’re dead. That’s the equivalent of what the CoC medics were seeing time and again.

I personally don’t find Shoo Lee impartial, I think it’s crazy he’s gone way out of his lane to say LL should be released under house arrest when he never even reviewed the trial, and eminent and informed as he is, you can just never get a real flavour of what happens on the ground without being there at the time - that’s what the testimony in the trial revealed,

Again if people genuinely want a good insight into how difficult it is to distinguish natural vs nefarious (and how you need to go looking for the latter to find it) please read any books written by forensic pathologists, I’d highly recommend Richard Shepherd.

All JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

I suspect if it was a rash they’d never seen before they probably had to describe it without medical terminology or it would have been identifiable MOO

think your spot on there. just from memory allot fo the descriptions were different but nearly always featured the same colours and the moving nature of the rash across the body. that must have been horrible to see, i would assume in the perspective of a experienced doctor seeing something familiar at least gives you a idea about what you can do, the sight of something completely unknown throws you into unchartered territory with no lead on action. leaves you clueless and with no direction in other words helpless. that is a horrible situation to be in.

 

[Furore]

think your spot on there. just from memory allot fo the descriptions were different but nearly always featured the same colours and the moving nature of the rash across the body. that must have been horrible to see, i would assume in the perspective of a experienced doctor seeing something familiar at least gives you a idea about what you can do, the sight of something completely unknown throws you into unchartered territory with no lead on action. leaves you clueless and with no direction in other words helpless. that is a horrible situation to be in.

Agreed. It almost certainly added to the “what the <modsnip> is going on these past few months?” Feeling that the clinicians had. JMO

There is the pallor of anaemia. Of cardiac arrest. The blue hands and feet of newborns who haven’t got much control over circulation yet. The mottling/blueness that we get when cold. The mottling of poor circulation in sepsis. The rash of Kawasaki disease, measles, scarlet fever, meningitis, herpes, chicken pox, still’s disease, non specific viral rash….babies and kids get rashes all the damn time and I think anyone who has been a parent also knows this…

For consultant paediatricians seeing arrested patients, with a moving rash they’d never seen before, associated with an outcome from which babies never recovered…it must have felt like some alien disease …


All JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

http://

haematologist covered that baby A didn’t have anti phospholipid syndrome in trial. Haematologists are experts in anti phospholipid syndrome.

Shoo Lee acknowledges in this article he hasn’t followed or reviewed transcription from the trial.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/06/lucy-letby-release-house-arrest-medical-review/

I think the trial covered the issues that some babies were unwell or had other things going on, but the collapses were not in keeping with their medical condition on the day, and always unwitnessed, always with same nurses, refractory to resus. It’s that context, not the presence of pneumonia etc that changes things from an explicable natural causes or neglect death, to one that becomes more nefarious.

In his Thirlwell Inwuiry evidence Dr Hawdon - an external reviewer of the deaths - tells Ian Harvey the CEO that some deaths are unexplained, that it is unusual to have unexplained collapses in neonates, and elsewhere in emails Ian Harvey discussed with Jane that even one unexplained death needs to be investigated.

It is problematic not to consider the medical findings in context - you might have a bad bout of flu - you might need bed for a couple of days - then you’re up and about, light housework, friends for coffee…then bam you’re dead. That’s the equivalent of what the CoC medics were seeing time and again.

I personally don’t find Shoo Lee impartial, I think it’s crazy he’s gone way out of his lane to say LL should be released under house arrest when he never even reviewed the trial, and eminent and informed as he is, you can just never get a real flavour of what happens on the ground without being there at the time - that’s what the testimony in the trial revealed,

Again if people genuinely want a good insight into how difficult it is to distinguish natural vs nefarious (and how you need to go looking for the latter to find it) please read any books written by forensic pathologists, I’d highly recommend Richard Shepherd.

All JMO

I wonder if he would change his mind if he did read it ? lol i think he probably would.

