GUILTY 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]

Your point being? How does it correlate to the trial and the inquiry? I’m asking how it matches the trial or inquiry information. The daily mail is notorious gutter press and you want me to accept it as evidence without being able to say why.

In reality its nothing to do with the DM. That's how the findings of that med case apply to the trials medical files and Dr Lee's opinion on the matters.
The relevancy in as simple terms as possible.

Dr lee says Dr Evans is wrong as AE can't happen the way it was alleged, that med file says it can proving Dr lee wrong.

That med file also uses the same language used to describe the skin presentation on babies in the case files thus having a documented medical case proving as fact that the clinical description of babies with AE match those seen at the coch.

The daily sport could say the same and be correct.

Eta for hour convenience.

https://www.pediatr-neonatol.com/article/S1875-9572%2825%2900162-7/fulltext?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 

[Ruthbullock]

In reality its nothing to do with the DM. That's how the findings of that med case apply to the trials medical files and Dr Lee's opinion on the matters.
The relevancy in as simple terms as possible.

Dr lee says Dr Evans is wrong as AE can't happen the way it was alleged, that med file says it can proving Dr lee wrong.

That med file also uses the same language used to describe the skin presentation on babies in the case files thus having a documented medical case proving as fact that the clinical description of babies with AE match those seen at the coch.

The daily sport could say the same and be correct.

Eta for hour convenience.

https://www.pediatr-neonatol.com/article/S1875-9572%2825%2900162-7/fulltext?utm_source=chatgpt.com

So 3 professionals disagree- (grouping all the professionals in the press conference as one)- so the fact is debated and no longer certain.

Unless there is a direct evidential disagreement- which I can’t see and you are struggling to provide. We just have several academics who disagree- we can all pick a random academic we agree with, but realistically there is a whole shade of grey.

 

[Sweeper2000]

So 3 professionals disagree- (grouping all the professionals in the press conference as one)- so the fact is debated and no longer certain.

That's the point the article and the doctor in the article are making. The quoted medical case proves that AE can happen as alleged in the trial proving Dr Lee wrong. It is beyond dispute as it is now accepted within known medical cases ie that medical file.

 

[Ruthbullock]

That's the point the article and the doctor in the article are making. The quoted medical case proves that AE can happen as alleged in the trial proving Dr Lee wrong. It is beyond dispute as it is now accepted within known medical cases ie that medical file.

Proving something may happen and something did happen are 2 different things- and proving it on the basis of a rash that was described differently by the parents who are the victims here is questionable.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Proving something may happen and something did happen are 2 different things- and proving it on the basis of a rash that was described differently by the parents who are the victims here is questionable.

These are actually fair and valid points Ruth. Refreshing. There are some points of relevance though ie the application to the ccrc containing Dr lees opinion on it not being possible is disproved, it is also not just the rash/skin presentation that was used to prove AE, it was a range of things.

 

[Baileyboo]

The judges from the original appeal stated that the rash was of limited significance as there was other evidence of air embolism.

 

[Marantz4250b]

10. She's guilty.

20. She's going precisely no where. Ever!

30. Goto 10

Showing my age a bit there.

 

[Sweeper2000]

10. She's guilty.

20. She's going precisely no where. Ever!

30. Goto 10

Showing my age a bit there.

What's the numbering about? I was expecting a rhyme.
10, Lucy is in the pen
20, years x plenty
30, many times a hurty

Or something like that. Please feel free to continue the rhyme.

 

[Marantz4250b]

What's the numbering about? I was expecting a rhyme.
10, Lucy is in the pen
20, years x plenty
30, many times a hurty

Or something like that. Please feel free to continue the rhyme.

BASIC - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[katydid23]

The judges from the original appeal stated that the rash was of limited significance as there was other evidence of air embolism.

There were also statements during the trial that the rashes changed, shifted, in size and colour, continuously. For that reason, one staff member might describe red and blotchy, while another might say purple patches which came and went.---but they seemed to agree that the size and colour changed throughout the medical incident.

Lucy Letby: What did the nurse do to babies in her care?

