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

[Ruthbullock]

So one of the Dr on shift has confirmed his handover shift start was at 9.00 and then he always went to the paediatric unit first until 10.00 before heading to the neonatal unit. He was called about attending to baby E and was on that ward by 9.30 and with baby e until 10.10 when he submitted his report.

“Mr Myers asks about the initial stages from the first clinical note, at 10.10pm.

Dr Harkness confirms he has been asked to review Child E, following the bile-stained aspirate '30 mins ago'.

Mr Myers said all of what had happened in the 10.10pm note, had happened by 10.10pm.

Dr Harkness says this was a 40-minute period of several year ago. He said this was potentially a period of 9.30-10.10pm.

He said it would 'match up' with the note.

Dr Harkness says, from his recollection, he does not believe he left the unit as the bleed was 'something unusual' in Child E so he does not believe he went very far.

For the 11pm note, he says Letby called him into room 1, where 'Further GI blood loss and desaturation to 70%' is noted. “


Initially Dr Harkness stated he did not get called until 10 to attend the ward, however this didn’t match the time he submitted his report, having spent 40 minutes with child e and the report being done afterwards and submitted at 10.11. He testified in court his shift started around 8.30 and 9.00 and then it takes about 30 minutes to read the handover sheets for each unit, before they are then ready to start the actual shift. His hand over was at the paediatric ward, you would guess when bleeped he had to walk to the other unit and probably quickly re read the handover notes for that baby- does being at the cot side by 9.30 ( the baby was not in need of resuscitation or any emergency treatment at that point) point to a significant deliberate delay in contacting the doctor to come and see the patient, remembering the earliest he would have been available is 9.00 and at that time Letby had also only been on shift for a short period of time following her shift handover.

With regards reporting to the shift leader which was Caroline Oakley- we have very little information about that night, her witness statement is very unspecific and she seems to remember very little about any of the babies.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, November 17

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

These timings also fit with Dr Harkness stating in his Thirlwall witness statement that the baby had a sudden gastric bleed 30 minutes after his visit and recorded in his 11.00 notes- as the major gastric bleed was resolved by 11.00 to allow him to write up his notes.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0102350.pdf

 

[Baileyboo]

So one of the Dr on shift has confirmed his handover shift start was at 9.00 and then he always went to the paediatric unit first until 10.00 before heading to the neonatal unit. He was called about attending to baby E and was on that ward by 9.30 and with baby e until 10.10 when he submitted his report.

“Mr Myers asks about the initial stages from the first clinical note, at 10.10pm.

Dr Harkness confirms he has been asked to review Child E, following the bile-stained aspirate '30 mins ago'.

Mr Myers said all of what had happened in the 10.10pm note, had happened by 10.10pm.

Dr Harkness says this was a 40-minute period of several year ago. He said this was potentially a period of 9.30-10.10pm.

He said it would 'match up' with the note.

Dr Harkness says, from his recollection, he does not believe he left the unit as the bleed was 'something unusual' in Child E so he does not believe he went very far.

For the 11pm note, he says Letby called him into room 1, where 'Further GI blood loss and desaturation to 70%' is noted. “


Initially Dr Harkness stated he did not get called until 10 to attend the ward, however this didn’t match the time he submitted his report, having spent 40 minutes with child e and the report being done afterwards and submitted at 10.11. He testified in court his shift started around 8.30 and 9.00 and then it takes about 30 minutes to read the handover sheets for each unit, before they are then ready to start the actual shift. His hand over was at the paediatric ward, you would guess when bleeped he had to walk to the other unit and probably quickly re read the handover notes for that baby- does being at the cot side by 9.30 ( the baby was not in need of resuscitation or any emergency treatment at that point) point to a significant deliberate delay in contacting the doctor to come and see the patient, remembering the earliest he would have been available is 9.00 and at that time Letby had also only been on shift for a short period of time following her shift handover.

With regards reporting to the shift leader which was Caroline Oakley- we have very little information about that night, her witness statement is very unspecific and she seems to remember very little about any of the babies.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, November 17

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

Baby E's mother witnessed the screaming and the baby bleeding before Dr Harness got there. I do believe that had he already been there she would have remembered. So that fits in with her timeline of visiting about 9pm.

 

[May72031]

I notice that among several suspiciously new and prolific pro-Letby accounts on social media, one madcap cuckoo amongst them is demanding that the doctors and DS Paul Hughes all serve life sentences!