Totally agreed. was a part of what made me think dr evans was correct in the end. when you have so many people wondering what on earth has happened and emphasising the suddenness of the events it created a palpable air of people not knowing what was going on. if a doc looked at it at surface level and never get a coherent and understandable sequence of events then it has to be something else doesnt it? your only going to get to the something else after much much hard thought. there was certainly a pattern and a pattern needs to be experienced in order to be known and understood. the unknowing aspect of the evidence was amongst the strongest of aspects of it.

yeh i thought that about lee as well. he has this medical opinion yes and that should be he his angle and he should present it humbly. not step out of his realm and wave away the extensive works of people who are probably just as accomplished in their own fields. how so sure to be above those who went before? its way out of line and seems a little too irreflective of the system and its people. incidentally he may have given away a bias mightn't he? im certain the fact he knows nothing of the trial means something as well.

ps im sure you mean "what the duckery"

 

[Sweeper2000]

its all good bebe. totally understand really. it was a lengthy and extremely detailed trial and too easy to forget so much about it if that knowledge was aquired in the first place which is more or less impossible anyways.im always double checking stuff. tb totally honest with you this new panel infuriates me a little. they have presented themselves as in some way above the prosecutions team as in more qualified to speak at this point i do not agree with that at all. one might find grievance with that as a proposition as well as it belittles the entire justice system, the entire medical system that got it to trial and probably much more. SOOOO MANY layers this has taken to get it this far and i as opposed to at the start can't find myself thinking i have the capacity to argue against what has been presented so at this point i have great faith and confidence in the systems that be and that what has been presented and found is very sound. was only after people repeatedly demonstrating much patience and excellent nature in thier own expertise that i found it good and could assume correct, i just hope it wasn't too arduous for them

ill be totally straight and say I don't think this new panel will get far even with the best of intentions. this article is interesting in that it gives a description about what can be expected in the future from LL defence.

"The evidence given as part of the Thirlwall Inquiry will be within the remit of the CCRC too. Although the inquiry has not yet formally concluded, all oral testimony has taken place. As would be expected given the inquiry’s terms of reference, much of the evidence heard has been LESS FAVOURABLE TO LETBY."

"As the Thirlwall Inquiry and the CCRC application are separate processes, is it technically not essential that the inquiry concludes before the CCRC makes a decision. Closing submissions to the inquiry are scheduled for March 2025, with the report expected later in the year. This should fit within the expected timeframe of the CCRC taking AT LEAST A YEAR to consider the application."

Will Lucy Letby get a retrial? Here's what happens next with her case | Brunel University of London

www.brunel.ac.uk

by less favourable they mean we don't see the same picture of letby as we saw in the trial, it more or less removed the glowing presentation of her by the defence. i still don't understand that either and everyone said that at the start. we couldn't believe someone so positively presented had done this, then we heard the med evidence and werent really left with any other option.

I really do think that if the defence do not aquire their own specialists that mirror the prosecutions in strength with opposing viewpoints they don't have a credible argument. as it stands and in my opinion even after this new panel she is where she should be assuming she shouldn't be in one of dante's seven levels.

I really do hope you don't have that condition btw good to get it checked.

have to add the potential for harm to the families of the babies as well.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

I believe that complications from APS were actually the very first cause considered for baby's A and B collapses. The trial testimony describes how at the time baby B was still on the ward, the staff at Chester reached out to Great Ormond Street Hospital specialists to inquire whether maternal APS had contributed and GOSH said no. Alder Hey said get more blood tests. Initial tests returned normal and so no more were done it sounds like. This is probably the test Dr Kinsey referred to in her testimony.

So it's not like APS was completely overlooked as a diagnosis and air embolism "jumped to" as an explanation. It was because APS wasn't an explanation that some other cause had to be identified. And the cause remained a mystery for some time. Only the repeating pattern of collapses continued.

This is a link back to a websleuths post that was recording the live feed on October 25, 2022. I've tried to find the original posting but my phone is not good for that. Maybe someone else can.

Post in thread 'UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #4' UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #4

 

[Sweeper2000]

I believe that complications from APS were actually the very first cause considered for baby's A and B collapses. The trial testimony describes how at the time baby B was still on the ward, the staff at Chester reached out to Great Ormond Street Hospital specialists to inquire whether maternal APS had contributed and GOSH said no. Alder Hey said get more blood tests. Initial tests returned normal and so no more were done it sounds like. This is probably the test Dr Kinsey referred to in her testimony.

