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 #38

[Sweeper2000]

I have looked at all the stats, premature babies die because they are premature many times, and by dint of only being premature, and I would think needing to be monitored 24 hours a day, in an incubator, hooked up to every device modern ,medicine has to keep pre term babies alive is the evidence of being on a knife edge, they were babies who should have still been in the womb,

I would refer to the court appointed doctors in regards to the health and prognosis of these babies. We are not docs so it's not for us to speak on such matters.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I don't accept it is a common fallacy, I have followed case from very first media reports when the only mention was issues with babies dying and a nurse possibly being investigated to LL name being released, so I am not a Joanne come lately, I just didn't post on websleuths about LL,
I am poking my head above parapet as some of the hysteria has died down and I am watching the post conviction attempts to get a retrial

It's a very common fallacy; almost every article starts along the lines of ".....the hospital noticed a spike..." - Google it.

In fact, I'll do it for you. I think I did the same last week.

The fact is that the initial reports were wrong, because they had only what the police told them to go on, but the fact of the situation was never corrected.

The police were called because a group of doctors who had noticed these things happening around LL basically told the hospital to call them or they would. Don't get me wrong, it's entirely understandable that that was reported initially because the police were never going to reveal that it all came about because doctors had noticed her being weird and potentially murdery. It is a complete fallacy that this "uptick" or whatever you want to call it was one day realised by some random clerk and then this chain of events kicked off. That simply DID NOT happen!

It needs to be called out and corrected, though.

 

[Marantz4250b]

As I have previously posted her defence team wasn't very good IMO, DPP were much better at presenting their case,

Complete rubbish! Ben Myers is a highly appreciated criminal Barrister with years of service to the Bar behind him. He's a KC so to call him "not very good" is quite the insult, tbh. Also, don't forget that Lucy Letby and her solicitor chose him. They could have chosen anyone yet settled on him.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I have looked at all the stats, premature babies die because they are premature many times, and by dint of only being premature, and I would think needing to be monitored 24 hours a day, in an incubator, hooked up to every device modern ,medicine has to keep pre term babies alive is the evidence of being on a knife edge, they were babies who should have still been in the womb,

Again, all dealt with at trial. Doctors said time and time again that premature babies are simply premature babies. Yes they have their own problems due to prematurity but there are rarely, if ever, expected to simply fall off a cliff for no medically identifiable reason and certainly not one after another and multiple times for some of them.

It's not just the falling off a cliff collapses either, it's completely inexplicable recoveries too. That's not down to infecting or bad care.

 

[marynnu]

I have looked at all the stats, premature babies die because they are premature many times, and by dint of only being premature, and I would think needing to be monitored 24 hours a day, in an incubator, hooked up to every device modern ,medicine has to keep pre term babies alive is the evidence of being on a knife edge, they were babies who should have still been in the womb,

None of what you say means they are likely to die. All an incubator does is keep the baby warm & enable easy observation. The vast majority of babies on neonatal units just need tiding over until they can sort themselves out. Some need minimal intervention, some none at all. A minority are very poorly and need a lot of care, but even then they neary all survive.

 

[Jules2021]

I have looked at all the stats, premature babies die because they are premature many times, and by dint of only being premature, and I would think needing to be monitored 24 hours a day, in an incubator, hooked up to every device modern ,medicine has to keep pre term babies alive is the evidence of being on a knife edge, they were babies who should have still been in the womb,

Then why would the two stronger triplets die? The weaker one survived, so it's not down to prematurity is it? All of them were fine just after birth whilst Lucy was on holiday. Then within two days of her return two of them have died. Do you not find that the least bit suspicious? And lets not forget her draft sympathy note to all three-because she intended to kill all of them. Even baby G who was by far the most premature was doing well and IIRC in an outside nursery when she collapsed. She'd made it to 100 days. If any baby was going to die it would've been baby G who only had something like 5% chance of survival at birth. That's how strong these babies are and how good neonatal care is these days. It simply wouldn't happen naturally that babies who were stable and doing well would just collapse and die out of nowhere. All around the same nurse.