Neonatal nurse Lucy Letby is found guilty of murdering seven babies and trying to kill six others.

www.bbc.com

BABY A:
According to medical experts, the key symptoms of air injection is a rapid and inexplicable collapse that does not respond to treatment, accompanied by the appearance of an unusual skin rash.
In the case of Baby A, several medics noted "patches of pink over blue skin that seemed to appear and disappear".

The twin sister of Baby A collapsed 28 hours after the death of her brother, in the early hours of 10 June 2015.

BABY B:
Letby, along with other medics, attended to the infant.
It was noticed during resuscitation that Baby B had "purple blotches and white patches all over her body".
A nurse who treated her, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told the court: "She looked very ill. She looked very like her brother did the night before.
"I just remember thinking 'not again' - to see his sister with the same appearance."

BABY C:
While Letby was the designated nurse for another child located in nursery three, she was present in nursery one when Baby C collapsed.

Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC asked medical expert Dr Sandie Bohin during the trial: "When you looked for a reason for (Baby C's) collapse on June 13, can you find an explanation?"
Dr Bohin replied: "No. Babies like this should not collapse. You get prior warning that something is amiss.
"They don't go from being stable into a cardiorespiratory situation within minutes. They rarely collapse in this way but they are usually responsive to resuscitation and he was not."

BABY D:

At around 01:30 BST on 22 June, 2015, Ms Oakley said she had been called off her break to assist Ms Letby and another nurse with Child D, who had deteriorated.

"There was discolouration to the skin," she said.
"I don't remember specifically the exact rash, but I remember I hadn't seen it before. It was dark, it was unusual and the rash struck me."
Ms Oakley described the rash as "deep red and brown" and covering Child D's legs, arms, stomach and chin.

Lucy Letby: Baby had unusual rash before death, nurse trial told

Nurse Lucy Letby is alleged to have killed the baby girl by injecting air into her bloodstream.

www.bbc.com

Here is a grok synthesis:

Based on testimonies, here is how the rashes and skin discolorations were described:

• "Deep Red and Brown" (Child D): Nurse Caroline Oakley, with 20 years of experience, described the rash on Child D as "dark," "unusual," and covering the baby's legs, arms, stomach, and chin. She testified that it was "deep red and brown" and distinctly different from typical mottling, noting it "struck" her as something she had never seen before on a baby.
• "Purple Blotches and White Patches" (Child B): During resuscitation, it was noted that this baby had purple blotches and white patches all over her body. A nurse noted she looked "very ill" and resembled her brother (Child A).
• "Strange Purple Patches" (Child E): Dr. David Harkness described seeing a "strange pattern" of purple patches on the baby's abdomen, which contrasted with the rest of the body. He said they were "unusual" and appeared during a sudden collapse.
• "Patches of Pink over Blue Skin" (Child A): Medics noted patches of pink over blue skin that appeared and disappeared, which expert witnesses argued was consistent with an air embolism.
• "Mottled/Discoloured" Appearance (Child I): A doctor noted that child I had a "significant" drop in oxygen levels accompanied by a "mottled, discoloured" appearance.
  BBC +4

Key Aspects of the Testimony Regarding Rashes:

• Timing: The rashes appeared rapidly during sudden, unexplained collapses of babies who were otherwise considered stable or recovering.
• Location: The discolorations were often noted on the abdomen, chest, or limbs.
• Contrast to Normal Conditions: Witnesses emphasized that these rashes were not typical for neonatal care and, in some cases, were described as appearing to "come and go".

 

[katydid23]

DBM

 

[katydid23]

So we have Prof (well honorary) so also just Dr Paul Clarke with his shared insight about the rashes. The papers seem to focus on the baby from Taiwan, which is obviously a paper written after the press conference- so a new research paper, unavailable at the time of the press conference and research absolutely unavailable at the time of the trial. I feel some Déjà vu about DNA evidence here and evolving research- which is always a good thing.

The rash in the photos is obviously blue, black and described as such, it also lasted and evolved as shown by the photographs- this doesn’t seem to match with the red blotches, fleeting appearance described by the parents. (Admittedly only read parents A and B inquiry description so far)

I don’t doubt there is some relevance to what has been written in the article, but I am struggling to identify it. Some of my difficulty transferring it in relatable terms is that the article doesn’t seem to do that. Can anyone share the highlights that relate to the contradictions in Letby. I need the comparisons, the footnotes, the evidence, my brain won’t compute a simple statement of they are wrong, I am right and to be fair I had the same issue with the press conference so disregarded it. Help me out with what is obvious to some on here.