 

[Tortoise]

Do we know how many of the original 60 suspicious incidents involved Letby being on duty? Because we know she was on shift for other deaths/ collapses which there wasn't enough evidence to prove they were suspicious. Adding those to the chart wouldn't help Letby.

Trouble is @Baileyboo, the claim that Dr Evans was originally asked to look at 60 cases is false.

In July 2017, at the beginning of his involvement, he looked at one case initially, the only file police passed to him, that of baby O.

He then asked police to send him all the files for cases of death and (non fatal) collapse, within the period they were looking into (2015/16), and they sent him 32 cases - 17 deaths (13 at the Countess, 4 at other hospitals after transfer from the Countess), and 15 collapses.

That then expanded to include the two insulin cases included in the trial, bringing it to 34 cases.

(Of the 13 deaths at the Countess, in 2015/16, Letby was present for 10, and had been on duty the shift before for two, making 12 out of 13.)

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0010072_TAB1.pdf (spreadsheet showing all nursing staff on duty for 11 of the 13 deaths, the other two deaths missing from the spreadsheet being O and P. This spreadsheet was prepared by the hospital prior to the RCPCH review.)

Q. It deals with 11 deaths in total, doesn't it,11 deaths?
A. Yes.
Q. It shows that Letby was on duty or on the shift before for 10 of the 11, all but one, as you say in your statement?

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Thirlwall-Inquiry-11-November-2024.pdf

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0108782.pdf (schedule of all 13 deaths at the Countess, and the 4 deaths at other hospitals, including causes of death determined)


Dr Evans determined seven of the 17 deaths to be unnatural and those were the trial murder cases. Babies A, C, D, E, I, O and P.

Dr Evans went on record in Sep 2023 (post-trial 1) as saying he had expressed concerns to police about some of the remaining 10 deaths, but the babies all had complicated underlying congenital conditions and it may not be possible to prove inflicted harm.

After Letby's first arrest in July 2018, Dr Evans was sent the medical files for 48 more babies, which dated back to 2012. These were not pre-determined to be suspicious or non-suspicious, that was for Dr Evans to sift. None of these cases were in the trial, presumably because the police were focused on the first set of expert reviews and interviews, and kept them separate.

Another consideration I suppose, is that in July 2018 Letby's name became public, and that is the first time Dr Evans knew of any suspect. But her counsel could claim thereafter that he would not be able to sift cases without bias, so maybe that's why they held those cases back.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Baby E's mother witnessed the screaming and the baby bleeding before Dr Harness got there. I do believe that had he already been there she would have remembered. So that fits in with her timeline of visiting about 9pm.

Yes she did- his shift hadn’t yet started and unless it’s life and death, no one would call for a doctor during handover and prior to that handover the nurses were on there handover until 8.30 and it does fit with the mum visiting at 9.00. A lot of the evidence around child e just feels like white noise- it is probably the one child I have read more than any other- mainly to try and fit the two phone calls into the reported events by the other medical staff.

The air embolism that she was found guilty of was delivered in the first hour of her shift- causing dried blood around the mouth at 9.00 and around 9.30 a doctor saw the baby and stayed on the unit, returning to the baby 30 minutes later, he witnessed and was present for 2 GI bleeds and the subsequent decline of the baby starting just before midnight until 1.30.

Other aspects of this baby were the discrepancy between the time of the mums visits on the nurses log (recorded by Letby) and the time mum said she visited being different

There is also the defence closing argument

He says it is important to note there was no post-mortem examination - "in this, of all cases", and that absence has 'allowed the prosecution to make all sorts of suggestions'. He says doctors failed to deal with a bleed for Child E which was identified or suspected at 10.10pm on August 3. Mr Myers says it was "obvious" a transfusion would be required. He says a further note by Dr David Harkness at 11pm recorded a further gastrointestinal blood loss. He says "even here, no action for a transfusion". He says it was "delayed a further 45 minutes". A female doctor said it was a "serious situation" at 10pm and a "very serious situation" by 11pm, and she agreed she wished she had got there sooner, as it was a medical emergency. He says this is "obviously sub-optimal care".

This is stated as one of the most compelling cases for the jury to find Letby guilty by injection of air, given prior to 9.00 that caused this baby to pass away 4 1/2 hours later. With people also adamant that having followed the trial the doctors were not an issue on the unit.

 

[Sweeper2000]

As a further note to the post above. One has to believe the serious situation at ten developed from "stable" to "serious" seemingly instantly, spontaneously and inexplicably rather than what seems a more explainable event earlier which then escalated to serious over time in which the issue was not addressed.