 

[iamshadow21]

Lol the thought of reading this thread from the start. That's quite an immense task and this thread is exceptionally information heavy. However I agree I still see the mainstayers contributing correctly with correct referencing. Props to them.

I did it. I did it with Delphi, too. (That one took me a year.) I finished both before contributing.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I did it. I did it with Delphi, too. (That one took me a year.) I finished both before contributing.

Super impressive. I'm actually quite certain this thread could provide someone with a very on point evaluation of what's gone on as well. So much information and numerous different interpretations of it.

 

[May72031]

I have looked at all the stats, premature babies die because they are premature many times, and by dint of only being premature, and I would think needing to be monitored 24 hours a day, in an incubator, hooked up to every device modern ,medicine has to keep pre term babies alive is the evidence of being on a knife edge, they were babies who should have still been in the womb,

If you were fully up to tabs with all the evidence and background to the case - as you claim - then you would know that the collapses and deaths were sudden and unexpected. Several were expected to imminently go home with their parents.

Which babies were on a "knife edge" before they suddenly collapsed?

 

[katydid23]

I have looked at all the stats, premature babies die because they are premature many times, and by dint of only being premature, and I would think needing to be monitored 24 hours a day, in an incubator, hooked up to every device modern ,medicine has to keep pre term babies alive is the evidence of being on a knife edge, they were babies who should have still been in the womb,

I think you are misinformed. Not all premature babies are on the edge of death, nor needing monitoring and being hooked up 24/7. I think you are underestimating the vitality of many of these babies.

Many of the babies that suddenly collapsed had been very healthy and strong and were close to being sent home. They were eating well, not on oxygen anymore and had good vitals. There were no natural medical reasons for their sudden deaths. l

 

[Tortoise]

I think you are misinformed. Not all premature babies are on the edge of death, nor needing monitoring and being hooked up 24/7. I think you are underestimating the vitality of many of these babies.

Many of the babies that suddenly collapsed had been very healthy and strong and were close to being sent home. They were eating well, not on oxygen anymore and had good vitals. There were no natural medical reasons for their sudden deaths. l

I have personal experience to vouch for this. One of my sons was born (induced labour) five weeks prematurely after my waters broke during a house move a week earlier when I was 34 weeks along. I spent one night in hospital with him and took him home the next day. He was just tiny, but perfectly healthy.

 

[rsteen]

At the time of the attacks, the unit was a Level 2 or Local Neonatal Unit. Babies under 27 weeks gestation or 1000g would not be cared for here unless it was to stabilise for transfer to a Level 3 NICU (eg Baby K). The youngest babies at the time of the attacks were Babies E and F at 29 weeks. Baby G and Baby I were younger gestational age at birth but were born elsewhere and transferred to the Chester unit when they were older and more stable.

Apart from Baby K, all the babies were of an age/weight where the vast majority of babies are expected to survive. If they do die, there's a cause, like NEC or sepsis which would show up with symptoms before death and would show up in tests or at autopsy. Multiple babies suddenly collapsing and not responding to resusitation is not normal.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Just a thought dwelling on the above posts and the family she laughed at. What if she laughed because she was thinking "nope your sons not one of mine".

 

[joe jones]

I would refer to the court appointed doctors in regards to the health and prognosis of these babies. We are not docs so it's not for us to speak on such matters.

I think it fine to discuss evidence from the trial,

I think you are misinformed. Not all premature babies are on the edge of death, nor needing monitoring and being hooked up 24/7. I think you are underestimating the vitality of many of these babies.