So it's not like APS was completely overlooked as a diagnosis and air embolism "jumped to" as an explanation. It was because APS wasn't an explanation that some other cause had to be identified. And the cause remained a mystery for some time. Only the repeating pattern of collapses continued.

This is a link back to a websleuths post that was recording the live feed on October 25, 2022. I've tried to find the original posting but my phone is not good for that. Maybe someone else can.

Post in thread 'UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #4' UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #4

10:57am

The consultant tells the court discussions had been ongoing since the evening of June 9, in light of Child B's twin brother dying, on whether Child A and/or Child B had been affected by the mum's blood condition.
Consultants at Great Ormond Street Hospital had said they "DID NOT FEEL" the mother's condition would affect the baby "IN ANY WAY", while consultants at Alder Hey Hospital suggested further blood tests being carried.
Following Child B's collapse, "THE BLOOD OBSERVATIONS TAKEN WERE GOOD", the court heard, and meant the requested extra tests were "held off".

10:58am

Child B was restarted on antibiotics "as a precaution".
There was still concern her circulation had to return to normal, so the consultant noted more fluid was administered to help with that.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 25

THE trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

that the one?

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

10:57am

The consultant tells the court discussions had been ongoing since the evening of June 9, in light of Child B's twin brother dying, on whether Child A and/or Child B had been affected by the mum's blood condition.
Consultants at Great Ormond Street Hospital had said they "DID NOT FEEL" the mother's condition would affect the baby "IN ANY WAY", while consultants at Alder Hey Hospital suggested further blood tests being carried.
Following Child B's collapse, "THE BLOOD OBSERVATIONS TAKEN WERE GOOD", the court heard, and meant the requested extra tests were "held off".

10:58am

Child B was restarted on antibiotics "as a precaution".
There was still concern her circulation had to return to normal, so the consultant noted more fluid was administered to help with that.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, October 25

THE trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

that the one?

Yes!

 

[Sweeper2000]

in furtherance to what you were saying magi. i really do think they totally ruled it out, dr lee's suggestion of a thrombus being the cause and the thrombus being caused by the line. heres another thing that makes me think dr lee isn't being thorough here check this out.


"In the last week there's been examination of the 'abnormal' position of a long line (used to deliver fluids) to Child A. Dr Evans is asked if he has seen any evidence to suggest the positioning of this LINE WAS a cause of death. 'NONE AT ALL', he says

Dr Evans says the cause of death with Child A is an air embolism (bubble)..he explains: 'It interferes with the blood supply to the heart and lungs, mechanism is the SAME AS A CLOT that goes into the lungs'

Independent medical expert Dr Sandie Bohin, who peer reviewed Dr Evans' findings, came to the same conclusion - that Child A died from an air embolism

Dr Evans is now back in the witness box, he's discussing Child B's case. He says the cause of her collapse - like her brother Child A - was an air embolism, 'there was nothing else to explain this collapse, which was so sudden and unexpected', he said"

https://x.com/MrDanDonoghue

Although dr lee said the clot could have travelled tot he brain but reading this along with checks from gosh to me means they could not have been more thorough in ruling it out and were aware it was a potential at the time.

 

[joltz]

You just keep quoting I heard it in the trial- where exactly, provide the evidence- trial transcripts are now available and on the internet for you to cut and paste and share, the original press articles are also available. Even CS2C had admitted in this video he is only now seeing the court transcripts- previous videos were created using press statements (the same ones we can also link to ourselves) to portray his dramatised version of the trial transcripts. I am sharing my points with evidence, just not from a single you tube source.

CS

I have been reading Doctor Evans transcript from court on baby A and how it transpires- I fail to see how he went from one conclusion to the other and provided no evidence in court- so it is that he leapt as I could see no logical reason for that explanation. That is my interpretation of it, and unlike the jury I am fortunate that I can sit back with head space and read and reflect on the typed words I am reading- something after an incredibly long trial the jury didn’t have the privilege of.

Dr Evans was only one expert. Prof Kinsey gave testimony about baby A, as did Owen Arthur's. Arthur's highlighted the unusual line of gas on the x ray.