- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 3,235
- Reaction score
- 10,064
This is potentially a big deal.
"The nurse’s lawyers uncovered the waterborne bacterium – stenotrophomonas maltophilia – in the endotracheal tube of Baby I in February last year."
On reading the full article it doesn't sound particularly strong. I also have no idea how they found it so many years after. I also don't understand the logic when they say it may have "blocked" a baby breathing tube. It's microscopic so presumably won't? I also don't understand the logic when infection was so thoroughly ruled out. Does anyone remember if an infection expert was used by the prosecution?
The article is in reference to "baby I" which she was convicted for and was charged with injecting air and milk.
"The nurse’s lawyers uncovered the waterborne bacterium – stenotrophomonas maltophilia – in the endotracheal tube of Baby I in February last year."
On reading the full article it doesn't sound particularly strong. I also have no idea how they found it so many years after. I also don't understand the logic when they say it may have "blocked" a baby breathing tube. It's microscopic so presumably won't? I also don't understand the logic when infection was so thoroughly ruled out. Does anyone remember if an infection expert was used by the prosecution?
The article is in reference to "baby I" which she was convicted for and was charged with injecting air and milk.