"The rash in the photos is obviously blue, black and described as such, it also lasted and evolved as shown by the photographs-"



There are some descriptions below that describe 'BLUE' as a major feature in some rashes, often with purple or dark brown. So that would be consistent with your description above.


---and they did not testify that all of the rashes came and went.

In fact, they said:---> "in some cases"

• Contrast to Normal Conditions: Witnesses emphasized that these rashes were not typical for neonatal care and, in some cases, were described as appearing to "come and go".

We have to take into account the testimony about the criminal accusations----they said the defendant used many various methods of assaulting the victims. Several different ways of introducing air into their bodies. And often mixed with other modes of attack, like flooding the body with way too much liquid at the same time.

So the rashes are not all going to be identical. Each baby was different and each attack was different, so the symptoms were not all 100% identical.

I think that was strategy on her part, so it would take awhile for the doctors to recognise what was actually happening. And also, I believe she enjoyed playing around with various types of torture. It would be boring to do the exact same thing over and over.



Medical staff and experts used the following specific descriptions for various infants:

• Color and Appearance:
  • Deep Red and Brown: An experienced nurse described a rash on Child D as "deep red/brown," noting it was different from typical mottling and covered the legs, arms, stomach, and chin.
  • Pink Patches over Blue Skin: Medics for Child A observed "patches of pink over blue skin" that appeared to "come and go".
  • Purple Blotches and White Patches: Child B was described as having "purple blotches and white patches all over her body" during resuscitation.
  • Bright Red and Blue/Purple Patches: For Child A, a doctor noted "bright red patches" alongside blue and purple areas, which he called "extraordinary".
  • Strange Purple Patches: Child E exhibited "strange purple patches" on the abdomen that did not fit with the baby's overall perfusion.
• Key Characteristics:
  • Unfamiliarity: Multiple witnesses with years of neonatal experience testified they had never seen such rashes before.
  • Transient Nature: In the case of Child O, a "purpuric" (blood spots under the skin) rash was observed but vanished in less than an hour, which experts said was medically "perplexing" as such rashes usually last for days.
  • Specific Locations: Unlike general mottling (which usually affects the whole body), these marks often appeared in specific, "patchy" locations like the abdomen or chest.
    BBC +7

LETBY TRIAL; Prosecution Day 24:
Dr Harkness tells the court he was in the room when the 'sudden deterioration' happened, and was there with Lucy Letby and another nurse. Those nurses would have been gathering the drugs to be administered.

The notes record 'brady 80-90bpm, sats 60%, poor perfusion, colour change over abdomen, purple discoloured patches'.

He says: "This was a strange pattern over the tummy and abdomen, which didn't fit with the poor perfusion - the rest was still pink, but there were these strange purple patches."

He says some of the patches were still pink, but others were purple-blue, were unusual.

He likens the purple-blue colour to be what you would see after going for a swim in cold water and coming out, with 'purple-blue' colour on the lips.

The rest of the skin was 'normal colour'.

The abdomen had 'purple patches', which didn't fit with an anatomical part of the body. He says it is difficult to describe in any detail, without a photo.

He says he has seen this in Child A before and had not seen it on any other baby, outside of the babies in the case.

The patches were 'different sizes' and in the region of 1-2cm big - 'not dots'.

The areas were 'on the abdomen - not above the chest or below the groin - in the middle section'.

The patches 'did not fit with the perfusion' seen.

He tells the court if the abdomen was dusky or white, then the whole of the body would gradually take that colour too.

He says in the case of an affected blood supply, the blood would be lost from the legs first and the body would pull the blood 'into the middle of the body'.

"But on this occasion, it is the middle where you are seeing these discolourations?"

"Yes."

Dr Harkness confirms he has never seen these discolourations before or since, outside of the babies in this case.

 

[Charlot123]

Proving something may happen and something did happen are 2 different things- and proving it on the basis of a rash that was described differently by the parents who are the victims here is questionable.

Do we have a single photo of that rash? So that specialists could look at it and say, "i saw it here or there"? All dermatology atlases are pictures.