Many of the babies that suddenly collapsed had been very healthy and strong and were close to being sent home. They were eating well, not on oxygen anymore and had good vitals. There were no natural medical reasons for their sudden deaths. l

I think if your baby is born weeks before it is due it is seriously ill, it needs constant full time monitoring and observation, yes most do survive and thrive, but to get to that stage they have to be provided huge amounts of medical intervention to keep them alive as they get stronger,
We shall see how strong her convictions are as she has all the time in the world to challenge them, we shall see if opinions change, experts come forward with new interpretations of the evidence,
I will be following along and I do expect all her convictions to be overturned, there are other convictions in UK courts that I don't think are sound, and I continue to follow them for years in the hope that the conviction is squashed or a new trial granted such as Michael Stone, 25 years post his convictions and he is still fighting his miscarriage of justice IMO

 

[rsteen]

I think if your baby is born weeks before it is due it is seriously ill, it needs constant full time monitoring and observation, yes most do survive and thrive, but to get to that stage they have to be provided huge amounts of medical intervention to keep them alive as they get stronger,

Again, this was not a Level 3 NICU where the most seriously ill premies are cared for. Yes, they needed extra care and monitoring, but as they were on a neonatal unit and receiving that care, they were not expected to suddenly die.

A baby born at 29 weeks gestation like E/F has a 95%+ chance of survival with modern neonatal care. And they were the youngest babies apart from Baby K - the babies with older gestational ages would have even better expected outcomes.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think it fine to discuss evidence from the trial,

I think if your baby is born weeks before it is due it is seriously ill, it needs constant full time monitoring and observation, yes most do survive and thrive, but to get to that stage they have to be provided huge amounts of medical intervention to keep them alive as they get stronger,
We shall see how strong her convictions are as she has all the time in the world to challenge them, we shall see if opinions change, experts come forward with new interpretations of the evidence,
I will be following along and I do expect all her convictions to be overturned, there are other convictions in UK courts that I don't think are sound, and I continue to follow them for years in the hope that the conviction is squashed or a new trial granted such as Michael Stone, 25 years post his convictions and he is still fighting his miscarriage of justice IMO

Honestly I think if any aspect of the care they received, any of the prosecutions med experts opinions or input could be questioned then it would have been at trial. I also think it would be better questioned by people trained in that field and assuming you are not a doctor I think it's probably wasting people's time to think a layperson can have valid input on that aspect of the trial. Said with all due respect.

I know, i did it at the start and then realised a bit of humility and deference was actually more suitable considering the rather formidable amount of energy and professional opinion that had gone into the trial on either side. I kinda placed myself into the shoes of someone tasked with looking after a baby and realised I didn't have a clue and would much prefer someone trained to do it.

 

[StargateONeill]

Super impressive. I'm actually quite certain this thread could provide someone with a very on point evaluation of what's gone on as well. So much information and numerous different interpretations of it.

I read everything in real time but have only plucked up the courage to start posting now for some reason. I work in the NHS in England in a Karen Rees type role but am still aghast at the allowances made to all the Letby's and would never have handled things that way AT ALL (happy to provide references).

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

I'm having trouble quoting. This is in response to Joe Joned just up thread.

I work in a busy high volume NICU. We admit around 1200 babies a year. We get the smallest and sickest babies as well as many more late preterm and short stays. The vast majority of our patients are not on "knife's edge" at any point in their stay.

When babies die it is usually expected and happens in the context of giving comfort care only. This includes sudden unexpected cases of severe NEC or sepsis. The illness may have come on suddenly but the death will be expected, because we stop intensive care and switch to comfort care only.

Even in the rare handful of cases where medical error has resulted in an unexpected collapse... what I've seen is that the error has been promptly identified by honest staff who were involved in the situation. This information goes a long way towards being able to give the right care which leads to the baby surviving the collapse nearly all of the times I've heard of it happening.

Going back a decade, I can recall only once coming back on my shift to find that the baby I was expecting to take care of had died shockingly, unexpectedly, and without a clear explanation. The belief at the time - based on the situation, timing, and his lack of response to the resuscitation - was that it was possibly caused by a medical error related to a very minor procedure that had just concluded. I was not involved in the follow up so I can't say whether that was confirmed but it was definitely investigated. Collapses like this are so rare - so singular- that people remember them years and years later. I still think of this baby and his family from time to time.