 

[JosieJo]

I'm Ge

She was literally accused of poisoning several bags of dextrose ahead of time in the case of Baby L, and at least one bag of stock TPN in the case for Baby F, in addition to the bespoke TPN. If it is only the case that she “may” have poisoned stock TPN, then how did insulin get in a bag of TPN? Unless we’re back to questioning whether they simply re-hung the original bag against all standard practice and infection control, which wouldn’t particularly surprise me.

Giving sets are changed when the bags are changed, are they not? Is this not why the prosecution silently dropped its theory of sticky insulin after the opening statements?

What exactly has Dimitrova said that’s incorrect? Is a bag of dextrose not fluid?

Where does it say she injected several bags "ahead of time for baby L) ?

Going back to Dr D ...she speaks as though the prosecution case ultimately and solely relied on numerous bags being injected then left lying around for all and sundry to use on whatever babies.
This is incorrect..Hindmarsh stated "potentially" 2 to 3 bags may have had insulin in "depending on how many were hung" ...no mention of random injection of stock bags (baby L)
Again mentions sticky insulin...even if giving sets were changed there are still canula's and lines that are attached into the baby that don't get charged.

Letby was on duty till at least 8pm on the 9th ...two of these 3 potential bags could have been hung when she was on duty ...no need for the piles of random bags hanging around that Dr D is perplexed by

 

[JosieJo]

Yes she did- his shift hadn’t yet started and unless it’s life and death, no one would call for a doctor during handover and prior to that handover the nurses were on there handover until 8.30 and it does fit with the mum visiting at 9.00. A lot of the evidence around child e just feels like white noise- it is probably the one child I have read more than any other- mainly to try and fit the two phone calls into the reported events by the other medical staff.

The air embolism that she was found guilty of was delivered in the first hour of her shift- causing dried blood around the mouth at 9.00 and around 9.30 a doctor saw the baby and stayed on the unit, returning to the baby 30 minutes later, he witnessed and was present for 2 GI bleeds and the subsequent decline of the baby starting just before midnight until 1.30.

Other aspects of this baby were the discrepancy between the time of the mums visits on the nurses log (recorded by Letby) and the time mum said she visited being different

There is also the defence closing argument

He says it is important to note there was no post-mortem examination - "in this, of all cases", and that absence has 'allowed the prosecution to make all sorts of suggestions'. He says doctors failed to deal with a bleed for Child E which was identified or suspected at 10.10pm on August 3. Mr Myers says it was "obvious" a transfusion would be required. He says a further note by Dr David Harkness at 11pm recorded a further gastrointestinal blood loss. He says "even here, no action for a transfusion". He says it was "delayed a further 45 minutes". A female doctor said it was a "serious situation" at 10pm and a "very serious situation" by 11pm, and she agreed she wished she had got there sooner, as it was a medical emergency. He says this is "obviously sub-optimal care".

This is stated as one of the most compelling cases for the jury to find Letby guilty by injection of air, given prior to 9.00 that caused this baby to pass away 4 1/2 hours later. With people also adamant that having followed the trial the doctors were not an issue on the unit.

In all honesty if blood was coming out of a babies mouth you would bleep a Dr immediately with no thought to handover times

 

[Ruthbullock]

In all honesty if blood was coming out of a babies mouth you would bleep a Dr immediately with no thought to handover times

Th doctor didn’t seem at all concerned though- so whilst you are painting it as some dramatic emergency that required much quicker action by Letby- the actual action when the doctor saw the baby, as described in court, is below and the outcome was to carry on observing the baby and he left the nursery, until called back in 30 minutes later by Letby.


Small amounts of blood' - minuscule blood flecks - were spotted when the NG Tube was brought out of Child E, he recalls.
The court is now shown the 10.10pm note.

He says it is not clear, from his note, how much of the 14ml aspirate contained 'fresh blood'.

He says the fresh blood was what he had witnessed, having been called over to see it. The court hears he did not see the child vomit, but saw the fresh blood as a product of it.

He notes Child E's blood pressure was 'very good', a CRT reading was good, the heart rate was 'normal' and saturation rates were good, with minimal oxygen support.

"At that point in time, everything is fine, except for the blood in the aspirate," he tells the court.

Child E was also 'pink, well perfused', the lungs were 'clear', the abdomen was 'soft, not distended'.