Now imagine having a cluster of events like this on a unit a fraction of the size of mine, and which doesn't even admit the smallest or sickest babies. It beggars belief.

The collapses and deaths at CoCh were very unusual and the staff recognized that almost immediately. They had such a hard time identifying the causes because a staff member was acting to decieve the people around her while she committed her crimes.

 

[marynnu]

I'm having trouble quoting. This is in response to Joe Joned just up thread.

I work in a busy high volume NICU. We admit around 1200 babies a year. We get the smallest and sickest babies as well as many more late preterm and short stays. The vast majority of our patients are not on "knife's edge" at any point in their stay.

When babies die it is usually expected and happens in the context of giving comfort care only. This includes sudden unexpected cases of severe NEC or sepsis. The illness may have come on suddenly but the death will be expected, because we stop intensive care and switch to comfort care only.

Even in the rare handful of cases where medical error has resulted in an unexpected collapse... what I've seen is that the error has been promptly identified by honest staff who were involved in the situation. This information goes a long way towards being able to give the right care which leads to the baby surviving the collapse nearly all of the times I've heard of it happening.

Going back a decade, I can recall only once coming back on my shift to find that the baby I was expecting to take care of had died shockingly, unexpectedly, and without a clear explanation. The belief at the time - based on the situation, timing, and his lack of response to the resuscitation - was that it was possibly caused by a medical error related to a very minor procedure that had just concluded. I was not involved in the follow up so I can't say whether that was confirmed but it was definitely investigated. Collapses like this are so rare - so singular- that people remember them years and years later. I still think of this baby and his family from time to time.

Now imagine having a cluster of events like this on a unit a fraction of the size of mine, and which doesn't even admit the smallest or sickest babies. It beggars belief.

The collapses and deaths at CoCh were very unusual and the staff recognized that almost immediately. They had such a hard time identifying the causes because a staff member was acting to decieve the people around her while she committed her crimes.

Spot on. Completely inexplicable deaths & collapses are vanishingly rare. But no matter what your experience, there are people who just do not want to hear it.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think it fine to discuss evidence from the trial,

I think if your baby is born weeks before it is due it is seriously ill, it needs constant full time monitoring and observation, yes most do survive and thrive, but to get to that stage they have to be provided huge amounts of medical intervention to keep them alive as they get stronger,
We shall see how strong her convictions are as she has all the time in the world to challenge them, we shall see if opinions change, experts come forward with new interpretations of the evidence,
I will be following along and I do expect all her convictions to be overturned, there are other convictions in UK courts that I don't think are sound, and I continue to follow them for years in the hope that the conviction is squashed or a new trial granted such as Michael Stone, 25 years post his convictions and he is still fighting his miscarriage of justice IMO

With respect, unless you are qualified to make that statement then what you think doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

I'm certainly not medically trained but, from what I've learned from people on here who do know what they're talking about, and reading the evidence given at trial, it is not correct to say that babies born prematurely are automatically "ill"due to prematurity.

Yes, they have different needs and require different treatment, but I don't think that many medical professionals would term them as having an illness. Indeed, as you will know from the evidence presented - as you followed the trial very closely - the expert medical testimony was that these collapses and deaths were in no way expected and occurred completely out of the blue. Highly experienced neonatal practitioners were extremely concerned by these things because they simply do not happen as a matter of routine.

As others far more knowledgeable have pointed out, these babies, on the whole, do not need "huge amounts of medical intervention" to keep them alive. Basically they need certain conditions that full-term babies do not and they need stability in those conditions. It's a different mode of care rather than treatment of an illness.

To repeat; these were unusual circumstances which doctors noticed were occurring and almost always while one nurse was present or directly involved with. The fact that babies like this do not collapse or die in completely unexpected ways tells you that these events are rare and unusual.

There is virtually no chance that any of her convictions will be overturned.