Dr Harkness notes 'GI bleed ? Cause', and tells the court that is a possible diagnosis for the bleeding, and a plan of action with administration of antibiotics is made.

The note 'close observation' is made, emphasising the designated nurse - Lucy Letby - was to monitor Child E closely in room 1.

 

[Ruthbullock]

DBM- duplicate

 

[Baileyboo]

Trouble is @Baileyboo, the claim that Dr Evans was originally asked to look at 60 cases is false.

In July 2017, at the beginning of his involvement, he looked at one case initially, the only file police passed to him, that of baby O.

He then asked police to send him all the files for cases of death and (non fatal) collapse, within the period they were looking into (2015/16), and they sent him 32 cases - 17 deaths (13 at the Countess, 4 at other hospitals after transfer from the Countess), and 15 collapses.

That then expanded to include the two insulin cases included in the trial, bringing it to 34 cases.

(Of the 13 deaths at the Countess, in 2015/16, Letby was present for 10, and had been on duty the shift before for two, making 12 out of 13.)

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0010072_TAB1.pdf (spreadsheet showing all nursing staff on duty for 11 of the 13 deaths, the other two deaths missing from the spreadsheet being O and P. This spreadsheet was prepared by the hospital prior to the RCPCH review.)



https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0108782.pdf (schedule of all 13 deaths at the Countess, and the 4 deaths at other hospitals, including causes of death determined)


Dr Evans determined seven of the 17 deaths to be unnatural and those were the trial murder cases. Babies A, C, D, E, I, O and P.

Dr Evans went on record in Sep 2023 (post-trial 1) as saying he had expressed concerns to police about some of the remaining 10 deaths, but the babies all had complicated underlying congenital conditions and it may not be possible to prove inflicted harm.

After Letby's first arrest in July 2018, Dr Evans was sent the medical files for 48 more babies, which dated back to 2012. These were not pre-determined to be suspicious or non-suspicious, that was for Dr Evans to sift. None of these cases were in the trial, presumably because the police were focused on the first set of expert reviews and interviews, and kept them separate.

Another consideration I suppose, is that in July 2018 Letby's name became public, and that is the first time Dr Evans knew of any suspect. But her counsel could claim thereafter that he would not be able to sift cases without bias, so maybe that's why they held those cases back.

Thanks for explaining this, it now makes more sense.

The way I understood some of the posts here, was that the consultants were initially concerned about 60 babies, which seem a lot and wanted an expert review on all but it makes more sense that as time went on they wanted more babies reviewing.

 

[alb1on]

It seems that some wish to avoid the issue, which is not guilt or innocence (which we are not able to judge) but the operation of the English judicial system. I posed a series of questions at #2995 on page 150 of this thread, questions which have been completely ignored by those who wish to set themselves above the judicial system. The real issues are the basis on which an appeal is usually granted in the English system and the necessity of expert witnesses being restricted in their testimony to matters in which they are experts. The conduct of this case flies in the face of usual processes on both of these matters.

I said in my original post that a failure to address these matters reflects on the motives of those who fail to provide sensible answers to such matters. I repeat that assertion. It is no use debating the detail of testimony. The issue is the conduct of the system and it is the courts that should decide whether the evidence originally given and now challenged is sufficient to sustain the convictions, not armchair warriors who think their expertise surpasses that of real experts.

 

[JosieJo]

Th doctor didn’t seem at all concerned though- so whilst you are painting it as some dramatic emergency that required much quicker action by Letby- the actual action when the doctor saw the baby, as described in court, is below and the outcome was to carry on observing the baby and he left the nursery, until called back in 30 minutes later by Letby.


Small amounts of blood' - minuscule blood flecks - were spotted when the NG Tube was brought out of Child E, he recalls.
The court is now shown the 10.10pm note.

He says it is not clear, from his note, how much of the 14ml aspirate contained 'fresh blood'.

He says the fresh blood was what he had witnessed, having been called over to see it. The court hears he did not see the child vomit, but saw the fresh blood as a product of it.

He notes Child E's blood pressure was 'very good', a CRT reading was good, the heart rate was 'normal' and saturation rates were good, with minimal oxygen support.

"At that point in time, everything is fine, except for the blood in the aspirate," he tells the court.

Child E was also 'pink, well perfused', the lungs were 'clear', the abdomen was 'soft, not distended'.

Dr Harkness notes 'GI bleed ? Cause', and tells the court that is a possible diagnosis for the bleeding, and a plan of action with administration of antibiotics is made.

The note 'close observation' is made, emphasising the designated nurse - Lucy Letby - was to monitor Child E closely in room 1.

Yes I agree it wasn't a "crash call" type emergency. At that tine...but in my experience nurses do not hold back on contacting Dr's because it's handover time ..not with new potentially dangerous symptoms..even if they do not expect Dr's to come immediately...you would be leaving yourself wide open to criticism if you delay if the baby was to suddenly deteriorate. The only things that would be put to one side waiting for the Dr would be routine things such as fluids that need writing up or prescriptions etc

 

[JosieJo]

I have tried to avoid getting sucked into commenting too often on this thread as I appreciate that some have decided to ignore the facts and the way in which English law and the courts operate but it is time to pose some questions. A failure to deal with them will expose motive.

• it is usual for the Court of Appeal to hear an appeal if one substantive piece of the evidence which secured a conviction is called into serious doubt or refuted. This does not mean a not guilty verdict. The court can confirm the verdict, return a finding of innocence or order a retrial. Do those opposing an appeal believe that no substantive elements of the prosecution evidence have been brought into doubt? A simple yes/no will suffice at this stage.
• If the answer to the above is no are those so answering suggesting that they know better than the authors of the definitive work on medical statistics and parts of the medical evidence?
• Is it acceptable for an expert witness to testify on matters for which they are not expert? If not, why was it acceptable to admit expert testimony on statistics from doctors with no training in statistics beyond the general maths courses required for a medical degree?
• Is it acceptable to allow a case where significant doubt has been raised by experts and which has divided public opinion to damage the reputation of the English judicial system? What is more important? To protect those in authority or to protect the credibility of the system?

It would be possible to raise other matters but I have no wish to prejudge the result of any further court proceedings, unlike some. But I am genuinely interested to hear any credible defence for doing nothing at this point given the facts which have emerged and the damage being suffered by the system.

How can anyone answer to point one as the full CRCC reports are not public

Point 2 ...imo neither side can or should base an opinion on any "experts" opinion until it's been fully tested and compared to original trial evidence...definitely not on the basis of experience or past CV

The most important thing for me it to try and not be drawn in by what is essentially a PR campaign and trial by media.

If an appeal is found to be warranted then it is important its granted ..but not forced by any type of pressure

 

[katydid23]

Whatever.

This case is not going to be decided in this thread, and what you are describing is not a statistical “correlation” per se. Just a subjective observation.

It is not a 'subjective' observation.

Whenever she went on her long vacations---which was twice a year---there were no collapses or deaths.

In both vacations--on Friday, the day she left, a baby collapsed or died. Then no collapses for 2 weeks---but on the very day she returned, both times, a baby collapsed or died.

That is not a 'subjective' observation. That is a fact.

 

[katydid23]

These timings also fit with Dr Harkness stating in his Thirlwall witness statement that the baby had a sudden gastric bleed 30 minutes after his visit and recorded in his 11.00 notes- as the major gastric bleed was resolved by 11.00 to allow him to write up his notes.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0102350.pdf

Dr Harkness 'believed' that baby E had a sudden gastric bleed.

HOWEVER the mother of baby E witnessed the bleeding at 9 pm. And it had been going on for awhile already.

But Dr Harkness was not told about this bleed until much later. And in fact, Letby lied about the nature of the bleed.

LL called the Dr, at about 9:30, and said that there were flecks of blood in his diapers and some aspirate of blood in his vomit.
She did not tell him about what the mother saw---WHICH WAS BABY E ACTIVELY BLEEDING FROM HIS MOUTH.

Lucy did not tell Dr H that vital information.

So that is why Harkness called it a 'sudden gastric bleed' @ 11 pm. But Baby E had been bleeding for at least two hours before Dr H saw him.

That is exactly why Nurse Lucy had to lie and to falsify her observation logs, saying the 9 pm Feed had been OMITTED so she could try and deny that mom came to the nursery at 9 pm and saw her baby bleeding from the mouth.

Lucy denies this. But what is more believable?

Baby E was perfectly fine but suddenly began bleeding out at 11 pm and died---

OR the testimony of both of the parents, which was that Baby E was actively bleeding and screaming at 9 pm, but Lucy told mom to leave and said a doctor had already been notified?

 

[Sweeper2000]

Amusing people talking about "real experts". Allot of what i have read on here has been of a higher standard than allot of what I have read in the press and is nearly always allot better than what you see on fb groups.

 

[katydid23]

Th doctor didn’t seem at all concerned though-

That's because the Dr had no idea the baby was bleeding from the mouth at 9 pm.

so whilst you are painting it as some dramatic emergency that required much quicker action by Letby- the actual action when the doctor saw the baby, as described in court, is below and the outcome was to carry on observing the baby and he left the nursery, until called back in 30 minutes later by Letby.

He was not concerned because Letby NEVER told him Baby E was actively bleeding from the mouth. If she had, he would have felt it was an urgent situation.

Small amounts of blood' - minuscule blood flecks - were spotted when the NG Tube was brought out of Child E, he recalls.
The court is now shown the 10.10pm note.

He says it is not clear, from his note, how much of the 14ml aspirate contained 'fresh blood'.

He says the fresh blood was what he had witnessed, having been called over to see it. The court hears he did not see the child vomit, but saw the fresh blood as a product of it.

He notes Child E's blood pressure was 'very good', a CRT reading was good, the heart rate was 'normal' and saturation rates were good, with minimal oxygen support.

"At that point in time, everything is fine, except for the blood in the aspirate," he tells the court.

AGAIN< Dr H did not know about the earlier bleeding. Lucy did not tell him about that.

Lucy told the mom that she had already called the doctor and asked for help. BUT THAT WAS A LIE.

What she did was to downplay the actual circumstances---She said to the dr that there were 'flecks of blood in some vomit.'

That is very different than a newborn actually bleeding from the mouth.


HERE is what Dr H said about this:

He says for this night he was called over at 10pm, having been called over because Child E had blood in his vomit.
'Small amounts of blood' - minuscule blood flecks - were spotted when the NG Tube was brought out of Child E, he recalls.

He explains there would have been a handover period, where he would have read a handover sheet for the various patients and any outstanding conditions those patients had.
There would be one sheet for the paediatric ward and one for the neonatal ward.
If there were any sick children in A&E, the doctors would have been responsible in attending to them too.
He says the handover period would have lasted about 30 minutes.

Child E was also 'pink, well perfused', the lungs were 'clear', the abdomen was 'soft, not distended'.

Dr Harkness notes 'GI bleed ? Cause', and tells the court that is a possible diagnosis for the bleeding, and a plan of action with administration of antibiotics is made.

The note 'close observation' is made, emphasising the designated nurse - Lucy Letby - was to monitor Child E closely in room 1.

Yes, Nurse Lucy was actively monitoring. Like a wolf guarding the hen house.

 

[katydid23]

Yes I agree it wasn't a "crash call" type emergency. At that tine

Right. but it would have been if Lucy had told him the truth about baby E's condition.

The mom saw Baby E actively bleeding from his mouth. But Letby waited unto about 10 pm, and then messaged Dr A and said the baby had flecks of blood in some vomit.

Flecks of blood in vomit does not call for an emergency response. But if she had told the truth about him bleeding from the mouth, the Dr would have had a more urgent response, imo.

...but in my experience nurses do not hold back on contacting Dr's because it's handover time ..not with new potentially dangerous symptoms..even if they do not expect Dr's to come immediately...you would be leaving yourself wide open to criticism if you delay if the baby was to suddenly deteriorate. The only things that would be put to one side waiting for the Dr would be routine things such as fluids that need writing up or prescriptions etc

YES. And LL knew this^^---so she downplayed Baby E's condition to delay the response. She wanted him to collapse before anyone had time to repair the situation, imo.

ETA: Here are notes from the trial---this is what Dr H said:

He says for this night he was called over at 10pm, having been called over because Child E had blood flecks in his vomit.
'Small amounts of blood' - minuscule blood flecks - were spotted when the NG Tube was brought out of Child E, he recalls.

Post in thread 'UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*'

Nov 14, 2022

Monday November 14th 2022 -


Day 21 of Prosecution Evidence

Twins : Child E & Child F


Claire Hocknell, Police Intelligence Analyst, electronic evidence


Tweets

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

Intelligence analyst Claire Hocknell is now talking the jury through sequencing evidence for Child E and F

We're back now....intelligence analyst Claire Hocknell is continuing to talk the jury through the sequence of events leading up to Child E's death. We're being shown oxygen levels/nursing observation notes from the evening before...

• Tortoise

• 

 

[SilentHill]

I lost interest with the mention of horoscopes about 10 pages ago. Respect to the people who have the patience to keep the facts in this thread straight